Obama's Hypocritical Remarks Regarding the Supreme Court
By Rhonda Deniston
As Senator, President Obama taught courses in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago and regularly referred to himself as a “Constitutional Law Professor.” For one making such claims, it would only be proper to hold that individual to a higher standard regarding interpretation of Constitutional Law. It is fair to say that Obama’s comments regarding “Judicial Activism” is highly hypocritical, not so much from a judicial perspective, but rather activism in of itself.
What easily comes to mind in the case of activism is ACORN and Moveon.org; two groups associated with Obama whose practices of activism are commonly used. Can these examples compare and are they equal? Let the reader decide. The point being made that Obama and his administration have made it a regular practice to control the conversation and the direction of the country, driving his agenda through activism! It is hard to deem the authority of the Supreme Court and its justices in determining the Constitutionality of Obama’s healthcare law as “Judicial Activism.” It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of a law or action relevant to a case under review.
Furthermore, Obama’s warnings to the Supreme Court are greatly concerning. These comments suggest the Supreme Court should not cross Obama and his agenda. Obama more or less publically challenged the Supreme Court, with his continued use of bullying and intimidation tactics. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant in their implementation of separations of power. Obama has time and time again used his authority to overreach and power grab the powers of the legislative branch via executive order. Obviously Obama is confused about the authority of the Supreme Court, as well as the balance of powers in our form of government.
Moving to the point of Obama hypocrisy. Obama’s own words in a recent press conference, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (1) Passed by strong majority? In March of 2010 the Healthcare bill nearly passed by a 219-212 vote in the House of Representatives. Obtaining those last few votes with arm-twisting, waivers and brokered sweetheart deals by and for Democrat Congressman, many which lost their congressional seats a few months later due to public outrage over the bill, is hardly what many would define as a “Majority.” To add one last point about unelected people. Is the EPA not unelected in addition to unchecked power, are Obama’s 45+ Czars not unelected in addition to unchecked power? I think the hypocrisy debate has been proven in the case. Obama has continued his normal practice of laws, interpretations and exceptions to the rules as strictly one sided.
(1) www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/
Rocky Chavez, Candidate for 76th Assembly District, Signs Promise to California Taxpayers
We were pleased to receive the commitment from retired Marine Colonel Rocky J. Chavez last month. This means that all three candidates, from the 76th Assembly District, have publicly stated that they:
- will not increase marginal tax rates, on businesses or individuals,
- will not support a net reduction in credits or deductions, unless matched dollar-for-dollar with commensurate cuts to marginal tax rates,
- protect Proposition 13, and
- will not support any efforts to increase the taxpayers contribution to public employee retirement plans
He served on the Oceanside City Council and was appointed Undersecretary of Veterans Affairs in Sacramento. He served as Acting Secretary for the same under Governor Schwarzenneger.
View Colonel Chavez' Promise to you here.Rocky Chavez Promise
National Popular Vote is Deceptive
By Rhonda Deniston
A National Popular Vote (NPV) would guarantee the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the entire United States. This is the actual statement you will find on the National Popular Vote website and the statement could not be more true. The NPV website also states a NPV preserves the Electoral College and ensure every vote in every state matters, this is where NPV idea gets a little shady and deceptive. Those that would like you to believe a NPV protects less populated states and provides protections that give those states a bigger voice, is nothing more than a fallacy. The NPV is a deceptive concept, that steals elections, tips balance of power and would change America in a direction that would make the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves.
Currently, there are nine states signed on to the NPV, Vermont, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, California and Hawaii, combined equal 132 of 270 electoral votes needed to take the White House. Ironically, all these states are heavily dominated Democrat states. Starting to see a trend here? A NPV seems reasonable, right? Sure, who ever gets the most votes, wins. The problem with this is that this is not how it works. When a state signs on to the NPV, in essence that state has given up their voting rights and have collectively join in with the other NPV states creating a compact, or rather states entering into agreement. The NPV combines all of the NPV states electoral votes. This is not about individual votes being counted and the most votes wins.
This is how the NPV works; lets say eight of the nine states already signed on to the NPV all vote for Barrack Obama in the 2012 election, the ninth state, lets say it is California with fifty-five electoral votes, the states majority votes went to who ever the Republican candidate is and not for Obama; California would surrender their fifty-five electoral votes to the NPV compact, despite California voters leaning toward another candidate because California agreed to give their electoral votes to the candidate that got the popular vote in NPV states. A NPV compact is not illegal, but it is a crafty way to skirt the constitution and undermine our current system of voting. Our Founding Fathers made no mistake in when they developed our system of election; the Founding Fathers took great care to prevent direct election of the president.
A NPV system opens up the door to massive voter fraud and power grabs. Ask yourself this, if the NPV is so grand why have nine states already signed on quietly, with no public debate or publicity? Why are the NPV states all connected to one political party and not a mix of political affiliation? Why are high paid lobbyist persuading legislators to enact NPV into law? Why are voters not involved in the decision making process regarding their states voting rights? If it smells like a rat, walks like a rate and looks like a rat, is a rat!!! If enough states enacted the NPV system, totaling 270 electoral votes, why would there even be a need for an election? It could take as few as eleven of the most populated states to decide the presidency, leaving the rest of the country disenfranchised. Assured that the NPV is contrived and deliberately deceptive, the NPV campaign slogan “Every Vote Equal” is hugely deceptive in everyway!
The Taxpayer Promise: A Sucessful Start
Posted: January 15, 2012
Yes, it's true. As noted in this editorial I wrote for the North County Times, the Promise to
California Taxpayers is off to a great start. I do believe that there is one significant point of clarification that needs to be made. STU is NOT an anti-tax group. We are a taxpayer advocacy group and there is a big difference. We recognize that any organized society will have some sort of taxation in order to provide for certain societal needs. In our specific case, we believe those needs have been specifically defined in the United States Constitution, but our law makers have strayed well beyond the founding principles of this country. In short, we believe we need to shrink government, and the best way to do this is cut off it's revenue stream....your tax dollars. So we wish the headline was: Taxpayer Advocacy Group Fights for Californians....but it was not. Nonetheless, it's still a good read (IMHO).
10 Implicit Fallacies Justifying Government Pensions
Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters
Posted 1/7/12
1. "Public employees deserve high pensions because they work for low wages."
FALSE. Perhaps true at one time, but not so any more. In many instances, today's government employee is earning 10%-30% more than their true private sector counterparts -- and with far better job guarantees. BTW, the bogus union salary comparisons usually cherry pick the private sector -- including in their "surveys" only the largest and wealthiest private sector employers -- along with monopoly public utilities.
2. "Government employees should not have to save for retirement."
FALSE. They can use IRA (and, for teachers, 403-b) accounts to add to their retirement savings -- just like the rest of us. They can invest in stocks, real estate, annuities -- just like the rest of us. And they can invest the inheritances they receive -- modest or otherwise -- rather than spending these windfalls and then relying on their pensions as young government geezers.
3. "Government employees deserve to retire earlier than private sector employees."
FALSE. Or at least, if they do "need" to retire early, they can get another job to supplement income (as do most military retirees).
4. "Government employees and their families deserve to live and retire comfortably from a single 40 hour a week job."
FALSE. Today most private sector middle income and upper middle income couples fully expect to generate multiple incomes -- usually by some combination of working over 40 hours and working together.
5. "Government workers deserve guarantees because they are 'public servants' not motivated by greed."
FALSE. As a group, public employees are as greedy as they come, and they rely on the force of government to get what they want. The REAL "public servants" are the TAXPAYERS underwriting these opulent compensation packages.
6. "No matter how many or few years a public employee works for government, their only source of retirement income is (and should be) their government pensions."
FALSE. Indeed, in their comparisons of government pensions, the public labor union propagandists factor in the folks who work as little as 10 years for government.
7. "Many government employees (including most teachers) don't get social security."
LARGELY FALSE -- or at least misleading. It's true that many (primarily local) public employees don't pay into social security while working for government, but most qualify for at least a minimum social security income from other jobs -- ten years of even part-time SS income earned over a lifetime.
8. "Without the guaranteed pensions, many government employees would retire in poverty."
LARGELY FALSE -- or at least not the fault of taxpayers. This assertion is based on the bogus assumption that, unlike private sector employees, government employees would (and should) otherwise save nothing for their senior years.
9. "Many government employees should be able to retire with essentially the same income they earned on the job."
FALSE. This is the "90% pension at 30 years" common in public safety jobs -- and for too many other government employees. Indeed, given that a retired employee would no longer pay into their pensions, union dues, Medicare, or have commuting costs, a 90% pension is actually HIGHER than the net salary earned while working. The normal retirement goal in private sector financial planning is 60% of working income -- counting all retirement income sources.
10. "We have to pay top pensions to attract 'the best and the brightest' to government work."
FALSE -- and a bad idea to start with. We DON'T want to attract "the best and the brightest" to government work. We need such folks in PRODUCTIVE employment in the private sector. All that government pensions do is to assure that government employees STAY as government employees -- an easy accomplishment for the workers as they are all but guaranteed lifetime employment regardless of the quality of their performance.
Government jobs are -- with rare exception -- in extremely high demand, which is why government so seldom advertises job openings. Exceptionally high applicant demand and low job turnover tells any employer that they are paying too much for their employees. Any employer except government, that is.
Mr Rider is the Chairman of the San Diego Tax Fighters. You can see more of his working by following his blog
Private Property Rights under Attack
By: Darcy Brandon
Let’s go back in time. What do you remember about 1976? For me, I remember it being the year of America’s bicentennial celebrations. Two hundred years of celebrating America...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But something more sinister also occurred. The UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT 1) was held that year in Vancouver, B.C. Do you know what came from this conference? Have you even heard of it? They established the UN policy on private property rights and developed the blueprint for comprehensive land use planning.
This report states, “Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice...Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...”
Does that sound like our founding documents? Absolutely NOT! This is straight out of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. What is disturbing about this statement is that it has been rearing its head in our city and county planning goals and documents. Today it’s called “Sustainable Development” or “Smart Growth.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Who doesn’t want a sustainable community? Smart Growth? Sure, let’s be smart about it too. Vague words with cold and harsh realities based on communitarianism. This is where all the high-speed rail, traffic-calming round-abouts, bicycle lanes, walkable neighborhoods, redevelopment and mixed-use development originates. It has become a cookie-cutter blueprint for every community across the country, from Maine to California; Florida to Washington.
The majority of these policies originated in the 1970’s but the big push to implement them came out of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The Earth Summit Agenda 21 was signed by President H.W. Bush. Agenda 21 is a 300-page, 40 chapter document that addresses virtually every aspect of our lives. Its objectives include (1) social equity, (2) environment and (3) economics...known as the “Three E’s.” It hasn’t been approved by Congress but it was given teeth with President Clinton’s Executive Order #12852, the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, and is being implemented through grants, policies and regulations of the EPA, city & county growth management plans, regional transportation plans, redevelopment agencies and many others. Where is our representation in these policies? We don’t have any because they are being decided upon by unelected boards and councils, city & county staff, ‘stakeholders’, NGO’s (nongovernmental organizations) and facilitators at ‘citizen input‘ meetings.
Agenda 21 is a great policy for redistributing the wealth but it absolutely destroys private property rights. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution states, “No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
It seems our government officials, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, have forgotten their duty to protect their citizens from this attack on our private property from the UN...or could it be that their alliances do not lie with the US Constitution and a sovereign country but with progressive dogma and turning the US into a global socialistic society?
Virginia GOP Loses Touch With Founding Principles
By: Tamara Colbert
Posted 12/27/2011
Tamara is a guest author. STU welcomes submissions for review and will post as deemed appropriate.
America is about choice and representation, especially when it comes to elections. Civil, lively and extended debate and discussion about our voting options is what keeps our nation free and independent. Our freedom to choose whom we want to vote for, and the freedom to actually vote for that person is one of America’s unique defining features.
Elections encapsulate the vision of America’s freedom. Securing free and fair voting for citizens is part of an incredible birthright about the choice of electing representatives for any office in the land. Access for any citizen to become a candidate for any office should not be so limited that only a select few are able to participate in the process. The creation of rules that make running for office prohibitive rather than participatory and open limits the very freedoms guaranteed by our founding documents. Limiting the choice of a myriad of candidates further limits the debate, discussion and dialogue essential to the United States of America’s republic.
America is at a critical juncture in our history and the coming 2012 elections will prove to be one of the most important in our young republic’s history. This is no time to place exclusionary provisions on the electoral process. Our inherent and inalienable rights as Americans should be open, secure and inclusive in order to give voters the power of choice as we discuss the candidates for 2012, including the candidates for the president of the United States.
Virginia’s GOP presidential primary ballot is a perfect example of the exclusionary process for potential candidates. Our point is that when five out of seven GOP presidential candidates are either unable to secure the 10,000 votes needed to get on the primary ballot—something is wrong. The Republican Party should provide the maximum freedom of choice when it comes to conservative candidates.
Does the Republican party of Virginia want to elect a conservative president in 2012? If so, why are they denying the citizens of Virginia the opportunity to choose from all the candidates? As citizens of the republic of the United States of America we expect the freedom to choose our representatives and we invite the Republican Party of the Commonwealth of Virginia to expand our choices and do the right thing by allowing all the GOP presidential candidates a spot on the ballot in their primary.
For more information about Tamara Colbert visit www.AmericanWomenMedia.com
The End of State Sovereignty - It's in Here
By: Darcy Brandon
Obama’s “Job’s Bill," otherwise known as "American Jobs Act of 2011," is misguided on so many levels (increased taxes, debt, subsidies, and regulations) but the most disturbing item is Section 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY. This section of the bill further shreds our constitution.
First of all, let’s get something straight. Government does not create jobs. Private sector businesses create jobs. In order for the government to ‘create’ jobs, they take money from you and me in the form of taxes to pay for wages, pensions, entitlement programs - anything and everything.
This “Job’s Bill” will destroy the 11th Amendment of the US Constitution. That’s right, good-bye state sovereignty. The exact wording in the bill states, “(a) Abrogation of State Immunity – A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of the Act. (b) Waiver of State Immunity– “(A) WAIVER – A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise...”
And how do they propose to implement this? You’ve heard the phrase, “Nothing is free” or “strings attached?” A state’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for ANY program are the strings attached to this bill and let’s face it, practically every government agency, city, county or state, receives “Federal financial assistance.”
This bill is NOT about jobs, just like the healthcare bill was NOT about our health. This is about a total government takeover of our Republic and turning it into a socialist state run by a tyrannical administration.
Please contact your senators and ask them to vote "NO" on this bill, S 1660, when it comes up for a vote.
Stop Taxing Us Announces "Promise to California Taxpayers".
Immediately after Stop Taxing Us announced the Promise, Sherry Hodges, candidate for California's new 76th Assembly District, became the first candidate to sign the Promise. A formal ceremony of her Promise will be made at a campaign fundraiser, at the law offices of Mintz Levin, Friday December 2, 2012, at noon. Video of the ceremony will be posted on the Stop Taxing Us weblog, soon thereafter.
Stop Taxing Us styled the Promise after the success of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, drafted by and administered by Americans for TaxReform. The Promise uses the language, verbatim, from both parts of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, but adds language specifically addressing two California-centric issues: Proposition 13 and taxpayer contributions to public employee retirement plans.
Brian Brady, a director with Stop Taxing Us, explained the structure of the Promise: "The Pledge, as well as the Promise to California Taxpayers, is made to the people of America and California respectively.”
“The State of California is in the middle of a budget crisis and revenue is not the problem." said Dr, Gary Gonsalves, MD, the co-founder of Stop Taxing Us. "We have structural spending issues which must be fixed if the government of California is to live within its means". Gonsalves is citing the pension crisis and transfer payment programs.
Rhonda Deniston, a director of Stop Taxing Us, argues against higher taxes. "Every time California raises taxes, productive individuals flee the state, taking businesses and jobs with them." Deniston reiterated Gonsalves' remark about spending. "This is just a math problem. We can't raise taxes any more; the people won't stand for it. If we can't raise taxes, how can we balance our budget? We have to cut spending".
The Promise to California Taxpayers is absolutely voluntary. "We intend to offer the Promise as a way for fiscal conservatives, regardless of party affiliation, to articulate clearly that raising taxes is something they will never, ever do. We want to make it easy for candidates to tell the voters where they stand. Additionally, we want California taxpayers to know which candidates protect them and, should the unfortunate happen...that is... if a candidate breaks his/her promise in office, we want to let the taxpayers know that their governing actions were inconsistent with their campaign rhetoric." said BradyACTION ALERT: San Diego Pension Reform Ballot Signatures Needed
Listen to this 12-minute plea for help now.
Carl extends this plea for help to ALL San Diego County tea party activists, not just those who live in the City of San Diego. Dr. Gary Gonsalves and Brian Brady articulated why this pension reform measure is, quite literally, the most important measure facing us, at our April, 2011 tea party rally because:
- The City of San Diego pension reform measure is being watched by the rest of the nation
- San Diego is one of the ten largest cities in the country
- San Diego pension reform could be the model and reform could have a domino affect
- Other cities, states, and possibly the federal government could look to the San Diego model for future reform,
Send Jimmy Hoffa a message by helping Carl De Maio get this pension reform measure on the ballot, so that the voters of San Diego can reform city employees' pension plans, so that there WILL be money for them when they retire. The folks who teach our children, protect our property and person against crime, and administer our government should be compensated and should have a safe and secure retirement. The union plan has failed; we need to affect change now.
What can you do?
Join me and Carl De Maio this Saturday, September 10, 2011, to walk Rancho Bernardo and gather signatures at 16935 W. Bernardo Drive San Diego, CA 92127.
We will start at 8:30am and end by 4:00pm. Come for as long or as little as you want! Bring a friend if you can!
Volunteers will be served delicious barbeque for lunch courtesy of Phil's BBQ -- and at the end of the walk they will be thanked with beer from some of our best local San Diego breweries.
If you can volunteer on Saturdays September 10th, please email us now at CPR@RealPensionReform.com
Pension Reform Is In YOUR Hands
San Diego has had enough of this pension nightmare! Our services have been cut and our roads are in disrepair because our hard-earned taxpayer money has been diverted from our basic services to pay for outrageous pensions for government employees.
We must get real pension reform now. Please be part of that historic effort by volunteering today!
