YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

[nChrist]

WOW! - I wonder how often they plan to crank up the lunacy and chaos!  --  Excuse me!  --  I FORGOT THAT NUTS WERE IN CHARGE!

While I'm thinking about this, could we please hire someone who can add and subtract. I just heard a news spot that they under-estimated the current deficit spending BY ONLY 2 TRILLION DOLLARS! I was going to suggest they be put in the LOONY BIN, but I don't know if we can afford it now!

[Soldier4Christ]

The Loony Bin would be expensive especially with all of those loons in it.

Keep in mind that there is a lot more spending being done behind the scenes that is not included when counting the current deficit.

[nChrist]

The Loony Bin would be expensive especially with all of those loons in it.

Keep in mind that there is a lot more spending being done behind the scenes that is not included when counting the current deficit.

This is wild and crazy beyond belief. Just think about the phrase "give an estimate" for a few seconds. One would think they should have the ability with all of those HIGHLY PAID people to "give an estimate". IF NOT, they should at least be able to give a "BALLPARK ESTIMATE". In this case, they either weren't able to even give a "UNIVERSE ESTIMATE" or they lied. Is it really okay in the so-called PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL field to be off an admitted 2 Trillion Dollars? NOW, ask yourself another question:  "what if the 2 Trillion is also a lie and it's really 4 Trillion OVER THE ESTIMATE GIVEN! Is it really okay to be off 200% or more? Would this be acceptable for any so-called professional who is talking about MONEY THAT TAXPAYERS WILL PAY AFTER THEY HAVE LOST THEIR RETIREMENTS OR HALF OF EVERYTHING THEY OWN?

This isn't even the beginning of the lies and manipulations. I don't even want to think about the rest of the list right now. WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER OFF HAVING THE THREE STOOGES WORK SHORT-HANDED AND RUN THE TREASURY ALONE! EXCUSE ME - ADD THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES GIVEN TO THE THREE STOOGES, AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB. IT WOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN HONEST! I think we should send the whole Washington bunch off to study pig odors in Iran - confiscate their passports - and put them on the International Terrorists List! In my opinion, THEY HAVE INTENTIONALLY LIED TO THE PEOPLE! HAS TREASON ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED? PROBABLY! - HOW MANY TIMES?

[Soldier4Christ]

THEY HAVE INTENTIONALLY LIED TO THE PEOPLE! HAS TREASON ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED? PROBABLY! - HOW MANY TIMES?

Yes. Every time they opened their mouths.

A closer estimate would be some where around 8 to 10 Trillion and this still doesn't include the spending that has not been approved yet.

[nChrist]

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, it's confusing to be talking about sums of money so large. I don't know if I expressed the article I read correctly or not. If I understood it correctly, they were talking about nothing but the deficit amount estimate. Now, I'm thinking that I might not have the period of time nailed down that they were talking about. They also use a bunch of accounting gibberish that makes things worse. However you figure this, it's TONS of money that we simply don't have to spend.

I'll just say that I won't be trusting some slick talking government person to explain this. I would rather hear the explanation from a Mob loan shark because it would be more honest and truthful. I do think that Vinnie's Boys could run the Treasury much more economically, and they wouldn't steal nearly as much. I think that I would feel much more at ease and secure with Vinnie's Boys. Anyone else trying to steal our money would at least get broken arms and legs. Vinnie's Boys would also be much more loyal to the people. Besides, they're more lovable than politicians.     AND, I'm being serious!

[Soldier4Christ]

Congresswoman: Hands off dollar!
Wants ban on U.S. use of any foreign currency

A member of Congress is warning the Obama administration to keep its hands off the U.S. dollar's status as the world's international currency.

U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has introduced a resolution that would bar the U.S. from recognizing any other currency than the dollar as its reserve currency.

Her action comes in response to suggestions from China, Russia and the United Nations that another currency be explored. Even U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has admitted he would be open to the idea, although he quickly backtracked when the stock market plunged on his announcement.

"During a Financial Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," Bachmann said. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know."

Although Title 31, Sec. 5103 USC prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the U.S., the president has the power to engage foreign governments in treaties, and the president is principally responsible for the interpretations and implementation of those treaties according to the Constitution, according to the congresswoman.

As a result, legislation prohibiting the president and Treasury Department from issuing or agreeing that the U.S. will adopt an international currency would need to come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment differentiating a treaty used to implement an international currency in the U.S. from other types of treaty agreements, she said.

"If we give up the dollar as our standard, and co-mingle the value of the dollar with the value of coinage in Zimbabwe, that dilutes our money supply. We lose control over our economy. And economic liberty is inextricably entwined with political liberty. Once you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom," Bachmann told the Glenn Beck program on the Fox News Channel today.

Her proposal, H.J.R. 41, isn't complicated:

It is titled: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the president from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States "

Already with several dozen sponsors, it states:

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:"

It would add to the Constitution:

    The president may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the latest voice to endorse an "alternative" to the dollar was the head of a U.N. expert panel discussing solutions to the financial crisis.

Officials from both Russia and China have spoken out on the idea of a new global currency standard, and a U.N. panel published a report that said a new global reserve system would add to the world's "economic stability and equity."

According to a report in the Financial Times, the subject could be on the table at the coming G20 summit of leading and emerging nations in London.

Specifically, the U.N. said a new system could "counteract the risk of a rapid fall in the value of the major reserve currency, gutting hard-earned reserve funds."

[Soldier4Christ]

Who will raise kids:
Mom, Dad or state?
67 legislators in D.C. press Congress
to add parents' rights to Constitution

Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.

According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."

"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."

Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."

Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.

Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.

According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.

As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:

"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.

"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."

He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."

As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's uprbrining.

Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.

Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.

Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."

Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.

DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.

To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Stimulus' tab: $12.8 trillion and climbing
Amount nearly equals value of everything produced in U.S. in 2008

The federal government and the Federal Reserve have committed $12.8 trillion in spending so far to bailouts and "stimulus" packages – an amount nearly equal to the value of everything produced in the U.S. in 2008.

That's the report from Bloomberg News about efforts to reduce the economic drag of a debt-based recession – the worst financial crisis to hit the U.S. since the Great Depression.

The numbers are growing so fast, it's tough for most Americans to grasp.

Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Bank in Dallas, says: "The comparison to GDP serves the useful purpose of underscoring how extraordinary the efforts have been to stabilize the credit markets."

The tally works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation's gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.

The combined commitment has increased by 73 percent since November, when Bloomberg first estimated the funding, loans and guarantees at $7.4 trillion.

Federal Reserve officials project the economy will keep shrinking until at least mid-year, which would mark the longest U.S. recession since the Great Depression.

[Soldier4Christ]

Justices 'mainstream' homosexual 'marriage'
'I don't think Iowans imagined this could be foisted on the state'

In the Midwest, a region of the country widely considered to be a bedrock of traditional American values, many people are in shock following an Iowa Supreme Court decision this morning overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"I was surprised," said Brian Friedl, a resident of Humboldt, Iowa, a small community two hours north of the state's capital. "I hadn't followed it that closely, so I didn't know it was up for a vote."

The justices in Iowa's Supreme Court did indeed vote – unanimously in the case of six homosexual couples suing the registrar of Polk County for the opportunity to marry. The court released its opinion today, upholding a 2007 district court ruling that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Iowa Constitution because it fails to uphold "equal protection of the law."

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

Friedl told WND that he expected homosexual marriage might get legalized in California and then spread across the country in time, but he didn't expect his home state to lead the charge.

"I was a little shocked that it came from Iowa," he said.

"I'm interested what happens to the reaction when people who went to work today get home, click on the TV and see what happened," said Bryan English, director of communications for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "I don't think most Iowans would have ever imagined that this sort of thing could be foisted on the state."

If fully implemented, the court's decision would make Iowa the third state in the country, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to permit same-sex marriage. According to Iowa law, the ruling becomes effective April 24.

The decision, however, has far-reaching implications, since the absence of residency rules for marriage in Iowa would permit same-sex couples from across the country to travel to the Midwest to be married.

"In 21 days, the first time that it becomes a reality that homosexual couples are flying into the state, that our state is sanctioning this, I cannot imagine that the average Iowan is going to have much time for that sort of thing," said English, whose organization opposes same-sex marriage. "I think the political class has underestimated the reaction and the response that I hope will come from Iowans who will not stand for the redefinition of marriage."

Advocates of same-sex marriage, however, see yet another significance in the Iowa court's decision.

Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton and assistant to Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, told the Associated Press, "It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage."

"Unlike states on the coasts, there's nothing more American than Iowa," Socarides told the Des Moines Register. "As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.'"

Des Moines radio talk host Steve Deace, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, told WND that the court's ruling will indeed affect the entire country.

"Today the state that feeds the world gave America its latest export – sodomy marriage," Deace said. "Because our state has no residency requirement, no ballot initiative capability for the people, and an utterly gutless political class on both sides, we just made Middle America the sanctuary for those all over America sadly caught in the vile clutches of homosexuality to come here and be validated and then take those marriage certificates back to where they came from and attempt to disrupt their state's rule of law as well."

Four years ago, Iowans made an attempt to pass a constitutional marriage amendment that would have prevented the court's decision, but though it passed through the state House of Representatives, it failed to gather enough votes in the Senate.

Now, several Iowans are pressing for the amendment again.

"The initial reaction was, of course, disappointment, sadness, very much like a period of mourning," English told WND. "Though it didn't take us long to turn our back on the Supreme Court, face the State Capitol and walk across the street to begin the process of strengthening our lobbying efforts for an Iowa Marriage Amendment.

"The people of Iowa overwhelmingly support the only definition of marriage, which is one man and one woman, and the Supreme Court decided to overturn the law that was written and passed by those people's representatives," English said. "Now it's time for the legislature to reassert itself as the legislative body, pass the marriage amendment, and bring it to the people of Iowa for a vote."

English conceded, however, that the process will likely be long. Iowa law requires that a constitutional amendment be passed by both houses of the legislature, passed by popular vote, and then passed again by the state House and Senate.

"We could get it on the ballot in 2011, but that would require a special election," English said. "More likely, it would go on ballot November 2012, but that's presuming people rise up in sufficient numbers to force a belligerent leadership in the House and Senate to do something.

"It's going to take an unprecedented response from the people to take back their government," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Should Obama Control The Internet?

You’ve heard of Mother Jones, right? It is a far left magazinethat was started by folks well on the left, and, of course, looks at things from the far left viewpoint. But, I have to give them this: they are not stuck on ObamaLuv. They treat him exactly like they would have had Bush been president


__________________


Should Obama Control the Internet?
A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.

By Steve Aquino in Mother Jones magazine

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

[Soldier4Christ]

As the article above and the one in this post shows, even the left is getting concerned with Obama's policies. It looks like many of them are regretting their own decisions of voting for him.


______________________

Obama=Hitler (?)

The lack of results so far from the various “stimulus” plans seems to have got the American Left worried already. How else can one explain the appearance in the NYT of an article which declares that Obama’s actions are similar to Hitler’s and that Hitler was successful in his economic policies? I would never have predicted an article like that in the NYT in a million years!

Taranto writes at some length about the broader aspects of the comparison so I will confine myself to the economic argument in the article. Although I am a former High School Economics teacher, I am not fully engaged with economic statistics these days so I will speak in general terms and hope that a more detailed critique will emerge from elsewhere.

The Hitler comparison is in fact only one of the dubious comparisons used in the article. The writer declares successes where few others would. That the Hoover/FDR policies did not cure unemployment is, I think, undeniable but to our NYT writer they were a success — as were the policies behind the Japanese doldrums of the 1990s. So one must suspect from the outset some flimsiness in the Hitler comparison too.

Much has been written about the German economic recovery of the 1930s but the first point that needs to be made is surely that Germany’s position at that time was very different from that of the USA today. The twin impacts of a currency totally destroyed by inflation under the Weimar regime and a continuing demand for “reparations” were huge negative factors for the German economy at that time. And the large reductions in those problems were more the work of the brilliant Hjalmar Schacht at the Reichsbank than anyone else. Just relieving Germany of those problems was a very good “stimulus” to an economic recovery.

And it was also the manoeuvring of Schacht that enabled Hitler to finance his public works programmes. The programmes concerned did of course run up huge debts and it was only Schacht that kept Germany out of some form of bankruptcy. But Schacht could only do so much and by 1939 Germany was effectively “broke” and it is often contended that Hitler’s march to war in that year was as much an economic necessity as an ideological imperative. Germany’s generals certainly did not think that they were ready for war at that time. They felt that their buildup would not be complete until a couple of years further down the track. And the outbreak of war in 1939 in fact saw Germany facing French forces that were in most ways numerically superior to it.

So Hitler went to war to loot the gold in the Bank of France and elsewhere as much as for any other reason. Thanks to the brilliance of General von Manstein he initially succeeded in his objectives. One shudders to think what might have happened if he had put Manstein in charge of the Russian campaign.

Obama does not have to go to war to deal with the debt problem he is creating. Because America is the provider of the world’s reserve currency, he can simply print all the greenbacks he likes to pay his government’s bills. And he has already started doing that on a large scale. That is of course called “inflation” and there are plenty of commentaries from all sorts of sources on the evils of that. That it rewards debtors and penalizers savers has always been obvious but in the present case it has also started the process of snatching away from the world its reserve currency. And the consequences of discouraging saving (and hence capital formation) worldwide must indeed be grim.

The gold bugs are of course as happy as pigs in mud at the moment and gold exporting countries, such as Australia, are doing a roaring trade. But the net effect of that is to increase the Reserve Bank of Australia’s holding of American paper — and it is precisely that which now seems unwise. So from that alone one can see that the gold standard has its own problems — which is why it was abandoned many years ago.

Posted by John Ray on StopTheACLU

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I would hope that most Christians can figure out what we're watching. Regardless, nothing relieves us of our duties to stand against evil and for good. What we do - we do for GOD, our families, our friends, and those around the world that we want to witness to before GOD takes us home. It's really just as simple as that. Our part is still to pray for strength and guidance - and do GOD'S WILL until the last moment.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 3:23 ASV  23  for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;

[Soldier4Christ]

What's this? A bill to limit
size, scope of government
Legislator to colleagues: 'Laws
not authorized by Constitution'

As a reminder of the federal government's limited powers, 20 representatives want to ensure that every single piece of legislation passing through Congress includes a statement citing specific constitutional authority for enacting it.

Sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., H.R. 450, or the Enumerated Powers Act, states, "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. …"

When he introduced the proposal Jan. 9, Shadegg gave a House floor speech reminding his colleagues of limited authority granted in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

It states, "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."

Stand up for the Supreme Law of the Land and shock your fellow citizens into thinking with WND's "Legalize the Constitution!" magnetic bumper sticker.

"What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people," Shadegg said. "As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers."

For that reason, Shadegg said he has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he's been in Congress.

"This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government," he said. "… It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution."

Shadegg said the act would perform three important functions:

1. It would encourage members of Congress to consider whether their proposed legislation belongs in the federal level in the allocation of powers or whether it belongs with the states or the people.

2. It would force lawmakers to include statements explaining by what authority they are acting.

3. It would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to scrutinize constitutional justification for every piece of legislation. If the justification does not hold up, the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution.

He said the Founding Fathers granted specific, limited powers to the national government to protect the people's freedom.

"As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers," Shadegg noted.

Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he said, Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded federal government.

"Let me be clear," he said. "Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well."

While many believe government "can do anything," that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for the nation, Shadegg contends.

WND columnist Henry Lamb has been urging voters to contact representatives and ask directly if they will co-sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, or explain why not – in writing.

The legislation has 19 co-sponsors – all Republicans.

Lamb suggested the act become the theme song of the tea parties taking place around the nation.

"Nothing short of massive public pressure will force congressmen to take a position on this important bill." Lamb wrote. "Nothing short of a return to the Constitution can save this great nation."

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairs the House Rules Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee – where the act was referred Jan. 9 and remains today.

"Both of these committee chairs should be bombarded with phone calls and e-mails asking that H.R. 450 be brought to the House floor for a recorded vote," Lamb wrote.

Shadegg said the federal government has acted too long without constitutional restraint and has blatantly ignored principles of federalism.

He urged his colleagues to join him in "supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it."

[Soldier4Christ]

Parental rights: The new wedge issue

If there were a recipe for creating a new conservative culture-wars issue, it might look something like this: Start with the United Nations, fold in the prospect of an expanded role for government in children’s lives, add some unfortunate court decisions, then toss in Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton.

And indeed, when House Republicans recently found themselves with all these ingredients at hand, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) started pre-heating the oven.

Hoekstra last week introduced a bill in the House to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently “enshrine” in American society an inviolable set of parents’ rights. The bill had 70 co-sponsors, all Republicans, including Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John A. Boehner.

The bill, said Hoekstra, is intended to stem the “slow erosion” of parents’ rights and to circumvent the effects of a United Nations treaty he believes “clearly undermines parental rights in the United States.”

The treaty to which he refers is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 20-year-old document signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 but never ratified. The treaty sets international standards for government obligations to children in areas that range from protection from abuse and exploitation to ensuring a child’s right to free expression.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child emerged from relative obscurity most recently when, during the presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama replied to a question about the treaty by saying he found it “embarrassing” that the United States stood with Somalia – the only other U.N. member that has not ratified the treaty — and promised to review it as president, and then again in the confirmation hearing for Ambassador Susan Rice, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) pressed the then-nominee on the treaty’s status.

“[H]ow can we be proud of our country when we haven't ratified?” Boxer asked. “In this case, the only other country, as I understand it, that hasn't ratified is Somalia. OK — excuse me. This is America. We're standing with Somalia. What is happening? What has happened?”

Rice replied that it was a “shame” that the United States is “keeping company” with Somalia, adding that “there can be no doubt that the president-elect and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question.”

That was enough to raise the hackles of parents’ rights advocates and sympathetic legislators, but it was far from a promise that the treaty would be sent to the Senate, or that it would ultimately be ratified; Rice also told Boxer that it was a “complicated treaty,” and that the State Department would need to take a close look at how to “manage the challenges of domestic implementation.”

She wasn’t kidding.

By its nature, the treaty combines two “third-rail” issues for conservatives — the implications of international treaties for U.S. sovereignty, and the role of the United Nations in U.S. affairs. “Opposing the U.N has been a rallying cry of the right for decades,” notes Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

And then there’s the issue of parental rights, which has long been simmering on the right — in the mid-’90s, the idea that the government was infringing upon parents’ domain became a focus of the Christian Coalition and gained currency with those like Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who introduced federal legislation to protect parents’ rights — but which might, given enough heat, come to a mainstream boil.

Indeed, with the treaty back in play, Hoekstra and Co. have begun laying the groundwork for just that possibility.

There is, of course, the legislation, but there is also a link on Hoekstra’s congressional home page that now takes interested parties to parentsrights.us, a site that provides pithy talking points about the amendment and the treaty in its FAQs section, a “contact Congress” option, and an opportunity to “show support” for the amendment, which had garnered 166 backers at last count.

Opponents of the treaty, such as Farris, who helped craft Hoekstra’s amendment, frequently cite cases in which government has run roughshod over parents’ rights in the past as evidence that no good will come of ratification.

“It is really about government empowerment; it has nothing to do ultimately with the rights of children,” he says. “It just fits in so well with everything else that is going on in Washington right now. They’re trying to run everything.”

Advocates counter that 193 countries have managed to take the plunge without catastrophic result; that the treaty is supported by groups ranging from the Girl Scouts to the Christian Children’s Fund; and that opponents both overestimate and misunderstand the treaty’s purpose and likely impact.

“The Committee on the Rights of the Child has been unfairly characterized as a kind of Big Brother apparatus, where countries could be shamed and penalized, but that was not the intent of it,” says Meg Gardinier, chairwoman of the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Of the treaty’s likely domestic impact, she says, “I think it could make a modest, thoughtful inroad in this country,” says Gardinier. “I don’t think it's going to move mountains.”

The truth is that, as Rice noted, the treaty is complex, and, as with the law in general, the implications of a given provision can’t be fully understood until it is road tested in reality.

Practically speaking, that means that whatever the treaty’s merits or risks, it is difficult to say a given outcome is impossible, but relatively easy to envision extreme “doomsday” scenarios — or to offer up real cases in which bad decisions have been made as evidence that the worst will result. The rebuttal arguments are frequently nuanced and less viscerally satisfying, which makes defenders’ position even more difficult.

Notes Baruch College political science professor Douglas Muzzio: “Nuance isn’t the culture warrior’s forte. And in fact, the lack of nuance is their major weapon.”

“It’s a no-win kind of debate for the advocates,” agrees Zelizer, who believes treaty supporters could find themselves caught off guard.

Conservatives, he notes, are “looking for issues. And if this looks like this is an issue they can hook onto, they’ll turn this into a bigger issue than human-rights advocates ever expected it would be.”

When asked what he thought the parental rights amendment’s chances for passage were, Hoekstra said, “If there’s no major court cases or anything that highlight this [issue], it’ll be very slow progress thorough Congress, and nothing will happen this year.”

However, he noted, “If the Senate tries to bring up the U.N. Treaty of the Child,” he says, “it will bring this front and center.”

And if that happens, he adds, “we’ll be ready.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Geithner, Paulson named in $200 billion lawsuit
AIG-related case claims they violated shareholders constitutional rights

A $200 billion lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders of American International Group has been amended to include Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox as defendants.

The case, filed earlier by a public interest law firm, Freedom Watch USA, is on behalf of shareholders of AIG who have watched the value of the company plummet by some $214 billion.

The class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles is a "wide reaching" claim that will do what Congress cannot, said Freedom Watch USA founder Larry Klayman.

"The American people, not the compromised ruling elite in Washington, D.C., have begun a second American Revolution to take the country back from the con men on Wall Street, and on Pennsylvania Avenue – who under successive administrations played a central role in the meltdown of the U.S. financial system and economy," Klayman said.

The amended complaint now alleges that the additional defendants violated the constitutional rights of the shareholders by denying them the right to their property, the shares themselves.

"The inspiration for this amendment was information disclosed by University of Missouri professor William K. Black on the Bill Moyers' PBS television show last Friday, where he implicated these government officials in a massive cover up of the banking scandal, mostly for the benefit of Goldman Sachs, the former employer of both Paulson and Geithner, in which they held a significant financial interest," Klayman reported.

"As for Cox, his reckless and intentionally impotent oversight at the SEC is the basis for the claim against him," he said.

Klayman noted that under precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. vs. Bivens, the defendants can be named as individuals, as well as officials.

Klayman also decried the apparent attempt by AIG CEO Edward Liddy to avoid being served with the original lawsuit.

On at least three occasions already, he has "run," telling AIG security not to allow process servers into his office suite, Klayman said.

"This is an absolute disgrace," said Klayman. "It shows the complete lack of respect AIG and its directors have for the Rule of Law. Liddy can run but he cannot hide. It's only a matter of time before he and his co-horts, along with Geithner, Paulson and Cox, will be held accountable by the American people, not compromised politicians in Washington, D.C., like Barney Frank Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who yesterday refused to answer a legitimate question from a Harvard student who inquired why he and his committee failed to oversee the banking scandal."

The complaint alleges the defendants "jointly and severally, have seriously undermined and damaged AIG's financial health and valuable past reputation by systematically causing and/or permitting the company to engage in a litany of highly risky, detrimental and reckless business dealings …. that have caused the company to verge on bankruptcy and which have required in excess of $190 billion dollars to date of government provided monies to prevent total company failure."

The action seeks judgments against defendants "for the amount of damages sustained by the shareholders as a result of the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets, causing a descrease in shareholders equity in an amount in excess of $200 billion dollars."

"Freedom Watch will not rest until justice is done and it won't come from the Obama administration, bent on deceiving the U.S. taxpayer that it intends to clean up this corruption, all the while lining the pockets of its friends at AIG with government bailout money, who gave handsomely to have the president elected," said Klayman.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants, also including Richard Holbrooke and Martin Feldstein of the Obama administration, have caused the company's value in 1990 to drop from "approximately $217 billion dollars" to today's estimated $3.5 billion, "a net decline of $214.5 billion based on the market capitalization rate formula."

AIG used "financially unsound" credit default swap derivative contracts and collateralized debt obligations to expose the company to "enormous risk," the suit says.

"After AIG posted a record breaking $62 billion dollar loss for the 4th quarter of 2008, the defendants, each and every one of them, incredibly paid out $165 million dollars in bonuses to its executives in March of 2009 and $55 million dollars in December of 2008 for this poor performance, and also paid out dividends when this was not reasonable or warranted under the circumstances," Klayman's case alleges.

Klayman said 400 workers each received between $1,000 and $6.5 million, and seven executives in the unit responsible for many of the losses each got more than $3 million.

"The bonuses were allegedly for retention, in part, and also performance based, but it has become clear that this was not the reason for the bonuses; rather looting of shareholder and government assets was the motivation," the case alleges.

It continues, "During this time of unprecedented wealth destruction for AIG shareholders, each of the defendants were compensated generously by way of handsome salaries and exorbitant bonuses and dividends, among other benefits and perks, despite their misconduct."

WND recently reported a poll indicated three in four Americans want members of Congress to return money they got from AIG for their political campaigns.

The poll from The O'Leary Report by Brad O'Leary and Zogby International showed 73 percent of Americans think politicians, including President Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., should not have profited from AIG and should return the money.

Obama and Dodd were the top recipients of campaign largesse from AIG over the past two years, with Obama getting $104,332 and Dodd taking in $103,900. Others received money, too, but in smaller amounts. All together, AIG donated $644,218 to federal politicians.

According to the Washington Post, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently confirmed that he had wanted to sue AIG to stop the company from paying out about $165 million in bonuses, but Fed lawyers advised against the litigation.

AIG CEO Edward Liddy told Congress last week that the Fed signed off on the bonuses before they became public. The company also has said some of the employees have promised to return the bonuses voluntarily.