Reagan and Obama and Black America

The Washington Times had an interesting article about how Ronald Reagan and Barrack Obama have done by Black America. Richard Rahn of the Washington Times sum it up this way:

Ronald Reagan reduced Taxes on job created by 60%. Obama increased them by 17%. Reagan cut non-defense federal spending by a third; Obama has increased it, to say the least. Reagan cut regulations while Obama has greatly increased them.

Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20%, but under Mr.Obama, it has increased by 42%

Black teenage unemployment felly by 16% under Reagan, but has risen by 56% under Mr. Obama

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr.Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics.

Some change for black America. For someone who has stated that he admired Reagan, he should is not acting like him.

United States Supreme Court rejects routine no-warrant DUI blood tests

The Supreme Court ruled that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.

The justices sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant and found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.

Justice Sotomayor wrote for the court that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is generally not sufficient reason to jettison the requirement that police get a judge’s approval before drawing a blood sample.

Missouri and the Obama administration were asking the court to endorse a blanket rule that would have allowed the tests without a warrant.

Eight of the nine justices rejected that plea. The only dissent was from Justice Thomas who held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights.

The case is stemmed from the arrest of Tyler McNeely in a rural area of Missouri’s Cape Girardeau County. A state trooper stopped McNeely for speeding and swerving of his car. The driver, who had two previous dui convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.

He failed several field sobriety tests. The arresting officer stated that McNeely speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. There seemed little dispute that the officer had enough evidence to get a warrant for a blood test, but chose not to. Instead, he drove McNeely to a hospital, where a technician drew blood.

McNeely’s blood alcohol content was 0.154 percent, well above the 0.08 legal limit.

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower court order that threw out the results of the blood test. The state high court said the blood test violated the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police need a warrant to take a suspect’s blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court stated.

The case is Missouri v. McNeely 11-1425

Justices to Review Affirmative Action

Frank Osekowsky

February 23, 20212

A challenge from a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas flagship campus will be the high court’s first look at affirmative action in higher education since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor.

A federal appeals court upheld the Texas program at issue, saying it was allowed under the high court in Grother v. Bollinger in 2003.  That upheld racial consideration in university admission at the university of Michigan Law school.

Abigial Fisher filed a lawsuit along with another women when they were denied admission at the university Austin campus.  They contended the school race-conscious policy violated their civil and constitutional rights.

Justice Elena Kagan, is not taking part in this case.

CONSTITUTION DAY SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2011

On September 17, 1787, the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document that they had created. Constitutional Day is an American Federal observance that recognizes the ratification of the United States Constitution.

 In 1952, President Harry S. Truman signed a bill that moved “I am an American Day” from the third Sunday in May to September 17 so that this holiday would coincide with the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Congress renamed the holiday “Citizenship Day.” A joint resolution passed in 1956 requested the President to proclaim the week beginning September 17 and ending September 23 each year as “Constitution Week”.

Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) entered an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 that changed the name of the September 17 holiday to “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day”. The purpose of “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day is to honor and celebrate the privileges and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship for both native-born and naturalized citizens, while commemorating the creation and signing of the supreme law of our land.

 In May 2005, the United States Department of Education announced the enactment of this law and that it would apply to any school receiving federal funds for any kind.

 I encourage all Americans to observe this important day in our nation’s history by attending local events in your area. Celebrate Constitution Day through activities, learning, parades and demonstrations of our Love for the United States of America and the Blessings of Freedom Our Founding Fathers secured for us.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES TO LOOK OUT FOR IN 2011-2012

BY FRANK OSEKOWSKY

July 22, 2011

FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC

 The United States Supreme Court will rule on whether the FCC current indecency enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Court Circuit ruled last year that the FCC’s indecency policy, which places restrictions on profanity and nudity during television broadcasting, is unconstitutionally vague.

Indecency issues have been raised in two separate broadcasts.  One in which a nudity scene appeared in a television crime show during prime-time hours, and the other involving celebrities using expletives during live broadcasting events. 

UNITED STATES V. JONES

The Court will decide whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking devices on respondent’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment and whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent. The federal government sought Supreme Court review after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that prolonged use of GPS to monitor suspects’ vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

MESSERSCHMIDT V.,MILLENDER

The Supreme Court will consider whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity where they execute search warrants later determined invalid. The 9^th Circuit Court ruled that the officers in this case were not entitled to qualified immunity.  In United States v. Leon these officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.

MARTEL V. CLAIR

The United States Supreme Court will determine whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. The district court denied respondent Kenneth Clair’s position for habeas corpus and refused to allow him to replace his lawyer, but the 9^th circuit court reversed ruling that the district court abused its discretion.

KNOX. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 100

The Supreme Court will decide whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments may condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction.  The 9^th Circuit held that no second notice was required under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. The court will also determine whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures.

MIMS V. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC

The court will consider whether Congress divested the federal district courts of their federal question jurisdiction over private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The US Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over private actions under the Act.

U.S. Supreme Court To Review Case on Medi-Cal Payment Cuts

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether health care providers and patients have the right to sue California over cuts to Medi-Cal reimbursements.

The case that the high court will review consolidates three legal challenges to California’s previously proposed reimbursement cuts. The three cases are:

• Maxwell-Jolly v. California Pharmacists;
• Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center; and
• Maxwell-Jolly v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (Vesely, Modern Healthcare, 1/18).

Background

In 2008, the California Legislature approved a 10% reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements for dentists, health clinics, pharmacies, physicians and other medical providers (McClatchy/Sacramento Bee, 1/19).

Health care provider groups filed lawsuits against the state, arguing that the lower payment rates would negatively affect Medi-Cal beneficiaries’ access to care and conflict with the federal Medicaid Act.

After federal courts blocked the Medi-Cal cuts from taking effect, California appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (Savage/Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times, 1/19).

Attorneys for the state say the proposed Medi-Cal cuts did not violate the law. They also argue that only the federal government has the authority to enforce Medicaid regulations and that health care providers and patients do not have the right to sue a state for allegedly violating federal Medicaid rules (Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/19).

Implications for California, Other States

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case could have major implications for efforts to address California’s budget deficit. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) released a budget proposal that would reduce Medi-Cal payments to health care providers by 10% to cut program spending by about $719 million in fiscal year 2011-2012.

In addition, the case could have implications for other states seeking to address budget deficits by cutting Medicaid payments. Twenty-two states have joined California in appealing the issue to the Supreme Court (Los Angeles Times, 1/19).

Timeline

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case next fall. A decision is expected in late 2011 or early 2012 (Robertson, Sacramento Business Journal, 1/18).

 

Supreme Court to weigh churches’ employment rights

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a teacher who was fired from a religious school is subject to a “ministerial exception” that can bar suits against religious organizations.

The case involves an employment dispute between a Michigan school and a teacher who is defended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Lawyers for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., argue that courts have long recognized the First Amendment doctrine that often prevents employees who perform religious functions from suing religious organizations.

They asked the court to determine whether it extends to teachers at a religious school who teach a secular curriculum but also teach religion classes and lead students in prayer.

A lower court sided with the school and against fired teacher Cheryl Perich, citing the ministerial exception. But last March, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, saying it did not apply because Perich spends most of her time teaching secular topics.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the school, said federal appeals courts are divided on the limits of the ministerial exception and the Supreme Court’s consideration is groundbreaking.

“If `separation of church and state’ means anything, it means the government doesn’t get to pick religious teachers,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The EEOC has expressed concern that a ruling against Perich could lead to religious organizations being shielded from all suits filed by staffers “simply by characterizing all of their duties as religious.”

Reasons why President Obama has failed as a Leader

July 2, 2011

Frank Osekowsky

Here are just a few example of Obama’ leadership failures:

President Obama has spent the first two year of his presidency on such issues as ObamaCare and has pushed through a government centric solution that the majority of Americans do not want.

Since taking office, Obama has added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt.

Obama’s stimulus program has failed, instead of the stimulus program lowering the unemployment rate it has done nothing but raised it.

Obama follows right behind France and the Arab League into the United Nations-approved military intervention in Libya.  Obama is unable or unwilling to clearly define the mission and criteria for success that will allow the United States to cease its active military involvement.

United States Foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under Obama-Since Obama has become President America’s global power has weakened.  The United States has surrender to Moscow on Missile site defenses, has failed to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear program. And he has decided to side with the ousted Marxists leader in Honduras.

America has lost its greatness under Obama- Since taking office Obama has traveled the world to apologize to world leaders for the actions of the United States in the past for invading other nations. 

So what has Obama done for the past two years.  He has done nothing but bring this county down.  President Obama has been busy taking over the Banking industry, the Insurance industry, the Automobile industry and is busy trying to get illegal immigrants amnesty.

President Obama has always stated that he is for the middle class.  If we look at his record this is far from the truth.  He wants to tax the middle class to death so that we can pay more for his socialist programs.

