On February 13th there will be a rally in Reading Pennsylvania at the > Fire Hall, Hosted by Mr. Micky Poletta to expose the "FRAUDULENT > BANKING SYSTEM," being used in America and how they are stealing your > wealth fromyou through these inflation, property taxes, licenses, Bank > Fraud, and on it goes.> > There will be Media and radio adds running at this meeting. Please let > me know if you are willing to go and we can car pool, or maby rent a > bus. > > I strongly urge you to attend this meeting.> > Hagan Smith
Amity Township Fire Hall #49Old Sweeds Rd.East Reading Pa.Off 422 east, just past the Michaels Resturant,left on Old Forge Road to Old Sweds Road.For more info call: Micky Poletta at 717-790-9556 home.e-mail at: mickpao@cs.com
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Constitution Party response to the state of the union
It is clear both ‘Big Box’ parties still don’t get it! America’s Largest “Third Party” Responds to the President’s Address
LANCASTER, PA: The president tried to convince Americans last night that “we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border - and that requires a temporary worker program.”
To stop the invasion of our country the president proposed giving illegals an “orderly path” and simply doubling the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. He wants you to believe this “will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers”, yet two U.S. Border Patrol agents were arrested and jailed for trying to do just that, while the president does nothing!
Constitution Party Communications Director Mary Starrett commented: “Apparently the president hasn’t listened to the overwhelming majority of Americans who want illegal immigration halted.”
While the Constitution Party applauds the president’s attempt to bring tax reform into the health insurance debate, his proposal doesn’t go far enough to remove government from the equation. National Chairman Jim Clymer stated: “Our health care costs aren’t so high because we have too little government involvement but because we have too much. Americans now fund half of all medical care expenses with their taxes -mostly through Medicare and Medicaid.”
Clymer cited medical procedures typically paid for out of pocket as a case in point: “Operations like laser eye surgery have fallen in price every year for a decade, proving that when consumers, not corporations or the government are in charge, the market will dictate both quality and lower costs.”
The Constitution Party decries the president’s call for expanded federal mandates for alternative fuels and increased fuel efficiency standards. “‘Command and Control’ environmentalism stymies free market solutions. It’s not cost effective for consumers and it’s unconstitutional” Clymer said, adding “Despite the scare tactics used by both parties, air pollution emissions in the U.S. are lower than they were in 1940. Instead of being beholden to big multi-national oil companies, we should allow the free market to develop new energy sources.”
As to the constitutionally unauthorized war in Iraq, the Constitution Party reminds Americans that during his 2003 State of the Union address, the president said: “If Saddam Hussein does not … disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” He said those words relying on intelligence information that we now know to be false. More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have since died. Both parties in Congress abdicated their duty to either declare war or prevent engaging in war. The president should now be looking for ways to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire he and Congress got us into by making arrangements for Iraq to immediately assume the responsibility of stabilizing its government, and getting our troops out. Let us use the past as prologue for what could very well be justification for yet another war in the Middle East, this time in IRAN. What could be the purpose of calling for an increase in the size of the military, other than to engage in further excursions as world policeman? Has this president learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties, the Constitution Party remembers that our founders warned against such “foreign entanglements”.
The Constitution Party believes the president’s request to renew his No Child Left Behind law should be flatly denied by Congress. According to the president, NCLB, would “prepare our children for jobs of the future.” Presumably, these are the same jobs that have been shipped offshore by this administration’s misguided trade policies.
The Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com), the third largest party in the United States measured by voter registrations, is growing fast and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJanuary 24, 2007For more information contact Communications Director: Mary Starrett,(602) 315-6193, mstarrett@constitutionparty.com
LANCASTER, PA: The president tried to convince Americans last night that “we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border - and that requires a temporary worker program.”
To stop the invasion of our country the president proposed giving illegals an “orderly path” and simply doubling the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. He wants you to believe this “will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers”, yet two U.S. Border Patrol agents were arrested and jailed for trying to do just that, while the president does nothing!
Constitution Party Communications Director Mary Starrett commented: “Apparently the president hasn’t listened to the overwhelming majority of Americans who want illegal immigration halted.”
While the Constitution Party applauds the president’s attempt to bring tax reform into the health insurance debate, his proposal doesn’t go far enough to remove government from the equation. National Chairman Jim Clymer stated: “Our health care costs aren’t so high because we have too little government involvement but because we have too much. Americans now fund half of all medical care expenses with their taxes -mostly through Medicare and Medicaid.”
Clymer cited medical procedures typically paid for out of pocket as a case in point: “Operations like laser eye surgery have fallen in price every year for a decade, proving that when consumers, not corporations or the government are in charge, the market will dictate both quality and lower costs.”
The Constitution Party decries the president’s call for expanded federal mandates for alternative fuels and increased fuel efficiency standards. “‘Command and Control’ environmentalism stymies free market solutions. It’s not cost effective for consumers and it’s unconstitutional” Clymer said, adding “Despite the scare tactics used by both parties, air pollution emissions in the U.S. are lower than they were in 1940. Instead of being beholden to big multi-national oil companies, we should allow the free market to develop new energy sources.”
As to the constitutionally unauthorized war in Iraq, the Constitution Party reminds Americans that during his 2003 State of the Union address, the president said: “If Saddam Hussein does not … disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” He said those words relying on intelligence information that we now know to be false. More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have since died. Both parties in Congress abdicated their duty to either declare war or prevent engaging in war. The president should now be looking for ways to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire he and Congress got us into by making arrangements for Iraq to immediately assume the responsibility of stabilizing its government, and getting our troops out. Let us use the past as prologue for what could very well be justification for yet another war in the Middle East, this time in IRAN. What could be the purpose of calling for an increase in the size of the military, other than to engage in further excursions as world policeman? Has this president learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties, the Constitution Party remembers that our founders warned against such “foreign entanglements”.
The Constitution Party believes the president’s request to renew his No Child Left Behind law should be flatly denied by Congress. According to the president, NCLB, would “prepare our children for jobs of the future.” Presumably, these are the same jobs that have been shipped offshore by this administration’s misguided trade policies.
The Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com), the third largest party in the United States measured by voter registrations, is growing fast and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJanuary 24, 2007For more information contact Communications Director: Mary Starrett,(602) 315-6193, mstarrett@constitutionparty.com
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
New congress looks to diminsh the 2nd admendment
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership. On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors. This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event." Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records. NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill. For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy. Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded. The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm. The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded. Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill. This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future. The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.' Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised. Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant? In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights. Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns." This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts. The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights. ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership. On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors. This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event." Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records. NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill. For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy. Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded. The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm. The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded. Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill. This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future. The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.' Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised. Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant? In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights. Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns." This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts. The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights. ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)