Saturday, July 31, 2010

Liberal Linda McMahon

The CT GOP needs to stop endorsing and running RINOs, and CT voters need to stop rewarding them and electing them with their votes.

The CT Democrats are already readying their campaign attack ads regarding how she made her millions by promoting sleeze , degradation of women, violence and other unsavory acts to children. McMahon cannot possibly be the standard bearer of the CT Republican party. They will utterly destroy her no matter how many millions she spends on this campaign against Blumenthal.

McMahon refuses to debate Schiff or Simmons.
She is the wrong choice for CT.

Vote for Liberty and Sane Government Policies.
Vote for Peter Schiff on August 10th.

Best Quotes From Schiff

Friday, July 30, 2010

The Government Owns The Rain

State Property?

Apparently one cannot collect the rainwater in Colorado, Utah or Washington State.
They claim that the rainwater belongs to someone else.
Diverting it (i.e. collecting it) is a crime and you need a valid "water right".

It's illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.

After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an "unlawful diversion of rainwater." Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it's still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah's various government bodies.

Wow... talk about tyranny.
Government bureaucrats use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go... to lakes and rivers and reservoirs.

These types of laws have surprisingly been on the books for a long time out West.
People have begun to notice the laws more and are beginning to speak up about it - especially as people are trying to conserve and make the best use of natural resources.

But honestly, this type of legislation just goes to show how diminished our freedoms are... and how much control government can wield. If we can't even freely collect the rain that falls from the sky onto our rooftops and into collection barrels - then can government also tax the air we breathe?

The Natural News report states:
... the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.

Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it owns your land and house, effectively. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!

How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.

So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?

It's something to think about.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Peter Schiff Money Bomb - TODAY!

Peter Schiff is one of the very rare candidates who understands economics, finance, the role of government, and the Constitution. Peter Schiff is honest enough to tell the truth to the voters rather than the lies and nonsense that they are used to hearing from people who are only seeking your vote to further their own career and agendas. He knows that what we have been given in return for our trust and votes in the past has been only more poverty, fewer rights, never-ending wars and an over reaching burdensome and intrusive government.

It's Time.

Please support Peter and let's get his message out in a very big way.

This is about doing what YOU can to help Restore the Republic and right the wrongs in Washington.

Freedom is not free - and the Constitution cannot defend itself - both need YOU to help send Schiff to Washington to really make a difference.

A few dollars is all it takes - that and your vote on November 10th.
Tell your friends and neighbors.

Let's DO IT!

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Four Senate Candidates Debate While Two Thumb Their Nose At The Voters

Rob Simmons, Peter Schiff, John Mertens and Warren Mosler came together on Tuesday evening for a debate hosted at Trinity College by the Federation of CT Taxpayers Organizations. Both Richard Blumenthal, the endorsed CT-Democrat, and Linda McMahon, the CT-GOP endorsed candidate, decided to skip the event.

Peter Schiff said, "It's unfortunate that...Linda McMahon apparently did not think enough of Connecticut taxpayers to show up''.

"Two candidates are missing,I find it very disappointing that they (meaning Linda McMahon and Dick Blumenthal) chose not to be here tonight. Engaging in these types of debates and discussions of issues that effect the people of the state of Connecticut and this nation are part of the political process and that process should be respected by all candidates", said Rob Simmons.

Peter Schiff and Rob Simmons summed it up pretty well.
And I believe it's a foreshadowing of more Washington type arrogance on the part of McMahon and Blumenthal. Are they so far up in the polls that they don't need to debate their views against others as the public looks on? At this point, a debate might just be a liability to them. One bad answer could tank their poll numbers. They must be careful what they say - can't let the voters be too informed you know.

It would have been very interesting to see and hear how McMahon and Blumenthal would have answered the questions put forth by Chris Powell, editor of the Journal Inquirer. (Chris did a splendid job!)

There were questions compiled by The Federalist Society, Yankee Institute and CBIA.
Everything from the economy and how they would fix it, to the failure of the war on poverty and the war on drugs, to gay marriage and illegal immigration was discussed.
CT-N video taped it so it should be available on their website for viewing.

My guess is that the two poorest debaters declined their invitations because they
A) Have no real plans or solutions, and could not have answered the questions adequately.
B) Are just relying on their money to blast sound bytes to the public through ads and mailings.
C) Really don't give a damn about giving the voters more information, about them and what they really think, in order to make an informed decision. (impromptu speaking and debate is much different then canned pre-scripted stump speeches)
D) Were too chicken to face their opponents. The term "gutless" comes to mind.

It was very interesting to hear what Mertens and Mosler had to say since they have gotten zero press all together.
It's sad to see how the media skews these elections by not allowing the public more access and information on ALL candidates running.
The media picks their favorites and that's all you hear about.
Biased journalism masquerades as news that is meant to inform.

It definitely was a worthwhile debate.
I hope you will catch it on CT-N.

There are also good articles here and here.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Nullify Now!

If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones.” -Thomas Jefferson

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws within their borders.

Check out

Did you know that states don’t have to obey unconstitutional federal legislation forced upon them?

Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and other states are fighting the federal healthcare law. Arizona is protecting its borders. Washington State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation. Eight states are standing up for gun rights. Twenty-five states have effectively blocked the 2005 Real ID Act…

How? Through nullification.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

More at

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
- Thomas Jefferson

"If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Tuesday Senate Candidate Debate


For the U. S. Senatorial Candidates
Trinity College Campus
300 Summit St.
Mather Hall
The Washington Room

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations is delighted to announce a U. S. Senatorial Debate to be held on Tuesday, July 27, 2010, at 7 PM at Trinity College , Mather Hall, in the Washington Room.

All candidates for U. S. Senate have been invited to attend. To date, we have received confirmation of attendance from Rob Simmons, Peter Schiff, John Mertens, and Warren Mosler. Linda McMahon and Richard Blumenthal have also been invited to participate.

The moderator will be Chris Powell of the Journal Inquirer of Manchester . We have invited various nonprofit organizations to submit questions of importance to their mission, to include CBIA, the Federalist Society, Yankee Institute and Voices for Children.

This election is one of the most important in Connecticut ’s history as businesses and taxpayers focus on the significant impact Washington has on their community, their families and their future.
As such, the Federation is sponsoring this debate to provide the public with an opportunity to hear directly from the candidates on their vision for the future and what they will bring to this very important position in Washington upon their election.

Again, we invite you to join us at Trinity College for this free event. If you have any questions, please contact Susan Kniep, President of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations at 860-841-8032 or by email at

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Taxing Gold Transactions - Another Obamacare Tax Bomb

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it.
Nancy Pelosi

Well, now we are finding out all of the little stealth pieces of legislation that was in the horrendous Obama Healthcare bill. One such provision is requiring tracking - and thus tax reporting - of physical gold transactions.

ABC News reports -
"Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.

Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change.

This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of uncollected income tax, was included in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it....

So every time a member of the public sells more than $600 worth of gold to a dealer, Piret said, the transaction will have to be reported to the government by the buyer...

Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., has introduced legislation to repeal the section of the health care bill that would trigger the new tax reporting requirement because he says it's a burden on small businesses."

It is no surprise really that gold coin buyers and sellers would come under closer government scrutiny. People are fleeing Federal Reserve Notes and buying gold and silver as a hedge against the inevitable inflation that will hit us.
"The rising popularity of gold is a threat to the fiat currency scheme of the federal government. It's no wonder the statists are targeting the metal with the tax code."
- Campaign For Liberty

This will be a way for the government to "register" people who buy gold (and silver too). Eventually the government will probably want to confiscate your metal too, just like FDR did (By the way - that's called theft). Plus, they are also most likely clearing the way for a VAT Tax.

Obamacare gave way too much power to the IRS.
They will be the defacto enforcers of Obamacare.

Black Market anyone?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Signs Of Waste

From iamtheteaparty:
  • $300 – $10,000 each to erect!
  • Over 20 Million already spent on these signs!
  • Multiple signs for the same project!
  • Signs placed where there is NO actual projects!
  • “The logo is an emblem of commitment from President Obama to spend stimulus money wisely”!!!

Rep. Aaron Schock, (R-Ill.) is fighting the spending for these road signs, calling them a waste of money and propaganda.

And here is what some cable news shows are reporting....

This will be paid for by our children and grandchildren in the massive taxes they will have to pay to pay back this unbelievable record breaking "porkulus" spending.

Come November, outraged Americans who are sick and tired of this kind of wasteful spending, as well as a myriad of intrusive and unconstitutional legislation, will be putting up their own signs for certain members of Congress (and the Obama administration) to read:


Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Minnesota's Senator Al Franken May Have Been Elected By Felons

A study was recently released by Minnesota Majority, a watchdog group, and it stated that the 6 month election recount that gave Al Franken his Minnesota Senate seat may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally. Minnesota Majority matched publicly-available conviction lists with voting records.

They found 341 felons voted in Minneapolis and 52 felons voted in St. Paul.
This doesn't include the 85 other Minnesota counties.

If you recall, the recount in that Senate race showed that Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes. That is fewer than the 393 number of felons, in two counties alone, whose illegal ballots were counted. Statistically speaking, some studies (Northwestern University) have shown that felons vote 85% of the time for Democrats than Republicans. Felons register more often (75% of the time) as Democrats.

Felons are not allowed to vote.
There isn't any enforcement of the law.
This is an instance of people who are voting illegally.
What's worse is that nothing is being done about it.

It is claimed that it was Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's "dereliction of duties" that allowed these felons to vote in the 2008 election.

Of course there is now A federal bill that proposes to restore voting rights to convicted felons in the national elections. This is being pushed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

Minnesota's secretary of State, Mark Ritchie was the ACORN supported candidate for Secretary of State.

No surprise.

Dead people, felons, illegal aliens ... and the beat goes on.
No enforcement of our laws.

What about the oath these Secretary of State office holders take when they assume office?
Where is the judiciary?
Where is the press?

(Well, maybe not, given our current political climate)

(Note: In 2008, a group of University of Connecticut journalism students found that about 8,500 dead people were registered to vote, and that clerical errors on the local level made it appear that 300 of them actually had voted)

Monday, July 19, 2010

Linda McMahon Hiding From Debating Peter Schiff

On July 15, 2010 Peter Schiff put out this memo:

Schiff Challenges McMahon to Get in the Ring and Debate

McMahon repeatedly refuses to debate Schiff on the issues

HARTFORD, CT – Peter Schiff, Republican senatorial candidate in Connecticut, today released the following statement regarding McMahon’s refusal to debate:

“Connecticut Republicans deserve a lively, informative debate between their two candidates for the U.S. Senate, but Linda McMahon refuses to get in the ring and debate! Time after time, she shies away from the chance to put her ideas up against mine. Time after time, she denies Connecticut voters the opportunity to hear all sides of this debate.

“If McMahon’s refusal to debate is any indication of what she would be like in Washington, she significantly lacks the necessary characteristics to be Connecticut’s senator. The Nutmeg State can’t afford a senator who sits quietly in the corner. By putting my name on the ballot, Connecticut voters have opted instead for an individual who is confident in his convictions and prepared to stand up for what is right for Connecticut.”

The President of the Federation of CT Taxpayers Organizations, Susan Kniep, has been trying to arrange a debate at Trinity College and has not even the courtesy of a reply from the McMahon campaign regarding a tentative debate. This was an additional letter that was sent by Ms. Kniep to the McMahon campaign:

I am very disappointed that you have not responded to my emails or telephone calls regarding the Debate which the Federation has scheduled. Because the July 13 date was not convenient for Linda McMahon, we rescheduled the debate to July 27. I had also invited her campaign staff to suggest another date, if the July 27 date was not convenient.

Peter Schiff has agreed to debate. We have reserved the Washington Room at Trinity College and this week I met with the people responsible for setting up the room, etc. The Yankee Institute, the Federalist Society, and CBIA have confirmed that they will submit questions.

I am making one last attempt to secure a response from you. If Linda McMahon does not wish to participate in a debate that of course is her choice, but I would have at least appreciated the courtesy of a reply.

Susan Kniep

So why is McMahon afraid to face her opponent?
CT deserves a Senator that isn't afraid to debate the issues!

Why has her campaign been so silent about participating in a debate with Peter Schiff?

Perhaps McMahon knows that if she debates Peter Schiff that she will lose the debate, and subsequently lose the primary. She couldn't afford that after sinking $21 million into this campaign already. Schiff's popularity is growing daily as more people hear about him. CT voters are beginning to see McMahon's lack of substance, and lack of real knowledge on the issues. A recent Quinnipiac poll suggests that "Linda McMahon’s biggest problem with voters is that only 38 percent think she has the right kind of experience to be a U.S. Senator". A debate will only lend more proof to that. But that's just my opinion. Oh, and a debate would also mean that the media would not be able to continue to ignore the real grassroots candidate; Peter Schiff. Perhaps this is why the same Quinnipiac poll noted that 63 percent say they do not know enough about him to offer an opinion. Media blackouts tend to create that sort of result.

Note to Linda McMahon: CT voters want to see a debate between you and Peter Schiff... we don't want anymore of your slick mailers... we don't want to see your ads on Facebook ... we want to hear you debate the issues.

Stop Hiding and Bring it on!

Friday, July 16, 2010

Ron Paul - Statement at JEC Hearing July 14, 2010

Too much debt and too much malinvestment.
Well said.

and now this finance reform bill will most likely screw things over even more.

This mess (TARP, Bailouts, Obamacare, Financial reform and more...) the Obama administration has created is going to take years to undo.

2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

CT Senate Race: In Again Out Again Rob Simmons

In again - out again.
Running - not running.
Simmons has already created a huge lack of credibility with such indecisiveness.
That's not good.

Rob Simmons, please do not be another addicted politician who needs an intervention.
Rob, you had your time in Congress.
We respect your military service and your past service to this country, but you honestly need to move on. Do something to help rebuild the party to be one which truly stands for smaller government, and fiscal prudence. Do something to help those who will really bring about change to restore the Republic and protect our rights and freedoms; the rights and freedoms that you personally fought for.

Rob Simmons says that he owes his supporters.
Rob Simmons has a million in the bank.
He should give that back to his supporters, or donate it to a Military PAC.

Rob Simmons says he is trying to decide what is right and decent to do.
Rob Simmons should endorse a real Conservative, like Peter Schiff.

We need to take this country back and away from this "wealth redistribution" path of destruction.

Simmons considered himself a "tea partier" - he even brought tea bags and copies of the Constitution to his speaking engagements.

If Simmons was sincere in the things he said at those gatherings, then Simmons should support the tea party candidate, Peter Schiff.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

And What Do Black Conservatives Think About The NAACP Proclamation?

This is all about November elections.
The Obama Administration is so scared, that they are calling on the NAACP to push a false racism message targeted at the tea party, which is designed to foment racial tension.

People of all colors should examine closely what this administration is doing.
It is putting in place Marxist policies that will keep ALL people dependent on government, and it is using divisive politics and lies to divide the nation.
Is THIS the Hope and Change you voted for?

"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."
- Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

... and the Obama administration is using organizations like the NAACP to promote lies and incite anger in order to try to derail what pollsters already know... Incumbents in Congress will be voted out of office come November.

The American people DO NOT like what Congress is doing.
They DO NOT approve of this administration's policies.
They have already been lied to by those in office.
They are supporting candidates which WILL unseat many in the House and Senate come November.
Incumbents are even too scared to call town hall meetings during recess.

Mr. Obama and the NAACP are only fueling the fires which will make voters even more resolute to vote the bums out in November.

Yes, Mr Obama and NAACP leadership, we can see November from our Houses!

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The Racists In The White House

The Obama administration gives a free pass to a Black Panther hoodlum who advocates killing white babies. That is o.k. with them. The US Attorney General, Eric Holder, dropped the case against the new Black Panthers who intimidated voters at the polls in 2008.

Do you not recognize that we have departed from even-handed justice and have entered into an era of heavy-handed Chicago-style thuggery? Now the Department of Justice is being used as a political tool and group-affiliation based selectivism.

This is really dangerous stuff.

Michelle Obama came to speak to the NAACP on the eve of their so-called "tea party condemnation". She wants them to "ramp up the intensity". She complained about the condition of blacks in America facing poverty, obesity, and being more prone to jail sentences and attending crumbling schools.

Whose fault is that Michelle?
Have we not enough programs which keep the black community dependent on and enslaved by government?
Have we not enough progressive politicians who want to give hand outs instead of allowing society and business to create real education and opportunity?
Have we not enough social programs which keep black families locked in a failed system of government run agencies?
Have we not created enough guilt and blame to place on everyone else except for the people who are responsible for their own condition?

I have news for Mrs. Obama... Successful members of society come in all colors and ethnicities. They are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Italian, etc., and come in all shapes and sizes. They don't get to be successful by waiting around for government to do stuff for them, or to give them stuff. They work hard and focus on their own goals. They overcome hardships, and getting educated is their prime directive. They will educate themselves if they have to. They have family and belief in a higher power as their help and inspiration. They take care of their kids and are nurturing, and they make sure to provide them with decent food, clothing and education. They don't need to be an "Obama Scholar", or have any kind of government intervention to tell them how to live their lives and how to care for their kids.

Who are the racists?
They are the ones who continually put race out there by playing the race card to further their own political agenda. They cannot counter their opposition with a credible defense - so they resort to calling them racists. They are the Jesse Jackson's and Louis Farrakan's who thrive on creating racial tension and class warfare. They make it easy to abdicate personal responsibility and substitute blame on someone else. Those are the racists, and they are very dangerous people.

Is this man a tea party racist
Or these people?

Make no mistake.
The real racists are the anti-American treasonous Communist Marxists in the White House who are scared to death that the tea party movement will take their power away from them. They are so scared, that they are resorting to this very dangerous tactic of race baiting.

Michelle Obama - and others in this administration are just pushing the envelope.
The powder keg is now in place, and the sparks are beginning to fall like rain.

~ The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. ~ Peter Brimelow

Tea Party people do not dislike Obama and his administration because of the color of anyone's skin... what they dislike is the Marxist (wealth redistribution) anti-American, anti-Constitutional policies that are being rammed through Washington either by Executive Order, Recess Appointments, or by Vote Buying in Congress that we are witnessing.

(related article)

Friday, July 9, 2010

Howard Jubrey , Jr. For CT State Representative - 15th District

Thanks to Ameriborn News for this clip:

I hope that you will support his campaign whether you live in Windsor or not.
We need more guys like this in the CT State Legislature!

Please send donations to Jubrey for State Rep, c/o Herman Woodard Jr., 18 Merriman Road, Windsor CT 06095.

Here's the form.

Some Truths About The "Financial Reform" Bill

It should be called the "financial ruin" bill.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Look Who's Now In Charge Of Medicare And Medicaid

Mr. Wealth Redistribution, AKA Donald Berwick, was appointed by Barack Obama as a "recess appointment" to run Medicare and Medicaid services. King Obama has bypassed the normal Senate confirmation process in order to place this Marxist in charge of those programs.

Yahoo News reports
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose committee would have held Berwick's confirmation hearing, also said he was troubled by the recess appointment. "Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power," said Baucus. Berwick was nominated in April, and Finance Committee staff was still at work on the vetting process it undertakes prior to scheduling a confirmation hearing.

Berwick, 63, is a pediatrician, Harvard University professor and leader of a health care think tank, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, that works to develop and implement concepts for improving patient care. The programs he will oversee — Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly, poor and disabled, along with the Children's Health Insurance Program — provide care to about 100 million people, or around 1 in 3 Americans.

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly." - Donald Berwick

Berwick is all for a single payer system.

Here it comes.
Who will live and who will die.
The Government decides.

With regard to Obamacare... One report also states:
"While rushing their massive government takeover of health care through Congress, President Obama and congressional Democrats promised it would create jobs, lower costs, reduce the deficit, allow Americans to keep their health care, protect seniors' coverage, prohibit taxpayer-funded abortion, and, of course, gain the support of the American people," Boehner's report said.

"It isn't just that none of these promises or predictions have turned out to be true. In every instance, Obamacare has made matters worse," the report said.

Among the study's conclusions:

* "Some of the nation's largest employers have announced they will be forced to make cutbacks as a result of Obamacare's job-killing mandates."
* "Two independent government entities … have confirmed that the new law fails to lower health care costs and reduce the deficit."
* "Obamacare includes at least a dozen violations of President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families."
* "The government has confirmed that the new law's massive Medicare cuts will fall squarely on the backs of seniors, millions of whom will be forced off their current Medicare coverage."

The report also said Obama officials have confirmed their new law "will force some 87 million Americans to drop their current coverage despite President Obama's promise that Americans would be able to keep the coverage that they have."

The report further states Obama has done nothing to implement his executive order that was supposed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions.

Obamacare represents billions in new taxes, job losses, and an increased US budget deficit.

Unless we work to repeal or defund this monstrosity (which apparently is already in the works), we will be stuck with rationed healthcare, and government directives, which will cause many doctors to leave the profession, and which will also be more costly to taxpayers and businesses.


Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Obama Sues Arizona

As if Obama isn't already wasting boatloads of the taxpayers money! and Mexico even gets to join in on the lawsuit! Can you believe this??

This is clearly to be questioned!
The 11th Amendment of the US Constitution states:
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
This would appear to exclude Mexico from joining the "judicial power of the United States" and could also be used to keep the federal government from filing suit against "one of the United States". The courts should have very nicely refused Mexico's amicus brief and told them instead to keep their people from illegally trespassing on US soil.

(Here is Additional reading about the 11th amendment)

It sure looks like Mr. Obama is more interested in dragging this through the courts, then actually doing his job to protect the border.

Governor Brewer said this in response to this lawsuit:
“Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.

“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional. It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws. Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’ Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status. Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’

Please read the rest of Governor Brewer's statement regarding this lawsuit.

Perhaps Washington needs to re-read Article IV section 4 - US Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Make no mistake... we are being invaded - and we are being subjected to acts of domestic violence. Our government is doing nothing to protect property and lives, nor are they upholding federal law.

It is no accident that this lawsuit followed Mr. Obama's immigration speech in which he yakked about comprehensive immigration reform, which of course includes amnesty. (Also known as "a path to citizenship for those who entered our country illegally") There is NO logical reason for our government to support or allow ILLEGAL CROSSINGS INTO A SOVEREIGN NATION! PERIOD.

Governor Brewer is correct to demand that the Federal government live up to its responsibility of protecting and controlling the border. If they don't do it then who the heck will? The US government has failed to protect its citizens and its borders. They are NOT enforcing the Rule of Law. To that end this is not just an Arizona issue, this is an American issue. This government, this "Hope and Change" administration, seems to have no intention whatsoever of enforcing current immigration law. The federal government is broken and our border is NOT secure, and our government is using this as a vehicle to pass amnesty to lawbreaking illegal aliens.

Arizona is the front line of our nation’s illegal immigration crisis, as well as the assault on State's Rights. Arizona is now being brought to bear an expensive lawsuit against this corrupt and out of control federal government of ours. We should come to Arizona's defense, as she is merely trying to protect herself from invasion, as a result of a negligent federal government.

You can bet that this is going to be a challenge to the 10th amendment in federal court as well!

I think Governor Brewer should recall ALL Arizona National Guard, from where ever they are serving, and bring them to Arizona to protect the border. That is her right as Governor to do since the Guard is under the command of the Governor, through the direction of the Adjutant General.

"A nation without borders is no nation at all." - Ron Paul

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Grass Roots Triple Play For CT

Senate candidate Peter Schiff, District 5 Rep candidate Mark Greenberg and District 4 Rep. candidate Rick Torres, met at the newly opened Greenberg Campaign Headquarters for the purpose of cross-endorsement. All three successfully petitioned their way onto the ballot for the August 10 Primary Election, and all three are endorsed by Connecticut's Independence Caucus, and other grassroots organizations.

Registered Republicans in Connecticut have several choices in District 4, District 5 and for the Senate on August 10th. These three men offer a clear choice for voters who are tired of the same old politics as usual and who really want change in Washington.

They know the issues.
They have solutions.
They are NOT career politicians.

Send these guys, and other Liberty candidates, to Washington and the House and Senate will NEVER be the same!

CNN Reports On First Amendment Abuses By Feds

Natural News made this report:
As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime.

CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, "A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, ... will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you're probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they're working for because they're afraid of losing their jobs."

The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media's access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation's televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what's really happening in the Gulf.

The war is on to control your mind.
If all this sounds familiar, it's because the U.S. government uses this same tactic during every war. The first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. ...

So war reporting is carefully monopolized by the government to deliver precisely the images they want you to see while censoring everything else.

Now the same Big Brother approach is being used in the Gulf of Mexico: Criminalize journalists, censor the story and try to keep the American people ignorant of what's really happening. It's just the latest tactic from a government that no longer even recognizes the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Because the very first right is Freedom of Speech, which absolutely includes the right to walk onto a public beach and take photographs of something happening out in the open, on public waters. It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens and our press.

But now the Obama administration has stripped away those rights, transforming journalists into criminals. Now, we might expect something like this from Chavez, or Castro or even the communist leaders of China, but here in the United States, we've all been promised we lived in "the land of the free." Obama apparently does not subscribe to that philosophy anymore (if he ever did).

So how does criminalizing journalists equate to "land of the free?" It doesn't, obviously. Forget freedom. (Your government already has.) This is about controlling your mind to make sure you don't visually see the truth of what the oil industry has done to your oceans, your shorelines and your beaches. This is all about keeping you ignorant with a total media blackout of the real story of what's happening in the Gulf.

The real story, you see, is just too ugly. And the government has fracked up the cleanup effort to such a ridiculous extent that instead of the "transparency" they once promised, they're now resorting to the threat of arrest for all journalists who try to get close enough to cover the story.

Yes, this is happening right now in America. This isn't a hoax. I know, it sounds more like something you might hear about in Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela or some other nation run by dictators. But now it's happening right here in the USA.

Imagine that... Anderson Cooper of CNN is pissed off at the government and making a stink about transparency (or lack thereof) and 1st Amendment violation!
This is the same CNN who has been in the pocket of the Progressives in Washington.
What is pretty amazing is that CNN is criticizing the government for such abuses.
They have seemed pretty o.k. with other abuses.
So what's the big deal now?
And honestly, being kept 65 feet away doesn't seem like a really big deal by some.
Many of these reporters have very fine close-up lenses.
They manage to take great pictures of celebrities and such, from 65 feet away...
but still... THIS IS SO WRONG!!!

It appears CNN and other news outlets are being blocked by the U.S. Government from filming the ongoing damage that has been done by British Petroleum, along with the clean-up operations.

YouTube is full of similar stories.

Why all the secrecy?
Wasn't Hope and Change supposed to bring about the most transparent government?
The hell it does.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Peter Schiff In Barkhamsted

Thanks to Ameriborn News for this Independence Day Weekend interview...

Who Voted For Higher Taxes?

Read the list of how Congress voted.


You may have noticed that President Obama has broken his central campaign promise – a “firm pledge” that Americans making less than $250,000 would not see “any form of tax increase.” He first broke this pledge sixteen days into his presidency when he signed a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco. And Obamacare contains 21 tax increases – several of which violate his “firm pledge”.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” --Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” --President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

“The statement didn’t come with caveats.” -- Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, April 15, 2009, when asked if the pledge applies to healthcare

From Americans For Tax Reform:

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.

I repeat:


Sunday, July 4, 2010

Happy Independence Day!

Today is the 234th anniversary of the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.”
That was a declaration of independence from tyranny and oppression!
Today is our American INDEPENDENCE DAY celebration!

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The Patriots who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence were the "Tea Partiers", the "Right Wing Radicals", the "Anti-Government Activists" and the "Courageous Dissenters" of their time.

They were mocked, ridiculed, banned, threatened, and hated by their opposition.
Yet, they bravely stood by their beliefs, rejecting tyranny, at the peril of their honor, their fortunes and their lives.

The Founders sometimes had to meet secretly, they had to be discreet, and they had to be careful what they said and to whom they said it.

They did not have Talk Radio or the Internet to spread the message of Freedom.
They had their own versions of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews who attempted to discredit them and their efforts.

So the next time you catch some heat for standing up against government tyranny, political corruption and judicial bias - THINK about these brave patriots and what they had to put up with in order to achieve the formation of the greatest country on Earth!

Think about how our Founders would feel seeing their sacrifices being discarded as our country descends into nothing more than another country run by a tyrannical State which burdens us with enormous taxes and redistributes our wealth while restricting our freedom and trampling on our God given rights.

We may very well be re-living their struggle today.
But are we up to their sacrifices?

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin

So America .... can we keep it?
- or -
shall we allow ourselves to live under a newer version of George III style tyranny?

Friday, July 2, 2010

Michael Steele Defends Linda McMahon

RNC Chair, Michael Steele came to visit the CT GOP phone bank.

He defended Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, and in the same breath said that the Tea Party movement is strong.

I have a news flash for Mr. Steele: The Tea Party in CT does NOT support Linda McMahon. The majority of those tea partiers in the news clip support the REAL Conservative - Peter Schiff.

The only true grassroots Tea Party Conservative candidate for US Senate in Connecticut is Peter Schiff. The CT Tea Party and CT Patriot Alliance, as well as many other Liberty grassroots organizations, have endorsed Peter Schiff for Senate.

Connecticut Grassroots Alliance
Connecticut Patriot Alliance
Right Principles
Independence Caucus
Hartford Tea Party
Greenwich-Stamford Tea Party
Stratford Tea Party
Connecticut Resistance
Dump Dodd

"We have to do something about it by sending good people to Washington who understand the problems and are willing to do what is necessary to solve them" - Peter Schiff

It is obvious that the CT GOP and the National GOP are only interested in McMahon's money. She is only interested in adding the job of Senator to her resume, so much so, that she will invest $50 Million of her own money to do so. It will be to her just like buying her yacht, "Sexy Bitch". Does she honestly care about preserving our rights and upholding the Constitution? Not likely.
And as for a candidate representing so-called Republican "family values"? Well, that's a real joke in and of itself.

Did I mention that we need someone who honestly cares about upholding our Constitution, preserving our rights, Restoring the Republic, and promoting a system of "sound money"?

If Mr. Steele was actually listening to the grassroots, he would know this, and he would completely understand what it is the grassroots are telling him. Instead, the RNC keeps pushing these phony Republicans, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and Linda McMahon at us.

We will reject them.
I will tell you now, the tea party people will not support Linda McMahon.
They are tired of holding their noses and voting for the lesser of two evils.
We have had enough of that.

If the RNC doesn't start supporting true Conservative "Liberty candidates", and the people who will actually bring change to Washington, then the 2010 elections will be another meaningless exercise, because we will only be voting in more of what we have already seen and that is either Democrats, or Republicans who act like Democrats.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Kagan A Moderate? No Way!

Courtesy of NewZeal blog here's the scoop (and please read the whole article at NewZeal) :

She has long associated with people connected to three interrelated organizations - the Communist Party USA, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee/ Democratic Socialists of America and the far left Washington D.C. think tank, Institute for Policy Studies.

Elena Kagan's mother, Gloria Kagan, campaigned to elect far left Democratic Congressman, William Fitts Ryan. Her older brother Marc Kagan was active in the socialist influenced New Directions movement in the Transport Workers Union. When one of its leaders, Roger Toussaint, was elected union president in 2000, Mr. Kagan became his chief of staff, until a falling out occurred in 2003.

Marc Kagan's former comrade and boss, Roger Toussaint is prominent in the communist initiated Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, which now led by D.S.A. member William Lucy. He also serves in the leadership of the Center for the Study of Working Class Life at Stony Brook University, alongside Ray Markey from the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence and D.S.A. leaders Gerry Hudson, Mark Levinson, Stanley Aronowitz and Frances Fox Piven, co-originator of the infamous Cloward - Piven Strategy.

Elena Kagan would later dedicate her Princeton history thesis on socialism in New York City to her activist brother.

"I would like to thank my brother Marc whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism and in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

Kagan first became interested in politics in high school and worked as a legislative intern for Rep. Ted Weiss, a Democrat from New York, during the summer of 1978, and as deputy press secretary for Rep. Liz Holtzman in the summer after her junior year....

At Princeton Elena Kagan’s political beliefs emerged in an opinion piece she wrote for the Daily Princetonian a few weeks after Ronald Reagan's victorious 1980 election night. Kagan described her disappointment at Liz Holtzman’s Congressional loss (Kagan had worked on her campaign) and her own "liberal views". “I absorbed ... liberal principles early,” she said. “More to the point, I have retained them fairly intact to this day.”...

At Princeton, Elena Kagan's law school room mate was Sarah Walzer, the daughter of Princeton social sciences professor Michael Walzer. Coincidentally Michael Walzer was a leader of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, both nationally and on campus...

In her undergraduate thesis at Princeton entitled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the country as "sad" for those who still hope to "change America." She asked why the "greatness" of socialism was not reemerging as a major political force:

"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?

"Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis. “Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”"

Kagan called the story of the socialist movement’s demise “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America ... In unity lies their only hope.”

At Princeton, Elena Kagan won a fellowship to Oxford University, in England, where she studied “the history of British and European trade unionism.”

President Obama himself, has a long history with Democratic Socialists of America.
Is it possible that Elena Kagan shares similar associations?

Should she be asked some questions on the subject?

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism and patriarchy." - Barack Obama, "Dreams From My Father"

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me, as we try to change it." -Barack Obama

How incredibly sad for our country to have this Socialist as a Supreme Court judge.

Foreigners just cannot fathom what is happening to this country.
And we are allowing it.