By Oscar Y. Harward
As members of the Republican Party enjoy the victories of the 2010 Elections, there may be a storm that may be arising from the more moderate wing of the GOP.
2010 Elections’ results within the overall national electorate provided Americans with a choice of supporting conservative Republicans of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party over the liberal Democrats Never Under Taxed (NUT) Party.
The TEA Party members and supporters are ordinary middle class Americans who feel that they are overtaxed and continue to watch unwanted and unneeded legislation that is ‘crammed down our throats’. The TEA Party supporters and a majority of Americans are seeking more Constitutional freedoms and Judeo-Christian values. The Democrats continue to discredit the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party on the issues. On these issues, the American electorate made their choices on November 2 and the more conservative TEA Party candidates won.
With all the elections results that are in, candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin won 62 and lost by 23. That represents a 73% win for TEA Party candidate supporters.
The Republican Party picked up some 680 seats in state legislatures with at least 19 states in total GOP legislative control. Republicans now control 55 State Houses and/or State Senates, compared to 38 for the Democrats. This represents the most total victories in state legislatures since 1928 and with total control of legislatures since 1966. Republicans won 29 governorships with a net gain of 3. 2010 is the year for 44 state legislatures to redistrict their own US Congressional Districts and all 50 state legislative districts.
Some more moderate members of the Republican Party are bickering and appear to have their minds “politically warped” with more conservatives elected on November 2. Sen. Lindsey “Flimsy” Graham (R-SC) and former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) seem to be opposed to TEA Party supporters although a majority of Republicans support the principals and values of the TEA Party.
It was “Flimsy” Graham who said he was going to “transform” the GOP. Remember, it was candidate Obama who said he was going to “transform” the United States. Several more moderate Republican Party Senators on Capitol Hill and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) endorsed more moderate candidates in the GOP primaries like Florida’s Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trey Grayson against Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Castle against Christine O'Donnell (R-DE) and other NRSC opposing candidates. Mike Castle represented arguably the most liberal Republican on Capitol Hill. “NRSC” leaders, as an extension of the Republican National Committee (RNC), should refrain from endorsing any candidates in GOP primaries unless there is justification for criminal and/or moral issues at hand. RNC Chairman Michael Steel should have made sure of refraining from all NRSC leader endorsements. If you wish to endorse candidates, resign from the NRSC leadership position(s).
The GOP US Senate leadership on Capitol Hill was faulty in allowing Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to serve as a leader in the US Senate after denying the results of her loss in a legal GOP Primary Election and then announcing herself as a write-in candidate in the General Election.
Additionally, who is to decide whether any candidate for elected office is qualified, so long as they qualify as required by the US Constitution, whether it is former G.W. Bush, his Chief of Staff Karl Rove, or anyone else? Any of us may prefer additional experience or anything else, but no one should disqualify anyone who qualifies within our Constitution.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) endorsed Sens.- elect Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Johnson (R-WI) and other candidates who have a desire to restore responsibility in stopping out-of-control wasteful spending. We must reduce the existing $13.7 billion national debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/. We must restore our social issues in legislation on Capitol Hill.
Americans have now granted the Republican Party all across America opportunities to restore our Constitutional freedoms, and our fiscal and social values. We must stop the out-of-control spending, reduce our national debt, and restore Judeo-Christian values into our livelihood.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Proposals for restoring America’s basic values in the 112th. Congress
By Oscar Y. Harward
With the GOP victories of November 2, 2010, America’s voters have answered. Our government cannot be all the answers to all persons all the time. May I offer these proposals and with many candidates’ commitments in restoring America’s Constitutional freedoms? I believe a majority of Americans will support each and all:
1. Repeal ObamaCare. Americans prefer to choose their own healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid will prevent anyone from being denied healthcare when their life is in danger.
2. Tort Reform in our “entire” Judiciary; but specifically, in our Healthcare system.
3. Drill baby! Drill! America has more oil reserves than all the oil combined in the Middle Eastern countries. These oil finds are now awaiting the location to recover and refine, ready for businesses and consumers. Americans are currently importing $305 billion of oil, $127 billion from OPEC nations. Foreign oil is costing Americans approximately $82/barrel. Newly refined American oil should cost consumers approximately $16.00/barrel which would represent a savings of $1.57/gal. Examine how a savings of $1.57/gal. would help the family budgets? That should represent approximately $500 to $1,000 savings annually?
Any legislator rejecting the additional new drilling of American oil should by blamed with requiring American businesses and consumers to pay excessive cost for oil and gasoline and to fund the radical Islamic Muslim organizations who are fighting our US Military to protect American freedoms and others around the world.
4. Enforce immigration. Stop “illegal immigration”. “Illegal immigration” is eating away our Constitutional freedoms and our economy.
5. “Legislate” to eliminate the funding of all “Earmarks”. Each individual, each community, each local and state government must become more self-supporting. Government must help the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and other legal citizens who have fallen through the cracks. Frequently, in all major communities, we see and/or hear where some local private and/or public groups and/or organizations are receiving “grants” from government. These grants are taxpayers’ funds. It should not matter whether these grants are going to private or public, political, or agricultural, we must cut our government spending and “reduce” our national debt. It is a must to save our nation for our children, grandchildren, etc.
6. Stop funding and sell Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). There are hundreds of privately owned and operated TV, as well as hundreds of privately owned and operated radio stations. Continue with the FCC to enforce these private entities only to maintain the morality in the public interest. Sell PBS and NPR to the highest bidders. Our taxpayers do not want to allow some radical individual(s) or groups to pick up the pieces of taxpayers’ purchased equipment and start his/her/their own radio and/or television network.
7. Stop funding Amtrak. Amtrak is costing taxpayers an enormous amount of resources, while flying is competitive in cost.
8. Dissolve the US Department of Education. As the US Department of Education has evolved, our educational grades have deteriorated. The NEA, a teachers’ union has become the foundation of the Department of Education. The NEA Labor Unions have damaged our children’s development in education. In the past year, Glenn Beck has taught Americans more about our Founding Fathers than the NEA has taught our children in the last five (5) years.
9. Enforce the US Immigration laws and US Code in denying government assistance, at taxpayers’ expense, to” illegal immigrants”. Americans support “legal immigration”. Americans oppose “illegal immigration”. Under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decisions, our current administration declarations will allow “terrorists’ to walk the streets without any police enforcement interference.
10. Dissolve Indiana’s state-subsidized "Porn Institute" and all other X-rated projects across America and around the world. Social issues must be addressed on all matters.
11. It is imperative that America maintain a US Military which is second-to-none. Specifically, America and the free world must defeat all terrorism at all cost.
12. There are other proposals for Conservative Republicans and all others to address in refraining from excessive spending at the taxpayers’ expense.
With the GOP victories of November 2, 2010, America’s voters have answered. Our government cannot be all the answers to all persons all the time. May I offer these proposals and with many candidates’ commitments in restoring America’s Constitutional freedoms? I believe a majority of Americans will support each and all:
1. Repeal ObamaCare. Americans prefer to choose their own healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid will prevent anyone from being denied healthcare when their life is in danger.
2. Tort Reform in our “entire” Judiciary; but specifically, in our Healthcare system.
3. Drill baby! Drill! America has more oil reserves than all the oil combined in the Middle Eastern countries. These oil finds are now awaiting the location to recover and refine, ready for businesses and consumers. Americans are currently importing $305 billion of oil, $127 billion from OPEC nations. Foreign oil is costing Americans approximately $82/barrel. Newly refined American oil should cost consumers approximately $16.00/barrel which would represent a savings of $1.57/gal. Examine how a savings of $1.57/gal. would help the family budgets? That should represent approximately $500 to $1,000 savings annually?
Any legislator rejecting the additional new drilling of American oil should by blamed with requiring American businesses and consumers to pay excessive cost for oil and gasoline and to fund the radical Islamic Muslim organizations who are fighting our US Military to protect American freedoms and others around the world.
4. Enforce immigration. Stop “illegal immigration”. “Illegal immigration” is eating away our Constitutional freedoms and our economy.
5. “Legislate” to eliminate the funding of all “Earmarks”. Each individual, each community, each local and state government must become more self-supporting. Government must help the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and other legal citizens who have fallen through the cracks. Frequently, in all major communities, we see and/or hear where some local private and/or public groups and/or organizations are receiving “grants” from government. These grants are taxpayers’ funds. It should not matter whether these grants are going to private or public, political, or agricultural, we must cut our government spending and “reduce” our national debt. It is a must to save our nation for our children, grandchildren, etc.
6. Stop funding and sell Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). There are hundreds of privately owned and operated TV, as well as hundreds of privately owned and operated radio stations. Continue with the FCC to enforce these private entities only to maintain the morality in the public interest. Sell PBS and NPR to the highest bidders. Our taxpayers do not want to allow some radical individual(s) or groups to pick up the pieces of taxpayers’ purchased equipment and start his/her/their own radio and/or television network.
7. Stop funding Amtrak. Amtrak is costing taxpayers an enormous amount of resources, while flying is competitive in cost.
8. Dissolve the US Department of Education. As the US Department of Education has evolved, our educational grades have deteriorated. The NEA, a teachers’ union has become the foundation of the Department of Education. The NEA Labor Unions have damaged our children’s development in education. In the past year, Glenn Beck has taught Americans more about our Founding Fathers than the NEA has taught our children in the last five (5) years.
9. Enforce the US Immigration laws and US Code in denying government assistance, at taxpayers’ expense, to” illegal immigrants”. Americans support “legal immigration”. Americans oppose “illegal immigration”. Under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decisions, our current administration declarations will allow “terrorists’ to walk the streets without any police enforcement interference.
10. Dissolve Indiana’s state-subsidized "Porn Institute" and all other X-rated projects across America and around the world. Social issues must be addressed on all matters.
11. It is imperative that America maintain a US Military which is second-to-none. Specifically, America and the free world must defeat all terrorism at all cost.
12. There are other proposals for Conservative Republicans and all others to address in refraining from excessive spending at the taxpayers’ expense.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Islam and political correctness
Marcia Segelstein - OneNewsNow Columnist - 11/2/2010
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1222190
Speaking ill of Islam is now "numero uno" on the ever-growing list of what's considered politically incorrect in America. For reasons I can't quite fathom, it's become a cause célèbre among liberals, who seem bent on defending the religion of Mohammad against any and all detractors.
Perhaps what they don't understand is that it's possible for most of us to denounce Muslim extremism and certain Islamic practices without condemning or thinking badly of all Muslims.
Here's a case in point. According to a recent article in Britain's Daily Mail, a judge in the United Arab Emirates has ruled that under Sharia law husbands are allowed to beat their wives and children with one caveat: there mustn't be any physical traces of the beatings.
Here are the facts of the case. An unnamed Emirati man was found guilty of "slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth," and kicking his 23-year-old daughter, causing bruises on her hand and knee. He was found guilty of assault and given a small fine to pay. For the record, he initially claimed it was all an accident.
The man decided to appeal, "claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so...."
The appeal was heard by a senior UAE judge, Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri. Previous Shariah court judgments have given husbands what's called the "right to discipline," which may include beating. The judge used this case to offer further clarification on that point. "Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right. If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment," he said. And what would constitute "abusing" that right? According to al Hajeri, one way to determine whether a man had gone too far, as it were, would be to look for physical evidence of beating. If he leaves marks, he's overdone it. Otherwise he is within his rights.
I wonder how Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar would have reacted if Bill O'Reilly had told the facts of that case during his latest visit to The View. Would they have considered it insulting to the religion of Islam and stormed off the set? As it was, all O'Reilly did on his appearance October 14 was refer to the fact that it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. When the co-hosts calmed down and returned to their seats, they appeared to be appeased when O'Reilly called the attackers "Muslim extremists" instead of just Muslims. Is Judge Falah al Hajeri a Muslim, simply upholding and clarifying Shariah law -- or is he an extremist? Is the husband in the case an extremist -- or a law-abiding wife beater? Is it insulting and politically incorrect of me to report this story?
And then there is the revealing case of former NPR analyst Juan Williams. Here's the exact text of the remarks he made on The O'Reilly Factor which got him in trouble:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
And this with regard to the Times Square bomber:
"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
For that, NPR fired him. What was his real mistake? Expressing nervousness at being on airplanes with passengers identifying themselves as Muslims? Quoting a Muslim extremist about being at war with America?
As Williams himself said, political correctness shouldn't stop us from speaking the truth, from stating the facts -- which is exactly what German Chancellor Andrea Merkel did when she recently declared that Germany's efforts to create a multicultural society there have "utterly failed." Merkel was speaking largely about the four-million Muslims who live in Germany, but have primarily not integrated into the culture or learned the language.
A plain-speaking, common sense approach to the world's concerns about Islam should not be off limits. There are real issues to be addressed and fears to be confronted. Allowing political correctness to shut down the conversation won't get anybody anywhere.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1222190
Speaking ill of Islam is now "numero uno" on the ever-growing list of what's considered politically incorrect in America. For reasons I can't quite fathom, it's become a cause célèbre among liberals, who seem bent on defending the religion of Mohammad against any and all detractors.
Perhaps what they don't understand is that it's possible for most of us to denounce Muslim extremism and certain Islamic practices without condemning or thinking badly of all Muslims.
Here's a case in point. According to a recent article in Britain's Daily Mail, a judge in the United Arab Emirates has ruled that under Sharia law husbands are allowed to beat their wives and children with one caveat: there mustn't be any physical traces of the beatings.
Here are the facts of the case. An unnamed Emirati man was found guilty of "slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth," and kicking his 23-year-old daughter, causing bruises on her hand and knee. He was found guilty of assault and given a small fine to pay. For the record, he initially claimed it was all an accident.
The man decided to appeal, "claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so...."
The appeal was heard by a senior UAE judge, Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri. Previous Shariah court judgments have given husbands what's called the "right to discipline," which may include beating. The judge used this case to offer further clarification on that point. "Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right. If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment," he said. And what would constitute "abusing" that right? According to al Hajeri, one way to determine whether a man had gone too far, as it were, would be to look for physical evidence of beating. If he leaves marks, he's overdone it. Otherwise he is within his rights.
I wonder how Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar would have reacted if Bill O'Reilly had told the facts of that case during his latest visit to The View. Would they have considered it insulting to the religion of Islam and stormed off the set? As it was, all O'Reilly did on his appearance October 14 was refer to the fact that it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. When the co-hosts calmed down and returned to their seats, they appeared to be appeased when O'Reilly called the attackers "Muslim extremists" instead of just Muslims. Is Judge Falah al Hajeri a Muslim, simply upholding and clarifying Shariah law -- or is he an extremist? Is the husband in the case an extremist -- or a law-abiding wife beater? Is it insulting and politically incorrect of me to report this story?
And then there is the revealing case of former NPR analyst Juan Williams. Here's the exact text of the remarks he made on The O'Reilly Factor which got him in trouble:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
And this with regard to the Times Square bomber:
"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
For that, NPR fired him. What was his real mistake? Expressing nervousness at being on airplanes with passengers identifying themselves as Muslims? Quoting a Muslim extremist about being at war with America?
As Williams himself said, political correctness shouldn't stop us from speaking the truth, from stating the facts -- which is exactly what German Chancellor Andrea Merkel did when she recently declared that Germany's efforts to create a multicultural society there have "utterly failed." Merkel was speaking largely about the four-million Muslims who live in Germany, but have primarily not integrated into the culture or learned the language.
A plain-speaking, common sense approach to the world's concerns about Islam should not be off limits. There are real issues to be addressed and fears to be confronted. Allowing political correctness to shut down the conversation won't get anybody anywhere.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Return justice to Common Sense Law
By Oscar Y. Harward
In the early days of our great nation, our founding fathers brought to America “English Law”. “English Law” is often referred to as “common sense” law.
Many of these “wise” men and women saw vision, then studied, offered, and established simple legislations into our Constitution. Over the years, the legislatures have “lawyerized” our US Code and States’ General Statues. At any time when there may be even an insignificant difference in “common law” which may not be precisely defined, legislators compose, propose, and ratify new laws, often making the simple setting even more confusing when in fact the issue in question should apply to common sense law.
A three judge panel on the US 9th Circuit of Appeals is now suggesting that with Arizona’s new law, SB 1070 may be questionable as to whether Arizona’s law enforcement should be authorized to enforce any legislation comparable to US Code on “illegal immigration”. If Arizona’s law enforcement is denied any responsibility of enforcing “illegal immigration” even under a new state law as SB 1070 clearly defines, will this force America to employ new members as our US Military Police to enforce all Constitutional law and US Code? More important may be is what happens when America has a President and administration that will not enforce the Constitution and US Code as defined? A most important question is when will this President and his administration enforce the Constitution and US Code as terrorists enter our nation?
If the US 9th Circuit of Appeals opinion is confirmed by SCOTUS, would a confirmed extended SCOTUS opinion deny municipal and county law enforcement officers from enforcing State General Statues?
When can America return to “ole-time” Constitutional freedoms and “common-sense” law? Can legislators return to simplicity in a free and open society? Will America accept a simpler judiciary? Have we reached a time which will require legislators to continue to write and pass more laws where “common sense” justice could and/or would be better rendered?
On Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck show of November 1, 2010 in making reference to a conversation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention: A lady asked Ben Franklin the question, “What have we got a republic or a monarchy?”. Ben Franklin responded, “A republic if you can keep it.” Let us all join together to become more honorable and personally accountable to save our Republic for ourselves and future generations. God Bless America.
In the early days of our great nation, our founding fathers brought to America “English Law”. “English Law” is often referred to as “common sense” law.
Many of these “wise” men and women saw vision, then studied, offered, and established simple legislations into our Constitution. Over the years, the legislatures have “lawyerized” our US Code and States’ General Statues. At any time when there may be even an insignificant difference in “common law” which may not be precisely defined, legislators compose, propose, and ratify new laws, often making the simple setting even more confusing when in fact the issue in question should apply to common sense law.
A three judge panel on the US 9th Circuit of Appeals is now suggesting that with Arizona’s new law, SB 1070 may be questionable as to whether Arizona’s law enforcement should be authorized to enforce any legislation comparable to US Code on “illegal immigration”. If Arizona’s law enforcement is denied any responsibility of enforcing “illegal immigration” even under a new state law as SB 1070 clearly defines, will this force America to employ new members as our US Military Police to enforce all Constitutional law and US Code? More important may be is what happens when America has a President and administration that will not enforce the Constitution and US Code as defined? A most important question is when will this President and his administration enforce the Constitution and US Code as terrorists enter our nation?
If the US 9th Circuit of Appeals opinion is confirmed by SCOTUS, would a confirmed extended SCOTUS opinion deny municipal and county law enforcement officers from enforcing State General Statues?
When can America return to “ole-time” Constitutional freedoms and “common-sense” law? Can legislators return to simplicity in a free and open society? Will America accept a simpler judiciary? Have we reached a time which will require legislators to continue to write and pass more laws where “common sense” justice could and/or would be better rendered?
On Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck show of November 1, 2010 in making reference to a conversation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention: A lady asked Ben Franklin the question, “What have we got a republic or a monarchy?”. Ben Franklin responded, “A republic if you can keep it.” Let us all join together to become more honorable and personally accountable to save our Republic for ourselves and future generations. God Bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)