Saturday, May 31, 2014

The End of Political Parties in America

Posted by Keith Broaders on May 30, 2014 at 3:21pm

Statistics reveal that there are approximately 146 million registered voters and there are nearly 61 million of the potential voters that are not registered.
There are approximately 45 million registered Democrats, 39 million Republicans and 61 million voters that are not registered as either a Republican or Democrat.

If the 61 million registered voters that are not listed as Republicans or Democrats were to become united with the 61 million unregistered voters, they could form a coalition of a potential of 122 million voters while the Republicans and Democrats combined would only have 84 million. If all of the 122 million voters not affiliated with the main stream political parties refused to vote for Republicans or Democrats their reign of terror would come to an end.
In order to abolish the political party system all we need to do is to re-register and change are status from Republican or Democrat to Decline to State. If we encourage all of our friends to do the same we would end the corruption and tyranny of the political parties.

If the American people abandoned the Republican and Democratic parties and refused to ever vote for a candidate with a political party affiliation, we would be well on our way to the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.

We have the numbers, but we need to know who they are and hear what they have to say.  Those voters who register as Independents are probably not all Constitutionalists.  We are probably all registered Republicans trying to gain some traction in getting Constitutionalists elected.  A new Party would need platform.  Ours would be close to the GOP platform but with Constitutionalists calling the shots. Right now we have a one party system, it’s the NAZI Party.

The Constitution rides by the Truckers, Harley-Dudes and Veterans signals that these folks “get it”.  The GOP needs to distance itself from the Chamber, Wall Street and the Globalists and become a “Populist” party.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Cobb County in Trouble

Cobb Chairman Blocks Public Comment on Lobbyist Contract, May 30, 2014 by Field Searcy

Last Tuesday night, the Cobb Board of Commissioners approved a contract for $168,000 to the local firm Garrett McNatt Hennessey & Carpenter to lobby for federal government grants and influence at the state capitol.  Moments earlier the BOC had closed out public comment on any topic after hearing 12 supporters shower praise, admiration and thanks on the Cobb BOC for negotiating the funding for public financing of a private sports team.  Not one dissenting comment could be heard on any other county business because the BOC had closed out any further public comment.  Even after asking the county manager and two commissioners for permission to speak on the lobbyist contract, Chairman Lee wanted to know why I waited until that night and that he’d “think about it”.  I told him that the agenda was not dropped until after business hours on Friday.  This shows a lack of leadership and disenfranchises citizens of their right to speak, period.

Under the Georgia Constitution, Section I, Paragraph IX, the people have a right to petition those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances.  That is, in all counties except Cobb, where the people were also blocked from opposing comment on a seemingly small outsourced contract for lobbying services.

The $168,000 contract seems insignificant in comparison to the larger Braves financing deal but the impact could be just as big.  One of the main lobbying efforts for the county would be for federal assistance on a $500 billion dollar bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run from the Arts Center in downtown Atlanta to Kennesaw State University.  The BRT system will likely require additional tax revenue to subsidize the total cost and ongoing operation of the project.

That’s the problem. Taking federal grants and incentives in the first place usually obligate taxpayers to additional unfunded expenditures.  It’s not appropriate to spend taxpayer money to lobby for incentives that will ultimately cost the taxpayer more money on projects they may not want.  But then again, Chairman Lee is not concerned about what the citizens want, just as long as the Chamber of Commerce and Cumberland CID (both unelected organizations) get their agenda passed.

Research handed out by the Transportation Leadership Coalition (TLC), a group which fought the TSPLOST in 2012 and was successful in blocking passage in 9 out of 12 regions, shows that taxpayers are already paying elected officials a combined $10,027,596 annually for elected representation at the federal, state and local level.  This figure includes salaries and office expenses for US senators, US representatives, state senators, state representatives, and Cobb county commissioners.

Based on additional research by the TLC, it’s estimated that the salaries and office budget for the chairman and commissioners is around $1,198,557 annually.  Notwithstanding the arguments against the county hiring a lobbyist firm to seek federal grants, why should Cobb taxpayers give the county commissioners more money to do their job of contacting state and federal legislators?

The county is already a member of the Association of County Commissions of Georgia which lobbies for the county’s interest at the state level.  One has to ask why the county needs to hire another firm to do the job expected of county commissioners and employees.

There are still other questions to be answered.  Why should Cobb taxpayers pay a lobbyist $168,000 to get federal incentives for a ½ billion dollar boondoggle BRT system that will require more taxes to subsidize in perpetuity?  Was this lobby contract put on that agenda so that it could be overshadowed by the Braves bond financing approval?  Isn’t the Garrett firm the same group hired to promote the failed TSPLOST? One wonders if they will do a better job the second time around. Is it possible this is being done because the local Cobb legislative delegation is not in agreement with what the county commission is doing?  Is this a way for them to circumvent the Cobb delegation and strong arm the state legislature?

We elect representatives to work for the people not to work against us in creating additional tax burdens. No wonder public trust in government is at an all-time low.  We’ve come to expect large document dumps after hours on holiday weekends from the federal government in Washington.  Is this going to be the “Cobb way” of doing the peoples’ business?  We’re seeing locally how public officials negotiate secret deals with multi-million dollar private entities outside of public review and transparency.  These are touted as great models of public/private partnerships that create jobs and grow the economy.  Yet, this PPP looks more like private profits, power, and politics than anything benefiting the public.  Now we see the blocking of public comment that opposes the actions of local government which seems reminiscent of the all-powerful oligarchs of Soviet days.  What’s next?

Download Lobbyist Research

Field Searcy, a Cobb citizen, represents an education campaign by the Transportation Leadership Coalition, LLC which led the grassroots effort against the Regional Transportation Tax (TSPLOST) in 2012.


This illustrates perfectly the urgency to prevent Weatherford from becoming the new District 1 Commissioner. He would provide the BOC with the third guaranteed vote that the Chamber and CCID need to control our county.

We all need to do whatever we can to help Byrne win the election. Cobb's future is at stake. Let's make July 22 a good day!

David Weldon

Anti-EU revolution

Ukraine crisis threaten to derail global government by Paul Joseph Watson

The 2014 Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark is taking place amidst a climate of panic for many of the 120 globalists set to attend the secretive confab, with Russia’s intransigence on the crisis in Ukraine and the anti-EU revolution sweeping Europe posing a serious threat to the unipolar world order Bilderberg spent over 60 years helping to build.
Inside sources confirm to Infowars that the elite conference, which will take place from Thursday onwards at the five star Marriott Hotel, will center around how to derail a global political awakening that threatens to hinder Bilderberg’s long standing agenda to centralize power into a one world political federation, a goal set to be advanced with the passage of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which will undoubtedly be a central topic of discussion at this year’s meeting.

The TTIP represents an integral component of Bilderberg’s attempt to rescue the unipolar world by creating a “world company,” initially a free trade area, which would connect the United States with Europe. Just as the European Union started as a mere free trade area and was eventually transformed into a political federation which controls upwards of 50 per cent of its member states’ laws and regulations with total contempt for national sovereignty and democracy, TTIP is designed to accomplish the same goal, only on a bigger scale.
The deal is being spearheaded by Obama’s U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, a Wall Street insider and a CFR member, Bilderberg’s sister organization. Froman is simultaneously helping to build another block of this global government, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a similar project involving Asian countries.

Given that Bilderberg schemed to create the Euro single currency the Bilderberg chairman bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg in 2009 interview), the results of the European elections are sure to have stirred outright alarm amongst Bilderberg globalists who are aghast that their planned EU superstate is being eroded as a result of a populist resistance mainly centered around animosity towards uncontrolled immigration policies.
In Denmark itself, the buzz is centered around the Danish Peoples’ Party, which won 27% of the vote in the Euro elections and doubled its number of MEPs. Although some are wary of Messerschmidt’s far right inclinations, his success reflects a general resentment not only in Denmark but across Europe towards immigration and the welfare state, concerns that the EU has only exasperated.

Meanwhile in France, Le  Pen is carving out a role as the face of a conservative movement that threatens “to break up one united Europe,” with her European election win being described as an “earthquake” that has rattled the political heart of Europe.
Voters in the United Kingdom also delivered a thumping rejection of the EU and in turn Bilderberg with the success of Nigel Farage and UKIP, a Euroskeptic triumph some are listing as the “most extraordinary” election result for 100 years.

As well as TTIP and the fallout from the European election disaster, Bilderberg will be tackling a number of other key issues, most of which will revolve around the continued effort to centralize economic power under several different guises, including a carbon tax paid directly to the United Nations, with the financial hit being taken by individuals as big companies are granted special “waivers” that will allow them to continue to pollute.
The rumbling crisis in Ukraine and the relationship between Russia and NATO will also be a focal point of Bilderberg 2014. Globalists now consider Vladimir Putin to have ostracized Russia from the new world order because he dared to “challenge the international system,” as John Kerry put it.

Bilderberg will discuss fears that Putin is intent on constructing an alternative world order based around the BRICS countries, a “multi-polar” system that would devastate the dollar as the world reserve currency and also heavily dilute the current US-EU-NATO power axis.
Infowars reporters will be on the ground all this week to cover the 2014 Bilderberg Group conference in Copenhagen, Denmark


European voters have had enough of the EU.  The “dress rehearsal” for the UN to take over America was the EU taking over Europe.  That’s why the U.S. media doesn’t cover the anti-globalist voter reactions in other countries. Obama has America sedated using bribery and extortion, so don’t expect American voters to get smart in time to save us.

This is a fight for liberty through sovereignty and free market prosperity. 
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader


Friday, May 30, 2014

Jobs & Immigration in Georgia

The AJC reported that 65,100 jobs would be created in Georgia in 2014 like it was good news.  If Georgia is anything like the rest of the country, our workforce participation rate would mirror the national rate, 62.5%. 

Our total population in Georgia is about 10 million with about 5.5 million in the Atlanta metro area.  So, if 62.5% of our folks are working, we would have 6.25 million working in Georgia and 37.5% not working.  Well, 37.5% of 10 million is 3,475.000 and that’s the number of working age folks in Georgia without jobs. 

In the AJC article “State Economy Builds Steam” 5/30/14, doesn’t appear to build many jobs.  According to the AJC, 65,100 or 1.87% of our Georgia population will find jobs in 2014, leaving 3,408,900 without jobs and waiting for next year, when we hope to create 89,200 jobs.
Nationally we immigrate and give work permits to over 2 million immigrants each year. We also graduate 1.8 million new work force entrants.  Jobs created amount to about 1.8 million a year.  This job deficit grows each year by about 1.8 million. 

Half of each group can’t find jobs and will stay with relatives or go on welfare. Jobs would be more available if we reduce immigration, but politicians run and hide when the immigration issue arises.  
We always limited immigration to numbers we could support with work, but in 1989 we doubled immigration to 1 million a year. Then in the 1990s we exported most of our jobs and we kept increasing immigration numbers, this time to about 2 million a year.

My conclusion is that our federal government is actually trying to impoverish our citizens and crash our economy using immigration as a weapon.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Tea Party Takes Texas

(Breitbart) – The Tea Party is alive and well and is firmly established as a dominant force in Texas Republican politics. Victories by Tea Party favorites nearly swept the statewide Republican runoff election.

Establishment candidates like State Representative Dan Branch and State Senator Bob Deuell faded quietly in defeat while strongly supported Tea Party candidates like Sen. Dan Patrick, Sen. Ken Paxton, and former State Rep. Sid Miller sailed to easy victories in their statewide races.

The trend of Tea Party victories continued down the ballot as well. In Senate District 10 (currently held by Sen. Wendy Davis), Tea Party favorite Konni Burton won her race with a 20 point margin over the more moderate Mark Shelton. In a report by Merrill Hope, Burton told Breitbart Texas, “We are so excited.  We’ve been working for this for a year.  Our message has resonated with the voters and we couldn’t be more pleased.” Burton was also supported by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz who, in 2012, proved the Tea Party and grassroots activism can overcome insurmountable odds to bring victory for conservative principles.

In spite of viscous attacks from his moderate opponent, Tea Party faithful’s stood strong beside Sen. Ken Paxton and delivered a victory that was never in doubt after early voting numbers showed a Paxton lead of 24 percent. Throughout the night, the numbers increased and Paxton won the nomination for Texas Attorney General with a 27 point margin of victory over Dan Branch.

And, of course, Sen. Dan Patrick’s victory in the race for Lt. Governor over David Dewhurst with a margin of 30 percent sent yet another strong statement of Tea Party strength. Rice University political scientist Mark Jones told the Austin American-Statesman, “Patrick’s win signals an important shift to the right within the Texas GOP, both electorally and legislatively. The Texas Senate under Patrick’s leadership will be a much more partisan and conservative institution than it has been during the past 12 years under Dewhurst.” Patrick reiterated his pledge to not appoint Democrats to half of the senate committee chairmanships during his victory speech in Houston on election night.

The Tea Party movement did not just strike state level races. In the race for U.S. Congressional District 4, the nation’s most senior Member of Congress, 91-year-old, 18-term Ralph Hall was defeated by John Ratcliffe a former U.S. Attorney. According to an email received by Breitbart Texas from Texas Election Source, Publisher Jeff Blaylock, Hall is the first incumbent Congressman to be defeated in a runoff election since 1996 when Ron Paul defeated Congressman Greg Laughlin.

The national news media has expressed a fascination with the Tea Party’s impact in Texas politics. An article by Reuters writer Marice Richter states, “The Tea Party win over established politicians boosts the stature of U.S. Senator Cruz, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, and returns some luster to the Tea Party movement after several candidates were defeated by mainstream Republicans in primaries in other states last week.”

International Business Times cited another Reuters article which quotes Republican strategist Bill Miller saying, “I do think the Republican Party could be eclipsed by the Tea Party here.”

Not all Republicans think this shift is a good thing. Bill Hammond, a Republican who heads up the powerful Texas Association of Business told Fox News Latino, You’ve seen some very solid conservative candidates defeated in the Texas Republican primary, unfortunately,” Hammond said. “It’s absolutely a concern more and more for us.”

Also, the Tea Party endorsement is not an automatic checkmark in the victory column. The Tea Party coattails could not extend far enough down the ballot to help Railroad Commission candidate, former State Rep. Wayne Christian, overcome the energy industry business experience and qualifications of Houston area businessman and engineer Ryan Sitton. Sitton won his race over Christian by a margin of 57 to 43 percent.

The Blaylock Texas Election Source email quoted above states that Sitton now holds the record for the biggest non-judicial race come-from-behind runoff victory having come from 12 points behind after the primary to 14 points ahead after the runoff. The previous record was held by Tea Party favorite Texas Cruz who trailed Dewhurst by 10.5 percent after the first round and won the runoff by 13.6 percent.

In one of the narrower Tea Party victories, State Senator Bob Deuell was defeated by the Tea Party supported candidate Bob Hall by 300 votes. Breitbart Texas reported Sen. Deuell’s alleged attempt to censor Texas Right to Life by threatening radio stations in an attempt to get them to remove ads that spoke about his record on end of life issues. The ploy, carried out a few days before the start of early voting nearly worked. But as Breitbart Texas reported, the stations only held the add off the air for thirty-six hours.

After some of the very negative ads that have been run in the various statewide campaigns, traditional Republican groups and Tea Party groups will need to find a way to mend fences in order to effectively be able to challenge what will most likely be well organized and funded campaigns by Wendy Davis and Leticia Van de Putte.


Texas voters don’t seem intimidated by federal bribes. Maybe Texas is wealthy enough to risk being on Obama’s “don’t fund list”. 

Georgia voters seem to know something is wrong, but they don’t connect the dots. Too many would rather allow their politicians to collect the federal bribes with strings attached.  They don’t check how incumbents voted; they believe what the incumbents say.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

The Communist Takeover of America

45 Declared Goals  from Greg Swank

You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963


Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.

It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them. Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records. Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter. You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point.

Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library.

Sources are listed below.

Microfilm: California State University at San Jose Clark Library, Government Floor Phone (408)924-2770 Microfilm Call Number: J 11.R5

Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12

1963- The Year That Changed America By Greg Swank

Over the years, I have shared in debates and discussions regarding the current state of affairs in the U.S., and the changing social climate of this great nation. Since the "baby-boomer" generation, society and its culture have become noticeably different than the way it was 50 years ago. From the late 50's to the 70's a series of events took place contributing to the way we are currently living. However, like anything else, there has to be a starting point at which the wheels are put into motion. Sometimes it can be a single event, such as war, but more often, it is a series of events, some intentional, some planned, others unpredictable. There is always a pivotal point when things begin to change. I believe that time was 1963.

For my generation, some of the following will certainly stir old memories. If you born later, this may serve as a brief history lesson into the times your parents traveled through.

By 1963 television was the leading sources of entertainment. The public enjoyed a different type of programming back then. Lessons on life could be viewed weekly on "Leave it to Beaver" or "My Three Sons." There were hero's back then that never drew blood, "The Lone Ranger" and "The Adventures of Superman." Cartoon series evolved, such as, "The Flintstones" and "The Jetsons" without messages of empowering the children, using vulgarities or demeaning parental guidance. Family's could spend a weekend evening watching "Ed Sullivan," "Bonanza" or "Gunsmoke." For those who enjoyed thrill and suspense, we were blessed with "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and the "Twilight Zone." 'My Favorite Martian," "Ozzie and Harriet," "Donna Reed" and "Sea Hunt" also kept viewers entertained weekly.

Movie theaters were not multiplex units with 15 screens, rather, one single, giant big screen with adequate sound and hard seats without springs. "Tom Jones" had won the Academy award for best picture. "How The West Was Won," "Cleopatra," "Lily of the Fields," "The Great Escape," "The Birds," and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" were all box office hits.

By years end, "The Beatles" had played for the British Royal Family and were laying the groundwork to conquer the U.S. the following year. Eric Clapton began his journey to fame with Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, Jim McCarty and their band, "The Yardbirds." Out on the west coast the surf was beginning to rock'n'roll with "The Beach Boys" and their first song to reach the top ten list, "Surfin' U.S.A."

"Joys of Jell-O" recipes for quivering florescent foodstuff hit the stores. U.S. Postal rates went up to five cents for the first ounce. AT&T introduced touch-tone telephones. The Yankees played in the World Series again; but lost to the Dodgers in four straight. The government and NASA began the Apollo program.

This is just a brief snapshot of some things that were going on back in 1963. Remember?

While some of these events played an important role in the direction of change that affect us today, many of them were lost to much greater, more political events, that I believe put everything into motion.

On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled "Communist Goals for Taking Over America." It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

You can see the entire list on this web page -

Now, I am not saying that the U.S. is under some kind of Communist control, but what I do find frightening, is of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to pass. Remember this was in January 1963.

In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off with the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict.

By September of 1963 we had lost some very influential people, Pope John XXIII, Robert Frost, and country legend Patsy Cline, to name a few. In the early hours of November 22nd we learned of the quiet passing of C.S. Lewis and hours later we were brought to our knees when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.

So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States. Which brings me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this most provocative year.

On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.

While American's have endured great prosperity over the past 40 years we have also lost our moral compass and direction. In reviewing the research, data supports 1963 as a focal point, demonstrating a downward slope in our moral and social decline through 2001.

Certainly, one would have to agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963.

But there is always "hope." As always, I welcome your comments and can easily be reached. Thanks for the response to "Daddy, What's Fluoride?" My email is:


Thursday, May 29, 2014

Georgia Runoff Endorsements

The Club for Growth - The Club’s PAC has just endorsed two stellar candidates in two rapidly approaching Georgia runoff elections –Bob Johnson (GA-01) and Barry Loudermilk (GA-11).

Bob Johnson (GA-01) – July 22nd Runoff

Bob Johnson is a surgeon, a former US Army Ranger, and a rock solid fiscal conservative!

And as a first-time candidate, his ability to make it into a runoff election against career politician State Senator Buddy Carter is particularly impressive!

Bob Johnson is running for Congress for all of the right reasons.  He loves his country and hates what he’s witnessing happen to it.  He fought for America when he was in the Army and now he’s ready to fight for her in Washington.

Johnson strongly opposes ObamaCare, he is on record against the big-spending Ryan-Murray budget compromise, and he’s signed the US Term Limits Pledge.

Bob Johnson is about as good as it gets.

Johnson came in second in the May primary to Buddy Carter.  However, with the support of Club members, we believe Johnson has an excellent chance to emerge victorious in the July 22nd runoff election.  The District is solidly Republican so whomever wins the runoff is highly likely to win in November.

Buddy Carter is a career politician with a long record of supporting anti-growth tax hikes, fees, and earmarks – Georgians and Americans deserve better.

Bob Johnson is a principled fighter who is committed to cutting spending, lowering taxes, and balancing the budget.  We need more Bob Johnsons in Congress!

The July 22nd runoff election is rapidly approaching.  Which means Club members have a very limited time in which to impact the outcome of this critical race!

That is why I am counting on you to make an IMMEDIATE and GENEROUS contribution of up to $5,200 to Bob Johnson for Congress TODAY!

Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) – July 22nd Runoff

Barry Loudermilk is a small business owner, former Air Force Specialist, and a true champion of economic freedom!

Loudermilk came in first in the May primary with 36.6% of the vote.  However, former Congressman Bob Barr was within 9%, receiving 25.8% of the vote.  That means nothing can be taken for granted here – this is going to be a hard fought runoff and the support of Club members could make THE difference.

Barry Loudermilk is a conservative leader with an impressive pro-growth record in the Georgia State Senate.  Loudermilk has consistently supported the principles of limited government, even when it was unpopular. He was one of just six lawmakers to oppose a budget that added $300 million in new spending. He also publicly opposed new taxes and fees.  A constitutional scholar, Loudermilk has given dozens of lectures and seminars on America’s founding documents.

Barry Loudermilk is an unwavering pro-growth, limited government conservative.

In direct contrast, is Loudermilk’s opponent, Bob Barr.  Barr is a former Congressman who gained notoriety for switching parties.  He has repeatedly voted to raise the national debt and to raise his own pay.  The difference between these two candidates couldn’t be starker.

The July 22nd runoff election is just around the corner and Bob Barr is not going to go down without one heck of a fight.  The generous support of Club members is going to be critical if Loudermilk is going to continue his upward trajectory toward victory in July!

As with GA-01, this district is solidly Republican which means that whoever wins on July 22nd should become the next Congressman from the district.

