Democracy.  Rule by the people. 

Democracy.  The form of government that has allowed the United States of America to flourish over its two hundred year period of existence.

Democracy.  Millions of people have perished while defending its name against foreign powers that threaten its prosperity.

Democracy.  With it, people must have freedom.

The founders of our country wisely limited the role of government.  They understood the fact that a people would remain free only if individuals were responsible for their own futures.  But the people of that era were of a different breed. They were morally, ethically, and psychologically stronger.  They were adults.

We seem to have turned into a nation of whiners who see the federal government as the answer to all of our problems. That way, all we have to do is curl up into the fetal position and suck our thumbs while the government takes care of our every need. 

I find it strange how certain government officials are getting elected by telling us how bad things are and that the only way we will solve these problems is by allowing the government to take care of us.  In effect they are saying we're lazy.

We need to start reasserting ourselves as a free people and reject these easy answers.  While it might seem good now, in the long run we will end up asking each other "when did we end up in a communist economy?"  It happens a little at a time, but it will happen.

The government is not our Daddy.  Every time something goes wrong, we can't blame the government and expect them to fix our problem.  Get on with your lives! 

"What bad could come from the government fixing our problems" you ask?  Lets use an example. 

One thousand people work at a factory which goes bankrupt. Should the government keep it open to keep the people working?  You government lovers say "yes" because the people need to support themselves and their families.  I say no.  Reason being this.  The factory went bankrupt because people didn't buy their product.  Nine times out of ten, people didn't buy the product because there was no need or want of it anymore.  Lets say the factory made 8 track tapes.  If the government kept open this company, they would be losing money on unsold tapes.  To gain back that money, the government would have to force people to buy them.  If that happened, the compact disk wouldn't have been invented...there would have been no need.  This would have hindered the development of CD ROMs for computers.  We would fall behind in world technology.  If the government kept open every company that has gone bankrupt in the 20^th century, we would be about the same now as life was in 1901.

All this because 1000 people had to keep their jobs manufacturing 8 tracks.  If they did get laid off, they could get new jobs working in the companies with the better product.  It's a continuing cycle based on competition.  It allows us to develop new technology and live a happy, free life.

Look at the ex-soviet union.  Look how poor they are.  They are a living example of the frailties in a government controlled economy.  I find it rather ironic how they are now crying "freedom" and "democracy" while we are crying "government" and "daddy".

Communism.  Rule by a centralized government party. 

Communism.  The form of government that has brought countries to its knees.  Communism.  A form of government hat has made poor and sad countries. 

Can we not lean from others mistakes? 

Communism.  With it, people must be controlled.

The “gay marriage” issue is set to take center stage in the press today.

The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down its decision in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8, which revised the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. In May of 2008, the same court ruled that marriage laws denying same-sex couples the right to wed violated the state’s constitution, thus prompting citizens to take action via referendum (Proposition 8).

I find it interesting that proponents of gay “marriage” claim to be fighting for “equal rights”. According to them, the “right” of traditional marriage is being protected by the state while those who seek same-sex marriage are being denied that “right” and are thus discriminated against. The problem for them is that definitions are stubborn things.

Look in any dictionary and the term “marriage” is defined in some form as follows:

“The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”

Based on simple definitions, the argument of denied rights for homosexuals holds no standing. Indeed, using both the definition of marriage and any current laws that specifically deny same-sex marriage, there is not one right being granted a heterosexual that a homosexual does not share.

To wit:

A male can marry a female. It doesn’t matter if that male is homosexual or heterosexual; the same right to marry a female exists for both individuals. No special right is being granted the heterosexual that the homosexual does not also share. Ah, but the homosexual will claim that he can’t marry the person (another male) that he loves and wants to marry and is therefore being discriminated against. The problem here is that the homosexual is left attempting to define a “want” as a “right”. While having the same right to marry a female as a heterosexual male, the homosexual is now demanding his want to marry another male. Thankfully, in civilized society, the state and other individuals do not place the burden on themselves of guaranteeing other people’s wants. Society would crumble if it did. I “want” a nice yacht and a BMW, but it is by no means my “right” to have them.

To the contrary of the denied right argument, and the subject of another essay, is that new so-called “hate crimes” legislation actually begins to grant special protections and preferred class status to many minority groups, including homosexuals, in excess of what their majority counterparts are awarded. Odd how we don’t find proponents of gay marriage fighting “hate crimes” laws based on the same argument of equal protection under the law that they mistakenly apply to marriage law.

To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.

Marriage, however, has a standing definition. It is this definition that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to change, much to the chagrin of countless individuals who, based on their religious ideology, simple tradition, or other factors, would rather not see changed. This is understandable in the same way (to give an admittedly excessive example) that a baseball player couldn’t simply start calling a base hit a “home run” or a football player could call making it to the 10-yard line a “touchdown”. Changing those definitions would so fundamentally change the sport (or society in marriages case) that doing so is simply unwise and unnecessary.

My solution offered to homosexuals? Stop rocking the boat and demanding that society change it’s definitions just for you. What have you accomplished other than peeving off a large number of people and possibly making actual discrimination a larger problem? Come up with your own word to describe the legal union of a same-sex couple. Call it whatever you want. Take pride in it! Be as creative as we know you are! Relieve the stress of attempting to change society's definitions by just coming up with your own word. Then feel absolutely free to take exception when Tom and Suzy want to muddy the waters by stealing your word and it’s meaning.

Seems fair to me!

Arlen Specter Leaves the GOP, Becomes a Democrat

Opinion piece by Christian Hine

Arlen Specter finally came out of the closet and announced his decision to join the Democrat Party.  The yawns should be deafening given the no-brainer of this situation, however, the web is buzzing and twittering with folks from both sides singing either Conservative praise hymns or Liberal victory chants.

Conservatives, long annoyed at Mr. Specter's propensity for voting with the left on issues ranging from choice to gay rights to multi-billion dollar bailout bills, are simply ecstatic that the GOP has now taken one step closer to the ideological purity they seek. 

Liberals on the other hand now see a reversing trend of party switching where they finally get to be on the side gaining membership.  For them, the "Obama Revolution" continues to strengthen and the feelings of invulnerability will continue to nudge their way into the liberal psychy.  (This is ultimately harmful to them, but they'll have to learn that the hard way.) 

I can't say I disagree with the elation felt by the Conservatives, but it comes with a price. 

I am a Conservative and I am a person who calls things like I see them.  I have no agenda other than my own opinion.  For me, having a person like Arlen Specter be a member of the same party that I reluctantly call home is a hard pill to swallow.  It creates confusion among people less politically aware.  Indeed, how can I claim to believe certain things when others in the same party espouse the exact opposite belief?  Someone looking for consistency will tear off their head trying to understand GOP policy.  For that reason, I am happy to see Specter leave.   It gives the Party a stronger standing to recruit new members as the debate becomes much more black and white.

On the other hand,  to my dismay, we are a living under a two party system in this great country.  I would love to see this change because there is no way the multitude of political opinion in this country can be expressed with only two categories.  The system as it stands is a disgrace to political discourse and only serves to expand the power of the Parties themselves.

With that said, losing a member of "my team" will have consequences.  I don't believe that a two party system will ever allow the complete radicalization of either side because they will constantly struggle with the Specters in their midst.  In order for either side to win elections and gain the power they seek, they must appeal to the middle ground because neither the hard core Liberals nor the hard core Conservatives have enough followers to ever become dominant on their own.

What happens though is that by giving up our moderates to the other side, it only strengthens their ability to elect and enact more liberal policy.  It's a numbers game that has moved us from the center-right to the center-left and we are worse off because of it.

Again, I wish for the conservative utopia and will forever fight for the candidates I believe will take us there...especially in primaries.  However, once the primary dust settles, and as long as we are stuck with a two party system, losing membership doesn't do us any favors.  We'll get to rightly claim a purer agenda, but that will not lead us to success at the ballot box and will not help to implement Conservative policy over the long term.

Case in point... I place blame on purists who wouldn't vote for McCain in the general election for the victory of Obama.  Shouting fire while the village burns won't smother the flames.  Grab a bucket and do something about it already.

Click this link to download the PDF copy of this report.

--- Text copy below ----

(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current

Economic and Political Climate Fueling

Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

7 April 2009

(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis

Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

(U) Scope

(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.

(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

(U) All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

(U) Key Findings

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

- (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

- (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

- (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

- (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

- (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in  anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

- (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

(U) Current Economic and Political Climate

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.

Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

- (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman's reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled "one world government."

(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish "financial elites." These "accusatory" tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

(U) Historical Presidential Election

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

- (U//LES) Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

(U) Revisiting the 1990s

(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as  abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

(U) Economic Hardship and Extremism

(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and "end times" prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.

These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

(U//FOUO) Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization

(U//FOUO) Scholars and experts disagree over poverty's role in motivating violent radicalization or terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual's susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent's unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children-specifically xenophobia andantidemocratic ideals.

(U) Illegal Immigration

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

- (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

- (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.

- (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers

(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

- (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws-such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles-and federal law enforcement's handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

- (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.

(U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists-as well as law-abiding Americans-to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity.

Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual's right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.

(U) Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the "New World Order" conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a "New World Order" would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

- (U//FOUO) Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories characterizing the U.S. Government's role as either complicit in a foreign invasion or acquiescing as part of a "One World Government" plan inspired extremist members of the militia movement to target government and  military facilities in past years.

- (U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.

- (U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia's control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China's investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists-including lone wolves or small terrorist cells-to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

- (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans-including Timothy McVeigh-joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

- (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."

- (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent-and, in some cases, the capability-to commit violent acts.

- (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy-separate from any formalized group-which hampers warning efforts.

- (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of "leaderless resistance" and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

- (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

(U) Outlook

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.

To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.

(U//FOUO) Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad, making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent extremist attack.

(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today's climate.

- (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.

- (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the "revolution" never materialized.

- (U//FOUO) Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

(U) Reporting Notice:

(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.

(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.

(U) Tracked by: CRIM-040300-01-05, CRIM-040400-01-05, TERR-010000-01-05

By Christian Hine

As I write, it appears that Jim Tedisco stands only 65 votes behind in an election that I hope becomes yet another wake up call for the GOP. I haven't given up on a Tedisco victory just yet since there are roughly 6,000 absentee ballots left to be counted and those tend to favor Republicans. However, I think what is continuing to be a disturbing trend in GOP electioneering made this race closer than it otherwise should have been.

Since 1994, we have witnessed the Republican Party rise and fall based on what I believe is their ability, or lack thereof, to actually frame an agenda that rallies people toward the cause of freedom and limited government. Newt Gingrich understood this well and I believe the "Contract With America" is one of the greatest political feats in modern American history. Unfortunately, as members elected during that historical year either retired or simply fell to the power of Washington corruption, we have seen the GOP go from the Party of ideas to a Party split between gutless panderers and overzealous attack dogs.

By the panderers, new ideas and a bold agenda were shunned in favor of a grand experiment to see if power could be acquired to a greater degree by giving up on core values and instead seeking alliances with the other side and "compromises" designed to coax a few in the left leaning middle ground to vote GOP instead of Democrat. That strategy has obviously failed. For each new voter brought into the "big tent", two were escaping out the back door feeling betrayed by those they had fought for.

On the other side of this, and bringing me back to the NY-20 election, is a group of Republican elected officials and activists who rightly saw the destruction of the Party and decried loudly the abandonment of core principles. Sadly, those who I refer to as the overzealous attack dogs ended up violating Gingrich's genius by spending more time, effort, energy, and money criticizing other Republicans and the Democrats than actually presenting the electorate with an agenda to stand FOR.

As I watched the Tedisco/Murphy race, I was barraged by emails from varying special interest groups (especially America Deserves Better PAC) that were filled with all the dirt they could find on Murphy. Truly, there was dirt to be found. Email after email asking for help in defeating the "big-spending, tax-cheating, anti-military, liberal Democrat (Scott Murphy)". Unfortunately, lost in the negative emails, commercials, YouTube videos, etc, was any actual positive agenda being laid out by Jim Tedisco! Perhaps he tried within the district, but all that was filtered through the media and my inbox was the repetition that I should vote for Jim Tedisco because Scott Murphy is evil.

I'm sorry folks, but that isn't good enough.

If Tedisco ends up losing this election, I believe the primary reasons will be twofold. First, people were turned off by the negativity and simply closed their ears and became disinterested. Low turnout is common in special elections, and in this case it is no wonder. I don't believe we can ever truly move forward until we have participation by an educated electorate. When you numb people to the message, the opportunity for education is lost. No movement can be built if the audience has moved on to other things out of frustration.

I would also suggest that based on the numbers and election history of the area that this was the wrong race to attempt any type of full blown campaigning. Conservatives trying so shortly after the election of Obama, who still tops 60% approval, to "make a statement" in a district won by Obama was near suicidal. You don't want to reenergize those new Obama voters to come out again and win another one for their "man" by making the race contentious. Deeper still, why embrace a strategy tying Murphy with Obama when Obama was the winning candidate? Rather, since the GOP holds a 41-26% voter registration lead over the democrats, a highly targeted get out the vote effort without the anti-Murphy grenades drawing attention to the battle would have been a better strategy. Republicans had controlled the district from 1993 to 2007. In low turnout elections, expect only the party faithful to vote. If that were the case in this election, I think Tedisco would have emerged victorious with a much safer margin of victory because my gut tells me the new Obama voters simply wouldn't have turned out and the overall number would have been lower. As it is now, I believe they did. The average Congressional special election draws 91,000 voters. This races turnout was over 154,000. Still low turnout, but significantly higher than average for a race of this type.

Whatever the reasons, and there is still hope for a Tedisco victory, it is time for the GOP to realize that the panderer strategy needs to end and we need to get back to the basics as a Party. I think this is starting to happen. On the other side of things, the attack dogs need to calm down a bit and start focusing their efforts on developing an agenda that people can support and feel good about without the constant criticism of the other side. It is right to point out faults and mistakes, but come to the table with your own folder of ideas, not just a shredder for the other sides. Make people want to support you by offering reasons to do so.

Who among us doesn't love to watch C-SPAN's coverage of "Prime Minister's Questions" for the shoe stomping, jeering, and "here, here's!" as someone gives an impassioned speech directly to the Prime Minister or his fill-in for the evening.  That kind of dialogue just doesn't happen here in the states.  Positions are given from the safety of press conferences, or on the floor of a mostly empty House chambers.

I would love to forgo the gentle "my friend from the other side of the isle" BS in favor of politicians, for once, saying what they mean and perhaps even meaning what they say.  Frankly, bipartisanship leads to both boredom and bad policy decisions.  Politicians need to get mad every once in awhile and vent.  They need to remember why they were elected in the first place...to represent their constituents, not simply to join the ranks of the power structure and make friends during the back room dealings.  The issues need to be laid out on the table in simple and relevant terminology.

That said, it was with great joy that I watched the now viral video of British MEP Daniel Hannan give a speech right to the face of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  It's a speech that any Republican, Conservative Democrat, or common sense American could give directly to the face of Barack Obama, if only such a thing were ever allowed.

Here is the video:

Indeed, I would say the same thing to President Obama.  The new debt he is saddling this country with is simply unsustainable.  His oft recited complaint that "Bush left him with over a trillion dollar deficit" falls on my deaf ears as pure hypocrisy.   He is right to complain, but the answer then shouldn't be "...so I'll just spend more than him and all will be better". 

Obama needs to listen to what this impassioned Brit has to say.

Books by Daniel Hannan can be found HERE

Daniel Hannan's personal blog is HERE .

OrlandoSentinel.com

Orlando 'Tea Party' rally draws more than 4,000

By Helen Eckinger

Sentinel Staff Writer

March 22, 2009

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

Just kidding! I didn't want to post Nazi Brownshirt pictures...

By Bob Unruh, News Editor at WorldNetDaily.com
Posted March 19, 2009 at 4:58pm
Link to Original

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."

The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes "new programs and studies" and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

WND reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

The video of his statements is posted here:

 

The new bill specifically references the possibilities "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."

Such new requirements perhaps, the legislation notes, "would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:

"The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives."

According to a report by Canada Free Press, "'volunteerism' that kept America running since the days of its founding" would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."

"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service," the commentary said.

"On paper, H.R. 1388 is the 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'; the more innocuous sounding 'The Give Act,' for short.

"The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations' and operating under Michelle Obama," the commentary said.

"Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement - leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary," the commentary said.

"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. ... The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America," the commentary said. "Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."

Groups of such "volunteers," would, under the legislation, be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. ... There shall be a superintendent for each camp."

The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: "This is the equivalent of brown shirts."

Another portion of the bill talks about a "service learning" plan that will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."

A forum participant noted, "I wonder what's going to happen to those who refused to 'volunteer.' Maybe they will be put into a different 'campus.' I guess we will soon find out."

Formal announcements about the plan suggested something far different, picking a provision far down in the 200 pages of legislation to highlight.

According to a Business Wire statement released by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the bill "would formally authorize federal support for establishing the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America as a National Day of Service and Remembrance."

That provision is tucked into the far reaches of the legislation, but Schumer discussed it as if it were the primary point.

"I could not be more proud to work to pass this important provision," said Schumer. "September 11 should not only be a day for mourning - it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country. We can take a tragic day in our nation's history and turn it into a force for good."

On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: "What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of 'volunteer' service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and 'camps.' They revise the word 'camps' and call it 'campus.' There is language about Seniors and Community organizations."

The blog noted, such work forces would be used for "pressing national and local challenges" that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.

At a Republican website, officials noted it authorizes funding for an Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans' Corps and Opportunity Corps.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. It was approved in the House 321-105, with mostly GOP opposition. It now goes to the Senate.

WND reported earlier on Obama's Colorado Springs campaign speech when he sought a civilian security force as big and well-funded as the military - with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars.

WND later reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

Huckabee in Columbia, SC

HUCKABEE: Put conservatism into practice
Mike Huckabee
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
(Part of our Reinventing Conservatism series)
Originally published by the Washington Times HERE 

Enough already of the hand-wringing and night sweats about the demise of the conservative movement!

Conservatives aren't challenged because of the basic principles that define us, but by the failure of the principles being translated into policy and practice.

Ghandi once said, "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."

I would be so brazen to say that if conservatives would really live according to the principles of classic conservatism, all of America would be conservative today.

The crisis is not one over the precepts, but the practice. It's not that we've failed in our doctrine, but our "doing."

Conservatives believe that the best government is the most local government possible and that the 10th Amendment means something and should be followed. Yet, the supposedly conservative Republican Party has been a drum major for the expanded role of the federal government.

Our founders feared a highly centralized and endowed federal government, instead preferring a system of strong and virtually independent states so that no one person, party, or power broker would exercise a great deal of control.

The inherent danger of allowing too much power in the hands of the few was the heart of the major dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson won, believing that the dispersing of power among the states would by design keep the federal government from becoming too consuming and powerful in its approach to governing. The genius of the 10th Amendment, as is true of all of the Bill of Rights, was that it deliberately limited what the government could do - not what the individual could do.

The 10th Amendment defines the limits of the federal government in 28 words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Over the past few years, Republicans have been either acquiescing in or encouraging the acquisition of more power and control by the federal government - in policy shifts in education, health care, and even how a driver's license looks.

During my 10 years as a governor, a constant battle raged with my own federal government over such programs as "Real I. D.," which was a federally conceived idea to force states to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to re-format the look of a state-issued drivers license so it would become the equivalent of a federal ID card.

Of course, no member of Congress wanted to come out and advocate an actual federal ID card, so forcing the states to make the driver's license the substitute seemed brilliant to Washington.

What they didn't really think about or seem to care the least about, despite the numerous attempts by governors, Democrat and Republican to explain, was that a state driver's license is just what it claims to be - a license to drive a motor vehicle. It is not proof of citizenship, good behavior or church attendance, and the people who work the counter at the state Department of Motor Vehicles are not trained law enforcement officers, immigration officials, CIA agents or detectives. They are typically entry-level state employees who do their best, but are hardly the choice front line of defense to catch a potential terrorist by discovering their true identity.

Ditto that for reforming the Medicaid program.

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner - now Sen. Warner - and I spent many frustrating days on Capitol Hill trying to convince House and Senate members that the Medicaid program was out of control, financially unsustainable, and needed flexibility at the state level. Thanks primarily to Congressmen Joe L. Barton of Texas and Nathan Deal of Georgia, we finally were able to convince Congress that some of the decisions for the program could be made better if made closer to the people being served.

Perhaps no other example is more glaring than having painfully watched so-called Washington conservatives abandon the most fundamental principle of conservatism - fiscal restraint. A Republican administration pushed for and got the authority to spend $700 billion that we had to borrow from our grandchildren's future so we could do what government has no business doing - picking out winners and losers in the private sector marketplace.

It was especially disgusting to me to watch some of the very leaders who had smugly dismissed my candidacy for president because I had the audacity to speak out against the excesses of Wall Street and Washington as early as February 2007 now stand up and flop-sweat as they explained why they were about to support the government taking off the striped shirts of the referee and put on the jersey of a team to play the game for one team against another all in the name of "saving the markets."

By abandoning our bedrock conservative principles, and those of our founding fathers, they risked ruining our country to save the markets.

What gives me hope is my belief that the party of Reagan will reunite behind the consistent conservative policies that have made our country great - policies that empower individuals, families, and entrepreneurs, not government, to shape our own destinies. If we do that, we will not fail.

We don't need so much to redefine conservatism. Just practice the real thing.

&#8226 Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and sought the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. He is a columnist for The Washington Times' "Reinventing Conservatism" series.

What would you say if Congress was about to pass just ONE LAW that would PERMANENTLY force YOU to fund the radical left-wing Obama-Pelosi agenda?

And, what if we told you that the same law would force the rationing of your paycheck to fund such an agenda?

Well, such a proposal exists and is being debated in Congress at this very moment. It is deceptively being called the Employee Free Choice Act - more commonly known as "Card Check."

If you thought "Card Check" was simply a liberal payoff to Big Labor, think again.

In actuality, "Card Check" represents a greater threat to your freedoms than even the so-called Fairness Doctrine (which would silence Rush and conservative thoughts and opinions on the airwaves)!

If you want to know the details... if you want to know HOW "Card Check" is a threat to YOUR bottom line and your family's way of life... then READ ON.

If you want to know EXACTLY how "Card Check" WILL FORCE YOU TO FUND THE RADICAL FAR-LEFT OBAMA-PELOSI AGENDA... then READ ON!

But for now, know that it is imperative that we STOP this freedom-crushing, job-killing legislation dead in its tracks. We must STOP it NOW!

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

- Send My Blast Faxes -

How Will Card Check Force YOU To Fund The Agenda Of The Far-Left?

The Heritage Foundation explains how the system presently works and how "Card Check" will tip the balance.

"For more than 60 years, American workers have decided whether to form a union with a private vote... neither management nor union organizers know how each individual worker voted. The secret ballot lets workers vote their conscience without risking job loss or physical assault for making the 'wrong' choice... . The EFCA would make it easier for union officials to pressure workers. Under the card-check process, union organizers would publicly solicit signatures on union authorization cards... Without secret ballots, union organizers know exactly who has signed union cards and who has not. In the past, union organizers have repeatedly approached and pressured-and, in some cases, threatened-reluctant workers. They have also used pro-union co-workers to solicit signatures, putting peer pressure on 'holdouts' to change their minds."

So what's the big deal?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich explains just why such a change is a radical threat to your bottom line:

"Under Card Check, union organizers and their enforcers will be able to go into any small business, hospital or construction site and coerce workers into signing cards. If they get 50 percent plus one, the deal's done, and the workers are forced into a union. And if management and the new union fail to reach a negotiated contract, the federal government will just impose one. Coerced unionization allows for what is effectively a new, unaccountable form of forced taxation. Workers will have a portion of their paycheck going to the union to be spent as the bosses see fit, including political donations to parties and candidates that the workers may not even support."

Let's put that in more personal terms.

Let's say that union organizers come into YOUR workplace and through coercion or peer-pressure - or even physical intimidation - "convince" a simple majority of your co-workers to form a union.

At that point you only have two choices. You either join the union or face job termination. You can't opt-out!

And once you "join" the union, you are FORCED to pay union dues. Again, you cannot opt-out. You have no choice in the matter, and the union dues will come directly out of each and every paycheck you receive!

Not only will you have no choice but to have those union dues taken out of your paycheck every week, you will have little or no say in how those dues are spent!

How your hard-earned money gets spent will be up to the whims of union bosses. And make no mistake, your hard-earned money -- this new-found windfall that the union will ration from your paychecks -- will go, in large part, to fund advocacy for the very left-wing causes that you find repugnant.

But that's not all. When the union tells you to strike... you strike... no unemployment benefits... just a meager strike fund that does not even come close to paying the bills...

.. during such a strike, you can't go to work until a union boss tells you it is okay -- NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS!

Perhaps that's why, according to polls cited by Gingrich, "77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents" oppose doing away with the secret balloting provisions that "Card Check" would ERADICATE!

But it gets worse. If the union bosses and the company management can't reach an agreement about your job, then bureaucrats in the Obama Administration would then FORCE an agreement on both parties.

In other words, government bureaucrats would be empowered to determine all aspects of your job -- even down to the compensation you make, regardless of any agreement you and your employer come to.

Heritage again:

"Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company's operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces."

To put it another way - and let's speak plainly here - if your boss doesn't knuckle-under to union demands, then some Obama appointee will simply step in and FORCE the union demands onto your employer!

That's essentially FASCISM!

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

- Send My Blast Faxes -

Will Unions Really Coerce You Into Joining The Union?

Heritage has a few things to say on the matter:

"During a card-check campaign at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, union organizers threatened that workers who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs when the union was recognized. In 2002, a long-time organizer for the United Steelworkers felt compelled to quit his job after 'a senior Steelworkers union official asked me to threaten migrant workers by telling them they would be reported to federal immigration officials if they refused to sign check-off cards.'"

And the above is not an isolated incident. Heritage cites yet another example:

"Hotel workers in Los Angeles, for example, had to seek an injunction against union organizers after groups of eight to ten of them harassed employees on their homes' porches late at night. A labor lawyer explained what happened to Trico Marine employees during another card-check drive... . Some employees, when solicited at their homes by union representatives, said, 'No,' to signing a card; yet, they reported repeated, frequent home visits by union representatives continuing to try to secure their signatures, and they complained to the company of this harassment. After 8 visits, one vessel officer in southern Louisiana had an arrest warrant issued against a union organizer.... Employees volunteered that they signed cards just to stop the pressure and harassment."

Of course, overt threats are not always necessary. Union officials are well-versed in psychological tactics that can be employed to deceive your co-workers into signing cards.

Heritage yet again:

"One former union organizer described the process in congressional testimony: They [organizers] are trained to perform a five-part house call strategy that includes: Introductions, Listening, Agitation, Union Solution, and Commitment. The goal of the organizer is to quickly establish a trust relationship with the worker, move from talking about what their job entails to what they would like to change about their job, agitate them by insisting that management won't fix their workplace problems without a union and finally convincing the worker to sign a card...."

"Typically, if a worker signed a card, it had nothing to do with whether a worker was satisfied with the job or felt they were treated fairly by his or her boss.... [I]f someone told me that she was perfectly contented at work, enjoyed her job and liked her boss, I would look around her house and ask questions based on what I noticed: 'wow, I bet on your salary, you'll never be able to get your house remodeled,' or, 'so does the company pay for day care?' These were questions to which I knew the answer and could use to make her feel that she was cheated by her boss. Five minutes earlier she had just told me that she was feeling good about her work situation.

"We rarely showed workers what an actual union contract looked like because we knew that it wouldn't necessarily reflect what a worker would want to see. We were trained to avoid topics such as dues increases, strike histories, etc. and to constantly move the worker back to what the organizer identified as his or her "issues" during the first part of the house call."

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

- Send My Blast Faxes -

And Yes, Card Check Is A Job-Killer... 600,000 Jobs (Or More) To Be Precise!

Senator John Thune had this to say:

"Not only does Card Check strip workers of their fundamental rights and allow government bureaucrats to dictate workplace wages and benefits, it will kill jobs as small businesses struggle to meet union demands. With the country in an economic crisis and working families struggling to pay their bills, Congress owes it to the American people to focus on creating jobs and growing the economy rather than paying back liberal special interests. Trading away the right and protection of a private vote in exchange for coercion is simply not the American way."

Thune goes on to say:

"A study recently released by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist with the non-partisan LECG Consulting Group, concluded that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs in just the first year after enactment of Card Check (as predicted by union leaders) would lead to an initial loss of 600,000 American jobs."

Gingrich cites the same figure:

"That means that an estimated 600,000 jobs could be lost due to Card Check in the first year alone - and that's on top of the over four million jobs already lost to the flagging economy."

Yet, the Obama Administration - along with extreme liberals in Congress like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - want to fast-track "Card Check."

They'd love to pass it before you are any the wiser.

It's high time that people learn that the well-being of the American people means nothing to those who want power and the advancement of an extreme left-wing agenda. In fact, to them, it would appear that your misery is just sauce for the goose.

Vice President Joe Biden recently told a group of labor leaders:

"You all brought me to the dance a long time ago, and it's time we start dancing."

The stakes are high. We must move quickly!

Use the hyperlink below and send your personalized Blast Fax messages to President Barack Obama and EACH AND EVERY ONE of the Republican Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives!

Demand that they do whatever it takes to stop this direct assault on our freedoms and the freedoms of our children and grandchildren that is being deceptively titled the Employee Free Choice Act!

- Send My Blast Faxes - 

Yours In Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org

P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.

Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838

CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

Powered by GrassTopsUSA