| 
  | 
    
    
        
          
            
              
						
				
		 
				
		
 
		| 
			  Sotomayer Press Release #2 |
			May 29, 2009 |    
		
		Digg This |   
					
				
				
					
						| FOR 
						IMMEDIATE RELEASE | 
						
						 For further information, contact: 
						Charles Orndorff, 703-938-9626  | 
					 
				 
				
				QUESTIONS WHICH JUDGE SOTOMAYOR SHOULD BE 
				ASKED 
				
				Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, has 
				called upon members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to probe 
				Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor regarding the following 
				questions: 
				
					
					1. What relation, in your view, does the Declaration 
					of Independence bear to the Constitution of the United 
					States? 
					2. Do you agree with the statement in the Declaration 
					that "all Men…are endowed by their Creator with 
					certain unalienable Rights"? 
					3. The Preamble of the Constitution asserts that "We 
					the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
					perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
					Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
					general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
					ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this 
					Constitution for the United States of America." Do you 
					agree that "We the People" are the source of 
					authority for the Constitution and everything in it? 
					4. How do you interpret the term "promote the 
					general Welfare"? 
					5. Article I, Section 1 says "All legislative Powers 
					herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United 
					States". Do you believe that legislative powers 
					may be exercised by entities other than the Congress? What 
					about the Federal Reserve? May it exercise legislative 
					powers? What about regulatory agencies? What about the Civil 
					Service? What about Presidential Executive Orders? What 
					about international organizations such as the World Trade 
					Organization (WTO)? What about NAFTA? What about the 
					Judiciary? 
					6. In the event of a national calamity, it is possible 
					that many members of Congress may suffer death or 
					disability. Article I, Section 5 asserts that "a Majority 
					of each [House] shall constitute a Quorum to do 
					Business". In your view, how ought such a majority be 
					defined? Would it be a majority of the living? A majority of 
					those physically and mentally capable? What would it be? 
					7. Do you attach any religious significance to the 
					language in Article I, Section 7 which, in defining the time 
					available to the President to consider whether he shall veto 
					a piece of legislation which has arrived on his desk, 
					permits him "ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall 
					have been presented to him". Is there a Christian 
					premise to this language in the Constitution? 
					8. Article I, Section 8 says "The Congress shall have 
					Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, 
					to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and 
					general Welfare of the United States". Do you believe 
					that the power of Congress, as stipulated, is limited to 
					those matters set forth in Article I, Section 8? 
				
				
					9. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have 
					Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations". Did 
					Congress violate this provision in accepting U.S. 
					participation in the WTO, in NAFTA, and in CAFTA? 
					10. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have 
					Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of 
					foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". 
					Does this not imply that our money shall be of fixed value, 
					not subject to regulation by an entity such as the 
					Federal Reserve? 
					11. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have 
					Power…To declare War". To what extent can the 
					President intrude on this authority? 
					12. Article I, Section 8 says "Congress shall have 
					Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute 
					the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel 
					Invasions". What is your understanding of the term "the 
					Militia"? 
					13. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution 
					asserts that no State shall "make any Thing but gold 
					and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". How 
					do you interpret this requirement and its current 
					application? 
					14. Article II, Section 1 sets forth the oath to be taken 
					by the President: "Before he enter on the Execution of 
					his Office … ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I 
					will faithfully execute the Office of President of the 
					United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, 
					protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
					States.’ " In your opinion, has President Bush 
					faithfully, consistently, and without exception defended the 
					Constitution of the United States? 
					15. Article II, Section 2 states that the President "shall 
					have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
					Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the 
					Senators present concur". Do you believe that U.S. 
					participation in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization 
					should have required, as treaties, a two thirds vote of the 
					Senators present and voting?  
					16. Do you regard as valid Executive Agreements 
					which may be entered into by the President of the United 
					States? 
					17. Article III, Section 1 says "The Judges, both of 
					the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices 
					during good Behaviour". (a) How do you define "good 
					behaviour"? (b) If a judge is found to have violated 
					standards of "good behaviour", may such a judge be removed 
					from office by simple majority vote of the Senate, which 
					confirmed his appointment to office? 
					18. Article III, Section 2 says "The judicial Power 
					shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under 
					this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and 
					Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their 
					Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public 
					Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and 
					maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United 
					States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or 
					more States;… —between Citizens of different States, 
					—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under 
					Grants of different States…. In all Cases affecting 
					Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those 
					in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall 
					have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before 
					mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate 
					Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, 
					and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." 
					What restrictions, if any, do you think are permissible on
					the authority of Congress to limit the appellate 
					jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? 
					19. Article III, Section 2 stipulates that "The Trial 
					of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by 
					Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the 
					said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not 
					committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place 
					or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." The 
					U.N.’s proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) 
					treaty seems to be in clear violation of these provisions. 
					Do you agree that it would be un-Constitutional for the 
					Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) 
					treaty? 
					20. Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "Full 
					Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public 
					Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other 
					State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the 
					Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be 
					proved, and the Effect thereof." In your opinion, does 
					this language require other states to recognize the 
					Massachusetts "same sex" marriage procedures? 
					21. Article IV, Section 4 says "The United States 
					shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican 
					Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against 
					Invasion". In your view, what is the Federal government 
					required to do in response to the invasion of illegal 
					aliens which has particularly affected such states as 
					California, Arizona, and Texas, among others? 
					22. Article VI says "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". In your view, does this 
					require that treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate are 
					the "supreme Law of the Land", even when such treaties are 
					in conflict with provisions of the U.S. Constitution? 
					23. The First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates 
					that "Congress shall make no law respecting an 
					establishment of religion". (a) Do you agree that 
					this language was included in the Constitution to prevent 
					any interference by the Federal government in the 
					establishments of religion which existed by authority of the 
					legislatures of the several states which had joined in 
					ratifying the Constitution? (b) In your view, are different 
					interpretations of this clause valid for purposes of 
					Constitutional interpretation? 
					24. The Second Amendment says "A well regulated 
					Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 
					the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be 
					infringed." Do you believe that in light of this 
					language any or all of Federally enacted gun control 
					laws are Constitutionally valid? 
					25. According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of 
					the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
					and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 
					shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon 
					probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and 
					particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
					persons or things to be seized." (a) Do you believe that 
					any branch of the Federal government has the authority to 
					violate the Fourth Amendment for any reason whatsoever? (b) 
					Do you believe that the requirements of the Fourth 
					Amendment have ever been violated by the Federal 
					government, if so, when, by whom, and in what circumstances? 
					26. The Fifth Amendment says that "nor shall any 
					person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in 
					jeopardy of life or limb". Was not this provision 
					set aside in the Rodney King case when law enforcement 
					personnel were prosecuted for the same alleged offense under 
					both state and Federal law? 
					27. The Sixth Amendment requires that "In all criminal 
					prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 
					speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the 
					State and district wherein the crime shall have been 
					committed". (a) How do you interpret the term "speedy"? 
					(b) When, in accordance with your definition, this provision 
					is violated, what should be the remedy? 
					28. The Eighth Amendment says that "cruel and 
					unusual punishments" may not be inflicted. How would 
					you define a cruel and unusual punishment? 
					29. The Tenth Amendment says that "The powers not 
					delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
					prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
					respectively, or to the people." (a) When powers which 
					Constitutionally ought be reserved to the states are usurped 
					by the Federal government, what remedy is available to 
					states thus aggrieved? (b) Is nullification a valid 
					response? (c) Is interposition an appropriate 
					response? 
					30. The Thirteenth Amendment says that "Neither slavery 
					nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime 
					whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall 
					exist within the United States, or any place subject to 
					their jurisdiction." In your view, does adherence to this 
					amendment preclude the possibility of a military draft? 
					31. Many people have questioned the inclusion of the 
					Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, inasmuch 
					as part of a conditional readmission to the Union, certain 
					southern states were required to ratify this amendment. In 
					some cases, ratification was enforced at the point of a gun 
					by occupying military troops. (a) Do you think the 
					Fourteenth Amendment was properly ratified? (b) If not, do 
					you believe it should be enforced? 
					32. The Fourteenth Amendment says that no state may "deprive 
					any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 
					process of law". (a) In your view, at what point does 
					the unborn child qualify for consideration as a 
					person? (b) At such point, does it become unconstitutional 
					to deprive any such person of life without such person 
					having been duly convicted of a crime by a jury of his or 
					her peers? 
					33. The Fourteenth Amendment also says that no person 
					shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws". 
					In your view, does this make affirmative action laws 
					unconstitutional? 
					34. The Sixteenth Amendment says that "The Congress 
					shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, 
					from whatever source derived, without apportionment among 
					the several States, and without regard to any census or 
					enumeration." How do you define the term "incomes"? 
					35. The Nineteenth Amendment says "The right of 
					citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or 
					abridged by the United States or by any State on account 
					of sex". Does this use of the word "sex" refer 
					exclusively to gender, or can it be construed to cover 
					sexual activity? 
					36. The XXVII Amendment to the Constitution says "No 
					Law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
					Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an 
					election of Representatives shall have intervened." This 
					language seems to preclude members of Congress from 
					accepting pay increases recommended by commissions or 
					operating in reliance on changes in the cost of living. 
					
					
					What is your view? 
				
				### 
				
				
		
 
		| 
			  Sotomayer Press Release #1 |
			May 29, 2009 |    
		
		Digg This |   
					
				
				
					
						| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | 
						
						 For further 
						information, contact: 
						Charles Orndorff, 703-938-9626  | 
					 
				 
				
				EMPATHY, IMPARTIALITY, AND JUSTICE: WHY SONIA 
				SOTOMAYOR IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE OUR NEXT U.S. SUPREME COURT 
				JUSTICE 
				Bob Renaud, a member of the Board of Directors of The 
				Conservative Caucus, has issued the following analysis of 
				President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to 
				serve on the U.S. Supreme Court:  
				
				"President Barack Obama was just past his first ‘100 days in 
				office’ when David Souter’s retirement gave him the opportunity 
				to submit his first Supreme Court nominee to Congress. He had 
				been planning for this moment. During his campaign for the 
				presidency, Obama explained what he would look for in a nominee 
				to the high court: 
				" ‘We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to 
				recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy 
				to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or 
				gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m 
				going to be selecting my judges.’[1]
				 
				"President Obama reiterated his commitment to ‘empathy’ last 
				week when he commented on Justice Souter’s resignation. He 
				promised to seek someone ‘who understands that justice isn’t 
				about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook.’ 
				Apparently, to President Obama, a basic understanding of the 
				plain text of the Constitution is now ‘abstract legal theory.’ 
				But empathy, he says, will produce justice. 
				"Once again, President Obama has demonstrated that the 
				‘change we can believe in’ is not the change we need in this 
				country. What we need is a change towards constitutional and 
				biblical fidelity.  
				"Writing in 1833 in his famous Commentaries on the 
				Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained that 
				empathy is not the same as justice. Justice must be ‘freely, 
				fully, and impartially administered.’ Without impartial justice, 
				‘neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be 
				protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no 
				certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are 
				held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by 
				no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may 
				as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.’[2] 
				
				"By seeking to nominate to the high court, judges who ‘got 
				the heart, the empathy’ — as opposed to judges who are faithful 
				to the law of the land — we are heading toward that ‘state of 
				savage and barbarous independence’ that Justice Story warned 
				about. That was two centuries ago. Justice Story wasn’t the 
				first. 
				"Writing 3,500 years ago in the book of Leviticus, the 
				ultimate Law-giver explained the proper role of judges:  
				" ‘Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not 
				respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the 
				mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour’ 
				(Leviticus 19:15).  
				"In this text of Scripture, there is no reference to how 
				judges feel about a matter, or how judges should ‘empathize’ 
				with the parties to the case, or even how judges should use 
				their own ethnic background to decide the matter before the bar. 
				The command is to ‘not respect the person of the poor, nor honor 
				the person of the mighty.’ Not feel their pain! 
				"Contrary to what the ACLU or even the president himself 
				might want, our legal system has codified this biblical command 
				not to respect either the ‘poor’ or the ‘mighty’ in our own 
				republic. The United States Code prescribes the oath that all 
				federal justices or judges are to swear or affirm before 
				performing their duties. The oath states: 
				" ‘I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 
				administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal 
				right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully 
				and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent 
				upon me as [job title] under the Constitution and laws of the 
				United States. So help me God.[3]’
				 
				"President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia 
				Sotomayor, was picked for her empathy rather than her 
				impartiality. In fact, Judge Sotomayor has a record of showing 
				partiality both in her written opinions and as well as outside 
				the courtroom.  
				"In a 2001 speech at the University of California at 
				Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor said that the ethnicity and sex of a 
				judge ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She went 
				on to declare that ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with 
				the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach 
				a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that 
				life.’  
				"Fast forward to 2008, where we see how Judge Sotomayor 
				applies her judicial philosophy of ‘empathy’ in the case of 
				Ricci v. DeStefano (now before the U.S. Supreme Court). In that 
				case, local firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, took an 
				examination in hopes of getting promoted. When the results came 
				out, the majority of those who took the test and passed were 
				‘white.’ The town decided to disregard that exam. The 
				firefighters who passed the test were passed up for promotion, 
				and they sued the town for reverse discrimination. On appeal to 
				the Second Circuit Court where Judge Sotomayor sits, Judge 
				Sotomayor refused to examine the issues of the ‘white’ firemen 
				and threw out the case. So much for Judge Sotomayor’s ‘empathy’ 
				for both sides. 
				"And finally, one cannot forget the gaffe committed in 2005 
				in which Judge Sotomayor explained at a Duke Law School forum 
				that it is at ‘the court of appeals is where policy is made.’ 
				Isn’t that the job of the legislature? Judge Sotomayor caught 
				her mistake and quickly said, ‘We don’t make law, I’m not 
				promoting that, I’m not advocating that, you know.’ However, you 
				have to ask yourself, how does an ‘extremely qualified’ judge 
				make a mistake like that?  
				"Jesus Christ said that ‘out of the abundance of the heart 
				the mouth speaks.’ 
				"I think it’s clear where Judge Sotomayor’s heart is — she 
				thinks that her job is to ‘empathize’ with the parties before 
				her as opposed to judging ‘in righteousness . . . thy neighbour.’ 
				And this is why she is disqualified to be our next U.S. Supreme 
				Court justice." 
				  
				1. A widely quoted 2007 speech that 
				then Sen. Obama gave to Planned Parenthood. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/05/obamasempathystandard_drawin.html?hpid=news-col-blog 
				2. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles21.html 
				3. Title 28 chapter 21 § 453. 
				______________________________ 
				Mr. Renaud is in his final year of law school at the Oak 
				Brook School of Law in Fresno, California and is an official of 
				Vision Forum Ministries in San Antonio, Texas. 
				### 
				
				
		 
				
				
				OBAMA FASCISM PUNISHES THE PRODUCTIVE 
				
				"My name is George C. Joseph.  I am the sole owner of 
				Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in 
				Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this 
				automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second 
				generation to manage this business. 
				"We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic 
				slowdown we employed over 70 local people.  We are active 
				in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with 
				several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more 
				during a month.  All depend on our business for part of their 
				livelihood.   
				"We are financially strong with great respect in the market 
				place and community.  We have strong local presence and 
				stability. I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours 
				a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees.  
				Sunshine Dodge is my life. 
				"On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge 
				franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family 
				on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given 
				to another dealer at no cost to them.  
				"My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a 
				financed balance of 3 million dollars.  This inventory 
				becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives 
				beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no 
				longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any 
				warranty service work.  
				"Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately 
				$300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform 
				warranty service.  There is no offer from Chrysler to buy 
				back the vehicles or parts inventory. 
				"Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's 
				insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of 
				a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.    
				"HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?  
				 
				"THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY 
				"This is beyond imagination!  My business is being 
				stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN.  We did NOTHING 
				wrong. 
				"This atrocity will most likely force my family into 
				bankruptcy.  This will also cause our 50+ employees to be 
				unemployed. How will they provide for their families?  This 
				is a total economic disaster. 
				"HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED 
				STATES OF AMERICA? 
				"I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank 
				you. 
				Sincerely, 
				George C. Joseph 
				President & Owner 
				Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu" 
				Source: tothepointnews.com, 5/26/09  
				
			
		
 
		| 
			  ACORN Born in Leftist Revolution |
			May 26, 2009 |    
		
		Digg This |   
				
				
				"GREAT SOCIETY" FUNDED GRASSROOTS LEFTISTS 
				
				When I was Director of the U.S. Office of Economic 
				Opportunity (OEO) in 1973, I cut off the money to all of the 
				entities promoted by Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven. 
				For example, prior to my tenure, under Sargent Shriver, Don 
				Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, more than 500 chapters of the 
				National Welfare Rights organization were created at taxpayer 
				expense to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy. 
				Despite my efforts to Defund the Left, when I resigned as OEO 
				Director, following President Nixon’s decision to continue 
				funding the agency and its programs at an even higher level, the 
				Left was refunded by my successors under Presidents Nixon and 
				Ford. 
				"ACORN, the radical organization charged with voter fraud in 
				several states, owes its origin to a revolutionary strategy 
				developed by two Columbia University sociologists in the 1960s. 
				"After completing his legal education at Harvard, Barack 
				Obama returned to Chicago to work in an ACORN-funded voter 
				registration project that developed directly out of this radical 
				revolutionary strategy. 
				"On … May 2, 1966, Columbia’s Professor of Social Work 
				Richard A. Cloward, and his then research associate Frances Fox 
				Piven, wrote a pivotal article in The Nation, 
				articulating ‘a strategy to end poverty.’ 
				"In what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, the 
				article argued a revolutionary approach to mobilizing the poor 
				in the form of class warfare against capitalist forces viewed as 
				exploiting labor and oppressing the poor. … 
				"Cloward and Piven argued a ‘guaranteed annual income’ should 
				be established as an entitlement for the poor, a right the poor 
				could assert and demand to be paid. 
				"Arguing for massive registration of poor in existing social 
				welfare programs, Cloward and Piven sought to create a crisis 
				that could be exploited to obtain a fundamental redistribution 
				of power in favor of the ‘have-nots.’ 
				"Advancing their socialist revolutionary aims, Cloward and 
				Piven explained the crisis they sought ‘can occur spontaneously 
				(e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of 
				demonstration and protest which either generate institutional 
				disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public 
				attention.’ 
				"The Cloward-Piven strategy sought to apply the tactics of 
				the revolutionary civil rights movement, including urban riots, 
				to the poor as a whole, transcending interest-group politics 
				defined by race to involve interest-group politics defined by 
				class. 
				"Radical black activist George Wiley created the National 
				Welfare [Rights] Organization, or NWRO, to implement the 
				Cloward-Piven strategy.  
				"Sol Stern, writing in the City Journal, noted that 
				foot soldiers hired by the NWRO were successful in expanding 
				welfare rolls from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s. 
				The result was that in New York City, where the strategy had 
				been particularly successful, ‘one person was on the welfare 
				rolls … for every two working in the city’s private economy.’ 
				"James Simpson, a former White House staff economist and 
				budget analyst, asserts in American Thinker that the 
				‘vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the 
				NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 
				1975.’ 
				"William Radke, the founder of ACORN, was a member of the 
				radical Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, before he 
				dropped out of Williams College in 1968 to join the anti-draft 
				movement protesting the Vietnam War. 
				"He next worked for George Wiley’s NWRO in Springfield, 
				Mass., before leaving for Little Rock, Ark., in 1970. In Little 
				Rock he formed the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform 
				Now, an organization whose name he morphed into the Association 
				of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, to form a 
				national organization. 
				"With ACORN, Radke resolved to apply the Cloward-Piven 
				strategy as a ‘community organizer’ in an effort to recruit 
				radicals to register to vote as Democrats, often fraudulently, 
				in local, state and national elections. 
				"Radke’s idea was to create a crisis in voter registration 
				similar to the crisis in registration for welfare benefits that 
				Cloward and Piven had initially sought to cause. 
				"Funded heavily by George Soros through his Open 
				Society Institute, ACORN has followed a three-point strategy 
				that James Simpson described as follows:  
				
					- "Register as many Democratic voters as possible, legal 
					or otherwise, and help them vote, multiple times if 
					possible.
 
					- "Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations 
					using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, 
					random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
 
					- "Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for 
					minimal identification standards required of voters arriving 
					at polling stations to vote.
 
				 
				"In 1992, while he was working as a community organizer in 
				Chicago, Obama headed the Chicago operations of Project Vote!, 
				an ACORN effort to register voters nationally. In Chicago, Obama 
				had his biggest impact registering African-American voters on 
				Chicago’s South Side." Source: WorldNetDaily, 5/14/09, 
				Jerome R. Corsi 
				
			
		
 
		| 
			 Outrageous Spending |
			May 21, 2009 |    
		
		Digg This |   
				
				
				YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK 
				
				(CNSNews.com, 5/4/09) – "The National Institutes of Health (NIH)
				is funding a study that seeks to discover a link between 
				drinking and having sex among homosexuals in Argentina. 
				 
				"The study will send researchers to six bars in Buenos Aires
				to interview both patrons and proprietors in an effort to 
				discover what it is about those bars that may encourage the 
				risky behavior. 
				  
				"The study began on Sept. 30, 2008, and runs through Aug. 31, 
				2010. It already has cost taxpayers $198,776. By the time the 
				project ends, it will have cost $403,902, according to NIH. 
				  
				"The grant, awarded to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, 
				was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
				Alcoholism (NIAAA), the division of NIH that studies the effects 
				of alcohol and alcoholism.  
				  
				"The study’s primary focus is to determine the relationship 
				among drinking, bars frequented by homosexuals, and risky sexual 
				behavior to see if certain bars in Argentina might be good 
				targets for HIV-prevention campaigns.   
				  
				" ‘Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, 
				alcohol is consumed, and sexual behavior occurs, the goal of 
				this two-year exploratory study is to understand the various 
				factors that contribute to the creation of a high-risk sexual 
				space,’ the study’s abstract explains.  
				 
				" ‘To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative 
				contribution of physical characteristics of the place, patron 
				characteristics, type and level of alcohol consumption, and 
				social dynamics that are at play and potentiate each other to 
				result in sexual risk behavior.’ 
				  
				"The study has six goals, including the collection of 
				information on six specific bars in Buenos Aires; the 
				appearance, of those bars, alcohol availability, patrons, and 
				types of sexual behavior taking place. The study also seeks to 
				identify which factors contribute to alcohol consumption and 
				sexual behavior in the bars. 
				  
				" ‘The specific aims of this study are to … 2) identify factors 
				that contribute to alcohol use and high-risk sexual behavior in 
				the venues,’ says the abstract. 
				  
				"Researchers will interview 48 of the men who patronize the 
				bars, as well as the bar staff to gather information on the 
				types of alcohol consumed and sexual behavior engaged in. … 
				"While the study is being conducted in Argentina, it is being 
				funded with U.S. tax dollars.  The grant recipients--who 
				could not be reached for comment--say in the abstract that 
				information gathered in the bars in Argentina might help inform 
				similar efforts in America. … 
				  
				"The study is among a number funded by the NIAAA to examine the 
				relationship between drinking and the spread of HIV, including a 
				study of tourism, prostitution, and HIV in the Dominican 
				Republic and another study examining drinking and HIV among 
				prostitutes in China." 
				
			
		
 
		| 
			 North American Union Pass |
			May 20, 2009 |    
		
		Digg This |   
				
				
				ANOTHER STEPPING STONE TO NORTH AMERICAN 
				UNION? 
				
				" Signs showing an integrated North America have begun 
				showing up on U.S. Interstate highways for NORPASS, a new 
				electronic system that allows participating truckers in Canada 
				and the U.S. to by-pass roadside weigh stations through the use 
				of a transponder mounted on the windshield.
				"The NORPASS website describes the organization as ‘a 
				partnership of state and provincial agencies and trucking 
				industry representatives who are committed to promoting safe and 
				efficient trucking throughout North America.’ 
				"Truckers that register to participate in NORPASS receive a 
				small transponder that signals to a computer in participating 
				weigh stations. 
				"As the participating truck approaches the NORPASS weigh 
				station, a roadside reader detects the transponder and a 
				computer in the weigh station checks the truck’s credentials. 
				"If the truck is certified, the NORPASS transponder signals a 
				green light, allowing the driver to bypass the station. 
				"If a problem is detected, a red light flashing on the 
				transponder indicates a need for the truck to stop and be 
				checked. 
				"Participating NORPASS truckers are charged $45 to purchase a 
				windshield transponder directly from NORPASS. 
				"Melanie Coon, a spokesperson for the Washington Department 
				of Transportation, or WaDOT, told WND the purpose of the 
				system is to contribute to the state’s efforts to introduce 
				‘automated intelligence systems to assist trucks and people in 
				crossing the U.S.-Canadian border more efficiently.’ 
				"Along with Washington, states participating in NORPASS 
				include Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, New York, 
				Connecticut, Kentucky and North Carolina. 
				"Two Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Quebec, are 
				NORPASS participants. 
				"A map on the NORPASS website indicates NORPASS weigh station 
				by-passing is also compatible with the transponders issued by 
				BestPass, another U.S.-Canadian truck transponder system." 
				Source: Jerome Corsi, WorldNetDaily.com, 5/15/09 
				
				
		
 
		| 
			 Kill the Death Tax! |
			May 19, 2009 |    
		
		Digg This |   
				
				TCC’S "MAKE THE DEATH TAX REPEAL PERMANENT 
				PETITION" 
				
				TO: MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
				
					
						| 
						Whereas,          
				
						 | 
						
						the American people are already overtaxed; and | 
					 
					
						| 
						Whereas,
				
						 | 
						
						it is grossly unfair to impose punishing taxes on 
				the loved ones of relatives who have passed away; and | 
					 
					
						| 
						Whereas,
				
						 | 
						
						after taxing a person throughout his or her lifetime, it 
						is double taxation, to tax them again at death; and | 
					 
					
						| 
						Whereas,
				
						 | 
						
						eliminating the tax on inheritances and bequests will 
						energize the economy by keeping family businesses and 
						farms working; and | 
					 
					
						| 
						Whereas,
				
						 | 
						
						taxing away the lifetime assets an individual hopes to 
						pass on to his or her loved ones is morally wrong; and | 
					 
					
						| 
						Whereas,
				
						 | 
						
						taxing inheritances is another example of government 
						changing the rules to punish those who played by the 
						rules all of their lives. | 
					 
					
						| 
						Therefore,
				
						 | 
						
						I urge you to immediately reintroduce, vote on, 
				and pass the "Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act", 
				vital legislation to finally and permanently abolish the unfair 
				Federal Estate Tax ("Death Tax"). 
  | 
					 
				 
				
		 
             | 
           
           
        
		
		
		
 	
	
		
			| 
			 
			Visit HowardPhillips.com every day 
			for the latest commentary, news and action items in support of 
			restoring our Constitutional Republic  | 
			
		 
	 
    
     
    
      
        
    
    PLEASE
    	DONATE
    	NOW. 
        To support the many important projects of The Conservative Caucus with a 
		donation, please call 703-938-9626 or 
		donate online. Thank you.  | 
       
     
 
    
     
     | 
    
     
   | 
   
 
 
  
    
  
    
      | 
[_private/navbar.htm] |  
      www.HowardPhillips.com 
		Howard Phillips'  Constitutional Government Blog is a
Project of 
		The Conservative Caucus  *  www.ConservativeUSA.org 
		North American Union Site: 
		www.NAUWarRoom.org 
		450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626 
		Webmaster: Art Harman 
Copyright © 2009 The Conservative Caucus, Inc.  All rights
reserved. 
  |   
    
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   |