About Me

Name: Noel Gibeson
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Endorsement of Ron Paul for President 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Ron Paul is best qualified to be President to be the President of the United States in 2012.
 
A lifetime advocate of freedom and liberty, and for more than 30 years as a U.S. Congressman, he has fought constantly for those important values. He is strong on the national defense of the United States. He is a true patriot!
 
Ron Paul advocates a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and business engagement over invasion. He has one of the highest ratings on moral values of any of the candidates and is the most conservative Republican running in the presidential race.
 
For all of these reasons and many more, I endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States in 2012 with enthusiasm.
 
Dr. Noel Gibeson
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TELEPROMPTER MAN THREATENS VETO

WASHINGTON, DC. Today, the Obama-Reid team tried twisting Republican arms to get them to vote for increased federal government spending that they were not able to pass in the last Congress when the Democrats had control of both houses and the presidency. The Kenyan-born president threatened to veto a Republican House bill that would have kept the federal government running for one more week while providing funding for the military through the end of this fiscal year.
 
While this Republican measure was far less than what needs to be done fiscally, at least it was something. It is the Rep. Paul Ryan bill that is the answer to the long-term overall of spending that is required to save the country from financial ruin.
 
Democrats remain clueless on this topic, while many Republicans are finally getting the message to cut federal government spending.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's War

Vacationing Obama unilaterally declared war on Libya without the advice and consent of the U.S. Congress and without a declaration of war as required by our Constitution. He said that all he needed was a UN declaration and that was enough to commit this country to war. Sold to the public as instituting a "No-Fly Zone," the UN declaration authorized offensive action against the Libyan government. Now, it has become clear that the real goal is "regime change" and not simply protecting Libyans.  We were lied to once again by Obama.

For your information, the UN press release authoring offensive military action is included below.
 
Noel Gibeson
______________
President Mount Vernon Institute
 
___________________________________________________________________________
17 March 2011
Security Council
SC/10200

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Security Council

6498th Meeting (Night)


Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary


Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

         Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.
Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charter’s Chapter VIII, the Council asked the League’s member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone.

The Council stressed the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis that responded to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people, noting actions being taken on the diplomatic front in that regard.  It further demanded that Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.

In that connection, the Council specified that the flight ban would not apply to flights that had as their sole purpose humanitarian aid, the evacuation of foreign nationals, enforcing the ban or other purposes “deemed necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people”

It further decided that all States should deny permission to any Libyan commercial aircraft to land in or take off from their territory unless a particular flight had been approved in advance by the committee that was established to monitor sanctions imposed by resolution 1970 (2011).

In tightening the asset freeze and arms embargo established by that resolution, the Council this evening further detailed conditions for inspections of transport suspected to be violating the embargo, requesting States enforcing the embargo to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they were taking towards implementation.

It requested the Secretary-Secretary to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.

Introducing the resolution, the Foreign Minister of France, Alain Juppé, said “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released”.  The Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”.  The world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, but the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”.  Earlier Council measures had been ignored and violence against Libyan civilians had redoubled

He said that the urgent need to protect the civilian population had led to the elaboration of the current resolution, which authorized the Arab League and those Member States wishing to do so to take all measures to protect areas that were being threatened by the Qadhafi regime.  “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours,” he said, adding that each hour and day that passed “increased the weight” on the international community’s shoulders.


Speaking after the vote, representatives who had supported the text agreed that the strong action was made necessary because the Qadhafi regime had not heeded the first actions of the Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians as it closed in on areas previously dominated by opposition in the east of the country.  They stressed that the objective was solely to protect civilians from further harm.


Lebanon’s speaker stressed that the text would not result in the occupation of “one inch” of Libyan territory by foreign forces.  The representative of the United Kingdom pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text.


The representative of the United States said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help.  The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians.  The Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.


The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be.  He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier.  China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.


The delegations of India, Germany and Brazil, having also abstained, equally stressed the need for peaceful resolution of the conflict and warned against unintended consequences of armed intervention.


Statements were also made made by the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Portugal, Nigeria and South Africa.


The meeting was opened at 6:25 p.m. and closed at 7:20 p.m.


Action on Draft


Speaking before the vote, ALAIN JUPPÉ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said the world was experiencing “a wave of great revolutions that would change the course of history”, as people throughout North Africa and the Middle East were calling for “a breath of fresh air”, for freedom of expression and democracy.  Such calls for democratic transition had echoed through Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco.  Everyone had witnessed the events with great hope and he believed “this new Arab springtime is good news for all”.  The changes required the international community not to “give lessons”, but to help the people of those countries build a new future.


Yet, he said, while such transitions in other countries had not been met with extreme violence, the will of the Libyan people had been “trampled under the feet of the Qadhafi regime”, as Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi mercilessly attacked his own people.  In light of those actions, the international community had responded swiftly; the General Assembly had suspended the country from the Human Rights Council, determining that the systematic and widespread attacks could constitute crimes against humanity.  In addition, the Security Council’s earlier resolution had called for an immediate end to the violence and had referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.


Unfortunately, those measures had not been enough and violence against Libyan civilians had been redoubled, he said.  Again, the international community had acted with unanimity, particularly through the League of Arab States’ call on the Security Council to enact a no-fly zone and the African Union’s strong call for an end to the violence.  “Yet, the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities that have been released,” he said, stressing that the Security Council could not stand by and “let the warmongers flout international legality”.


In light of that, France had been working assiduously with the United Kingdom, the United States and other members of the international community calling for means to protect the civilian population.  Those efforts had led to the elaboration of the current resolution, which authorized the Arab League and those Member States wishing to do so to take all measures to protect areas that were being threatened by the Qadhafi regime.  “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours,” he said, adding that each hour and day that passed “increased the weight” on the international community’s shoulders.  The Security Council had acted to ensure that democracy prevailed.


The Council then adopted resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation).


NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon) said that Libya was suffering heavily, with hundreds of victims dying and thousands displaced.  Faced with those risks and the great danger of those crimes, the United Nations had acted earlier, but Colonel Qadhafi had not heeded those actions.  Lebanon, agreeing with the League of Arab States, had then called on the Security Council to establish measures to protect civilians.  The Libyan authorities had lost all their legitimacy and the resolution was aimed at protecting Libyan civilians.


He stressed that the resolution would not have as a consequence occupation of “even an inch” of Libyan territory.  He hoped that the resolution would have a deterrent role and end the Libyan authorities’ use of force.  He reaffirmed full support for the county’s sovereignty, the need for full cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States, pursuant to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and the necessity of a peaceful solution to the situation.  The resolution was fraught with hope for Libya and its people, he concluded.


MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom), agreeing that the Libyan regime had lost legitimacy, had violated the Council’s resolutions and was on the verge of assaulting Benghazi, said he had pressed for the early adoption of the current resolution.  He pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text.  The resolution put the United Nations clearly behind the highest values of the Organization.


PETER WITTIG (Germany) said the Security Council’s intention was to stop the violence in Libya and send a message to Colonel Qadhafi and his associates “that their time is over [and] they must relinquish power immediately”.  While the Council acted on Libya, North Africa was undergoing major political changes, meriting the international community’s full support.  The aim should be to promote political transition in Libya, stop the violence and begin a true political process.  “The people of Libya who have so clearly expressed their aspirations for democracy should be supported,” he said, adding that the Interim National Council was an important interlocutor in that regard.


He said his country was particularly concerned by the plight of the Libyan people and believed it was crucial to tighten existing sanctions to “cut [the Libyan regime] off” from the funds that had propped it up for so long.  Decisions regarding the use of military force were always extremely difficult to take.  Indeed, in the implementation of the resolution just adopted, Germany saw great risks, and the likelihood of large-scale loss of life should not be underestimated.  Those that participated in its implementation could be drawn into a protracted military conflict that could draw in the wider region.  If the resolution failed, it would be wrong to assume that any military intervention would be quickly and efficiently carried out.  Germany had decided not to support the resolution and would not contribute its own forces to any military effort that arose from its implementation.  Germany had abstained from the vote.


SUSAN RICE (United States) said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help.  The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians.  The Council had adopted an earlier resolution that had sent a strong message, but Colonel Qadhafi and those that still stood by him had continued to grossly and systematically violate the most fundamental rights of the Libyan people.  The Arab League had subsequently called on the Council to take more stringent measures, and the current resolution was an answer to that call, as well as a strong response to the situation in the ground.


She said the Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries.  The text also tightened measures already approved under resolution 1970 (2011).  In addition, it established a panel of experts to monitor short- and long-term implementation of the sanctions.  She stressed that the future of Libya should be decided by the Libyan people.  The United States stood with the people of Libya in their struggle to exercise their fundamental rights.


MANJEEV SINGH PURI ( India), explaining his abstention, expressed great concern over the welfare of the population of Libya and supported the appointment of the Secretary-General’s Envoy.  The report of that Envoy and that of others had not yet been received.  As a consequence, today’s resolution was based on very little clear information, including a lack of certainty regarding who was going to enforce the measures.  There must be certainty that negative outcomes were not likely before such wide-ranging measures were adopted.  Political efforts must be the priority in resolving the situation.


MARIA LUIZA RIBERIO VIOTTI (Brazil) said her delegation was deeply concerned about the situation in Libya and regretted that the “strong message” sent by resolution 1970 (2011) had note yet been heeded.  The Brazilian Government had earlier condemned the violence being carried out by Libyan authorities and had called on them to uphold and protect the right of free expression of the protesters and to seek a solution to the crisis through meaningful dialogue.  Her delegation’s vote today should in no way be interpreted as condoning the behaviour of the Libyan authorities or as disregard for the need to protect civilians and respect for their rights.


She said that while Brazil stood in solidarity with all movements in the region expressing their legitimate demands for better governance, and had taken into account the Arab League’s call for strong measures to stop the violence through a no-fly zone, it believed that the resolution contemplated measures that went beyond that call.  “We are not convinced that the use of force as provided for in operative paragraph 4 of the present resolution will lead to the realization of our common objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians,” she said, adding that Brazil was also concerned that the measures approved today might have the unintended effect of exacerbating the current tensions on the ground and “causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting”.  No military action alone would succeed in ending the conflict.  Protecting civilians, ensuring lasting settlement and addressing the legitimate demands of Libyan citizens demanded a political process.


IVAN BARBALIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) reiterated his delegation’s grave concern about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya.  The Libyan people desperately needed humanitarian assistance, and the unimpeded access of that relief was an absolute necessity.  He called on Libyan authorities to end their violence against the Libyan people and he believed the resolution was an answer to their legitimate call and to the call of regional organizations.


NÉSTOR OSORIO (Colombia) said his delegation was convinced that the purpose of the new resolution was essentially humanitarian and was conducive to bringing about conditions that would lead to the protection of civilians under attack from a regime that had lost all legitimacy.  The Council had acted because the Government, through its actions, had shown that it was not up to protecting and promoting the rights of its people.


Colombia deplored the fact that the measures under resolution 1970 (2011) had not been heeded. It was also concerned that the current text had not been adopted unanimously. Colombia believed that the best way to ratchet up the pressure on the Qadhafi regime was to impose a no-fly zone, as called for by the League of Arab States.  The grave situation on the ground made it clear that all conditions were present for the Council to enact further measures and tighten the sanctions approved under resolution 1970 (2011).


VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said he had abstained, although his country’s position opposing violence against civilians in Libya was clear.  Work on the resolution was not in keeping with Security Council practice, with many questions having remained unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what the limits of engagement would be.  His country had not prevented the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire was the best way to stop the loss of life.  His country, in fact, had pressed earlier for a resolution calling for such a ceasefire, which could have saved many additional lives.  Cautioning against unpredicted consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid further destabilization in the region.


JOSÉ FILIPE MORAES CABRAL (Portugal) said his country had voted in favour of the text because the attacks against civilians had continued after the passage of the last Council resolution, and conditions were deteriorating.  He affirmed that today’s resolution addressed his country’s priorities, including protecting civilians, facilitation of unimpeded humanitarian aid, promotion of a national dialogue and guarantees for the territorial integrity and independence of Libya.  He supported all diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation.


U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) said the resolution had been necessitated by the persistently grave and dire situation in Libya.  “The current State of affairs leaves an indelible imprint on the conscience and compels us to act,” she said, adding that her delegation’s persistent calls for peace were rooted in the need to ensure the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those most in need, many of whom were Nigerian nationals.  The League of Arab States and the African Union had spoken with one voice in condemnation of the situation in Libya.


She said that while her delegation had supported the current text, it also believed that foreign occupation was not an option to ensure peace.  Nigeria supported language in the current text that negated that possibility.  Nigeria was also encouraged by the fact that the political path to a solution was endorsed in the text.  “Today, we have sent an unequivocal message to the Libyan people that the dignity and safety of every man woman and child is paramount,” she said, adding that when the fate of innocent civilians was in question, the international community, undaunted, must be ready to respond.


BASO SANGQU (South Africa) said his delegation was deeply concerned by what was fast becoming a civil war in Libya.  He hoped it could be resolved in a peaceful manner, according to the will of the Libyan people.  Any solution must also preserve the solidarity and integrity of Libya and, as such, South Africa supported the dispatch by the African Union of a special mission to the country.  He encouraged that mission to work closely with the Secretary-General’s newly appointed Special Envoy on finding a peaceful solution.


He said that South Africa regretted that the Council’s previous resolution had not been heeded and believed that by adopting the current text, the Council had acted responsibly to answer the call of Libyan people.  It would also speed humanitarian assistance to those that needed it most.  He hoped the letter and spirit of the present resolution would be implemented in full.


Security Council President LI BAODONG (China), speaking in his national capacity, said that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Libya was of great concern to China.  However, the United Nations Charter must be respected and the current crisis must be ended through peaceful means.  China was always against the use of force when those means were not exhausted.  His delegation had asked specific questions that failed to be answered and, therefore, it had serious difficulty with the resolution.  It had not blocked the passage of the resolution, however, because it attached great importance to the requests of the Arab League and the African Union.  At the same time, he supported the efforts of the Secretary-General’s Envoy to resolve the situation by peaceful means.


Resolution


The full text of resolution 1973 (2011) reads as follows:


The Security Council,


Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,


Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),


Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,


Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,


Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,


Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),


Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,


Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,


Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High-Level Committee on Libya,


Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Taking note further of the Secretary-General’s call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate ceasefire,


Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,


Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,


Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,


Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,


Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul Ilah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,


Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,


Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


“1.   Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;


“2.   Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;


“3.   Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;


Protection of civilians


“4.   Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;


“5.   Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;


No-fly zone


“6.   Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;


“7.   Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;


“8.   Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,


“9.   Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;


“10.  Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;


“11.  Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;


“12.  Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;


Enforcement of the arms embargo


“13.  Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;


“14.  Requests Member States which are taking action under paragraph 13 above on the high seas to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General and further requests the States concerned to inform the Secretary-General and the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) (“the Committee”) immediately of measures taken in the exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 13 above;


“15.  Requires any Member State whether acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 13 above, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspection, the results of such inspection, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee, at a later stage, a subsequent written report containing relevant details on the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;


“16.  Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;


Ban on flights


“17.  Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing;


“18.  Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing;


Asset freeze


“19.  Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and directs the Committee to designate such Libyan authorities, individuals or entities within 30 days of the date of the adoption of this resolution and as appropriate thereafter;


“20.  Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;


“21.  Decides that all States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or subject to its jurisdiction, and any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, if the States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians;


Designations


“22.  Decides that the individuals listed in Annex I shall be subject to the travel restrictions imposed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of resolution 1970 (2011), and decides further that the individuals and entities listed in Annex II shall be subject to the asset freeze imposed in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011);


“23.  Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply also to individuals and entities determined by the Council or the Committee to have violated the provisions of resolution 1970 (2011), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, or to have assisted others in doing so;


Panel of Experts


“24.  Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts (“Panel of Experts”), under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:


(a)   Assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution;


(b)   Gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;


(c)   Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures;


(d)   Provide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;


“25.  Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;


“26.  Decides that the mandate of the Committee as set out in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall also apply to the measures decided in this resolution;


“27.  Decides that all States, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions;


“28.  Reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011);


“29.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”


Libya: United Nations Security Council proposed designations


Number

Name

Justification

Identifiers

Annex I: Travel Ban

 

1

QUREN SALIH QUREN AL QADHAFI

Libyan Ambassador to Chad. Has left Chad for Sabha. Involved directly in recruiting and coordinating mercenaries for the regime.


2

Colonel AMID HUSAIN AL KUNI

Governor of Ghat (South Libya). Directly involved in recruiting mercenaries.


Annex II: Asset Freeze

1

Dorda, Abu Zayd Umar

Position: Director, External Security Organisation 

 

2

Jabir, Major General Abu Bakr Yunis

Position: Defence Minister 

Title: Major General DOB: --/--/1952. POB: Jalo, Libya

3

Matuq, Matuq Mohammed

Position: Secretary for Utilities 

DOB: --/--/1956. POB: Khoms 

4

Qadhafi, Mohammed Muammar

Son of Muammar Qadhafi. Closeness of association with regime

DOB: --/--/1970. POB: Tripoli, Libya 

5

Qadhafi, Saadi

Commander Special Forces. Son of Muammar Qadhafi. Closeness of association with regime. Command of military units involved in repression of demonstrations

DOB: 25/05/1973. POB: Tripoli, Libya 

6

Qadhafi, Saif al-Arab

Son of Muammar Qadhafi. Closeness of association with regime

DOB: --/--/1982. POB: Tripoli, Libya 

7

Al-Senussi, Colonel Abdullah

Position: Director Military Intelligence 

Title: Colonel DOB: --/--/1949. POB: Sudan 

Entities

1

Central Bank of Libya

Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime.

 

2

Libyan Investment Authority

Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime.

a.k.a: Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO) Address: 1 Fateh Tower Office, No 99 22nd Floor, Borgaida Street, Tripoli, Libya, 1103

3

Libyan Foreign Bank

Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family and a potential source of funding for his regime.

 

4

Libyan Africa Investment Portfolio

Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime.

Address: Jamahiriya Street, LAP Building, PO Box 91330, Tripoli, Libya 

5

Libyan National Oil Corporation

Under control of Muammar Qadhafi and his family, and potential source of funding for his regime.

Address: Bashir Saadwi Street, Tripoli, Tarabulus, Libya

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Full-body scanners at U.S. airports may be dangerous, scientists say...

We do not need additional radiation where the long-term affects have not been fully tested.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Won't Fly...

 http://wewontfly.com/  November 24, 2010 protest
 
Need more radiation today? Then go through a TSA porno scanner.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

STOP FLYING: Drive or Take the Train, Instead

... and let your airlines know why you intend to stop flying; because of TSA's new 'groping policy' and  'naked scanners.' Let the airline industry (with their labor unions) put pressure on our socialist-led government to end this new policy as soon as possible.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Take Your Head Out of The Sand...

Watch and listen to Glen Beck on Fox News.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Scott Brown win in Massachusetts: Yes, there is a God!

Thank you, Lord.
Congratulations to Scott Brown for his election to the U.S. Senate!
This marks a tremendous victory in the state that had the original Tea Party. The good people of Massachusetts did the right thing in choosing  freedom and liberty over more socialism and statism from the community organizer, Pelosi and Reid.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America



I
N CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration
of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A deterrence we need

A deterrence we need;

Why nuclear disarmament is an unwise promise

By Gene Myers

Claiming freedom from the ideologically driven policies of the recent past, the Obama administration has promised a “new pragmatic approach” to everything from the economy to national defense, including U.S. deterrence strategy. This implies a strategic view that embraces the old notion of politics being the art of the possible — a return to negotiation and compromise in solving the nation’s problems.

New political dawns often bring heightened expectations from supporters of the new governmental incumbents. In the case of defense policy, in particular nuclear defense policy, a return to old internal Cold War-era ideological clashes is likely in the offing, clashes that will strain national leaders’ ability to negotiate the “possible.”

The arrival of what could be called a moderately liberal executive branch reinforced by Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress along with a heightened awareness of the new dangers posed by rogue nations and global terrorist factions will likely resurrect Cold War desires to once and for all rid the world of nuclear weapons — and to strike while conditions appear optimal. As it has always been, nuclear disarmament is indeed a worthy goal but one not lacking in either difficulty or real national dangers.

The task for the new president is to convince the world that the U.S. is indeed serious about at least more closely approaching disarmament by further reducing nuclear stockpiles while at the same time doing what is necessary to assure the nation’s safety. Of course, the issue then becomes, does what is necessary include maintaining nuclear deterrence — possibly against the will of some “no nukes” advocates? Such ideological nuclear nirvana may eventually be in the cards, but the continued need to ensure national safety in a still-dangerous world has seemingly stacked the deck against it. For the present, let’s look at ways to make the current world less dangerous.

Any approach to nuclear arms reduction, ideological or not, has to deal rationally with one unrelenting reality. Nuclear weapons are possessed or strongly desired by an expanding number of nations: Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and quite possibly North Korea, with Iran reported to be on the verge. Some of these nations are viscerally hostile to the U.S. As if that were not enough, nuclear weapons are actively sought by a set of lethal new nonstate enemies (al-Qaida comes swiftly to mind) who have every intention of using what they get. Thus, ensuring the nation’s safety — the president’s most sacred responsibility — entails guaranteeing that potential adversaries see no benefit from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against the U.S. In other words, they must be deterred — all of them. More...
 
Source: Armed Forces Journal, May, 2009
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOMINATION OF PATRICK MULDOON FOR VIRGINIA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

 I make no pretense that this is the usual nomination speech. Frankly, I’m tired of the usual political speech.      

 As a party, we simply must begin to talk in a very different way than we have in recent campaigns or we will continue to lose ground.

          We all know that the Republican Party today has no clear brand. The choice is whether to develop a new one or to rediscover our tradition, but abandoned brand.

          That is not the only choice. The more important choice is whether incumbents and their consultants or the grassroots should decide what our brand should be instead of the grassroots.

          I nominate Patrick Muldoon for Lieutenant Governor because he is committed to the Party’s principles; to building a grassroots party and to having the grassroots decide the most important questions facing us.

          Patrick is an exceptionally capable, intelligent and hardworking fellow. Born and raised in Southwest Virginia on a family farm, he has earned both an engineering degree and law degree.  In 1996 and 1998, he ran unsuccessfully for Congress against Democrat Rick Boucher in the 9th District. It also took George Washington and Vance Wilkins three tries each to win their first elections.

          Patrick’s opponent is the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, Bill Bolling, who has forgotten that having a strong grassroots party means that elected officials must be accountable to the grassroots. After the 2008 Republican State Convention, Patrick’s opponent and an elite few decided that this convention should be as closed and restricted as possible. They decided that they, not the grassroots, would decide who our standbearers would be in 2009.

          During the summer of 2008, this group of elites devised a Call for the 2009 convention that would make it very difficult for any candidates to enter the field who had not already announced. They used the only meeting of the State Central Committee during the 2008 campaigns between May and November to push through the Call. Instead of planning to help our 2008 candidates, the Central Committee devoted almost its entirety of its September 2008 meeting to controversial procedural issues that had nothing to do with the 2008 elections.

          As a result, a great deal of the Party’s energy and focus during the closing weeks of the 2008 campaigns was diverted from the essential tasks of enhancing turnout and promoting our candidates to organizing for the 2009 nomination contests. Lining up petition drives for 2009 candidates, raising money for 2009 candidates and generally speculating about 2009 had never before been allowed to interfere with the immediate challenge of winning the elections only weeks away.

          What this group of elites never acknowledged was that they were abandoning an unspoken, but reasonable and longstanding rule that all of our energy and focus be devoted to the elections at hand. Candidates for nomination in future races generally honored that rule. Patrick’s opponent and others in this group of elites put personal ambition and other concerns ahead of the best interests of our 2008 candidates and the best interests of the Party.

          What is equally troublesome is that Bill Bolling and others in the elite group do not believe that Bolling should be required to account either for his past actions and positions or for the positions he intends to take during the 2009 campaign if he is nominated. The obvious conclusion is this: Patrick’s opponent and his elite group don’t want a public discussion about what our brand should be. They and only they will decide.

          I am impressed with Patrick’s background and ability. Even more, I am impressed with his commitment to our principles and his willingness to hold fast to them in the face of vigorous opposition. I am impressed that he wants to rebuild this Party as a true grassroots party.

          I am greatly disturbed that Bill Bolling has decided to abandon, downplay or remain silent about the principled positions that the grassroots of this Party has repeatedly endorsed. His consultants have advised him that he cannot win the general election by advocating our well-established positions on social issues, limited government and individual liberty.

          The new Republican message, we are told, must be that Republicans are better equipped than Democrats to solve people’s everyday problems.

          Please take a moment to reflect on this new message. It necessarily means that ours has become a radically different party. We are no longer committed to encouraging individuals, families, religious organizations, voluntary associations and the free market to solve our problems. We will now look first to government to solve our problems, just as Democrats do. Our new brand is that Republicans can give people better government and maybe just a little bit less government than the Democrats.  No matter how it is dressed up, that means expanding government.

         This new brand is not one that the grassroots of the Party has ever embraced. Why should we blindly accept the brand chosen by Party elites? 

         Bill Bolling has decided that Republicans should either hide or compromise their positions on social issues.   He never consulted the grassroots about that. We want candidates who will unapologetically defend those positions, not act as if they are afraid of them.

         President Obama has reversed executive orders issued by President Bush to protect human life. Where are the Republican leaders who should be challenging President Obama for his actions?

        Because many of our elected officials went along with higher government debt and spending while Republicans controlled the General Assembly, Congress and the White House, the Party has little credibility now when it calls for limiting government.   The grassroots never endorsed this abandonment of the central principle of our Party, but we have not held our elected officials accountable for doing so. 

         At a time when the Democrats are further diminishing the role of the states in our federal system, where are our Republican leaders? Where is Bill Bolling?   Is federal stimulus money so precious that Virginia should meekly accept any conditions that President Obama and Congress attach to the receipt of that money?

          At a time when we face a serious threat of being disarmed by our government, where is Bill Bolling? 

         Because so few of our Republican elected officials and candidates actually understand or are willing to stand up for our principles, voters fail to appreciate the role that individuals, families, religious organizations, voluntary groups and the free market should play in solving problems. This has meant that the debate has been reduced to whether Republicans or Democrats are better suited to providing government solutions.   Is it any wonder our Party is losing ground?

         When we most need committed, articulate and principled candidates, too many of our candidates are listening to consultants who tell them not to tie themselves to controversial social issues or to advocate limited government because polls indicate that voters are opposed to those positions. Our candidates should be changing public opinion, not compromising our principles to placate public opinion.

          The contest for the nomination for Lieutenant Governor offers a clear choice.

·               Patrick will campaign to protect human life from conception to natural death.

·               Bill Bolling has said that Republicans must downplay their traditional positions on social issues in order to win.

·               Patrick wants to return to traditional conservative principles of personal responsibility, community self-help, parental control and reliance on private initiative and enterprise to solve our everyday problems.

·               Bill Bolling has a platform that proposes new legislation to solve the citizens’ everyday problems and has supported intrusive measures such as the human papillomavirus vaccination legislation.

·               Patrick opposes legislation, such as the 2007 transportation statute (H.B. 3202), that provides for the imposition of taxes by unelected bodies, abusive driver fees and billions of tax-backed debt without voter approval.

·               Bolling supported H.B. 3202 in 2007.

 

         The grassroots should choose candidates who will change minds, not change our principles.   Patrick’s opponent has already decided that he will not be that kind of candidate.

         That is why I am nominating a courageous young man who is fully prepared to defend our principles, even when the public appears to oppose them. I ask you support Patrick Muldoon. Let’s restore the proper, traditional conservative Republican brand that has brought us statewide victories in the past.

         Thank you. Patrick  McSweeney

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Endorsement of Virginia Lieutenant Governor candidate Patrick Muldoon

Virginia Lieutenant Governor candidate Patrick Muldoon offers voters an important choice in Virginia’s 2009 Lieutenant Governor race.

It is a choice between more of the status quo authoritarianism that has permeated Republican and Democrat politics in recent years and proven not to work; or, between the U.S. Constitution, freedom and God. To me, the choice is clear.

We must elect Patrick Muldoon as the next Virginia Lieutenant Governor if we are once again to move towards the freedoms that our Founding Fathers envisioned and to through-off the yoke of centralized control and planning of the authoritarian state.

Patrick Muldoon is just the man to provide the leadership to do this.

Noel Gibeson
Republican National Committee member
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Rhetoric and Practice

 Too often these days conservatives say one thing and do something else, particularly when it comes to spending and the size and power of government. Gov. Huckabee troubled by this, put pen to paper and came up with an excellent article. I could not agree more with this article and the problem on which it is based.

Emphasis added to original article.
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
"Put Conservatism Into Practice," by Gov. Mike Huckabee

"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...

...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."
 
source: Washington Times, March 18, 2009
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Proposed New Healthcare Plan a Joke?

Mr. Obama rolled out his new healthcare plan on March 5, 2009. He claimed that the current, poor healthcare system in this country is responsible for our current economic woes and is also responsible for a personal bankruptcy every thirty seconds. Later, when asked, the White House was unable to substantiate the personal bankruptcy every thirty seconds, but it sounded good on the 6 o'clock news.

America's new Dear Leader said that people who already have a healthcare plan could keep it, they could also keep their present doctor, and that costs would be lower for them; even after paying for healthcare for all the illegal aliens and other deadbeats who would now be covered too. Really, lower? This will help to imorove the illegal immiration problem too because now more will be comng for thier free medical care entitlement. Good thinking, Mr. Obama.

And Obama's shaky math should instill even greater confidence in the financial markets.

Does anybody believe that Obama's healthcare plan costs will be lower while covering more people who do not pay into it?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mr. Obama Carries Through on Campaign Promises


Mr. Obama is in the
process of carrying through on many of his campaign promises to his special interest groups. While there have been some, including some conservatives, that believed that after the election Obama would actually steer a middle road, the reality is that he has not. Far from it. He is creating a socialist society, perhaps with the ultimate goal of making the United States of America the newest Communist country.
 

PROMISE

STATUS

notes

increase government spending

underway

proposed spending $20 TRILLION

Increase size of government

underway

spend plan grows government

redistribute wealth

underway

tax the earners and give to the non-earners

increase government control of your life (thereby reducing freedom & liberty)

underway

health care coverage for illegal aliens

underway

close Guantanamo Bay detention facility

underway

with no place to put detainees-other countries still do not want them

foreign affairs

 underway

 Willing to deal with Russia about Iran, dialoging with Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Israel, to name a few hotspots

eliminate Earmarks

not  yet

looks like he is willing to sign Omnibus Bill with 9,000 Earmarks in it

In his ongoing quest to bring socialism to this country, Obama recently received the glowing endorsement of Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA. In a speech in Cleveland Ohio at the end of January 2009, Comrade Webb called Mr. Obama "an ally.”

Stay tuned…more to come on all of this.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »