North Dakota Resistance

Add a Comment

Comment by Chrissy, St. Director,Central FL on November 17, 2009 at 11:41pm

Comment by Ron Lee on November 9, 2009 at 6:56pm

Go here to see the max penalty for not having health insurance if this monster were made law. See Page 3.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf

If that happened, while they celebrate the fall of the wall in Germany, we would find our own wall to keep us in. I think you would see many flee the country were this to pass the senate.

Comment by Jay Thomas on November 6, 2009 at 9:57pm

To Katie: Whatever I post is from other sources anyway, so pass it on!

Pomeroy needs to understand the implications of siding with Pelosi on Health Care. Please e-mail him.

Comment by Katie Eliza. Gaines on November 4, 2009 at 8:29pm

Every single one of Obama’s initiatives is directed at increasing government control in every area, with a corresponding decrease in individual liberty. Here's an incomplete bullet-point list of his anti-liberty goals on the home front:

•He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.

•He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).

•His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.

•His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).

•As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.

•He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.

•Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.

•He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.

•In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.

•Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices.

Of course, not all of these Obama dreams will become reality. His health care initiative is struggling, he's trying to flush his civilian security force theory down the memory hole, he's humiliated himself in his battles with Limbaugh and Fox, and he's generally doing a fancy dance by which he tries to hide his authoritarian impulses (as, for example, his attack on the Second Amendment). But those practical realities don't matter. This post isn't about what Obama will actually do. It's about what he wants to do, what his desires are vis à vis the American people -- and it's very clear that his desires are antithetical to our American beliefs.. He wants to limit or destroy individual liberties.

When it comes to America's role abroad, Obama's impulses are also all antithetical to liberty and American independence. Again, here is an incomplete list of examples of Barack Obama's innate preference for tyranny over liberty:


•Through selective punishments and rewards, he has turned against the only democratic nation in the Middle East (that would be Israel) in favor of the bloodied tyrannical theocracies on her borders.

•By reversing his pledge to keep a missile defense system in place in Poland and the Czech Republic, he has favored Iran's Muslim tyranny over these democratic nations only so recently freed from Communism.

.•Figuratively and literally, he bows to dictators (Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians, Iranians, Cubans, etc.). In other words, contrary to America's hundred-year history of siding with the people against their tyrants, he sides with the tyrants against their people.

•In Honduras, he has sided with the delusional Manuel Zelaya against the people and their Constitution.

•In Iran, when the people took to the streets against a corrupt dictatorship, through his silence and muted statements, he effectively sided with the megalomaniac theocracy and against the people.

•In his much-heralded speech to the Muslim world, in addition to grounding Israel's right to exist solely on a Holocaust the Muslim world denies, he repeatedly and noisily trumpeted the right of Muslim men to control Muslim women, a trope he reiterated in subsequent speeches.

•In his global speeches, he assures tyrannies the world over that America is abandoning her century-old role as the world's policeman against megalomaniacs and tyrants. They are freed from any constraint.

•By joining the farce that is the U.N. Human Rights Council, he is lending America's imprimatur to the most violently anti-Semitic, authoritarian, dictatorial, anti-American political body in the world.

•Through his waffling in Afghanistan, both in terms of ideology (why are we fighting?) and practical matters (troops! we need troops!), he is emboldening Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while simultaneously painting targets on the backs of our armed forces.

•As part of his belief in the increasingly discredited notion of climate change, he stands ready to cede American sovereignty to a U.N. body that can control American wealth distribution and police the American body politic.

With the exception of the last item, and unlike the list regarding Obama's domestic goals, the above bullet-points are not made up of things Obama merely wishes he can do. They are composed of things Obama has already done. He has subordinated America and her values to some of the worst actors on the globe.

America is no longer the symbol of liberty around the world. She's just another nation -- and worse, one whose leader, by temperament and political belief, has more reverence for dictatorships than democracies

Comment by Katie Eliza. Gaines on November 1, 2009 at 10:36pm

PLEASE READ AND ACT. IT ONLY TAKES 15 SECONDS
Send it everyone you know.

Please pass this on!!

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough! Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana !

Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple - just first, last and email). I have immediately done just that at: http://fleming.house.gov/index.html . Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!
If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families.

Comment by Katie Eliza. Gaines on November 1, 2009 at 9:53pm

TREATY CAN BE STOPPED IF SENATE HAS THE WILL

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -

I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.

I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?

I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
(Click on link and scroll down until come to videos with John
Bolton and Lord Monckton on the Copenhagen Treaty.)

Comment by Guy Smith- N.C. State Director on October 28, 2009 at 11:20pm

To My Fellow Patriots,
We need to try to get a float or marching unit in every Christmas Parade we possibly can. We are in a position there to appeal to many like-minded people that we need to grow our footprint in this war for our Country's heart and soul. This is an excellent opportunity to attract new members to the cause. I believe in divine guidance and divine intervention. I think God may have created Christmas Parades knowing one day that we mortals would need a stage to grow the mass of people who want to save our wonderful, God fearing Country from those who would do her harm.
Please contact me and let me know what I can do to help you mobilize you and your neighbors to be in your local Christmas Parade. This is a great opportunity to expand our righteous mission to save our great Country.
Our idea for a banner is "Merry Christmas from the Patriotic Resistance. The only thing we Trust in more than our Constitution is Our God and his only son Jesus Christ.

Comment by Katie Eliza. Gaines on October 28, 2009 at 9:40am

Hope this is okay.....saw this on Wyoming site posted by Jay Thomas.....very interesting video.
Hear Obama show his ignorance during campaign..."I have visited 57 states, one more to go"!

Click on this link
Fall of the Empire HQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WourPs56Shc

Comment by Guy Smith- N.C. State Director on October 27, 2009 at 8:58pm

Good Evening Katie,
You're right and Betz is wrong. It only take one-third of the senators to stop this. Instead of wasting and time worrying about this, you could have contacted 10 members of the Senate concerning healthcare or cap and tax or card check any of which WILL make a big difference in how we live. No matter what Lord Monckton says, The Constitution of The United States makes any treaty UNENFORCEABLE without ratification by two-thirds of the members of the Senate. Ref:Kyoto. How our side is wasting so much time chasing the straw dogs (aka decoys) that we could be using to actually influence a politician is ludicrous.

Comment by Katie Eliza. Gaines on October 27, 2009 at 8:44pm

One-World Government
by Chuck Norris
10/27/2009

(read what Chuck Norris has to say about the UN Copenhagen Treaty)

Halloween just got scarier -- much scarier.

Flying deep under Washington's radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."

It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn't it? Not according to Christopher Monckton, who was a science policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute.

"I have read that treaty," Monckton said, "and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' -- because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. ... And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think that the word 'election' or 'democracy' or 'vote' or 'ballot' occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once."

Monckton then warned that if Obama were to sign the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He further pointed out that even though ratification of our president's signature on that treaty would need 67 votes in the Senate, it could pass via a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill.

PolitiFact (as well as many left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton's conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. The apologetic of PolitiFact leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, but in reality, it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries "with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence."

As I myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, I noticed many lines that could warrant Monckton's and others' concerns. Phrases such as "creation of new levels of cooperation," "a shift in global investment patterns," "adjust global economic growth patterns," "integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms," "new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework," "new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries," "global fund," etc., are messages that make one wonder how far this political body's arm would reach into our country and force our hands into others.

Then there are red-flag statements such as these:

--"Ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention." (Page 11)

--"The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following: ..." (Page 18)

--"Particular effort should be taken to enhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations." (Page 47)

--"A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures. ... (b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels." (Page 138)

Now, if that isn't one powerful intergovernmental or global-governmental group overseeing and manipulating America's and others' economic and political conditions, I don't know what is.

Even if some of Monckton's claims about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are overstated, concerns about the extent of this body's political power and global economic sway are no more conspiratorial than the concern for Al Gore's comments in July that change will be driven through "global governance."

And does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G-20 conference, he pushed for world leaders to reshape the global economy?

I've been so flabbergasted lately by Washington's abandonment of our Founders' vision and principles that I expanded (to more than 300 pages) the new paperback version of my No. 14 New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism" (available in January). It includes new materials in every chapter explaining how, in just one year, the Obama administration progressively has dismantled our Constitution, buried our economy, forsaken our posterity, dissolved our borders, abandoned our godly heritage, impaled the traditional family and crippled America's health and future.

One thing is certain: Obama wasn't kidding on the campaign trail when he said it's time for the U.S. to "turn the page" on its trivial culture wars. But who knew just how many pages he would be turning, even in his first year in office? Who knew he would actually swap the playbooks?

But then again, I'm sure the White House just thinks I've been watching too much Fox News

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last