President Bush added a 30,000 troop surge then withdrew them in 9/2007
President Obama added a 30,000 troop surge then withdrew them 6/2011
Change you can believe in, or the same old BS....
Cheers,
Mike
During a recent anti-gambling rally, a statement was made by the Illiana TEA Party (Al Reynolds) denouncing the expansion of gambling and a new casino which could be built right here in Danville, IL. Many people are frustrated by this position. The Illiana TEA party does not represent or speak for the entire area or even the majority of the TEA party movement. One of the core values of the movement is free market trade. A private investor, who wants to spend private money with zero expectation of tax incentive or subsidy, is by no means something that most genuine TEA party supporters would stand against. I understand many in the area are confused about the stance that Illiana TEA has taken against what best can be described as a social issue, which the TEA party generally steers away from. The three core principals of the TEA Party movement are fiscal responsibility, limited government and free market trade, none of which have to do with the moral issues of gambling. The group known as Danville LiberTEA also based here in Danville, IL, does not take issue with a free market enterprise that will bring jobs and growth to the Danville area. Some of our members may personally be against the idea of a gambling establishment based on their personal beliefs but they also understand that these moral beliefs are not at the heart of the TEA party philosophy. I personally believe the Casino is a good idea and have already urged Governor Quinn to pass the legislation. I only write this to educate and inform as some have expressed a distaste toward the Tea Party movement based solely on Illiana’s position.
Thank you,
Mike Ortiz
Danville LiberTEA (Formerly known as East Central IL TEA)
www.ecitea.org
mike@im-mto.com
217-316-1294
www.illinoistea.org
So MSNBC played a special patriotic production of the Pledge of Allegiance for the opening of the U.S. Open. The only issue with this was that they omitted God and the indivisible with Liberty part. This has caused quite a stir and was even featured on Glenn Beck and a few other prime time talk shows. MSNBC Chief executive Phil Griffin released an apology to this later but also said, "MSNBC stands for something and MSNBC is really the place to go for progressives."
Glenn Beck and other right wing talking heads attacked this action as a pointed attempt to remove God from everyday life. I would agree with him on this except that "God" was never originally part of the Pledge of Allegiance. I know some people will not take kindly to my pointing this fact out, but I feel I must. Mr. Beck went out of his way to make this seem like an egregious action without even talking about the history of the pledge. This is especially troubling because Mr. Beck has always stood for and emphasized the importance of learning our genuine history.
So what is our genuine history on the Pledge of Allegiance. It's not as cheery as you might think. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by the minister Francis Bellamy. He was known to be a Christian Socialist who had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. The original protocol, called for a military style salute with the right arm fully extended towards the flag. (Nazi salute style) This practice was changed to hand over heart for obvious reasons.
The original
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
God wasn't added until 1954 when President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God,"
Now I'm not saying that God being removed from the Pledge is good thing, but it's hardly fair to point at this as some sort attack at American Historical Tradition.
Cheers,
Mike
So what is the War Powers Act? Is Obama Really violating It?
These are two questions that many are asking right now looking at the situation in Libya. The War Powers Act of 1973 is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States. The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
The resolution which was controversial at the time, was passed by two-thirds of Congress because President Nixon actually vetoed the law.
President Obama is facing a swell of bipartisan criticism for continuing military engagement in Libya without congressional approval. Even supporters of the Libya intervention have complained that the administration is skirting the law. President Obama defends the legitimacy of the Libyan operation. On Wednesday, he submitted a report to Congress arguing that his administration is not in violation of the War Powers act at all. White House argued that the United States’ “constrained and limited operations” in Libya “do not amount to hostilities” because the United States doesn’t have or intend to place soldiers on the ground and has not sustained the casualties typical of such hostilities.
This despite the fact we know American Boots are on the ground, even if they aren't wearing uniforms.
In side stepping Congress, Obama has overstepped even the precedent set when President Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999 when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel asserted that Congress had given its consent by appropriating funds for the Kosovo campaign. It was a big stretch, given the actual facts but Obama can't even take advantage of this same desperate expedient, since Congress has appropriated no funds for the Libyan war. There are a lot of questions that remain out there and members on both sides of the aisle are looking for answers, even if they have legally met their requirements under the War Powers Act which I think remains to be seen.
Cheers,
Mike
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that the CNN debate in New Hampshire was setup to diminish the star factor of several of the candidates while making a couple in particular look much more Presidential. The day after buzz seems to also be favorable to the TEA Party influence on the candidates. I noticed several of the Candidates have adjusted themselves to sound more liberty minded with a few answers almost sounding like they were taken directly from Ron Paul's past speeches. Michelle Bachman obviously prepped well, I almost wonder if she didn't have the questions in advance. I also couldn't help but notice that Ron Paul's issues were greatly avoided, with exception to his standard position on military action and troop withdrawal. CNN is actually reporting Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman as the biggest winners last night, even though they posted an online mobile poll which Ron Paul won with 79% of the vote.
Weird.
Cheers,
Mike
Some people think Congressman Dr. Ron Paul is crazy because he thinks Drugs and illegal cartel economies should be legalized. If Ron Paul is so crazy than there most not be anyone else who believes this, right?
THIS MAY BE THE ONLY TIME I AGREE WITH GEORGE SOROS aka SPOOKY DUDE!!!
This Saturday on Fox News, the Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer said "whoever the Republican nominee is will have to have the support of the Tea Party movement, the entire Tea Party movement." Kremer went on to say that the entire TEA Party movement would get behind whoever won the republican nomination even Mitt Romney.
Well, I can't speak for the entire movement but I can say with absolute certainty that Amy Kremer does not either. Many of us, myself included have pledged not to support Mitt Romney, no way, no how. He will not receive my vote in the primary or the general election if he happens to win the GOP nomination. Many of the local members here in Danville as well as leaders from across the state have expressed similar sentiment in regards to Romneys candidacy.
I know the main stream media keeps touting Mitt Romney as the front runner but I have not seen these polls, nor has anyone else who organizes within the TEA party movement. This is nothing more than another artificial attempt to place a candidate in the lead before the beginning of the official Primary season.
Mike Ortiz
Danville LiberTEA
www.ecitea.org
Federal Park Police arrested five people on Saturday May 28th for dancing at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. The group was protesting a May 17 ruling in a case that dates back to April 2008, when a group of young libertarians organized by the now defunct group "Bureaucrash" decided to rendezvous at the memorial for a silent celebration of TJ's birthday.
Below is an account from "Spectator's" of the 2008
So as not to disturb any fellow memorial visitors, the group -- which numbered about 20, fewer than the 25 that would require a permit -- opted to wear headphones and listen to their own iPods. As it turned out, the half-dozen or so unrelated onlookers who happened to be on-hand (the park is open 24 hours) appeared mostly amused by the spectacle.
SECURITY PERSONNEL MOST assuredly were not amused. Within two minutes of the event's start, they began moving to disperse the crowd, ordering the dancers to leave immediately, forcibly laying their hands on some and hurling profanities at others.
A few party-goers attempted to explain the nature of the event, but memorial staff were in no mood to discuss political theory. At 11:59, just four minutes after the event's start, U.S. Park Police had detained and were handcuffing the aforementioned "Jefferson 1" -- 28-year-old occasional Spectator contributor Brooke Oberwetter -- ostensibly for unauthorized dancing.
Or, as former Bureaucrash chief Jason Talley puts it, "One minute I'm taking video of people celebrating the freedoms etched in the walls surrounding us, the next we see armed agents of the state putting chains on a friend of ours.
On 5-17-2011 The D.C. Circuit affirms there is no constitutional right to dance at the Jefferson Memorial Too read more of the court opinion on 5-17-2011 Click Here.
See my piece on "Protest Permits" for more information.
Below is our illegal dance party.
Not all that long ago when I was still listening to Sean Hannity via radio on a regular basis, I liked to call myself a Reagan Conservative. Another famous radio talker likes to take a different angle on this and go with Constitutional Conservative. Now, I've always had a deep found respect for the U.S. Constitution and am proud to say I aced my Constitution test in junior high. I often carry a copy with me and I read it and even listen to debate on it on a regular basis, so at first, the label seemed like one I could really embrace. The only problem was that at about this same time I also began to read more about our history and freedom which lead me to libertarian philosophy. This is the same time I began following the career of Ron Paul and the idea of constitutionalism as a political philosophy.
This is when I came to the realization that the Constitutional Conservative label came about for those who just want to appeal to the Conservative Right while waving the banner of the United States Constitution. These folks share a similar agenda with the NeoCon's while also justifying the Social Conservative point of view as well. Many of those who choose to use this label are generally strictly against the legalization of drugs and the removal of cartel economies. Generally, they are also in strong support of the armed forces but most importantly they will make any excuse for the continued support of the military industrialized complex and the use of forceful intervention in foreign affairs including unprovoked attacks or preemptive war. In the mind of the Constitutional Conservative, any military spending is good and beyond reproach. This of course by itself fly's right in the face of what the U.S. Constitution is all about. So in a nutshell the "Constitutional Conservative" is someone who believes in following the Constitution unless it goes against their own personal moral code, then to hell with the Constitution.
This is simply not acceptable in my opinion.
Yes, Michelle Bachman, this includes you, even if you are the leader of the TEA Party caucus.
Cheers,
Mike
Posts
All Comments
