Send a tea bag today!
21st CENTURY TEA PARTY
MINORITY CITIZENS TARGETED
FOR SCHIP EXPANSION COSTS
Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsg3-pjeP38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsg3-pjeP38
FREE DOWNLOAD:
Interview with Old Glory Radio host, Tom Fredriksen:
Was inspired to write this after seeing all the Tea Parties springing up all over the country and also after seeing first-hand the unbelievable crowd that showed up for Mark Levin’s book signing for “Liberty and Tyranny” which has jumped to the number one spot on ALL the book lists!! Conservatism is alive and well!!
LYRICS:
What’s happened to this country I served for 20 years
I barely recognize it any more
Theyre mortgaging our future with socialist ideas
Cutting our defenses while our troops are still at war.
I barely recognize it any more
Theyre mortgaging our future with socialist ideas
Cutting our defenses while our troops are still at war.
They’re punishing prosperity thats how the Statists roll
Promoting mediocrity at best
Bailing out Main Street to seize more control
And adding several trillions more to our debt.
Promoting mediocrity at best
Bailing out Main Street to seize more control
And adding several trillions more to our debt.
A revolution’s brewing from sea to shining sea
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity
The voices of those who love democracy.
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity
The voices of those who love democracy.
Our Constitutions being undermined every day
Our Bill of Rights is foreign to our youth
“Liberty and Tyranny” is flying off the bookshelves
Cause we, the people, are hungry for the truth
Our Bill of Rights is foreign to our youth
“Liberty and Tyranny” is flying off the bookshelves
Cause we, the people, are hungry for the truth
Congress needs to hear exactly how we feel
The “silent majority” no more
Keep the grassroots efforts going, tell everyone you know
Our Constitution matters and is worth fighting for.
The “silent majority” no more
Keep the grassroots efforts going, tell everyone you know
Our Constitution matters and is worth fighting for.
A revolution’s brewing from sea to shining sea
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots like Coulter, Malkin, and Huckabee
The voices of those who love democracy.
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots like Coulter, Malkin, and Huckabee
The voices of those who love democracy.
It’s our duty to defend our God-given rights
Like our Founding Fathers planned from the start
Life, liberty, and happiness
The things we hold dear to our hearts.
Like our Founding Fathers planned from the start
Life, liberty, and happiness
The things we hold dear to our hearts.
A revolution’s brewing from sea to shining sea
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots like Ingraham, Beck, and G.Liddy
The voices of those who love democracy.
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots like Ingraham, Beck, and G.Liddy
The voices of those who love democracy.
A revolution’s brewing from sea to shining sea
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots uniting from shore to shore
To show that Lady Liberty is still worth fighting for…
We’re standing up for freedom and sweet liberty
Patriots uniting from shore to shore
To show that Lady Liberty is still worth fighting for…
(Repeat 2x to fade)
? 2009 Lisa Mei Norton & Big Dawg
? 2009 Lisa Mei Norton & Big Dawg
*********************************************
Know your Enemy
– Green Day
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Violence is an enemy
Against the enemy
Violence is an energy
Against the enemy
Violence is an energy
Bringing on the fury
The choir infantry
Revolt against the honor to obey
The choir infantry
Revolt against the honor to obey
Overthrow the effigy
The vast majority
Burning down the foreman of control
The vast majority
Burning down the foreman of control
Silence is the enemy
Against your urgency
So rally up the demons of your soul
Against your urgency
So rally up the demons of your soul
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
The insurgency will rise
When the bloods been sacrificed
Don’t be blinded by the lies
In your eyes
When the bloods been sacrificed
Don’t be blinded by the lies
In your eyes
Violence is an energy
From here to eternity
Violence is an energy
Silence is the enemy
So gimme gimme revolution
From here to eternity
Violence is an energy
Silence is the enemy
So gimme gimme revolution
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Do you know your enemy?
Well, gotta know the enemy
Overthrow the effigy
The vast majority
Burning down the foreman of control
The vast majority
Burning down the foreman of control
Silence is the enemy
Against your urgency
So rally up the demons of your soul
Against your urgency
So rally up the demons of your soul
*********************************************
Watch the video! We The People Stimulus Package. Bob Basso author of “Common Sense” plays the role of Thomas Paine to ignite the fire of change in America. Patriotism and Pride for America lead Thomas Paine to help take back America!
The Case for a Federalism Amendment
How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.
APRIL 23, 2009
By RANDY E. BARNETT
In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of “tea party” rallies around the country, and various states are considering “sovereignty resolutions” invoking the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan’s proposal urges “the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.”
While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Article V provides that, “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,” Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.
Here’s how: State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds. It was the looming threat of state petitions calling for a convention to provide for the direct election of U.S. senators that induced a reluctant Congress to propose the 17th Amendment, which did just that.
What sort of language would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people?
One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a “uniform” national sales or “excise” tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is precedent for repealing an amendment. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that had empowered Congress to prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Alternatively, to restore balance between federal and state power and better protect individual liberty, the repeal of the income tax amendment could be folded into a new “Federalism Amendment” like this:
Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.
Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.
Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.
Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.
Except for its expansion of Congressional power in Section 1, this proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.
Section 1 of the Federalism Amendment expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not “commerce . . . among the several states,” but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or unenumerated liberty of the people must be justified.
Section 2 then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I.
Section 3 adopts James Madison’s reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments. Section 4 eliminates the federal income tax, after five years, in favor of a national sales or excise tax.
Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress’s enumerated powers.
Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened — including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty” (Princeton, 2005).
How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.
APRIL 23, 2009
By RANDY E. BARNETT
In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of “tea party” rallies around the country, and various states are considering “sovereignty resolutions” invoking the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan’s proposal urges “the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.”
While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Article V provides that, “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,” Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.
Here’s how: State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds. It was the looming threat of state petitions calling for a convention to provide for the direct election of U.S. senators that induced a reluctant Congress to propose the 17th Amendment, which did just that.
What sort of language would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people?
One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a “uniform” national sales or “excise” tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is precedent for repealing an amendment. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that had empowered Congress to prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Alternatively, to restore balance between federal and state power and better protect individual liberty, the repeal of the income tax amendment could be folded into a new “Federalism Amendment” like this:
Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.
Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.
Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.
Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.
Except for its expansion of Congressional power in Section 1, this proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.
Section 1 of the Federalism Amendment expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not “commerce . . . among the several states,” but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or unenumerated liberty of the people must be justified.
Section 2 then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I.
Section 3 adopts James Madison’s reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments. Section 4 eliminates the federal income tax, after five years, in favor of a national sales or excise tax.
Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress’s enumerated powers.
Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened — including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty” (Princeton, 2005).
21st CENTURY TEA PARTY TO DUMP “UNEQUAL” TAX
MINORITY CITIZENS TARGETED FOR SCHIP EXPANSION COSTS
MINORITY CITIZENS TARGETED FOR SCHIP EXPANSION COSTS
February 12, 2009
“Equal Protection” is a right that is said to be guaranteed to every American under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.? But not, apparently, if you are a citizen who uses tobacco.
The recent passage and signature of the broad new expansion of the States Children’s Health? Insurance Program (SCHIP) to over $10.5 Billion this year, is a measure that will ostensibly benefit all of society, but for which only the smokers will pay.? Some smokers are charging that the new excise tax on tobacco products targets a minority group, and defies the Constitutional tenets of “equal protection.”? Taxing only smokers, they say, makes the new SCHIP excise tax a burden that is “separate and unequal,” and thus “unfair.”? They are calling for the SCHIP tax to be tested by our settled laws that prohibit “unequal taxation” and ensure “equitable protection.”
Smokers need not be reminded of the many social injustices already foisted upon them by means of the grossly over funded anti-tobacco lobby. It is a lobby that is fed by the tobacco “sin taxes” already harshly levied upon us, under the (legally questionable) Master Settlement Agreement.? Consumers were never afforded a seat at the MSA conference table.? Further, our cries for “civil justice” at State Assemblies have fallen on reliably deaf ears, since our “representative bodies” also profit by means of the MSA? (While they charade as beneficent “health nannies.”)? The issue is not about public health, but rather, corporate liability; a liability that has been shifted squarely back upon consumers under the MSA. Many say that it is well “past time” that smokers took a stand against this corporate, and governmental, welfare scam.?
The SCHIP legislation adds an average burden of? $222.00 per year to largely middle-class earners, who buy just one pack of cigarettes a day.? But “roll your own” users will be fleeced by a leaf rate increase of over 2,000% and paper increases of? almost 300%, while cigar smokers will relinguish up to an additional 52.75% per stick.? This, smokers say, is an unreasonable and unjustifiable burden, especially in light of the fact that no other group will be taxed one penny.
When campaigning, President Obama promised that he wouldn’t raise taxes on “anybody” but quipped that he looked “forward” to signing the SCHIP bill.? That seems to make it official that smokers aren’t “anybody.”? Not citizens; not persons.? Here’s a guy who “cut myself a little slack” for smoking, because running for president was “stressful” – but who then cuts other indulgers none, during the worst, most stressful, economic downturn in four generations. This is as close to Taxation without Representation as we can imagine.
Members of The Smokers Club International, in conjunction with other citizens’ rights groups, are calling upon every American who would bear this inequitable tax (beginning April 1, 2009), to rise up in sending a “time honored” message to Washington.? Send a commercially wrapped tea bag to Congress* with this signed note:
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
Another SMOKER Against the UNFAIR SCHIP Tax
Another SMOKER Against the UNFAIR SCHIP Tax
Smokers’ rights advocates say: “The time to act is now.? It is easier to stop a tax before it is collected.? Let’s raid our cupboards and send a steaming message to those who would ignore our civil rights as equals.? Let’s toss Washington some tea.”
* We respectfully suggest that compatriots send teabags to the following members:
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House Speaker
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Majority Leader
522 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC 20510
522 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington DC 20510
Hon. John A. Boehner, U.S. House Republican Leader
1011 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3508
1011 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515-3508
… as well as your own Representative at Congress
Send another mailing to your favorite reporter to get the media’s attention as well.
For example:
John Solomon
The Washington Times
3600 New York Ave. NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
202/636-3205
White House “contact us” page
If you would rather, use one of these tea bag photos printed out instead of a real teabag.
Also, following up the mailing with emails might get more attention as well.
?
?
ACTION ALERT: CALL Obama, he promised no taxes and then taxed smokers. He said no special interests and then helps Big Pharm? Obama at the Whitehouse comment phone number, a person really answers. 202-456-1111
SCHIP Signing:Obama’s Broken Sunlight before Signing Pledge
?There’s a drink called ‘Sun-Tea’ – the recipe calls for leaving the liquid out in the sun for 3-5 hours.
Apparently this recipe for bills is what Obama was talking about with his Public Access Sunlight comment before signing
SCHIP was signed 5 hours after the Senate/House Vote.
Add a lemon-twist to the tea bag
Quote:
Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 234:
Promise Broken
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 234:
Promise Broken
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
Quote:
Still no “Sunlight before Signing”
Still no “Sunlight before Signing”
Updated: Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
For his second bill, Obama signed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress.
This time, though, the White House had posted the text of the working bill to its Web site on Feb. 1, 2009, with the following note : “Since this version of the bill is expected to pass the House of Representatives in the coming week, we are making the legislation available for public comment now.”
That doesn’t quite cut it for his promise, though. The legislation was still in process in Congress, and even if no substantial changes were made, the possibility was still there. It’s not the five-day waiting period he had promised.
It’s also not emergency legislation. The bill’s provisions don’t kick in until April 1, 2009, almost three months from signing.
We asked the White House about this matter on Jan. 29, when Obama signed his first bill. Five days later, on the day of the SCHIP signing, we got a reply via e-mail from spokesman Tommy Vietor:
“During the campaign, the president committed to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting nonemergency legislation online for five days before signing it. The president remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House has posted legislation expected to come to the president’s desk online for comment. We will be implementing this policy in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar. In the meantime, we will continue to post legislation on our Web site for comment as it moves through congress over the next few weeks.”
In deciding on our ratings, we like to be reasonable about promises that take time to implement. That’s why all the promises start at “No Action.” But the White House has demonstrated it has the technical ability to post information to their site and allow comments. They’re just not waiting the promised interval. So it’s still a Promise Broken.
*************************************
Smokers need not be reminded of the many social injustices already foisted upon them by means of the grossly over funded anti-tobacco lobby. It is a lobby that is fed by the tobacco “sin taxes” already harshly levied upon us under the (legally questionable) Master Settlement Agreement.? Consumers were never afforded a seat at the MSA conference table.?? Further, our cries for “civil justice” at State Assemblies have fallen on reliably deaf ears, since our “representative bodies” also profit by means of the MSA!? (While they charade as beneficent “health nannies.”)? The issue is not about public health, but rather, corporate liability; a liability that has been shifted squarely back upon the consumers, under the MSA. Many say that it is well “past time” that smokers took a stand against this corporate, and governmental, welfare scam.?
The SCHIP Bill will add an average burden of? $222.00 per year to largely middle-class earners, who buy just one pack of cigarettes a day.? But “roll your own” users will be fleeced by an unjustifiable rate increase of 2,400%. When campaigning, President Obama promised that he wouldn’t raise taxes on “anybody” but now “looks forward” to signing this bill, which seems to make it official that smokers aren’t “anybody.”? Not citizens; not persons.? Here’s a guy who “cut myself a little slack” for smoking because running for president was “stressful;”? but who then cuts other indulgers none during the worst, most stressful, economic downturn in four generations. This is as close to Taxation without Representation as we can imagine.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
Another SMOKER Against the Unfair SCHIP Tax
