Retired Raytheon Engineer Don Woolley is planning to start the Southern Arizona Conservative PAC in Sahuarita, Arizona. Mr. Woolley has been working on getting the paper work completed with the Secretary of State and has a Facebook page.
In an email exchange, Mr. Woolley explained that their concerns are mainly with southern Arizona, but may promote candidates and government legislation on a case-by-case basis. The PAC is open to people who consider themselves conservative despite their political party. He is asking for donations to get the PAC started.
In an email to one of his possible volunteers, he writes, “We will assemble a board from a wide range of folks, not more than 6, with a treasurer and deputy treasurer, and we encourage you to send us candidate’s info so we can survey them individually, of course the first requirement is they have to be conservatives.
“The qualifications are you have to be a conservative, smaller government, lower taxes, more liberty, balanced budget at all levels of government.”
“We are playing the roll out at the end of the week, I will send you an email with Website and Facebook URLs…we have laid the ground work and are anxious to start taking donations, we will be working through Paypal so rest assured everyone’s security will be protected,” he added.
Currently, you can contact the PAC at southernarizonaconservativepac@gmail.com or phone 520-256-5333. Their web site is expected to be online soon.
Posted by John Kabitzke
Last updated 07/07/10 8:30 PM
Please be informed by reading the following on his broken contract with Americans:
Just as report cards keep parents posted on their children’s progress in school, constituents have a tool to let them know how their federal representatives measure up to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
We should expect high “grades” from them, because it is not difficult to determine whether legislation oversteps the clearly delineated, limited powers of the Constitution. If there is uncertainty, the Bill of Rights tells the government everything else is off limits. Moreover, an oath calls God as witness to the oath-taker’s honesty and integrity. In other words, it is both illegal and immoral to violate the Constitution. Why are so many Representatives bringing home Fs on their report cards? They may mean well, but a Congressman’s good intentions do not fulfill his obligation before God to vote according to the law.
There are a growing number of candidates for Congress who are running in support of the Constitution. Many of them were motivated to become involved as a result of the political phenomenon in the last presidential race that became known as the “Ron Paul Revolution.” But if the GOP establishment has its way, the Republicans who will go to Washington will be of the neocon variety and will offer voters looking for alternatives to the liberal Democrats more of an echo than a choice. The establishment-favored Newt Gingrich is a case in point.
The Republican?
After more than a decade out of the spotlight, Newt Gingrich is once again making headlines as a conservative author and basking in media speculation of his possibility as a presidential candidate. He is busy promoting his conservatively themed books and documentaries while touting firm belief in limited government and personal freedoms. Gingrich’s rhetoric brings back memories of his old days as a staunch proponent of cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing bureaucratic regulations, and strengthening national defense.
Just as in those days, Newt Gingrich now positions himself as a conservative. But does his definition of conservative mean loyalty to the Constitution, or loyalty to the establishment? “Understanding the real Newt Gingrich … is essential,” said John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society and producer of the new DVD The Real Newt Gingrich. “Americans must realize that they are being persuaded to follow false leaders, to put confidence in men who don’t deserve our confidence.” Both Gingrich’s congressional track record and his present activities prove him no better than the current White House occupant.
The recent passage of NDAA has caused suspicion for liberty groups as to the intent of the bill with Section 1301 not specifically exempting American citizens from possible incarceration by the military and prosecution by court-martial. A handful of Republicans and Democrats attempted amendments to the bill to correct the language. All of them failed to pass the Senate. Montana has recently launched recall efforts against their representatives who voted for the bill.
Opponents of the legislation are jumping on the recently announced plans by the Los Angeles police department for a “routine training” exercise conducted by military personnel similar to on held in Boston last year (See video below). The brief press release reads:
Los Angeles: Multi-agency tactical exercises are to be conducted during evening hours around the downtown area January 22-26, 2012.
The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great Los Angeles area. This will be routine training conducted by military personnel, designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirements.
This training has been coordinated with local authorities and owners of the training sites. The training sites have been carefully selected to ensure the event does not negatively impact the citizens of Los Angeles and their daily routines.
Lastly, safety precautions have been taken to prevent risk to the general public and the military personnel involved.
As such, this training is not open to the public.
Liberty proponents contend that the NDAA makes void the nearly 134-year old Posse Comitatus act passed by Congress on June 18, 1878. Major Craig T. Trebilcock claims that it should not present a significant barrier to utilizing the military in “law enforcement” anyway. He notes, “In the past five years, the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act has continued with the increasingly common use of military forces as security for essentially civilian events. During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, over ten thousand U.S. troops were deployed under the partial rationale that they were present to deter terrorism.”
The training exercises in Boston, of course, occurred before NDAA passed and shows that exercises of this sort has been going on for some time.
Even if the exercises have nothing to do with the passage of NDAA with the controversial Section 1301, it certainly should evoke Orwellian images of police looking inside your apartment. This concept was used in the movie Blue Thunder. In the 1983 movie about a high-tech helicopter, the officers were upset when an official call interrupted their viewing of a woman undressing. Ironically, over LA.
With a growing number of Americans becoming alarmed at the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act because of its provisions allowing American citizens to be indefinitely detained and denied due process, some states and even counties are taking action. The state of Rhode Island, as well as Colorado’s El Paso County, have drafted resolutions to nullify the NDAA, a step that other states and counties are soon expected to follow. Likewise, the state of Montana has launched an effort to recall their Senators — Democrats Max Baucus and Jonathon Tester — as well as Republican Congressman Dennyi Rehberg, all of whom voted for the NDAA.
Montana is just one of nine states with constitutional provisions asserting the right to recall members of its congressional delegation for reasons including a violation of their oath of office. The Montana Code 2-16-603 reads: “(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”
The other eight states are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana , Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. In New Jersey, efforts to pass such a law failed when a state judge declared that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators.” Critics of that decision contend that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution in fact does permit such a law.
“No experiment can be more interesting than that we are trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first objective should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”–Thomas Jefferson
STANFORD, Calif.–President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today
It’s “the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government” to centralize efforts toward creating an “identity ecosystem” for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.
That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil-liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.
The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke.
The Obama administration is currently drafting what it’s calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)
Citing Article I, Section 5 (sic)[This should probably be Section 8], Clauses 4 and 18 of the United States Constitution, Representative Darrell Issa of the 49th district of California submitted HR-45 entitled the Criminal Alien Accountability Act. The act would change 8 U.S.C. 1326 to provide stiffer penalties for aliens reentering the U.S. or committing crimes while in the U.S. The only cosponsor of the bill is Representative Brooks of Missouri. No Arizona representative cosponsored the legislation.
This title applies to aliens who:
(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter
(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless
(A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or
(B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act,
The bill would add stiffer mandatory sentencing for these aliens. Changes in Subsection B are:
Paragraph 1 would read: “whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, imprisoned for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years or both;”
Paragraph 2 would read, “whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, imprisoned for a term of not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years or both;
(4) who was removed from the United States pursuant to section 1231 (a)(4)(B) of this title who thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reentry) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, imprisoned for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years or both.
The last change would probably be moot since the Attorney General has opened the way for drug traffikking and human smuggling by attacking Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county stopping the efforts of the Sheriff to enforce these laws. The report of the justice department complains of the Sheriff’s Office “profiling,” yet they have not investigated the profiling done in their own office or that of the DHS concerning “domestic terrorists” that carry a copy of the Constitution or have a Ron Paul sticker on their car.
The bill would add a provision for persons who knowingly assist an alien to reenter:
Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien violating section 276(b) to reenter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to reenter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for a term imposed under paragraph (2), or both
The bill was introduced in January of 2011 and referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement in February where it languishes. The bill would probably have to be resubmitted in the next session of Congress if is to ever see the light of day.
LEESBURG—It may have looked like they were ready for war or some deranged person looking for his late Social Security benefits.
But it was only Federal Protective Service officers with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who were conducting a random training operation early Tuesday morning when they surprisingly showed up at the Social Security Administration office in downtown Leesburg.
With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building.
By introducing moral imagination to the foreign-policy conversation, the Republican candidate is doing the nation an important service.
A dispute has broken out among fans of Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy about whether he’s a strategic liability. Paul, says Kevin Drum, is such a “toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger” that “the only thing he’s accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a fringe view in American politics than it already is.”
It’s certainly true that Paul’s hawkish critics are using his weirder ideas and checkered past to try and make non-interventionism synonymous with creepiness. But, whatever their success, Paul is making one contribution to the foreign policy debate that could have enduring value.
It doesn’t lie in the substance of his foreign policy views (which I’m largely but not wholly in sympathy with) but in the way he explains them. Paul routinely performs a simple thought experiment: He tries to imagine how the world looks to people other than Americans.
Kind of makes sense since the Justice Department supplied guns to the Mexican drug cartel.
Americans bought record numbers of guns last month amid an apparent surge in popularity for weapons as Christmas presents.
According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.
It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.
If you haven’t heard of the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, you might not spend enough time online. But recent exposure of Marvel’s support for the bill has outraged fans across the internet on major comics news sites, blogs and forums and Twitter, calling for retaliation against The House of Ideas.
I understand why Marvel would support the bill. First, and most importantly, being an owned subsidiary of The House of Mouse (Disney/ABC/ESPN, etc) they now have to toe the corporate line. Second, comics are incredibly pirated products. Just doing a search on major bit torrent sites and you can. . . .well, pretty much download most every major Marvel comic from the last 70 years and fit it on a large external hard drive. That’s pretty terrible if you think about it. And, let’s be fair- DC is pro-SOPA as well, at least inasmuch as they are a part of the larger Time Warner family of corporations.
Let me state again, for the record, that we at BSR are ANTI-piracy. We are pro-comics, and piracy is a major problem with the industry today, just as with all entertainment media. We respect the rights of creators who put their genius into delivering greatness into our hands every week, every month, and respect their rights to get paid. We even point you to some of our favorites in the realm of digital comics– one of which, I would like to point out, is about Marvel digital comics on sale. We love comics, we are anti-piracy and pro-digital distribution. Absolutely.
But, just as categorically I can state that SOPA will not help one bit. The bill will allow any person to make a claim against a website (say BigShinyRobot. . . or Google. . . or YouTube. . .or Flikr) that it is hosting copyrighted materials, and without an investigation, without a warrant, without any probable cause– just a complaint– the host ISP has to shut the ENTIRE SITE down. Take, for example, the image I’ve used to in this post. This is one of my favorite comic book covers from books I collected when I was younger. I’ve added the “This is what Wolverine does to Pirates” which makes my use of this image fall under “fair use.” But if someone were to complain, they could– and shut down the entire site without any adjudication by any legal authority. Not only does SOPA violate basic principles of due process, it uses a nuclear bomb to strike at a gnat.
With the cooperation of politicians and grassroots organizations, Bolivia is set to pass the Law of Mother Earth which will grant nature the same rights and protections as humans. The piece of legislation, called la Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra, is intended to encourage a radical shift in conservation attitudes and actions, to enforce new control measures on industry, and to reduce environmental destruction.
The law redefines natural resources as blessings and confers the same rights to nature as to human beings, including: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Perhaps the most controversial point is the right “to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities”.
In late 2005 Bolivia elected its first indigenous president, Evo Morales. Morales is an outspoken champion for environmental protection, petitioning for substantive change within his country and at the United Nations. Bolivia, one of South America’s poorest countries, has long had to contend with the consequences of destructive industrial practices and climate change, but despite the best efforts of Morales and members of his administration, their concerns have largely been ignored at the UN.
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-7th, Tennessee) has submitted a bill, “To direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to prohibit certain employees of the Transportation Security Administration from using the title of `officer’ and from wearing uniforms and carrying badges resembling those of law enforcement officers.”
The short H.R. 3608, the ‘Stop TSA’s Reach In Policy Act’ or the ‘STRIP Act’ would direct the Assistant Director of Homeland Security to prohibit Transportation Security Administration personnel from wearing metal badges resembling police badges and uniforms that make them appear to be federal officers. They would not even be allowed to use the term “officer.”
She voted forH.R. 1540—the House version of S. 1867, NDAA—which many allege would allow the military to round up American citizens against any of the many wars the government is involving us in and place them in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or a number of foreign prisons. In the Senate version, Sections 1301 and 1302—which have become known as the “indefinite detention articles”—do not exempt U.S. citizens from imprisonment without trial while most of the other provisions do. Continue reading “Congresswoman wants to stop TSA from calling themselves “officers.”” »
New policy. Homeland Security. You will not pick up anymore illegal aliens from the Sheriff’s office. You will do it for other agencies, but not the Sheriff’s office. … I’m not going to stop enforcing the illegal immigration laws.—Sheriff Joe Arpaio
PHOENIX – The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said Wednesday night that ICE refused to take custody of 10 admitted illegal immigrants — 2 of whom are children.
The subjects allegedly told deputies they were in the country illegally and were on their way to New York.
When deputies contacted ICE to turn them over, they reportedly refused. MCSO contacted Border Patrol, which agreed to take custody.
However, deputies have to drive the subjects down to Casa Grande.
February 5, 2012 1906 John Carradine 1920 Frank Muir CBE 1946 Charlotte Rampling 1948 Barbara Hershey 1948 Lord Haden Guest 1948 Sven-Goran Eriksson 1952 Russell Grant 1962 Jennifer Jason Leigh 1966 Jose Maria Olazabal
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