I am counting on you to make sure that man is a TRUE champion of economic freedom and not a party-hopping big-government RINO.  I am counting on you to make the most generous contribution you are able of up to $5,200 to Barry Loudermilk for Congress TODAY!

Source: The Club for Growth,

Government Scams Gibson Guitar

Forbes: The Shocking Reason the Feds Targeted Gibson Guitar

“Henry. A SWAT team from Homeland Security just raided our factory!”

“What? This must be a joke.”

“No this is really serious. We got guys with guns, they put all our people out in the parking lot and won’t let us go into the plant.”


What is happening?” asks Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz when he arrives at his Nashville factory to question the officers. “We can’t tell you.” “What are you talking about, you can’t tell me, you can’t just come in and …” “We have a warrant!” Well, lemme see the warrant.” “We can’t show that to you because it’s sealed.”

While 30 men in SWAT attire dispatched from Homeland Security and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cart away about half a million dollars of wood and guitars, seven armed agents interrogate an employee without benefit of a lawyer. The next day Juszkiewicz receives a letter warning that he cannot touch any guitar left in the plant, under threat of being charged with a separate federal offense for each “violation,” punishable by a jail term.

Up until that point Gibson had not received so much as a postcard telling the company it might be doing something wrong. Thus began a five-year saga, extensively covered by the press, with reputation-destroying leaks and shady allegations that Gibson was illegally importing wood from endangered tree species. In the end, formal charges were never filed, but the disruption to Gibson’s business and the mounting legal fees and threat of imprisonment induced Juszkiewicz to settle for $250,000—with an additional $50,000 “donation” piled on to pay off an environmental activist group.

What really happened at the Nashville plant?

Henry Juszkiewicz bought the troubled Gibson Guitar company in 1986. With revenues having dropped to below $10 million a year, the iconic 84-year old guitar maker was bleeding cash and on its way to bankruptcy. Since then, Juszkiewicz turned Gibson around, making it into an international powerhouse, growing at better than 20 percent a year compounded, with current annual revenues rumored to be approaching $1 billion.

A great American success story? Yes, but Gibson’s very success made it a fat target for federal prosecutors, whom Juszkiewicz alleges were operating at the behest of lumber unions and environmental pressure groups seeking to kill the market for lumber imports. “This case was not about conservation,” he says. “It was basically protectionism.”

Two months before the raid, lobbyists slipped some arcane supply-chain reporting provisions into an extension of the Lacey Act of 1900 that changed the technical definition of “fingerboard blanks,” which are legal to import.

With no clear legal standards, a sealed warrant the company has not been allowed to see too this day, no formal charges filed, and the threat of a prison term hanging over any executive who does not take “due care” to abide by this absurdly vague law, Gibson settled. “You’re fighting a very well organized political machine in the unions,” Juszkiewicz concluded. “And the conservation guys have sort of gone along.” Hey, what’s not to like about $50,000?

And this isn’t an isolated incident. Just ask Harvey Silverglate, Boston lawyer, activist, civil liberties advocate, and author of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. As he explains, the Feds routinely take advantage of the vagueness of many of our laws by starting from the target and working backwards, selectively prosecuting people they want to go after by charging them with crimes they often don’t even know exist.

“We are in terrible trouble as a nation under law,” he says. “When you have a system predicated on jurisdictional interests rather than on specific, identifiable, understandable, definable violations of law, there is a great opportunity for tyranny.” As a result, just about any businessperson, especially in highly regulated industries, can be construed by a prosecutor to have committed three or four arguable felonies a day. “If for some reason the authorities are eyeing you and they look closely enough at your daily activities, they can find something. That makes us all very vulnerable.”

Worse, 95 percent of federal cases never go to trial, because “Justice Department prosecutors have engineered the system to make it too risky to go to trial,” often railroading people who are innocent. “They have built a conviction machine, not a system of justice.”

Federal criminal law is not bound by the accepted rules of common law. Congress, the courts, and prosecutors can criminalize everyday conduct without having to prove that the accused intended to violate a known legal duty. That intent used to be fundamental to the mens rea required for criminal liability. It no longer is, and this is a direct result of the mushrooming administrative state in which we live. The convoluted content of many laws implemented through regulation aren’t even clear until after there’s a guilty plea or conviction, essentially giving prosecutors a blank check. Throw unchecked prosecutorial discretion into the mix and you have a recipe for legal nightmares straight out of Kafka. “This is the great flaw in the federal criminal justice system. We didn’t really see the flaw in all its dangerous, florid iteration until the mid 1980s, when federal prosecutors began to take advantage of this gigantic hole.”

This is neither a Democratic problem nor a Republican problem. Abuse of justice by federal prosecutors has ballooned under both parties. Until the American people wake up to the threat and demand change, things will only get worse.



Who will correct this ?  Gibson should move to Canada.

 Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Con-Con Debate

Con-Con Group Pens Another Historically Inaccurate Call for Convention, Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. . Wednesday, 28 May 2014 10:27

Once again, the proponents of an Article V “convention of states” (a term that never appears in the applicable constitutional article) are misrepresenting history, the Constitution, and the position of The John Birch Society.

In an op-ed originally published in the (Provo, Utah) Daily Herald and subsequently reprinted by the Convention of States (COS) organization, Allen Boettcher, the COS director for Utah, declares that it is “time to trust the Constitution.”

Curiously, however, Boettcher goes on to explain why we should do exactly the opposite by “proposing amendments to correct specific problems” in the Constitution.

First, it is the position of The John Birch Society that the solution to the problem of the federal government’s consolidation of power and accumulation of crushing debt does not lie in the changing of the Constitution, but in the consistent application of its enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment. Boettcher apparently believes that although Congress, the president, and the courts routinely disregard all limits on their power included in the current Constitution, somehow new amendments would transform them into obedient adherents to additional restraints.

In his letter, Boettcher even (I imagine unwittingly) admits this very fact, writing, “The Federal Government would never voluntarily relinquish its own power.” Will that same criticism not still hold true if we were to add even more amendments intended to place constitutional limits on that power? Won’t the federal government continue tearing right through the “parchment barriers” on its way to totalitarianism?

Of course it will, Mr. Boetttcher.

Next, Boettcher claims:

Those who refer to an Article V Convention as a “Constitutional Convention” (including The John Birch Society, Eagle Forum and, apparently, Ms. Openshaw) demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between the 1787 Constitutional Convention, called by the states pursuant to their residual sovereignty for the purpose of crafting a workable federal government, and an Article V Convention, called under the authority of our existing Constitution.

Wrong again, sir.

It’s curious that the COS people go to such lengths to deny that they are calling for a constitutional convention, yet they have no problem calling what happened in Philadelphia in 1787 a constitutional convention and it was called for exactly the same reason as the COS: to propose amendments to the existing Constitution.

This is the last paragraph from the report of the Continental Congress calling for the convention of the states held in Philadelphia begun in May 1787:

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.

Change a few words, modernize the language a little bit, and this is precisely the same call being made by the COS organization, yet they consistently deny that they are calling for a constitutional convention. They cannot have it both ways.

In 1787, the document known as the Articles of Confederation was the capital “C” Constitution of the United States. Article XIII of that Constitution mandated that regarding the making of changes to it: “Nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

When the constitutional convention met in Philadelphia in May 1787, that legally binding and constitutional provision was ignored. From the moment Edmund Randolph stood and proposed what was known as the “Virginia Plan,” the Constitutional Convention of 1787 became a “runaway convention.”

There’s no debating that fact. There was a provision of the Constitution prohibiting any changes to the Articles without unanimity. That provision was not only disregarded, but was replaced, eventually, by Article VII of the Constitution created at the convention.

Article VII of our current Constitution reads: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

That’s quite a bit different. With the approval of that new provision, the unanimity rule and the Constitution were replaced.

Despite constant reassurances by the pro-Article V convention group, there is nothing that could prevent a “convention of the states” from going down that same road. 

Were we lucky (blessed) by the results of the runaway convention of 1787? Yes, undoubtedly. Would we be so lucky again? Not likely. As I’ve indicated in a previous article on the subject, there are scores of socialist organizations slavering at the thought of getting their hands on the Constitution and making it over into something we wouldn’t recognize. These groups have adopted Article V as the means to that end: an Article V convention of the states.

There is nothing in Article V limiting the power of a convention called under its authority. Think of the ramifications of a convention called to change the Constitution — a convention without legal limits on its power. 

Of course, the COS organizers claim that the convention they support would not create a new constitution.

That’s not the point. The point is that the COS could create a new constitution, just as the constitutional convention in Philadelphia did in 1787.

On that point, was the convention of 1787 called to consider a new constitution? No, it was called “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”

In other words, the convention was meant to be a limited convention, empowered for the very limited purpose of considering amendments to the Articles of Confederation that would help the country get out of the financial mess it was in in 1787.

Does that not sound precisely like the language used in COS literature? Yes. On its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page, the COS states: "The federal government is spending this country into the ground.… It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power … of the federal government."

Lastly, a final and very important point about Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation.

In its FAQ, the COS claims: "It [the Convention of the States] cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution.”

Two questions will reveal the fundamental errors with this statement and will explain why the COS promoters try to avoid at all costs mention of the Articles of Confederation, specifically Article XIII.

First, was the authority of the constitutional convention of 1787 derived from the Constitution in effect when that convention was held in Philadelphia? Yes. The Continental Congress’ report calling for the Philadelphia convention specifically references the “provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein.” Article XIII.

Second question: Did the convention in Philadelphia in 1787 “throw out the Constitution” in effect at that time and replace it with a new one, radically different from the one already in legal effect? Yes. 

The differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787 are significant. Not the least of which was the method established for adopting those changes and endowing them with the force of law. What once required a unanimous vote, now required the approval of only 3/4 of the states.

Finally, Boettcher insists that while “some federal laws can be 'nullified,'” this is “not a viable solution for the vast majority of federal law.”

To correct this misunderstanding of federal law, I repeat what I have written in response to an earlier attack on nullification made by the COS:

Next, despite its citation of principles of “Agency law 101,” the COS movement’s attitude toward nullification ignores basic tenets of the law of agency that would have been taught in that fictional class.

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority. 

Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the central government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.

The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. 

The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power. 

Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

Under the law of agency, the principal may revoke the agent’s authority at will. It would be unreasonable to oblige the principals to honor promises of an agent acting outside the boundaries of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place.

Imagine the chaos that would be created if principals were legally bound by the acts of an agent that “went rogue” and acted prejudicially to the interests of the principals from whom he derived any power in the first place. It is a fundamental tenet of the law of agency that the agent may lawfully act only for the benefit of the principal.

Inexplicably, this is the position taken by COS when they argue that the states may not nullify unconstitutional federal acts and refuse to be bound by an agent that repeatedly exceeds its authority. Not only does this agent (the federal government) habitually breach the agency contract, but it does so in a manner that irreparably harms the principal (the states).

Finally, let's use an analogy to put a finer point on the agency angle specifically and the need to alter the Constitution generally.

Imagine that a person agrees with a contractor to build a house. The two parties meet and sign off on a contract for the building of the house which includes a blueprint of the home. The contractor begins work, but after a while decides to start building wings on the house that weren’t provided for in the contract and the blueprint and starts running up enormous debts to build these extra-contractual additions.

When the future homeowner visits the building site, what should his reaction be? Should he decide that he should go back to the contract and change parts of it, adding provisions reiterating the general contractor’s restrictions and responsibilities?

Would a contractor with such obvious disregard for contractual limits on his power be likely to suddenly begin being bound by the new restrictions? Not likely.

This is exactly what the COS people are promising, though. They state that even though the federal government “is spending this country into the ground,” the best way to stop this abuse of power is to add new restrictions to those already included in the original contract (the Constitution) that forbid this type of overreach. 

Those of us opposing an Article V convention, however, believe that the best way to stop the federal government’s constant disregard of constitutional limits on its power is for states (the principals) to enforce those limits. 

We realize that the federal government will treat any new amendment restricting its authority the same way they treat those already in the contract.

Despite the millions being spent by the various factions of the Article V to ensure that a convention takes place, there is yet time for concerned Americans with a better grasp of history and constitutional construction to speak up and prevent this from happening.

We cannot afford to entrust the future of our Constitution to a group of people who make blatantly incorrect statements about the power of an Article V convention and the history behind the adoption of our current Constitution.

The New American, Con-Con Group Pens Another Historically Inaccurate Call for Convention, Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. . Wednesday, 28 May 2014 10:27



There is an argument raging about the States’ call for a Constitutional Convention.  The John Birch society has warned us that calling a Con-Con to balance the budget is a dangerous move.  The wrong people are in control of the government and would take this opportunity to change the Constitution to allow all the tyrannical government overreach we see occurring to be incorporated in a Constitutional Amendment or a new Constitution.  George Soros and Nancy Pelosi can hardly wait.  The John Birch Society remains the only consistent watchdog to prevent a Communist takeover of the U.S., so I side with them.

If Republicans take the Senate in 2014, we should be able to reduce spending enough to balance the budget.  An Obama veto could be overturned with a 2/3 majority. That should make the Con-Con unnecessary.  If that occurs and the Con-Con call is not rescinded by the States, the Socialists will have another chance later to attack the Constitution (as written) later.  American Socialists are like herpes, they never completely go away.

The problem, of course is that the State Legislatures are likely to not repeal the Con-Con call.  The bad guys are there too.  The hapless passage of the Con-Con call remains the worst piece of State legislation passed in 2014.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader