Wednesday, April 30, 2014

UK Boots RINOs

Fall of Conservative Party in UK sounds warning to GOP

By Robert Romano

The latest polling in the United Kingdom has shown a surge by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to take the lead in the upcoming European parliamentary elections.
UKIP leads with 31 percent support, the Labour Party with 28 percent, the Conservative Party with 19 percent, and the Liberal Democrats with 9 percent. The election is less than a month away, scheduled for May 22.

The result builds on UKIP’s resounding success in the 2013 county council elections, when the party came in third place in the popular vote and won 140 seats for the first time. Labour had 29 percent, the Conservative Tories 25 percent, UKIP 23 percent, and the Liberal Democrats 14 percent.
Comparing the two results, it appears that nationally UKIP is the direct beneficiary of collapsing support for both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Why?

UKIP is calling for British withdrawal from the European Union (EU), and has surged under Nigel Farage’s leadership since 2010, when the European sovereign debt crisis began. That, coupled with high unemployment and the economy still sagging after the financial crisis, and the political establishment in London is having a hard time accounting for its own failures.
In the meantime, Farage has an easy answer. An April 23 campaign video by the party highlights excessive EU regulations on UK businesses, unfavorable trade agreements, lax immigration policies, European courts overruling British ones, and onerous green taxes on energy.

To placate UKIP voters, Conservative party leader and Prime Minister David Cameron has promised a referendum on the question on EU membership — but only if the Tories are reelected in 2015.
But with UKIP’s fortunes rising so fast, they may not get that opportunity in 2015. All along, Farage’s strategy has aimed at the ultimate goal of winning seats in Parliament. If UKIP eats up enough of the Conservatives’ votes in May, Farage will have real momentum at his side headed into 2015 while the Tories attempt to defend an unpopular incumbent whose opposition to the EU is simply for appearances sake.

Here in the U.S., we’re familiar with such feigned opposition to Obamacare, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, out of control debt, and destructive monetary policies that almost nobody on Capitol Hill has any intention of doing a thing about.
Republican Party leaders nominally state they are against these drains on U.S. prosperity, yet when the opportunity to use the power of the purse arises via the debt ceiling or continuing resolution votes — they consistently balk at taking real action.

It is all evidence of a party without any identity. That has no clear vision for governing in accordance with the principles it professes to believe in.
In the British parliamentary system, this can give rise to third parties that directly challenge the political establishment in London for primacy.

While this could be a window into the GOP’s political future here in the states, it likely would take on a different form. Instead of a third party challenge, dissatisfied Republican voters may perhaps demand sweeping changes in congressional leadership in 2015, and help foster a robust GOP presidential primary field in 2016.
Either way, Republican leaders might do well to heed the warning of former Conservative Party chairman and Margaret Thatcher cabinet minister Norman Tebbit: “If you kick your core voters hard enough, Mr. Cameron, they might kick back.”

Alas, Cameron did not listen, and UKIP continues to rise. And if the same thing happens here in the U.S., Republicans will not have anybody to blame but themselves.
Robert Romano is senior editor of Americans for Limited Government. 

Source: gop/?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Obamacare+repealed%e2%80%a6+for+some&utm_content=Fall+of+Conservative+Party+in+UK+sounds+warning+to+GOP%0d+


There are already enough independents and Constitutional voters in the U.S. to supplant the GOP.  A third party in the U.S. is not inevitable, at least in the near term.  It would be easier if our Republican RINOs simply joined the Democrats they vote with.  That would change us from a one-party system to an actual two-party system. The issue in the U.S. is restoring the Constitution (as written).  It would return us to a meritocracy, strengthen private property rights, reverse socialism and provide a way out of our fiscal suicide problems.

The UK issue that got the Independent Party a plurality is the EU.  This is a move away from the “green globalism” that heralded the current UK economic decline. 
The regular folks in Great Britton have not prospered.  25% of their current laws were written by the EU in Brussels.  The folks have seen the downside of socialism and globalism.  Like the U.S., they lost their manufacturing and have high unemployment with no wage growth.  Over-immigration has turned London and its suburbs into Muslim enclaves connected by an overly expensive transit village system.

Brits in Australia and Canada have had their own moves to restore populism and fiscal sanity.  Canada cleaned up its fiscal house and Australia declared man-made climate change a hoax and banned UN Agenda 21.  These moves have encouraged the Brits to create their own reforms

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Friday, April 25, 2014

Legalizing Tyranny


For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.
What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?

Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?
Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.

And each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises .I’ll show you.[1]
Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]

George Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions are authorized by our Constitution.[2]
But today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?

There is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed,and their functions returned to the States and The People, right?

But Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section1 of his amendment legalizes all these agencies.It says:
“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

As long as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies– they remain.
Levin’s amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?

Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy.” It says:
“All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”

Article I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may make laws.[3] But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.
All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1![4]

Well then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulation sand an end to all future rulemaking, right?
Not Levin!Section2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before they are imposed on the American People.

And so,federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.
Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending”(p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP.Do you see?

The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits –already set forth in the Constitution - on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?

But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”

Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt.[5]

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)
Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever they want.

Congress may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large.[6]
Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art.II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large.[7]

So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little money from us.
One would expect that a person who wants to“limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?

Not Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever.[8]
Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)

The federal government has no lawful authority to own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution: Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to own the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.
The federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such.[9]

And the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Now here in our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA,etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.
Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!

But Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes all of the above. It says:
“When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.”

Levin’s amendment:
Changes the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated power to what ever someone in the federal government deems a “public use [which can be anything];

Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government – such as grazing lands;
Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on the use of private lands - by all levels of government;

Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control of the federal government;[10] and
Provides that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation,Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking” exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government theft of private property.

Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)
Before our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to State. This power was expressly retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution.[11]

The four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).
Except as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to citizens!

But the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register voters.
In Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!

So! What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we have!
But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” says:

“Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”
Levin’s amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications & registration to the federal government.[10]

But Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped - it ushers in a national ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]
To add insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether aliens can vote.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)
In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th&12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.

The original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land![12] So the States must man up and enforce that original intent. They must ignore - nullify - all pretended federal laws, regulations,and judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.
Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:

“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.”
“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.”

Section 1 broadens the powers of the federal government from prohibiting States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from doing anything which “impedes” commerce and trade between and among the States.
Many things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.

Section 2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).
Accordingly, Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know - the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.

Levin’s amendments legalize - make constitutional - the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.

Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.
© 2014 Publius Huldah - All Rights Reserved


1. Telling the Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing” him. People angrily reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals because they have made an idol of him. If their loyalty were to Truth - instead of to their idol - they would want to be set straight.
2. Article II, §2, and:
Secretary of State: Art. I, §8, cl. 3
Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl.3; Art.I, §8, cl. 1; Art.I, §9, cl.4-7; Art. VI, cl. 1
Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14
Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10&17; Art.III, §§2&3; Art. IV, §2, cl.2
3. Article I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” [emphasis mine]
They are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
5. I explain the problems with “
balanced budget” amendments here.
6. These are the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art. I, §8:

Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
Clause 4: uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcies;
Clause 5: coin money & regulate its value, and fix standard of weights & measures;
Clause 6: punish counterfeiting;
Clause 7: establish post offices & post roads;
Clause 8: issue patents &copyrights;
Clause 9: set up federal courts inferior to the supreme court;
Clause 10: punish piracies & felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
Clauses 11-14: war, letters of marque & reprisal, Army & Navy, and rules for the military
Clause 15-16: the Militia.

7. The anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They claimed:

“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

James Madison answered in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to levy taxes & borrow money only to carry out the enumerated powers! Madison said:

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]
So!Article I, §8, cl.1 is merely a “general expression,” the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it.In other words, clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2. Do you see?

8. Levin’s amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds - the following: When the 16th Amendment was ratified, “
income” apparently didn’t include “wages.” Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional to force people to pay “income” taxes on “wages” - and such would thus be a proper object of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and rips this remedy from the States.
9. When our Constitution was ratified,the new federal government acquired (from its predecessor) the Western Territory (
Federalist No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated, by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers.As the Territory was broken up into new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty [except as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal government] would be transferred to the new State.
10. Amendments to the Constitution generally increase the powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing federal statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power over the issue is transferred to the federal courts. Art III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …” Do you really not see?
11. Article I, §2, cl. 1, says:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [boldface mine]
So! Whoever votes in elections for their State House, is eligible to vote for members of the federal House of Representatives. See also Federalist No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist No. 52 (2nd para).

12. Article VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only our Constitution, federal laws made “in
Pursuance” of the Constitution, and Treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER part of the supreme Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the only Law of our Land.


Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

I know the Georgia Legislature signed on to this Con Con, but I side with Publius Huldah on this one.  The risk is too great.  The Bolsheviks are running the country and everybody is taking their multibillion dollar bribes.  This is not a good time for a Constitutional Convention, even one with a supposed limited scope.  We already have a Constitution we can no longer afford to ignore.  Returning the federal government to limited Constitutional duties is the proper course and it can and should be done by the States, even if that means they won’t get any more federal bribes.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
Dick Anderson on Common Core

Dick Anderson is a candidate for Georgia Senate 40th district which includes Dunwoody Chamblee, Doraville and Brookhaven.  His comments are as follows:

I am ADAMANTLY against Common-Core. How could anyone with a conscience be for it? 
It removes Parents and Teachers, the ONLY people that surely LOVE our children and are totally committed to them getting the best education possible - as a critical PART of their preparation for their entire lives to come, from the process of determining what our children will be 
taught !   And, it replaces the parents & Teachers with Appointed  Bureaucrats, that will be unaccountable to the Public, Parents or Teachers, that will be judged only by how well (efficiently??) they carry out the "plan".

There is much more EVIL in Common-Core but only this MUST be enough to stop anyone that truly cares for our children and, of course, our future.  I would be happy to discuss those other issues too.

Why does Fran Millar support it? 
I'm not sure I know all the reasons, or even the most important one to him, but I have heard him talk publicly on it several times and he had repeatedly said he was for it because Nathan Deal was for it, and that it would give us a standardized way of testing (we already have about 5 "standardized" tests) - aimed at making all students being educated in the SAME WAY - for "National and International Competition". 

He also said that Common Core would not have anything to do with setting the Curriculum.  In theory, this may be true. But, I have pointed out to him in public, never with a response, that the point becomes MOOT when considering the FACT that the teachers will be judged by how the children TEST!  And, the Common Core tests will reflect the "predetermined curriculum" and no teacher that wants to keep his job is going to NOT teach to the tests!

I also refer to John Barge's earlier stance/comments:

"I submit to you that it is not at all really about this phenomenal new curriculum that is the silver bullet fix for educating our children.  It is about the current federal administration wanting to control the education of your children, including what goes into the textbooks," Barge wrote in a blog post titled  "Common Core Standards - Why the Rush?"
We asked Millar, a Dunwoody Republican, whether Barge had flip-flopped on the issue. "No, I’d call it a lot of waffling," he said. "(Barge) initially said he was in favor. I think he wants to be to the right of Deal on this issue. These standards are not perfect, but it’s a way to try to improve things."

I think Fran does NOT want to be to the Right or the Left of Deal.  And, he always seems to like government control over everything.  He is always acutely aware of his political "status", which I believe is far more important to him than your Rights and mine as citizens.  In MY opinion, Fran has very little respect for the Constitution, Personal Freedom or Individual Responsibility.

I can't say much about Tom Taylor regarding this issue as I have never personally heard him say anything about it.  However, these two, as well as Mike Jacobs, are usually in accord on everything and they certainly know how to whitewash - it's pretty easy to say, and even act, in favor of local control, which will surely get them votes from those that are not fully aware, when they know there will be nothing left to be controlled locally.

Source: Dick Anderson for Georgia Senate - District 40 Website:  Email:

The Porch People in America

We will analyze the various types of porch people in America. This discussion will include the moderates up to the libertarians in our country. This will be a wake-up call for Americans to get organized and to understand the severity of inaction.

This porch person is the individual who is very well off and has all of his ducks in a row. He has done well in life with his family and finances. He has a large home in an upscale   community and only drives the most expensive vehicles. His confidence in his knowledge and ability is obvious to everyone that he associates with. 
He takes a lot of vacations if he is retired and if he is still in the work force he is at the top of the heap. He is very well respected among his friends and acquaintances. 

He is so wrapped up in his own life that he doesn’t see or understand issues that are outside of his world. He is living in a bubble and refuses to venture out and face the reality of what is going on in society. 
This person along with the other porch people will not see a problem until it is on their door step. My reason for writing this article is to wake up America about our severe problems.   

I am generalizing on this porch person as the majority of people who live this kind of life are informed and up on the politics and other issues. 
How about the “I give up porch people” ? There are a lot of these people that think our country is so bad politically and culturally that we have lost the battle. I am doing my best to keep these people motivated and working towards our goals. This is not an easy thing to do because we have sunk so low. I feel like a football and motivation coach with these pessimistic Americans. I am enthusiastic, motivated and shaking my fist at these people to not give up on America. We need leaders that will do the same as I am doing! We are not defeated, but we are in the 8th inning and the game is almost over!        

There is another porch person who is with his friends and they all pretty much have the same opinion on the issues. He is a leader of the pack and will voice a strong opinion to his peers and is usually informed on the issues. But when he is outside of his circle he will clam up and keep to himself. He lacks confidence to express his opinions to the general public. 
This porch person believes the old saying is you never discuss religion or politics in public. This person knows the issues and is keeping it to himself. He needs to get off the porch and bring more voters to our side. 

How about the porch people who will not vote at all because they disagree with just one or two issues of a candidate. Nobody agrees with a candidate 100% if somebody does they are a yes man! I will tell you I was not a fan of John McCain but I voted for him because there was no other choice. Mitt was a better candidate and I was excited to vote for him because he was a business person that was very successful. He is a man of strong character. We would not be in as big of a mess now if he was elected! Both of these candidates I was not in agreement on all the issues but I voted for both of them. 
How about the porch person that has all the issues directly in front of him and still will not admit to any problems. He is the excuse maker for those that are wrong and as long as his life is fine, he ignores all signs of the bad that is happening in our country. Some of these people will look at you like you are crazy. 

The uninformed porch people who get their news from the comedy channel. Try to pry yourself away and watch Fox News or listen to some talk radio. Even better come on as a member of Conservative Wisdom United! 
The religious right porch people didn’t vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. This group can’t sit out anymore elections!

How about the far right not voting because of Romney not being conservative enough. Look at the results of this really dumb action! 
We are starting to see more of the Hollywood elite getting off the porch and saying they are conservatives and are not afraid of being black balled. This is very recent because Republicans use to have to stay in the closet. 

I use to work in the grocery business in St. Louis and the shop steward was my friend asked me to be his assistant. He knew I was a conservative because we discussed a lot of the issues.  The union was all democrats and I was the only Republican at the meetings. I really had to listen to a lot of bull but it made me stronger. You need to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It was really different in them days as we all really got along and was civil with each other. It was nothing like what BO and the democrats have done to the people. We are all very divided and the blame goes totally to BO! 
My point is sometimes you have to go into the lions den and in our situation walk out with conservatives.  We will be doing a lot of work to bring more Blacks, Hispanics, and the Young people to our side. We will be successful because we have to be or we are doomed! 

I go through what will happen to our country in chapter 8 of our EBook titled 50/50/50.
The porch people that will not make an effort to take action to help a fellow American in distress. You see it in the news where people will not get involved in an incident because they are scared or just plain do not want to get involved. Another excuse is it is none of my business.  Get motivated and make a difference! 

I don’t expect people to be as involved as I am on the issues. If you feel politics is not your thing, at the minimum find a mentor and take 30 minutes a week to discuss what is going on in the world. You might find it interesting and may give more time to the issues of the country.
What I am trying to do is get Americans involved and to understand the severity of our problems! We need to stop this snowball in this election and elect a Conservative Republican as president in 2016! We have a lot of people that are not happy but we need to get more people angry and wanting to take action to expose the liberals and bring more voters to our side! 

If we can’t get people motivated and involved in our program, America will change for the worse! Do not be a porch person and let the country go down the drain! 
I would love to see the people get angry with all the politics that go on in a campaign! I repeat, we are not a campaign, but a lifestyle that promotes self-thinkers and independence. Get the facts and don’t be fooled by the progressives that want the American people to be ignorant and dependent on the government!     

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done — Ronald Reagan 
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free — Ronald Reagan

Check out the other quotes by President Reagan.…
We need more from the American people than just going to the voting booth! It is time to take a stand and get after it!  I have the senate race in Minnesota on the front burner and the man we need to take out is Al Franken! We need to get thousands of concerned Patriots as members of Conservative Wisdom United, so that we can defeat the democrats and make them irrelevant. We have the strategy and all we need now is the team! 

We need to have this article go viral and hit millions of Americans! Please share this on face book, email and other social media! “This is our time, our country, and it is time to act like Americans!” Bob Brown  
Check out information to become a member.  

Thanks, Bob Brown      

About Bob Brown:  I have been  married for about 31 years and have two children in college and one will graduate in about a year. My interests are in  baseball, politics, and marketing. My gears are always working, creating and trying to make things better for people who want to help themselves. I am looking for people who feel the same way and want to make a difference in many lives.    
Conservative Wisdom United is looking for Americans that want to be a part of a group to make a difference!

The Porch People in America We will analyze the various types of porch people in America. This discussion will include the moderates up to the libertarians in our country. This will be a wake-up call for Americans to get organized and to understand the severity of inaction. This porch person is the in…
Bottom of FoBe a part of a group that will be sharing conservative views all over America. With your help we can get the news out to the masses and also expose the liberal agenda that is wrecking our country. We are united and with your help we can raise funds that will make America strong again.


Thanks go to Carolyn Tally for posting this on New Georgia Republican Leadership for Principles above Politicians on Facebook.  Bob Brown’s message addresses the problem. Tea Party folks are overwhelmed with the abuse prompted by Agenda 21 implementation and its local effects, but we agree that awakening the sleeping U.S. voter can make all the difference in putting us on-course to regaining our property rights and freedom.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader