GOLDWATER AND THE CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS.

[Lock Piatt]

Barry Goldwater believed that the Constitution meant what it said and did not need to be revised reviewed or changed. He supported low taxes and a strong defence. He also railed about the thought police in our bedrooms and schools where to quote him "They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."

He fought wasteful spending because it was our money not the governments. Progressive taxes were wrong and not allowed in the Constitution. All taxes and levies must be as to population or equally divided equally amongst the citizens based on a head count. There are many ways the Forefathers tried to protect the citizens from wealth removal from citizens for government purposes.

These unfair actions started the Goldwater conservative movement that carried the country through the Reagan Presidency. Goldwater was the father of the party not Reagan.

[Larry Puckette]

reincarnation?? :~}

sounds like your parents were fans as well.. I guess my problem is that I've lived in a culture that may not have known about Locke, but lived the NATURAL LAW/NATURAL RIGHTS primary law. To those who believe it's ancient history and not applicable to modern times, surely the fact that there are folks still alive who have experienced it should impact such a wrong assumption.. but it doesn't seem to. And I'm only 52 years old !!

[Lock Piatt]

Ok Lisa kit and Larry I propose we read and discuss Locke's works on Lisa's thread. To that end I have just returned from Barnes and Noble with copies of "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" $ 11.95 and a copy of "The Second Treatise of Government" $ 5.95. There are other works from Cambridge and Yale but they are more expensive.

Now I need to find the time to read them starting with The second Treatise.

[Lock Piatt]

Here is one more shot across the bow of Congresses sinking ship?

Subject: Drugs and the Constitution

Our last Drug War Dispatch generated some concerned emails.

You can read our response here.

What we didn't mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That's because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today's message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment's Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910's knew that the Constitution didn't give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

It's an important question. To ignore the Constitutional process is to ignore the rule of law. No matter how one feels about drug use, the rule of law, especially as applied to government power, is essential to protecting our lives, freedoms, and property. With this in mind . . .

We want to ask you to do something different today. We've changed the message to Congress for our "Help End the Mexican Civil War" campaign. For today's action item it reads . . .

"You've sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so could you please answer three questions. 1. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to wage a War on Drugs? 2. If alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment? 3. Shouldn't we be allowed to learn what works best by having states with different drug laws, or NO drug laws, in keeping with the 10th Amendment? I would appreciate an honest, thoughtful response."

If members of Congress receive enough of these messages, some will feel compelled to reply. We want to see what form these responses take, and we'd like to compare the names of those who respond with the list of those who have co-sponsored the "Enumerated Powers Act."

Remember, the "Enumerated Powers Act" would require Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. This would be impossible for them to do in the case of most drug prohibition laws, except those provisions that might squeeze through under the Commerce Clause.

If you receive a response could you please forward it to us, so we can publish it on our blog? Please let us know if you want us to omit your name to protect your privacy. Or, you can post the response in the Comments section of this blog post:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/don-t-read-this-if-you-care-about-th...

You can send your Constitutional questions to Congress here.

Please share this Dispatch with any friends who care about Constitutional requirements.

[Lock Piatt]

This was sent to Glenn Beck and similar version to my Congressional delegation. if we can accomplish this the Republic will be safe and secure again.

I am retired Executive with experience in legal matters. There is a group of us that are working to hold Congress members responsible for their votes that are not supported by the Constitution.

We are working to file a federal discrimination law suit against every member of Congress that has voted for a tax law that supports redistribution of wealth or is progressive in nature. There is no area of the Constitution that permits (including the 16th amendment) progressive tax rates that take from those that have to give to those that need. Therefor the members that voted to support same are guilty of discriminating against the high income earners (minority) in favor of the majority. This clearly discrimination, not treating all the same under the law. We plan to sue each member in their home state by a citizen in their district so they will have legal standing.

The anti discrimination laws written by the same members of Congress aganist evil big businesses requires that the individual that is accused must hire and pay for thier own defense, elected officials are not immune to this requirement. They are not allowed to have the Government defend their actions in the discrimination matters.

Further suit can be filed for conspiracy to commit a felony (discrimination) and the guilt is evidenced by thier votes. (public records) We are committed to taking these people down with their own laws. Expose them for the frauds they are. Help us by putting the idea on the news. Check with your legal department you will find we are correct and have legal standing.

They have come for our money and now we will come for their money to be spent for legal defense.

Tell them: "the road to hell is easy - REPENT"

[lisa kit]

Isn't this shitcago crap a little out of hand? The news is reporting that black males account for 42% of school skippers. Now wouldn't this be profiling according to the naacp. Maybe we should petition the ACLU to contest this in court. I mean they are always fighting BS cases anyway, why not sick them on obamy's minions. Gota give'um somethin to do.

BTW lock completely agree on the WOD being unconstitutional. But I disagree on making the bar asso richer by taking it to court.

[Lock Piatt]

lisa kit,

lawsuits against the individual members of Congress are the only way to force them to Restore the Constitution and save the Republic. They will be required to hire and pay their own individual attorney by the very law they wrote to go after the rich and powerful. Pay back time - what goes around comes around. They took our money now let us take theirs. The cost of suing is small when compared with the cost to defend so lets break them all.

[Jim Rock]

they new key word now is "Standing" what would be the individual filing the law suits standing? Who does it cause direct harm to the individual?

[Lock Piatt]

Jim Rock,

the individual that pays a income tax rate higher than any other lower rate is a harmed party and as such has standing to sue for relief from discrimination by all members of Congress that have voted for any progressive tax. Which I believe is most likely all of them. They have had their property seized and redistributed to others in direct violation to the 5th, 10th and 14th amendments. Fine and punitive damages can be awarded to those with standing.

[Jim Rock]

reason I said that is because thats how the Judges keep dismissing the Eligibility cases even with all the proof they have, Judge Carter is the first to contemplate the Standing of the Military Officers, actually interesting cases and hard to follow. Us taxpayers are paying for obamas Attornys to find loop holes in the constitution to show evidence--not Orly but the other Attorney said it can all end if obama just show his paperwork and the Attorneys are fighting Standing

[Larry Puckette]

[Larry Puckette]

Yesterday's weather in s/central Texas was interesting.. only 86 but a heat index of 102 - not even a common event here. By the end of the day I was cramping so bad I had to stop on the way home to walk it out. But today is another cool rainy day - thank you very much.. rainy days have a new reverence from me these days :~} and I did a litte surfing while watching out the window and have a couple of posts to share.. just to share.
--------------------------------------------------------------


Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and
subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir,
what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?
Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any
enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies
and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for
no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the
British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them?
Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years.
Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the
subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain.
Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find
which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive
ourselves.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is
now coming on. We have petitioned; we have demonstrated; we have supplicated; we
have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition
to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions
have been slighted; our demonstrances have produced additional violence and
insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with
contempt, from the foot of the throne!
In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and
reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable
privileges for which we have been so long contending if we mean not basely to
abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we
have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest
shall be obtained we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to
arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we
are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be
stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are
totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?
Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction?
Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our
backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have
bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those
means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people,
armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we
possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who
presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight
our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the
vigilant, the active, the brave.
Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is
now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission
and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of
Boston!
The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace
but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps
from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren
are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen
wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give
me death.
Patrick Henry then took his seat. No murmur of applause was heard on March
23, 1775 when he gave this speech at a convention in Richmond assembled after
Lord Dunmore suspended the Virginia Assembly. The effect was too deep. After the
trance of a moment, several members started from their seats. The cry,To
arms seemed to quiver on every lip and gleam from every eye.

[Larry Puckette]

ACORN’s GOP Supporters
by Capitol Confidential
Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava is not your typical Republican candidate. Running in a special election in upstate New York for the seat of departing Congressman John McHugh, she has, naturally, picked up the support of state and national Republican party officials. She has secured the full support of the National Republican Congressional Committee and that of its chairman, Texas Rep. Pete Sessions.

But, she has also picked up the support of the DailyKos, not a traditionally deep well of support for Republicans. Oh, and ACORN’s Working Families Party. Below is a memo Big Government obtained circulating among leaders of the conservative movement. It is from New York State Conservative Party Chair, Mike Long:

Donors to the Republican National Congressional Committee have a right to expect their support will help candidates who are broadly in accord with the Republican Party’s fundamental principles.

There is little doubt, in these lean times, Americans who make contributions to the NRCC would be shocked to learn their dollars are actually supporting the campaign of an unrepentant liberal who opposes the central achievements of today’s Republican Congressional delegation.

Yet that is exactly to sad a state of affairs we now confront. The NRCC is using the contributions of loyal Republicans across the country to fund the Congressional bid of Liberal New York State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava.

Assemblywoman Scozzafava supports the Obama tax-and-spend Stimulus Package – - the same package the Republicans now in Congress unanimously rejected. She defends the kind of earmarked pork-barrel spending that cost Republicans so much credibility in the last election. She supports Big Labor’s card check attack on the secret ballot. And she twice voted to legalize gay marriage.

Assemblywoman Scozzafava wasn’t picked by the voters. Party bosses selected her, reportedly with the guidance and direction of the NRCC.

So, what is at stake here is more than the risk of electing yet another Arlen Specter-style liberal Republican. This is a battle about the soul and future of the Republican Party.

Some think the way to win elections is to mimic the Democrats, to offer the voters “liberal-lite” in hopes of finding accommodation with the Democrats and success at the polls.

The NRCC’s support for liberal Assemblywoman Scozzafava is a disturbing indication that the NRCC is test marketing a campaign message blurring the differences between the parties instead of principled opposition to the liberal Democrats’ agenda.

The “me-to” approach is both sure to fail politically and deeply dishonest to the NRCC’s core financial supporters. The donors who sacrifice to write checks to the NRCC don’t expect their efforts to be diverted to liberals like Assemblywoman Scozzafava.

Accordingly, while we are all friends of the NRCC, we reluctantly call for a moratorium on any financial contributions to the NRCC until that organization ceases support for Assemblywoman Scozzafava and clarifies its plans for candidate recruitment and support going forward.

There are great opportunities ahead for the Republicans in Congress. Those opportunities cannot be squandered by political miscalculations and a lack of faith in the central values of the Republican Party.

Sincerely,

Mike Long

Chairman, New York State Conservative Party

It isn’t mentioned in the memo, but Scozzafava has run for the state Assembly repeatedly with the endorsement of ACORN’s Working Families Party. The WFP was formed for the express purpose of pushing the Democratic party to the left. The principle-bending gymnastics involved for a Republican to seek out their endorsement are positively mind-boggling.

Count us as big believers in the “big tent’ theory of political parties. No matter how large you want to build your tent, though, it still has to be built on a solid foundation. You’d think Republicans could agree that ACORN’s Working Families party–based on what we know right now–wouldn’t have a place there.

Those of you who think a GOP return to the majority in 2010 will right what ails us should keep this in mind.