Trapshooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,706 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If one wanted to effectively take control of the US Government without firing a shot, this would be one of the first things to do:

"Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers."

No true American, Republican, Democrat or Independent should support this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Thanks to the influx of illegal aliens, California has more representatives than it should have. Those reps are not any friends to the sentiments expressed on these boards. Thank you, past administrations for pimping to the interests of your political donors. I feel blessed to pay for illegals education, incarcaration, and medical needs with my tax contributions. Don't you!??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,449 Posts
Democrats have been manipulating the population in order to garner the majority vote since the beginning. They just keep coming up with new ways, that's all.

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, southern democrats fought for slaves to be counted in the census, even though the slaves were not to be allowed a vote. Black slaves made up about 1/3 of the population in the south, whereas in the north, the population was less than 10% black. Southern democrats knew that the northerners were opposed to slavery, so the southerners wanted greater representation in the House in order to be able to defeat the Northern vote to abolish slavery. In a compromise between the north and south, it was decided that blacks would count for 3/5 of a person in the census.

And that is your history lesson for the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
MABYE WE NEED SOME MORE OF THESE


New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War - Resolution Immediately Voids
Several Federal Laws, Threatens Counterstrike Against Federal “Breach Of
Peace”
February 4th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.
The Betrayal:
The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by
introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to
completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a
“breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the
Constitution.”
This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that
they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through
civil war!
The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long
forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the
United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason,
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies,
and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of
nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of
Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so
enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”
Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion
other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific
enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.
One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his
salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to
prove that most lawyers are dullards.
New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes
legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the
United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . .
. . .”
Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now
risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal
government by the States!
Quoting directly from the Resolution: “That any Act by the Congress of the
United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America
or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which
assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by
the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish
the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute
a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the
government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a
nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States
comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature
of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft
during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration
after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under
the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration
after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or
foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political
speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including
prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial
Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of
America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several
States individually.”

The full New Hampshire resolution is printed below, or you can to the
Government’s website and read it there.
HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0274
09/01
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9;
Sen. Denley, Dist 3
COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
ANALYSIS
This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian
principles.
09-0274
09/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine
A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7
declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of
governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and
forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and
right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them
expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1
declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province
of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form
themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the
name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the
United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly
declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the
aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts,
New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or
similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to
the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united
on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that,
by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States,
and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special
purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving,
each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government;
and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts
are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State
acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to
itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not
made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to
itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the
measure of its powers; but
that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge,
each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of
the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a
power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the
United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences
against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it
being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution
having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume
to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the
Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create,
define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains
solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory;
and
That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one
of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over
the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were
reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their
determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the
licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening
their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from
their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also
they guarded against all abridgment by the United
States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to
themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this
general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision
has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly
declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the
same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that
whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and
that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion,
are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts
of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, freedom of
the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and
That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by
sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United
States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or
officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their
power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary
only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as
themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the
whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government
under color of these articles,
will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and
That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall
have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures
of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same
esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at
which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union,
for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their
federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all
the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and
meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is
sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take
from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general
and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and
reservations solemnly
agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of
these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its
co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no
man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers,
the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by
the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed
which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful
remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact,
(casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power
by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the
dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of
judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and
respect for its co-States,
has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is
proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely
authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it,
Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject
as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for
whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts
before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it
would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to
silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere
the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in
confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited
constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that
our Constitution has accordingly fixed
the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of
power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from
mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call
on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by
the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as
to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or
particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed
to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they
will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the
Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not
meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it
will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that
they will view this
as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of
the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as
the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws
made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this
would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one
deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will
concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the
General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution,
shall be exercised within their respective territories; and
That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal
conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may
be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and
that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court;
and
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the
President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories
of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the
government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States
of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several
States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution
for the United States of America by the government of the United States of
America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not
limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States
comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature
of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft
during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration
after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under
the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration
after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or
foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political
speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including
prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial
Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of
America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several
States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall
require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a
government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any
State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the
President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and
the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,300 Posts
"You might remember Hillarycare: A huge plan, prepared by Hillary and Bill Clinton during secret meetings between politicians, lawmakers, insurance companies... everybody EXCEPT doctors. A plan to nationalize the U.S. Health Care industry, it described a new Federal bureaucracy whose job was to decide who got what health care, which doctors you could see, what treatments you could and couldn't have, and what restrictions and penalties you would face if you didn't do health care the way the bureaucracy wanted you to.

Bill and Hillary published the entire plan in a book in 1993, describing their plans, what new crimes and jail sentence awaited patients or physicians who tried to "get around the system", pay cash for their treatment, etc.

Many people credit Hillarycare as the single biggest reason Democrats were thrown out of every majority in Congress (and most state governorships) the following year.

Well, now it's back. It's not called Hillarycare, of course. It merely recycles a large number of the things she tried to get done. Fellow leftist Tom Daschle is identified as the author this time.

Not long ago, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel said that a crisis like the current housing meltdown, was an opportunity to do things that the Democrats couldn't get done by other means. It's now becoming clear what he had in mind. Under the guise of "stimulating the economy", Hillary's old Univeral Health Care plan is being snuck into the gigantic "stimulus" bill.

Obama and many Congressional Democrats are insisting that there be little examination or debate of the bill, saying that we don't have the time to "bicker over details", and that the country desperately needs this stimulus bill NOW.

It's said that emergency conditions make for bad law.

The Democrats seem bent on raising that standard to a new height.

------------------------------------------

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
We tried that "State's Right's" thing about 145 years ago down here in South Carolina. Tried it again about 1958. Didn't work out too well either time. I wish them luck, but I'm not optomistic! It's a hopeful sign, though, that at least someone has the sense to truly see what is going on in this country. I for one think the whole d----d mess is going to have to collapse before any real reform (repudiating socialism and dismantling the welfare state)will be demanded by the American populace.It's gonna' get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
This is a reply to Blooch about NH firing the first shot. New Hampshire is 150 yrs. too late. South Carolina fired the first shot April 12, 1861. New Hampshire was one of the states that did't approve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
Thought with all of these Executive Orders we were already here. Letting these clowns (no offense to real clowns) takeover the census is like trusting Bernie Maddoff with your 401(k) account. I heard today on Fox News that they want to give Washington, D.C. 2 Senators; why not Puerto Rico? Anyone heard in the Constitution that only States are eligible? If we're not careful the only Constitution will be the one floating in Boston Harbor. BT-100dc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
FYI....all the medical schools in the U.S. combined turn out 16,000 graduates per year. I wonder how many docs will quit practicing if socialized medicine comes about? In Obama's home state, Illinois, which has very bad malpractice laws, there are no neurosurgeons south of Springfield..........and there are 3,000 in the U.S. Med school graduates will not go into certain medical fields if the malpractice insurance and the fees for services do not make it attractive. Case in point, geriatrics....2% of graduates go into this field...a whole 32 of them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
Speaking of college grads,,Do you know that for every engineer grad. there are 5 lawyers,,, pretty easy to see way we the USSA (United Socialist States of America) is so screwed up,,,,and getting worse,,,,
 

·
Strong Supporter of Trapshooting
Joined
·
4,727 Posts
It there a second paragraph in there somewhere?

Man, talk about never wanting to read something.

A couple of carriage returns could sure help.

Whiz
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top