Insider Trading Banned In Senate--Move In Right Direction

embed this tweet

By Washington Times WriterBy Paige Winfield Cunningham

-

The Washington Times

Senator John McCain

Ending a week that began with consensus but fractured into contention, the Senate voted Thursday to strengthen insider-trading bans for its members, and in the process agreed to ban bonuses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Macexecutives.

After spending the afternoon voting on a score of amendments that had hampered negotiations earlier in the week, the Senate overwhelmingly passed on a 96-3 vote the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act. Only Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina, both Republicans, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, were opposed.

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, scored a win with his amendment to ban Fannie and Freddie bonuses, after sponsors of the legislation had urged their colleagues to avoid proposing unrelated pet projects — a request that was promptly ignored by members of both parties.

The legislation, which President Obama called for in his State of the Union address, specifies that members of Congress are subject to an existing 1934 law banning trading based on insider information.

Hopes had been high that it would sail smoothly to passage, after theSenate overwhelmingly voted Monday to begin debating it, creating a moment of rare bipartisan harmony. But by the next day, lawmakers had proposed more than a dozen amendments, prompting threats by Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to shut down debate.

After two days of closed-door negotiations, lawmakers reached a deal, easing fears by the sponsoring senators — Republicans Scott P. Brownof Massachusetts and Susan M. Collins of Maine, and Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York New York, and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent — that even a bipartisan bill would end in gridlock.

Mr. Obama applauded the passage and promised a prompt signature.

“No one should be able to trade stocks based on nonpublic information gleaned on Capitol Hill,” Mr. Obama said. “So I’m pleased the Senatetook bipartisan action to pass the STOCK Act. I urge the House of Representatives to pass this bill, and I will sign it right away.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, indicated he will call for a vote in his chamber in the next few weeks.

“We will quickly review the entire bill and the amendments that were added [Thursday] to ensure that public servants, whether in the legislative or executive branch, do not personally profit from insider information,” Mr. Cantor said.

Focused on transparency, the STOCK Act also mandates stricter disclosure requirements for members of Congress, requiring them to reveal their sales and purchases of stocks within 30 days instead of once a year.

Over a period of four hours Thursday, the Senate voted on some 20 amendments, rejecting some and accepting others.

The upper chamber extended the 30-day requirement to federal employees and exempted mutual funds from the requirement, because owners don’t control those trades. Senators also agreed by voice vote to broaden mortgage disclosure requirements for members of Congressand some executive employees and to expand the possibility for members of Congress to lose their federal pension if convicted of a felony.

But the Senate also defeated a number of amendments, voting down a bipartisan amendment offered by Sens. Patrick J. Toomey, Pennsylvania Republican, and Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, that would have permanently banned all earmarks, a measure they have been pushing for the past few months.

Lawmakers also rejected an amendment offered by Mr. Coburn that would have required that, before the Senate considers legislation, the Congressional Research Service must determine whether it would duplicate existing programs. They also roundly defeated two amendments expressing an intent to limit Senate terms and require members of the Senate to divest themselves of individual company stock.

Sponsored Link: Three dollars doesn’t get you much these days. But did you know, there’s a unique type of silver coin – issued by the U.S. government – that’s available for only $3 right now? It’s the cheapest way we know of to buy real silver. Click here to learn more

How Do We Fix America?

embed this tweet

January 28, 2012

By Don White

"Getting America right" for a lot of conservatives would mean seeing the day when the majority of U.S. voters choose a real conservative president, someone like Ron Paul but unlike Newt, Mitt, or Rick.


Only Ron Paul fits the description of a true conservative, and even he isn't perfect. But in an imperfect world Ron Paul is 97% conservative and right for conservatives to vote for. I chose the above picture for this story, and it happens to be that of Mitt Romney who currently leads in Florida Primary polls. I imagine he is 37 percent conservative, Newt 32 percent conservative, and the liberal Santorum is maybe if I stretched it a bit 20 percent conservative. But they lie about their views a lot, so it's no wonder the electorate is mighty confused. Being a war hawk is zero percent conservative in my view. The other two arms of conservatism are fiscal and social. Being a war hawk means you call for war at the drop of the hat. It means another nation does not have to attack your nation for you to declare war. The scriptures are quite replete with this definition of a war hawk. They are bullies, and God looks down his nose at bullies. 


Ron Paul made a great point in the last GOP debate. He said he didn't know why candidates had to espouse aggressive war. Actually he used the term "force." It is wrong to use force to make another country do what we say or be what we are. War is force in the literal meaning.
Countries that make wars of agreession and in anticipation of attack are paranoid bullies. Besides, they are out of step with reality. America, for example, is broke. Good leadership demands we don't get into any more wars. Where's the money coming from? 

I'm curenly writing a book called Monetary Time Bomb: America's $20-Trillion Nightmare. I have already completed ten chapters and like my other books, it will be available as an ebook at Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com http://bit.ly/tjGsUc for only $2.99.


Pundits say if Mitt wins in Florida he "will" go all the way. But pundits have been wrong three times in this primary race, so what do they know? But for just a minute let's examine Mitt's candidacy and that of the others. For my money there are just two viable candidates, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It's not that Ron Paul, a libertarian turned conservative, is the most popular in Florida because he isn't. Currently, he seems to be in fourth place in a four man Florida race. But like Santorum, he knew this state was a winner-take-all state and that Romney or Gingrich would win, so he's not competing. Why should he? 


By that, I mean he isn't present running around the state speaking here and there, spending vast amounts of money on political ads and, like Romney and Gingrich, getting Florida residents to back his candidacy. 


Paul's off somewhere else, probably to Nevada where the next winnable primary occurs. Then it's Arizona and Michigan--probably all Romney states--before the southern swing where Paul will have an excellent chance to prevail, unless Mitt and the others have by then persuaded the politically naive populace that they are conservatives. 


Let me tell you, that motley threesome are impostors. 
Each is a moderate-liberal and it's annoying and unethical for them to impersonate conservatives. Paul is the only conservative. He is the only candidate of either party who's economic and foreign policy plans will succeed--and who has the spine and ability to "Get America Right."


The perception that the GOP has adopted Democratic-style, straight proportional allocation for any contest occurring before April 1 is a figment of everyone's imagination. You also have to remember that Florida lost half its delegates due to bumping itself ahead of other primaries.


Only Vermont, Arizona, Virginia, and Florida have (plus Washington D.C.) a winner-take-all law. The Republican National Committee changed rules for all states in 2011, hoping to move toward a winner-take-all situation similar to the Democratic plan. But for this year, it won't completely take effect, meaning we could see no resolution of the GOP candidate until May or June. The longer the primary, the better it would be for the Republican candidate. If you recall the knock-down, drag-out Obama-Clinton primary of 2008 you know what I mean. It has a way of keeping the players on TV constantly, giving the party and its candidates more free TV time that isn't available when the people know who the winner is early in the race. 


But the Democrats have something up their sleeve. 
They are promoting opposition for Obama--not really, but just to take advantage of the fact that it's good keep their guys in the limelight longer, too.  Look at Andrew Cuomo as Obama's sparring mate. He has already raised millions of dollars for his campaign. All of this is done with Obama's knowledge and probably his help. It's a ploy, and nothing more. Obama will be the Democratic candidate. 


Maybe it will set up Cuomo for 2016 the election. How many states he has registered for, I don't know, and it doesn't matter.  I do know Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are not registered in several states including Virginia, a fact which favors Romney and Paul and could make it a mathematical impossibility for Santorum or Gingrich to amass the required number of delegates to win.

In this year's GOP primary, 
16 states and DC allocate their delegates by some form of Winner-Take-All system, whereby the winner in a state or Congressional District wins all of that state's convention delegates. However, new RNC rules put in place last year stipulate that primaries before April 1st cannot use winner-take-all, so that even a 2nd or 3rd place finisher is likely to win delegates. 


People ask, why doesn't Santorum drop out? It's because he has been promised by the GOP establishment that if he will stay in up to the end he will be rewarded with a big radio and/or TV contract that will make the man rich. He isn't rich today, as evidenced by the fact that he had to fly home from Florida to Pennsylvania this week to do his own taxes. Serious presidential candidates don't do their own taxes. 


Gingrich is in a similar situation. the GOP Establishment wants Romney to win. But they have promised that if Newt contends during the long primary, he will be rewarded with some unknown "considerations." What they are no one but Newt and a few GOP bigwigs know, but at the least he will be in a position to make a lot of money selling his books. 


So you see, folks, it's all a put up job. Romney wins because the "bigwigs" say he wins. Obama is the Democratic candidate because the bigwigs say he is. The banks who foot most of the bills for these two are happy. Is it any wonder neither of these two will End the Fed? Or even criticize the Fed or call for its audit or end? We the people don't really decide anything. We are apathetically asleep--and we really are. When will the average American really get involved in politics? That was what most of us thought was so really great about the Tea Parties. but they have fallen into apathy or have been taken over by personal interest groups. 


I hope I'm criticized for this:
I am positive the West Orange, FL Tea Party is only a well-oiled manipulated group of war-hawks and moderate to liberal "go-alongs" and not truly independent. Their co-founder Ron McKoy is purposely ignoring me. Who says Tea Parties are rudderless? Following Tod Long's dissertation about Herman Caine in a last fall meeting, I offered to spend a few minutes telling him about Ron Paul. He refuses to have me speak to "his" private Tea Party club. It's because some of them might actually vote for Ron Paul over Santorum, Gingrich and Romney. 


It's great to be an American and live in the land of the "free," isn't it?


Our entire existence as a free nation is on the line this time. How long are we going to let a few elites define our future?

18 Areas of Newt's Liberal Actions

embed this tweet

Latest News

Share

Newt Gingrich: A Crime Against Conservatism

by PatriotReview

YouTube

Wed, Jan 25th, 2012

For those who think Newt Gingrich is a conservative...think again. Please share this video with everyone you know!
This is a one-hour mashup of videos showing Newt Gingrich's anti-conservative behavior over the years.
Covers the following ...
- Tolerance of abortion
- Soft on illegal immigration
- Freddie Mac
- Global Warming Taxes
- NAFTA Pusher
- Mexican Bailout
- Healthcare, Clinton get together, Mandate
- Internationalist, UN, National-Building, IMF, WTO
- Moderate, Progressive, Wilsonian
- His love for Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Woodrow Wilson
- Clinton Suck Up
- Ethics Violations
- Scozzafava
- Education Tour with Al Sharpton
- Ryan Budget
- Tiffanys
- Serial Adultery
- Alvin & Heidi Toffler Connection
- Other Misc
Special Thanks to PatriotReview for making this available.
Source

Romney Soundly Defeats Gingrich In Florida Debate

embed this tweet
by Don White
January 24, 2012

Here are some issues which brand Newt Gingrich as a man unfit for the presidency. In last night's debate when Romney got through interrogating him and countering every lie that came out of Ginghrich's mouth with truth, all Newt could do was hang his head in shame. Literally, that was my read on his lackluster performance.

The rivals clashed early on as Mr Romney called Mr Gingrich an "influence peddler", stating that he resigned from Congress in "disgrace".

Mr Gingrich shot back that the wealthy businessman "can't tell the truth". Actually it's Newt Gingrich who can't tell the truth.

If Romney keeps up the heat, he will defeat Newt in every state. That is, unless Ron Paul changes his rhetoric in debates and extends his answers to more than that asked by the moderator as the other debaters often do. My one piece of advice to Ron Paul is to quickly answer any question, then say..."But what I really disagree with about these fellows is that they haven't got a clue to how serious the monetary policy is in America. They would continue to extend the debt limit, they will have to because all three (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum) are big war hawks.

NBC's point man Brian Williams was stupid and annoying in his questioning. When it came to Ron Paul he asked such off the charts questions like "What should the Federal Government do about the Everglades problem?" I say that being a resident of the great state of Florida. People don't want them to debate a state issue like that. Ron Paul should have quickly answered, then picked up on the debate of the real important questions. I thought Paul came across as sort of un- knowledgeable last night because he stuck to answering things short and quick. That doesn't make TV watchers think you know much. You must use all of your time and even more and be fervent about answering. I wholeheartedly support Paul, but he needs to step it up a little if he intends to get elected president..

As evidenced by Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich's answers as to what they would do to Iran tonight, they believed war was the answer to any question. 


Gentlemen, let's get serious. If you think sanctions have worked look at Cuba and Iran. And you want to bomb Iran and keep on sanctioning Cuba and take over their economies and their problems? Ron Paul gave an excellent answer on this topic. he said the reason Iran is threatening to clog up the Strait of Hormus is because of our economic sanctions on their bomb building. Paul answers tersely and succinctly, but people want more from him. He could have said "Everything has a reason. Start by taking sanctions off Iran and trying to work with them, rather than immediately thinking of bombing them and creating another four trillion dollars in debt, money we don't have. America is bankrupt, remember?"

Something like the above would easily fill up a minute and a half and get the crowd behind Ron Paul, which crowd was only tepid last night. I predict Ron Paul is in for trouble at the ballot box Saturday night in Florida because his talk isn't long enough, nor is it as convincing as it could be.I wish him well in the next Florida debate.

By far, Paul has the best message. He just needs to step up his enthusiasm and elongate his arguments to get people behind him.

I really believe in Ron Paul. He is the best candidate, bar none. Read my book on Ron Paul, volumes one and two of "Patriot Call of Ron Paul." They are ebooks, sold only at Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble for only $2.99 and yes, I'm proud to say they are selling nicely, especially at Barnes and Noble where most of my followers seem to go. Don White  http://bit.ly/tjGsUc http://bit.ly/tjGsUc

Goodbye Newt... Mitt Romney exposed you last night for the liar you really are and for the weakness of your arguments. We can't have another liar like Obama running the country.

• Newt Gingrich is the least conservative candidate running, according to George Will

• Gingrich took a lot of money from Freddy Mac, and then Obama had to bail them out. What does this say about Newt Gingrich’s advice?

Newt's third wife, Callista, at Tiffany's

• The former speaker of the House is a big-time spender—something few have pointed out. But his private life speaks to this in volumes. In just one afternoon he spent $500,000 at Tiffany's in New York for jewelry for his third wife, Callista, the bleached blond. http://ti.me/AcvKei

• He is yet to prove that his incontinence in marriage won’t affect his judgment in running a country.

• Gingrich gets mad easily. His staff and fellow House of Representative members often had a hard time getting along with him.

• Love ‘em and leave ‘em Newt was a lobbyist after he left the Congress, bribing Congressmen and women to vote for his causes for a price. He doesn’t appear very ethical.

• Newt tells a lie a minute. He has never run a company, never run much of anything except as speaker he got a so-called Contract with America passed by Congress.

• He was THROWN out of Congress for unethical practices and fined $300,000, and now he wants to be president?

•  Newt will say anything and do anything to get elected. He twists the truth. He is a very calculatingly unethical man.

• Newt was a Christian before having problems with the Congress. Now he’s a born-again Catholic? It doesn’t add up. How does this man’s religion help him, other than give him courage to extend his lies of the bedroom in plain sight of 313 million Americans?.

• Only Ron Paul Served in the military. Rick, Newt and Mitt did not serve. How are they capable of being any smarter as the commander in chief than the non-serving Obama is today? Obama is notorious for his foreign policy mistakes. When Obama leaves they should hang a large sign on the front door: “Amateurs No Longer Welcome.”

• Newt Gingrich is opposed to legal immigration. His policies would undercut legal immigration, serving as a magnate for other illegal’s to climb the fence and come in. He supports the so-called Dream Act. This is an ill-conceived idea where foreigners and their children who came here illegally could get citizenship by joining the military or going to college on the American taxpayer. That would be a dangerous law and it flies in the face of legal immigration. The speaker is making larger a bad situation of eleven million illegal aliens already here who should be sent home to wait in line and come back legally. Romney’s blue card plan of not allowing them to find employment here will work.
• Gingrich speaks before he thinks. This loose-lip rhetoric is often cutting talk and could come back to haunt him at the polls. For example, he called Barak Obama "the food stamp president."
  That's what Republican Newt Gingrich calls Democrat Barack Obama in casting the president's economic record as a failure, and bemoaning what Gingrich sees as a poor work ethic among those dependent on government help.
  Some see hints of racism in Gingrich's words, which the former U.S. House of Representatives speaker disputes. But such tough talk did help him tap into the anti-government anger of conservative whites in South Carolina and win the presidential primary there on Saturday.
  As the campaign moves forward, however, Gingrich's food-stamp imagery might not play as well, political analysts and voters say.
  In a nation where millions of families are struggling to get by, most people who depend on food stamps are white, and the vast majority are working or have just lost their jobs, according to government data and program administrators.

Romney successfully beat Newt down in the debates last night (January 24, 2012 in Florida). Newt lies about his being a lobbyist. He claims he wasn’t which all America knows he was, making $25,000 a month for Freddy Mac or $300,000 a year giving lobby advice. Romney read Gingrich’s contract to him. It said he was a “consultant” which is another word for lobbyist. He said Newt was not hired by the president of Freddy Mac, but by the head of the Lobby department of Freddy Mac. He was not hired as an historian because they don’t pay historians that much. He was hired to lobby congress, which he did, for favors and money, which he did just at the time when the financial bubble was beginning to pop in late 2007 and 2008. Newt Gingrich is a liar in this regard and on many occasions, as many as suits his purposes. He knew he had been had in last night’s debate and merely hung his head in defeat to Mitt Romney, a superior candidate and debater

Why Is GOP Debate Reporting So Mediocre?

embed this tweet

America Should Elect Ron Paul, 

Stop The Wars, Honor God 

And Jesus Christ

By Don White

                          January 16, 2012

The reporter from the Wall Street Journal who asked Rep 
Ron Paul of Texas two questions didn’t have a clue as 
to Ron Paul’s policies and intentions. Maybe now Paul’s 
campaign in South Carolina will take off and thrive.

I read six newspapers this morning and they all copied 
each other’s story. They concentrated on Mitt Romney 
because they thought that was the story. In a way it 
was, but all of them missed the real story, and that’s 
the one about how different Ron Paul’s program of 
economic recovery and foreign policy is compared to 
the others. If they had only read his book, 
Liberty Defined, or my book(s) 
Patriot Call of Ron Paul in ebook 
form at Barnes and Amazon. It bothers 
me, being a former AP newsman and an 
experienced writer, that these hacks can’t 
get it right. That they must copy stories 
written by one another, instead of doing 
original reportage. http://bit.ly/tjGsUc

The Wall Street journal writer asked Congressman 
Paul if newspaper reports were true that if elected 
president he would cut defense? There are military 
bases in South Carolina and many people there 
are employed in military product production.

Paul lectured him on not understanding his subject, 
Ron Paul. “You don’t understand,” said Paul. “My 
record is clear that I support the military. I get ten 
times more political donations from military people 
than all the rest of the candidates combined.” That 
was met with a gigantic roar of approval from 
the audience.

Paul went on to explain that there is a difference 
between what Washington calls Military Spending 
and Defense Spending. Paul said his plan is to bring 
the troops home and save a trillion dollars his first 
year from abroad, not to take money from defense. 
Then he cited the expensively large military building 
the U.S. built in Bagdag, Iraq which Paul called a 
Taj Mahal. The actual Taj Mahal is an immense 
mausoleum of white marble, built in Agra, India 
between 1631 and 1648 by order of the Mughal 
emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favorite wife. 
The Taj Mahal is the jewel of Muslim art.

“That’s wasteful military spending, something 
I’m against,” Paul fired back. “But I’m not 
against defense expenditures. I will cut unnecessary 
military spending and I could even increase 
expenditures for defense.

But Rep. Ron Paul got a wave of hostility from 
the debate audience when he was asked about 
the killing of Osama bin Laden. He argued that 
even Saddam Hussein and Nazi war criminal 
Adolf Eichmann were captured and were put on 
trial – rather than killed. Raucous booing followed 
when Paul tried to argue we should live by the "Golden 
Rule" in our relationship with other nations and in 
foreign affairs, “Don’t do to other nations what 
we don’t want them to do to us.” The problem 
with American foreign policy is that we order 
assassinations via the CIA. It also is involved 
in clandestine election fraud and political 
leader changes abroad. The past 60 years 
America has been behind many unnecessary 
killings that Paul, a policy libertarian-conservative 
Paul will reverse. Of all of the candidates, this 
man Ron Paul is the most decent, law abiding, 
and religious man running for office. The others are 
war hawks who don’t mind seeing collateral 
damage in the form of hundreds of thousands 
of human lives lost in the name of defense.

There is nothing we do worse than kill 
other people in the name of defense. 
Then we want to send missionaries to
those people?

How hypocritical we are. How in the world 
can we convert them to Christ when we don’t 
live his teachings ourselves. It has to stop. It 
is not sanctioned by the principles of any religion, 
and all of the GOP candidates belong to a 
Christian church, and all of them condemn 
taking another person’s life unless first attacked 
by that person. There are two Catholics, one 
Mormon, one Baptist, and one Evangelical. All 
but the Baptist is in need of deep repentance.

The Bush doctrine extended America’s role in 
the world to international policeman where we 
became pro-active in aggressively finding and 
taking out targets before they could attack 
America. I believe this foreign policy is not only 
wicked and ungodly, it does America a disservice 
in lost support among weaker nations who end 
up supporting the al Quaida as a means of 
striking back at America.

I truly believe that the Mormon Church 
hierarchy, along with all the other churches 
represented by the above candidates, supports 
a cessation of wars, and they have said as 
much from the pulpit. Jesus Christ was a man 
of peace. He rules from the heavens as a God of 
peace. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints—that bears his name--doctrine is one of 
peace, not of wars to solve problems.

Joseph Smith was also a man of peace. His 
formation of an army to rescue those persecuted 
Saints in Missouri was called Zion’s Camp. But do 
you know, not a shot was fired by Joseph’s 
so-called “army.”  In the one big faceoff between 
Mormons and the rebellious Missourians, God 
intervened. He caused a heavy downpour of rain 
to fall upon the combatants and the Missouri 
army voluntarily withdrew because their 
powder was wet.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Joseph 
Smith in the heavens above must be terribly 
displeased with all of the candidates who act 
warlike, who speak of war and stir up crowds 
at political gatherings in order to gain 
popularity and win the presidential election 
based on bellicose militarism. All but one 
candidate is a war hawk. That man is Ron Paul, 
and he deserves the support of Mormons and 
non-Mormons alike. He would bring sanity back 
to Washington and to our foreign policy, not weakness.

Witness the 9/11 attack on our soil. Ron Paul 
contends that to a large extent it was 
perpetrated on America as retaliation for 
occupying foreign soil for many years. 
But what did we do? We didn’t get the 
message, we retaliated by passing the 
Patriot Act which took Constitutional 
rights away from our own people. Then 
we went to war. We poured trillions of 
dollars into these wars, and to what result? 
Do we have peace today? Do we have a 
safer world to live in? No, we have a more 
unsafe world than one we would have had 
had Ron Paul been president instead of 
George W. Bush. 

America has no business even being in 
those countries. This is Ron Paul’s position 
and if elected he will change our foreign 
policy and end these senseless wars of 
aggression started by our Pentagon and 
CIA and an inexperienced, impressionable 
president who listened to the Big Banks, 
the generals, and to those factions who 
have controlled every election for the 
past 50 years. The scary thing is that 
front-runner Mitt Romney has said if 
elected he would govern in the Bush fashion.

With Paul getting support from libertarians and 
those who like his anti-interventionist foreign 
policy, that leaves the social conservative 
vote split among Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum. 
None of the three has been strong enough 
to unite the conservative factions. All America 
must pray that we escape the terrible 
monetary and currency problem—that 
only Ron Paul really understands—and 
the economic and jobs malaise. And we 
go a long ways in doing that by minding 
our own business abroad and bringing 
our troops home and getting rid of a 
communist-czarist, stifling rule-making 
president.

Romney proves in South Carolina Debate He Doesn't Mind Detaining American Citizens

embed this tweet
By Don White

Ron Paul and his wife Carol of more than 50 years

Mormon Church founding prophet Joseph Smith would roll over in his grave if he had heard the war hawkish debate comments on Monday night in South Carolina from Mitt Romney, a member of that church in "good standing.".

If you recall anything about this prophet of God, it was that he was a man of peace. Yes, he did organize an "army" of men, women, and children to go to Missouri to rescue the Saints from persecution at the hands of Missouri mobsters. Three of my ancestors were with him there in Missouri. On the way there, he taught love of all mankind as well as love of animals, birds, reptiles, snakes, and every living thing that was put on the earth by God for a purpose. He did not have an unkind thought in his head. All members of the Church remember and revere Joseph Smith for his honesty, humanity, courage, and testimony of the Savior of mankind.

Yet in the political debate last night in South Carolina, Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich took strong stands for more wars:
1)  More military spending
2)  More killing of so called "terrorists" such as the Taliban and al Qaeda, even if it caused more costly wars
3)  Support of the Military Defense Authorization Act that not only gives larger funding to the military--all that was okay--but also makes possible the arrest of American citizens by our military, destroying habeas corpus and other Fourth Amendment rights..

So with this bill that Romney and his bellicose colleagues from the GOP--excepting Ron Paul and Rick Santorum--are in favor of the government arresting any U.S. citizen by calling them terrorists even though there is no proof of such, eliminating their legal defense for those arrested, and allowing the government to hold these Americans indefinitely even without charges being filed against them.

Romney, Gingrich and company have got to be out of their heads for even suggesting they go along with this constitutionally illegal act. Do they realize that with the stroke of a pen Obama has eliminated our Fourth Amendment rights of habeas corpus and the other things this entails? Romney was so stupidly brazen as to suggest that "I don't think President Obama will ever use this power."

Our current president harbors Marxists in the White House. They write most of the rules and regulations that stifle jobs creation in America, making of America a dictatorship. Because of this evil communist influence, I believe our current president will be sorely tempted to use this power and will do so if necessary to accomplish any political purpose.

Romney went to law school and passed the bar. He should know better, but apparently pandering for votes before a raccus South Carolina crowd was more important to him than carefully considering his stand and what he was saying. He showed disrespect for the constitution of the United States--something that tells me that if elected president he will rule to the left of Obama in many ways.

God save the Republic.

Obama Caught In A "Pattern of Contempt"

embed this tweet

Obama is a political actor. He will bow to people and shoot them
in the back. He has friendly relations on the golf course with John
Boehner and other Republicans, too, but he has ulterior motives
always. Not a man to be trusted. His goal is to get re-elected at all
costs, so why should Republicans expect him to play by the rules?

The president cannot use an opinion of his corrupt Justice Department to sleep at night. He's guilty of contempt of Congress, which if seen as a pattern could be grounds for impeachment. Here's the wire story in part. You decide. My feelings are that he has done more than any president in recent history to eliminate Congressional oversight in his appointments--witness the record number of czar appointments. But these were appointments that require approval of Congress. This, then, becomes a constitutional fight. It's just one more in a long list of abuses he has perpetrated on the U.S. Constitution. Thus, reason that this corrupt president has to go.
Don White

The Justice Department reversed course Thursday and backed President Obama’s move last week to use his recess appointment power to install four top officials even though the Senatewas holding meetings every three days and considered itself to be in session.

Republicans dismissed the opinion, saying it smacked of politics, but it adds some legal heft toMr. Obama’s argument that the four appointments — three new members of theNational Labor Relations Board and a chief for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — are legal.

“We believe our legal argument is very strong [and] will absolutely pass muster,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters at theWhite House.

The opinion was dated Jan. 6 — two days after Mr. Obama made the appointments. Mr. Carney assured reporters the Justice Departmenthad provided the president with verbal assurances.

Mr. Obama last week bypassed the Senate’s usual confirmation process to install Richard Cordray as head of the CFPB and three other appointees — two Democrats and a Republican — to the NLRB. Mr. Cordray and one of those labor nominees had been delayed by SenateRepublicans, though two of the other nominees were sent to the Capitol just two days before legislators finished their payroll tax bill and most of them left town.