Our U.S. Department of State has set up the Visa Waiver Program to facilitate travel between select countries and ours. According to the official website, “The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows citizens of participating countries* to travel to the United States without a visa for stays of 90 days or less, when they meet all requirements…”
(photo credit: AP/Eitan Hess-Ashkenazi/File)
Among these friendlies are Great Britain, Australia, Japan and Switzerland. The one country least likely to be an enemy is Israel, but Israel is not on the list. Obama’s minions in State say it’s because “
Fox News New York reports,
Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, has called on the State Department to “end its widespread, arbitrary practice of denying young Israelis tourist visas.” Other pro-Israel members of Congress have also pressed for answers. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin said some Congress members are pushing for legislation that would exempt Israel from the requirements to qualify for the waiver program altogether. –myfoxny.com
Obama is pushing his pro-Arab, pro-Islam agenda by denying ease of travel between Israel and the U.S.
Texas Law: PENAL CODE, TITLE 10, Sec. 46.01, DEFINITIONS, sub-paragraph (3) “Firearm” Link:http://ow.ly/v7wd3
What is the appropriate response to judges who disregard the Supreme Law of the Land? Removal from office by the Congress, as per the Constitution, Article III, Section 1, that stipulates a judge may hold office so long as he or she may “hold their Offices during good Behaviour’ AND Article I, Section 3 prescribed impeachment process.
D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin this week flagrantly and/or ignorantly ignored the supreme law of the land and justly convicted Mark Witaschek of unlawful possession of “ammunition”. Follow this story on Guns.com via this link:http://ow.ly/v7ytt
I call for Congressman Ralph Hall to initiate impeachment of Judge Robert E. Morin.
Elections matter. I urge you to vote for true conservatives who will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I’ll be voting for the re-election of Ralph Hall, Texas CD-4.
Camelot v. Spend-a-lot – Obama clan is having a high time on our dime
When President Kennedy flew, it was just one airplane. One. Not three.
Obama’s trip to tiny Belgium will cost that country approximately $10,000,000 USD. His little junket will cost us substantially more.
An entourage of 900 persons requires three cargo airplanes and 45 motor vehicles. All this in addition to his own personal Air Force One.
The way he really is
According to one news report, Obama’s advance security team will be inspecting sewers, very familiar surroundings for this president’s staff, I’m sure.
While there, with permission from the Belgium government, U.S. Army helicopters will be circling overhead, ostensibly to ward off terrorist attacks against the only man of importance at the European Union Summit.
There was something about the Kennedy presidency that captured the hearts of the American people, hence ‘Camelot’.
Day by day, week by week, one cancelled insurance policy after another, cancer patients left to fend for themselves, liberals who slobbered over Barack Obama now turn ever so slowly against him.
Barack and Michelle seem in a contest to see which can outspend the other. Barack Hussein Obama, I hereby knight thee Sir Spend-a-Lot.
Meanwhile, back here in Reality Land, labor participation is 63% – For those who don’t understand #ObamaSpeak, this means we have 37% unemployment, worse than the height of the Great Depression in 1933, when unemployment was merely 24.9%.
Get off blaming Bush – Sir Spend-a-Lot has outspent them all from the first George to the last
Your president greedily grasps unconstitutional power over our citizens while doing all he can to destroy our economy.
This is the end of Liberalism: record welfare, record official atheism, the new religion of government, moral and spiritual bankruptcy.
We’re going to elect a Senate Republican majority, while we maintain or increase our House Republican majority. Our challenge is to demand they #impeach Barack Obama and his liberty-menacing horde. We must insist on #FullRepeal of ObamaCare.
If RINO’s like Mitch McConnell don’t cooperate, let’s work to get recall elections going.
Framers of our present-day Constitution provided for a bicameral legislature [Ref: Article I, Sections 1, 2 & 3]. They framed our federal government in three branches: legislative (law making), executive (law enforcement) and judiciary (law interpretation to settle disputes).
It is often said the House of Representatives provides an avenue of influence by all the people and the Senate was created to preserve states’ rights.
Preservation of states’ rights was a beneficial outcome, but the Senate wasn’t created to fulfill that specific role. Rather, it was created to assure that all lawmaking would be tempered by persons of learning and wisdom: senators appointed by the several state legislatures. The clear intent of the framers was to make lawmaking very difficult whereby lawmaking would be the product of the will of all the people and the thoughtfulness of educated senators.
The Seventeenth Amendment more radically changed federal government than any single other action to this point in time. The effect of this amendment was to transform the United States of America from a true republic under the rule of law into a hybrid form of a true democracy whereby all the people, educated and ignorant, elect their respective representatives and their senators.
The following excerpt comes from The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate by Robert A. Caro.
Available from Amazon.com
An Excerpt
“The Framers … feared not only the people’s rulers but the people themselves, the people in their numbers, the people in their passions, what the Founding Father Edmund Randolph called ‘the turbulence and follies of democracy.’
“The Framers of the Constitution feared the people’s power because they were, many of them, members of what in America constituted an aristocracy, an aristocracy of the educated, the well-born, and the well-to-do, and they mistrusted those who were not educated or well-born or well-to-do. More specifically, they feared the people’s power because, possessing, and esteeming, property, they wanted the rights of property protected against those who did not possess it. In the notes he made for a speech in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison wrote of the ‘real or supposed difference of interests’ between ‘the rich and poor’ — ‘those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings’ — and of the fact that over the ages to come the latter would come to outnumber the former. ‘According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the latter,’ he noted. … But the Framers feared the people’s power also because they hated tyranny, and they knew there could be a tyranny of the people as well as the tyranny of a King, particularly in a system designed so that, in many ways, the majority ruled. ‘Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power,’ Madison wrote. These abuses were more likely because the emotions of men in the mass ran high and fast, they were ‘liable to err … from fickleness and passion,’ and ‘the major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority.’
“So the Framers wanted to check and restrain not only the people’s rulers, but the people; they wanted to erect what Madison called ‘a necessary fence’ against the majority will. To create such a fence, they decided that the Congress would have not one house but two, and that while the lower house would be designed to reflect the popular will, that would not be the purpose of the upper house. How, Madison asked, is ‘the future danger’ — the danger of ‘a leveling spirit’ — ‘to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale.’ This body, Madison said, was to be the Senate. Summarizing in the Constitutional Convention the ends that would be served by this proposed upper house of Congress, Madison said they were ‘first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.’
“‘The use of the Senate,’ Madison said, ‘is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.’ It should, he said, be ‘an anchor against popular fluctuations.’ He drew for parallels on classical history, which, he said, ‘informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.’ In two of the three ‘long-lived’ republics of antiquity, Sparta and Rome, and probably in the third — Carthage (about whose governmental institutions less was known) — senators served for life. ‘These examples … when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, [are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.’ Thomas Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as minister to France. When he returned, he asked George Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a two-house Congress. According to a story that may be apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: ‘Why did you pour your tea into that saucer?’ And when Jefferson answered, ‘To cool it,’ Washington said, ‘Just so. We pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.’ The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or dissent.
“And to ensure that the Senate could protect the people against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against the people. … Each state, the Framers decided, would be represented by only two senators; the first Senate of the United States consisted of just twenty-six men. Another was the method by which senators would be elected. When one of the Framers, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, suggested that they be elected by the people, not a single member of the Convention rose to support him. ‘The people should have as little to do as may be about the government,’ Roger Sherman declared. ‘They lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.’ After Elbridge Gerry said that ‘The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy,’the Framers took steps to guard against such an excess. There would, they decided, be a ‘filtration’ or ‘refinement’ of the people’s will before it reached the Senate: senators would be elected not by the people but by the legislatures of their respective states — a drastic filtration since in 1787 the franchise was so narrow that the legislatures themselves were elected by only a small percentage of the citizenry.”
“Senators would also be armored against the popular will by the length of their terms, the Framers decided. Frequent elections mean frequent changes in the membership of a body, and, Madison said, from a ‘change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success.’ What good is the rule of law if ‘no man . . . can guess what the [law] will be tomorrow?’ Guarding against ‘mutable policy,’ he pointed out, requires ‘the necessity of some stable institution in the government.’ Edmund Randolph, as usual, was more blunt. ‘The object of this second branch is to control the democratic branch,’ he said. ‘If it not be a firm body, the other branch being more numerous and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it.’ Senators, he said, should “hold their offices for a term sufficient to insure their independency.’ The term sufficient, the Framers decided, would be six years. Senators would hold office three times as long as the members of the ‘democratic branch.’ They would hold office longer than the President held office. And around the Senate as a whole there would be an additional, even stronger, layer of armor. Elections for senators would be held every two years, but only for a third of the senators. The other two-thirds would not be required to submit their record to the voters (or, to be more accurate, to their legislatures) at that time. This last piece of armor made the Senate a ‘stable institution’ indeed.”
A Necessary Fence
Article V provides two processes for amending the Constitution.
There have been twenty-seven amendments. Only one has been repealed, Amendment XVIII (18th) that instituted prohibition, later repealed by Amendment XX1 (21). Therefore, we effectively have only 25 amendments.
Through one prescribed process, the Legislative Branch crafts and proposes amendments for approval by the states. A second prescribed process is by a Constitutional Convention of the States.
Only God-given wisdom could have given us this magnificent document that has endured longer than any other in the history of the world.
A Convention of the States
Already states are moving toward holding a convention of the states for the purpose of amending our constitution apart from Congressional meddling and Washington corruption.
Constitutional expert and conservative radio host Mark Levin’s book has taken the nation by storm. In him book, Mark proposes specific amendments, remedies, needed to restore our republican form of government.
Buy this book from Amazon.com
Federal government has become distinctly fascist as this sitting president continues to consolidate his power over citizens, using federal agencies to silence and intimidate critics. He decrees laws and changes laws at will, while his Democrat-controlled Senate happily does his bidding. A day of reckoning is on the horizon.
One amendment we must enact is repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Globalists like Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and this sitting president, Barack Hussein Obama, eagerly push to divest U.S. control of the internet. This begs the question: into whose hands does control of Internet DNS and URL essential addressing facilities go?
WAPO: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
I remind you: We, the American people, paid for and constructed the United Nations building on American soil, but we no longer have any control of it. Think how far from American ideals of justice and freedom the U.N. has gone. Today, even as you read this, tyrannical ‘foxes’ are in charge of the ‘chickens’. The United Nations are united in opposition to us, the U.S., with very few exceptions.
We the People of the United States of America also invented, developed and paid for Internet technologies now enjoyed throughout the world. Shall we so readily surrender another piece of America to hostile foreign interests?
I ask you to contact your Congressional delegation. Tell them to oppose relinquishing ICANN to foreign interests.
Citizens Association for Responsible Gun Ownership
Friends,
We experience two movements across the fruited plain: Unconstitutional gun-grabbing actions by liberal state and federal governments, while gun sales across the country break all records.
Record gun purchases across the nation precede the next logical reaction: open-carry events.
We are pleased to have to spokesmen who actively participate in the open-carry movement: Murdoch Pizgatti and Lincoln Andre of the Dallas chapter of Come and Take It America!
Newton’s Law applies: Unconstitutional Actions Create Equal Reaction
(click on the image below to view the website)
TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 23: RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
We’ll be learning about their organization and their experiences from engaging in lawfully and openly carrying firearms in public.
What: CARGO Rockwall Gun Club
Where: Soulman’s Bar-B-Que in Rockwall
When: Thursday, March 13
Time: 6 to 7 PM
Come a little before 6 PM to go through the serving line, then find a good seat in the private dining room.
Formal presentations begin promptly at 6 PM and end promptly at 7 PM, with plenty of time for you to talk with our featured speakers, CHL instructors, federally-licensed firearms salesmen and law enforcement officers.
There are never fees or dues. We are simply citizens serving citizens with the goal of educating citizens and law enforcement officers on the law and practical actions.
We are always “family friendly”, so, yes, please do bring your children.
You may have heard that I will NOT back John Ratcliffe in the runoff for the 4th congressional district, and in fact I will back Ralph Hall for one more term.
Here is my logic regarding my decision.
Ratcliffe is a lawyer with Hard Connections with a top 10 lobbying firm in DC. In fact Ratcliffe is a partner in the Ashcroft Group which is a DC lobbying firm.
John Ratcliffe represents the Ashcroft Group in Dallas
THIS will not be the way to get representation for our District. The representation will be focused upon the Clients ofthe Ashcroft Group, not the Voters of the 4th district.
Please understand that in my mind, the alternative to a politician and insider lawyer that I offered was that of a Businessman.
My business experience and life experience was the key.
Having 40 years experience in the private business sector is something that Congress rarely sees.
There is none of that experience in Ratcliffe, In fact he has been a government employee and bureaucrat in the DOJ for years.
Ratcliffe, also followed a $52 million dollar, no bid contract that went from the DOJ to the same lobbying firm, The Ashcroft Group, as a partner in that firm.
He now wants to take the Congressional seat. Our concerns in NE Texas will not be the same as those of the Ashcroft Group Clients.
Does anyone think that these clients will not have any sway in what Ratcliffe would stand for and vote for?
Again Ratcliffe is an insider, with solid connections to a top 10 Lobbying firm in DC.
That is NOT the way to regain our country or our Constitutional Republic back.
We have enough Crony Deals to overcome already.
Finally, this means that I will be back to fight another day.
I will offer the same alternative as I did this time. Experience and background that will help to regain our Republic, not compromise it.
Voting for Ratcliffe will not help our cause, nor will it allow for a True Conservative to hold this seat in the near future.
If Ratcliffe, the moderate connected insider, was to win this seat, it might be years before we get another true conservative as our Representative.
Nothing changes other than we work toward 2016 to take this seat for the right reason.
My goal was never to just remove Ralph Hall, but to Replace Hall with the right person with our values when the time comes.
This is why I am supporting and Endorsing Ralph Hall in this runoff.
Take another look at my Mailer on the last page. it spells out why a no vote for Ratcliffe is in order.
God Bless America and God Bless Texas!
Thanks to all who voted for me. I will see you again next primary.
Feel free to contact me anytime.
Thank You,
Lou Gigliotti 214-679-8907
Runoff Elections are May 27, 2014 – Your Vote Is Important!
