Comments: 0

1. financial responsibility and accountability insuring that all investments made with tax payer funds be examined and decided on the basis of a sound business plan, adequate capital investment of its partners and stock holders, and the expectation of long-term success; and further, that all profits, interest, earnings on property and securities from whatsoever source are proportioned back to the states and the taxpayers;

2. demanding and receiving from all nations to whom we provide security, payment for the expenses incurred by our government and its taxpayers to furnish them with our military personnel, equipment, ordinance, and safe quarters while on their lands; and to further insure the paid medical care of all wounded in action both short term and permanent, coupled with a sustainable monthly allowance to support their families, and paying a delegated amount to the families of all killed in action, or as a result of being stationed on their land;

3. imposing work demands upon all prisoners sentenced to incarceration for more than 90 days, to provide for their detention expenses, daily necessities, and to provide for the welfare of their dependents; actions that will greatly diminish the tax burden on the American people;

4. taxation on the purchase and consumption of goods rather than personal or business incomes, a principle supported by Alexander Hamilton in the 14th Federalist paper;

5. eliminate the Department of Education and restore to the states their proper right to exercise full oversight and controls over the education and curricula of all educational institutions within its jurisdictions;

6. restoration of religious expressions and practice without hindrance;

7. the right to bear arms in every city and state in the union for our self protection without unnecessary restraint and limitation, for the purpose of securing our persons and property from both foreign and domestic terrorism and threats; excepting only the right to disarm those who are, or become, members of known and recognized terrorist groups and gangs;

8. the security as before provided for all generations in the Bill of Rights, and a government transparent to, and accountable to, the people and Congress of the United States.

9. that all laws, regulations, taxes, and restrictions imposed on the citizens must be equally obligatory and enforceable on every member and employee of the federal government and its assigns without exception.

These policy positions are firmly embodied in the duties, obligations, and responsibilities inherent in the laws of fiduciary responsibility and trusteeship which was made incumbent upon the federal government when our forefathers “vested” certain cherished financial trusts, invaluable sovereign and sacred rights, and other “treasures” of great value to the states, they placed under its protections; whose duty it is to protect, defend, and secure these certain and valued rights and trusts committed to them and enumerated in the document we refer to as the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, I submit to the peace-loving people of this district, and this state that no one entrenched in the foxholes of government domination is going to “give back” the rights they have usurped for their own enrichment. IT BECOMES THEREFORE, ENCUMBENT UPON US, the Common People, TO REPLACE those in the Congress and Senate who have not left their secure foxholes, have not condemned the usurpation of the people’s rights and liberties, have not attempted to restrain the appropriation of additional powers from the states, and have not taken steps to limit the powers of the government, nor have begun to initiate action to restore our sacred rights, even those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the governed.
Of particular mention, we must examine the record of those who profess themselves to be conservative Republicans, and determine if they have STOOD THEIR GROUND in DEFIANCE of these illegal and unconstitutional acts, or caved in to the demands of this administration to further encroach upon and usurp our rights; and if it be determined they have not stood their ground in defense of the sacred trust committed to their keeping, THEY MUST, of NECESSITY, ALSO BE RESPLACED.

I am advocating for the election of individuals committed to supporting and defending the principles and the sacred confidence originally vested by our forefathers in the federal government: individuals who will engage in a strong, determined, yet peaceable means of restoring our government to its proper place of strength in matters foreign and domestic.

Of grave importance, they must immediately begin to create a stable environment aimed at alleviating the fears of the electorate who have begun to question the government’s loyalty to uphold the sacred fiduciary trust delegated to it by the people.

It is reported that our government is preparing the military and police for a national revolt. If this is true, I submit that the fear and apprehension within the hearts of Americans losing hope of a bright and successful future for themselves and their children is well documented by the administration. Otherwise, why the preparation? But should a government wary of revolt prepare to kill its own citizens instead of making the changes necessary to promote the peace and general welfare of its citizens? Is our government going to mimic the insufferable tragedies upon us that King Assad of Syria, is waging against his own people -choosing to kill his own people rather than give way to progressive change? Is this the future we envision for ourselves and our loved ones?

Revolution may be at our doorsteps, but do we welcome it? Do we support an uprising that will devastate our nation and bring death and misery to its citizens; or do we make every attempt to deter violence and put the people at rest? We must breathe the fresh air of a legitimate hope and change policy in an attempt to restore the hope that our government will be restored. That our policies will bring about economic recovery and stability, a definite increase in employment opportunities, lower taxes, and establishing the bond of unity between a people that have been so divided against each other. This is the only way that I know of to avoid the much anticipated bloodshed.

Once again, the weight and burden is upon us, the people, to vote the opportunists out of office and to vote those among us into office who share our core values and virtues, and who desire the blessings of God upon our nation and our children to the third and fourth generations of those who believe in Him.
I have presented a peaceable plan of action that will not advance the violence the government is anticipating. As Congressman Paul Ryan was known to say many times, “WE CAN DO THIS!”

A major portion of this text was taken from a speech I gave before a Republican assembly when I ran for Congress in 1986. It was a message out of time, and will undoubtedly have a far greater influence if I were to give it today. Nevertheless, it is a positive message, and while we may make certain statements to point out the actions of those in government, we must refrain from using names and deliberate personal attacks. This is what we all desire, “Tell me what YOU are going to do to make a difference – We already know what the other isn’t doing, or DID!”

I would be more than honored to see the essence of this message being proclaimed by every candidate running for office in 2014, because I believe this message is timely, impossible to contradict or successfully dispute, and I am convinced if it is included in the platform of the New Revitalized Republican Party, the true Party of the People, it will result in many victories for Conservative Christians, Friends of Israel, and people of virtue of all faiths. If called upon, I would be honored to present this message personally before the citizens of your communities. But, it is far more important, of grave importance, to get this message into the hands of those who would be faithful candidates and elected officials for federal office in 2014. If you believe this is the message for today, then spread the word as quickly and with as much energy as you possess. Let this be our charge, the conviction of our hearts, “We must have the majority in the Senate and in the House!”

Thank you and God bless all your efforts and successes.

Rev. Anthony Mucciolo
tonymorro@gmail.com

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

They make great gifts for recovering Liberals.

God Bless You, your families and God Bless America!

Jeff McQueen Flag at U.S. Capital

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

THE INDEPENDENCE SENTINEL
http://www.facebook.com/pages/the-independence-sentinel/105583322896126
e-mail paddy@alamo1824.com

BIRDS OF A POLITICAL FEATHER
PADDY PEARSE
PART 1 OF 5
BACKGROUND
Birds of political feather flock together. The questions now are, “What kind of bird are you? How do I find others with my kind of feathers? Who can I roost with?” In this day, seeking political-economic parallelism as one’s ally should be a prime objective for voters and activists.
Better said, don’t be guided by “Ds” or “Rs” or “Ls”. You will be disappointed by using this gauge. Determine what you are, what factions you are working with, whom you should trust, who will I be comfortable with, and, definitely, who you are voting for.
For example, there are three very distinct birds in the Republican Party. Two are highly diverse with the third having some similarity to one. The two very dissimilar are the larger factions while the third might be considered by some as inconsequential. No sense in telling you which is which. Why spoil the fun? The exercise below will make it clear. Who best reflects your political economic creed? This knowledge is essential to choosing the best candidate to support and the best team to work with. Conversely, you will know who to oppose and which group to walk away from.
One’s political-economic philosophy is determined by first, one’s economic goals; second, the degree of competition that is tolerated; third, the amount of governmental involvement that is acceptable.
A person’s or group’s Political-Economic philosophy involves on one hand what economic system does one want: free market, socialist, or somewhere in between. On the other hand, what form of government one sees as required to achieve the economic objective: liberal, totalitarian, or somewhere in between. Different persons and groups will fall within these two determinants according to the intensity in which they hold their beliefs, resulting in a variety of Political-Economic philosophies ranging from “liberal-Laissez-faire” to ”totalitarian-socialism”
There are three main characteristics’ scales to consider in determining one’s political economic philosophy:
1. ECONOMIC BELIEFS which range from “Laissez-faire” to “Command Economy” . That is, how much government involvement is tolerated in managing the three crucial factors of resolving allocation decisions– the “who”, “how”, and “for whom” ─ of production factors usage.
2. COMPETITIVE ALLOWANCE moves from “Perfect Competition” to “Oligopoly” or “Monopoly” , which measures the degree of competition existing in the economy that will be allowed. Entrepreneurship , which thrives in a competitive environment, suffers as one moves across this line from perfect competition to oligopoly or monopoly as the ability for new or smaller businesses to complete diminishes with large companies or monopolies as these two control increasing amounts of the market.
3. GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE which is the political structure that is installed and ranges from being from “Liberal” to “Totalitarian” . The political dimension can be further analyzed by another three-dimensional model. The first dimensional line records the basis for the rule of law from “Constitutional Rule” to “Rule by Edict” . The second aspect measures whether the system is a “Democracy” or a “Dictatorship” . The third demarks the geopolitical emphasis of government from “Local” to “Global” and covers a journey through the additional transitional stages of geographical governance ¾ Sectional , National , and Regional .
A republic and a democracy are not synonymous. The United States was founded as a constitutional republic, not as any form of democracy, although we do elect people to represent us in our governance,
These two forms of government, Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority…
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. …
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece…
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. …
The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. … The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. …
It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. …
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate. …
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. …
This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties. (An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic. LexRex.com)
There are many combinations of economics and politics on this earth. They are not necessarily attributable to any given party as politics makes for strange nest parties, as can be seen in multi-partied nations, such as France, where often a potential ruling party lacks a ruling majority and must rely on other smaller parties to join them in a ruling coalition. Later, if the minor party withdraws from a coalition, the government falls and must be reformed.
The American parties are in themselves coalitions, where at times one party member may switch party allegiance, which may change control of one of the chambers. A few Progressives may be found the Republican Party. Some Classical Liberals may be found in the Democrat Party. Truly, America’s political parties are often somewhat of political-economic hodge-podges, literally all over the spectrum. Therefore, our analysis will concentrate on the four more prominent Political-Economic philosophies in the United States: Classical Liberalism; Classical Conservatism; Progressive or The Third Way; and; Libertarianism and not the parties.
We have endeavored to list each philosophy’s core beliefs which hopefully will sculpt their prominent features for your examination. Be aware that not all features are held in unison by any philosophy. There has been some cross breeding over the years and therefore, while generally the same, some birds may have variant feathers; there is enough similar plumage to allow one bird to comfortably allow another bird into the nest.
The discussions in the sections that follow are of the four major political-economic philosophies in the United States: Classical Liberalism; Classical Conservatism; Progressivism; and, Libertarianism. The discussions give a brief history, many of the basic belief systems, and names of the more noted adherents. These are the nomenclatures that The Independence Sentinel will use in its writings as it considers these as being more distinguishing between the groups.
TO BE CONTINUED: Next, Classical Liberalism

Comments: 0

Comments: 0