He wants to control everything.  He wants the citizens of the United States to be dependent on the government for all of their needs.

President Obama has no idea what he is doing.

President Obama was right when he promised changed if he was elected President of the United States.  He has changed the United States of America from a democracy nation to a socialist nation.

In 2012, our voices will be heard loud and clear in Washington and throughout the nation.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS

 Frank Osekowsky

The Republican party was born in the early 1850’s  by Individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge.

The Republican party not the Democratic party was the party that led the movement to free the slaves.

In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to argue for securing the right to vote for women. When the 19^th Amendment was finally added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control.  The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican. Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

 

Which Do You Believe?

Republicans believe…	Democrats believe…
…that the United States were founded on the fundamental principle that individuals have certain rights and freedoms which cannot be infringed upon and may be restricted only to the degree necessary to preserve the rights of others.	…that our Founding Fathers did not really mean what they said when they guaranteed certain constitutional rights such as the right to freedom of religious expression, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to retain the use of private property.
…the money you earn is yours and that government in a free society has the right to take only as much as is needed to perform those limited functions, which are appropriate to it.	…government has a right to use your money as it sees fit to redistribute wealth, establish new spending programs in times of budget surpluses, and to return to you only that portion of your money which is politically expedient.
…the traditional family and the values it fosters are the foundation of American society and their preservation is essential to our Nation’s continued success.	…American society must redefine its values and the role of the family to fit new lifestyle concepts, which have resulted from the 60ís counter-culture movement and an attitude that promotes an abrogation of individual responsibility.
…parents have the right to determine the values with which their children will be raised and to have the widest possible choice among public, private and religious schools and that competition will improve public education.	…the federal government has the right to determine the values which will be taught in public schools and parentsí choice of schools must be limited to avoid exposing public schools to competitive forces which would encourage reform and increase accountability.
…that the free enterprise system is the most effective engine of economic progress.	…that government regulation and federal control of economic activity can better distribute wealth and services to the American people.
…high taxes, runaway government spending, and over-regulation of business and farming punish initiative and stifle economic growth.	…penalizing achievement with higher taxes and increased government bureaucracy and spending will not stifle economic growth but instead guarantee prosperity for everyone.
…that with freedom comes responsibility and that individuals must take personal responsibility for their own actions and our criminal justice system must be based on this idea.	…individual behavior, including criminal behavior, can be blamed on “society” and that spending on social welfare programs and improvements in prison living conditions can combat crime.
…that your property is yours and you have the basic right to make use of it without unreasonable government restrictions.	…the government has the right to regulate the use of private property in accordance with narrow special interests without giving just compensation to owners.
…the preservation of our rights and freedoms must be entrusted to a strong national defense and of the ability of the United States to negotiate with other nations from a position of strength.	…we can afford to drastically weaken our military despite the threats present in an unstable, post-Cold War international environment and the United States must subjugate its interests to those of the United Nations.
…it is imperative today to re-affirm the traditional freedoms and values of America to preserve our great Republic.	…that America must adopt a politically correct, multi-cultural set of values which denies common American heritage and will further divide American society.
…there can be differences of opinion and that such differences such result in opponents, not enemies.	…that all whom oppose them are to be treated as enemies.
…that all of America’s citizens can enjoy the rights and freedoms of our country without diminishing the rights of others.	…that some must give up a portion of their rights and freedoms that others may enjoy those same rights and freedoms.
…that public servants, particularly those whom we elect to office, must be held accountable to the highest standards of ethical conduct.  “If a man cannot be trusted with the government of himself, can he be trusted with the government of others?” [Thomas Jefferson]	…that loyalty to a discredited leader is a virtue and if other office holders have committed indiscretions, a sitting office holder should not be criticized for failing to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct.

 

Here are some break down on the other issues

 

First the main thing is:

• Democrat- Liberal- Wants to change.
• Republican- Conservative- Follows established tradition more often.

Here are some common issues:

Military

• Democrat- Would like to decrease military spending, and strengthen organizations like NATO and the UN.
• Republican- Would rather have a strong military.

Gun Control

• Democrat- More gun laws are needed.
• Republican- Against new gun laws.

Gay Rights

• Democrat- Usually for gay rights and sees it as OK for some to be with who they choose.
• Republican- Usually hold the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Minimum Wage

• Democrat- Believes a living wage above the poverty line should be given.
• Republican- Believe that free market should determine wages.

Death Penalty

• Democrat- Does not believe a live should be taken as punishment.
• Republican- The death penalty can be necessary.

Taxes

• Democrat- The most taxes should go to those with the most money.
• Republican- Believes that taxes should stay low to benefit the economy and believes in tax cuts.

Flag Burning

• Democrat- It should be allowed due to freedom of speech.
• Republican- Should not be allowed as that is not what the constitution intended.

Abortion

• Democrat- It should be the woman’s choice.
• Republican- The government should protect the unborn child’s life.

So now after that article, maybe you will go out and vote for which party the president should be that will run this country.

CONSERVATIVES V. LIBERALS

CONSERVATIVES V. LIBERALS

June 13, 2011

FRANK OSEKOWSKY

 

We will take a look at Conservative Beliefs and compare them to Liberal Beliefs. To show how their Beliefs conflict within liberals own beliefs and defy logic and common sense.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Their policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Liberals believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.

 

Abortion

Conservatives believe human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Nobody has the right to murder a human being. Support legislation to prohibit partial birth abortions, called the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” Partial birth abortion is the killing of an unborn baby of at least 20 weeks by pulling it out of the birth canal with forceps, but leaving the head inside. An incision is made in the back of the baby’s neck and the brain tissue is suctioned out. The head is then removed from the uterus.

Liberals believe a fetus is not a human life. The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government should stay out of it. Women should be guaranteed the right to a safe and legal abortion, including partial birth abortion.

Affirmative action

Conservatives believe People should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs Based on their ability. It is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse-discrimination is not a solution for racism.

Liberals believe Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites. We need to make up for that. Support affirmative action based on the belief thatAmericais still a racist society. Minorities still lag behind whites in all statistical measurements of success. Also, the presence of minorities creates diversity.

Death penalty

Conservatives believe the death penalty is a punishment that if it fits the Crime it is neither ‘cruel’ nor ‘unusual’. Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.

Liberals believe we should abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. It does not deter crime. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. Every criminal execution risks killing an innocent person.

The Economy

Conservatives believe the free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise afford the widest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.

Liberals favor a market system in which government regulates the economy. We need government to protect us against big businesses. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. We need government regulation to level the playing field.

 

Education – school vouchers

Conservatives believe School vouchers will give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools. Parents who pay the taxes that fund the schools should decide how and where to educate their child.

Liberals believe School vouchers are untested experiments. We need to focus on more funding for existing public schools -to raise teacher salaries and reduce class size.

The Environment

Conservatives believe Desire clean water, clean air and a clean planet, just like everyone else. However, extreme environmental policies destroy jobs and damage the economy. Changes in global temperatures are natural over long periods of time. So far, science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature.

Liberals believe that conservatives don’t care about protecting the environment. Industrial growth harms the environment. Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide. TheU.S.is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide. TheU.S.should enact laws to significantly reduce that amount.

Gun control

Conservatives believe The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime

Liberals believe the Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children.

Health care

Conservatives believe free healthcare provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality healthcare. The rich will continue to pay for superior healthcare, while all others will receive poor-quality free healthcare from the government. Health care should remain privatized. Conservatives support healthcare spending accounts.

Liberals believe Support universal government-supervised health care. There are millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance. They are being deprived of a basic right to healthcare

Immigration

Conservatives Support legal immigration at current numbers, but do not support illegal immigration. Government should enforce immigration laws. Oppose President Bush’s amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Those who break the law by entering theU.S.illegally should not have the same rights as those who obey the law by entering legally. If there were a decrease in cheap, illegal immigrant labor, employers would have to substitute higher-priced domestic employees or legal immigrants,

Liberals Support illegal immigration and increasing the number of legal immigrants permitted to enter theU.S.each year. Support blanket amnesty for current illegal immigrants. Believe that regardless of how they came to theU.S., illegal immigrants deserveU.S.government financial aid for college tuition. Liberals Support Visas for spouses and children to come to the U.S. Families shouldn’t be separated. Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans do not want to do.

Religion

Conservatives believe the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. For a very good reason it’s not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. Oppose the removal of symbols of Christian heritage from public and government spaces. Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.

The liberal supports the separation of church and state. Religious expression has no place in government. Support the removal of all references to God in public and government spaces. Religion should not interfere with government.

 

 

Same-sex marriage

Conservatives believe Marriage is between one man and one woman. Opinions differ on support for the creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Believe that requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Liberals believe marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to ensure equal rights for all. All individuals, regardless of their sex, have the right to marry. Believe that prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them of their civil rights. Opinions differ on whether this issue is equal to civil rights for African Americans

Social Security

Conservatives believe the current Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Changes are necessary because theU.S.will be unable to maintain the current system it in the future. Support proposal to allow a portion of Social Security dollars withheld to be put into an account chosen by the individual, not the government.

Liberals generally oppose change to the current Social Security system. Opinions vary on whether the current system is in financial trouble. Changing the current system will cause people to lose their Social Security benefits. Support a cap on Social Security payments to the wealthy.

Taxes

Conservatives support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it.

Liberals Support higher taxes and a larger government. High taxes enable the government to do well and create jobs. We need high taxes for social welfare programs, to provide for the poor. We can’t afford to cut taxes.

 

United Nations (UN)

Conservatives believe the UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission to preserve world peace. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses of the majority of its member states and the UN’s failure to stop them prove this point. History shows that theUnited States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. TheU.S.should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN.

Liberals believe theUnited Stateshas a moral and a legal obligation to support the United Nations. The UN can be effective in promoting peace and human rights. TheU.S.should not have acted inIraqwithout UN approval. TheU.S.should submit its national interests to the greater good as defined by the UN.

War on terror or terrorism

Conservatives believe the world toward which the Militant Islamists strive cannot peacefully co-exist with the Western world. In the last decade, Militant Islamists have repeatedly attacked Americans and American interests here and abroad. The terrorists must be stopped and destroyed.

Liberals believe 9/11 was caused byAmerica’s arrogant foreign policy.Americaneeds to stop angering other countries. The threat posed by terrorism is exaggerated by President Bush for his own political advantage.

Welfare

Conservatives Oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money.

Liberals support welfare. We need welfare to provide for the poor. Conservatives oppose welfare because they are not compassionate toward the poor. We have welfare to bring fairness to American economic life. Without welfare, life below the poverty line would be intolerable.

Tracking the Promises made so far by the GOP

May 9, 2011

Here are some of the promises that the GOP has kept so far to date:

REPEAL SMALL BUSINESS MANDATE

Will repeal mandate in the health care bill that requires small business to “report to the IRS any purchases that run more than $600.00

Status: On April 15^th, 2011 President Obama signed this bill into law.

CUT THE CONGRESS BUDGET

Will make Congress do more with less by significantly reducing the budget significantly.

Status: On 1/7/2001 the House approved by a 410-13 vote a binding resolution that would cut the operating budget of members and communities by 5% or about 35 million annually.

REQUIRES BILLS TO INCLUDE A CLAUSE CITING ITS AUTHORITY IN THE CONSTUTION

Will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is just.

Status: In January 2011, the House Republicans adopted a rule requiring it for all bills.

The constitutional justification does not appear in the actual text of a bill, but it can be found in the congressional record after a bill has been introduced the way the rule is written, no bill can be considered unless it includes a justification. 

If a bill does not contain a statement citing the constitutional authority, the clerks office will send it back to the sponsoring members office with a request to add the citation.

OPPOSE “CHECK CARD”

Will “oppose” card check schemes that (make it easier to join union and ) putWashingtonunion bosses before individuals right to secret ballot.

Status: The Democratic couldn’t get their 60 votes in the Senate that they needed to pass this bill in 2010 with the Republicans in charge it is very highly unlikely this bill will pass.

I will keep you posted on other promises that the GOP keeps.

The true meaning of our Constitution

Have you taken the time to reflect on how many Americans do not know what our Constitution and Bill of Rights really state about our Rights and Liberties? How many of us can truly say they know what our political leaders can and can not do under the Constitution?

 Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution for the people. They did not write it for the government. They wrote it to protect the people from  potential abuse by the government, which is why only certain powers or rights were given to the federal government. They intentionally left all others to the individual states.

 Six meanings of the United States Constitution

 1.  In order to form a more perfect union-set up a stronger central government with the states more closely unified, so the United States could be one nation, rather than thirteen little countries acting separately as they had under the Articles of Confederation.

 2.  To establish justice-set up a system of laws and courts that would make all men equal under the law and give all men equal opportunities for fair treatment if accused of a crime.

 3.   To insure domestic tranquility to settle the problems, such as poor trade relations between states, and to prevent open fighting against state governments.

4.  To provide for the common defense-to have a strong national army and navy that could defend all the states. 

 5.  To promote the general welfare-to help provide a higher standard of living for the people of the United States through a better government.

 6.  To secure the blessings of liberty(freedom) for ourselves and of our future generations of Americans.  To protect the personal rights of all United States citizens at all time.

We all need to take the time to read and understand this vital document. If not for yourself, then for future generations.

 President Obama and the democrats need to have a refresher course on the Constitution.