Stop Texting-Drivers—or Lose Highway Funds

ALERT Drivers Act (HR 3535) along with SB 1536,
These are, bills designed to also curb texting while driving. Unfortunatly the way they are written it is nothing more than blackmail from the fed's again. while we all agree the texting has shown to have cause numerioua accidents and with the final judgment given this week the the train wreck that happen last year was an example, I feel that these bills will gain strength and we to see them changed.

To amend title 23, United States Code, to reduce the amount of Federal highway funding available to States that do not enact a law prohibiting an individual from writing, sending, or reading text messages while

MRF does not agree with these bills nor does The Governors Highway Safety Assn. (GHSA) has issue this statment:
" GHSA does not support the current version of the Alert Drivers Act of 2009—legislation that would require states to adopt laws prohibiting texting while driving or lose 25% of highway funds—as we feel states should be encouraged to pass texting bans with the carrot of financial incentives, not the stick of a sanction. In fact, this is a terrible time to consider reducing highway funding given the economic necessity of these dollars in the states. Additionally, 18 states have already passed these bans, with the majority of them having acted in 2009. We expect at least 30 more states will act in the next two years—all without federal intervention.

There are a number of other things the federal government can do to address texting while driving:

• Fund research to develop effective methods for enforcing texting and cell-phone bans. While a number of states currently have banned texting, enforcing such bans has proven difficult. Additional study of the effectiveness of state bans is needed.

• Sponsor research to determine the nature and scope of the distracted driving problem. It is very difficult to ascertain the entirety of the problem given that the public is unlikely to readily admit guilt in a crash investigation. Special studies are needed using subpoenaed phone records to determine the involvement of phoning or texting in a crash.

• Fund a media campaign to alert the public to the dangers of distracted driving. This effort is needed to help develop a culture that will make the practice socially unacceptable, similar to the way drunk driving has come to be perceived by the vast majority of the public.


Let the states decide, and stop the blackmailing to get your way.

Will corporate ads buy 2010 voters?

Be prepared for an on tons of propaganda about candidates now that this has been decided.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The Supreme Court has opened the door to a new era of big and possibly shadowy election spending, rolled back anti-corruption laws and emboldened critics of fundraising limits to press on. In the middle of it all will be voters, trying to figure out who's telling the truth.
The court's ruling Thursday lets corporate America start advertising candidates much as they market products and tell viewers to vote for or against them. While it almost certainly will lead to a barrage of hard-hitting TV ads in the 2010 elections, its implications reach far beyond that.

The ruling was a victory for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and other interest groups most likely to run ads with money from their treasuries. It's unlikely major corporations would want their name on an ad, but they can avoid that by giving money to interest groups, who would then run ads and disclose the spending under the groups' names. It also presents a new option to wealthy individuals who were allowed to spend millions on their own to run election-time candidate ads before, but now can join forces to do so and get more bang for their bucks.

From the corporate titans of the early 20th century bribing candidates, to Watergate in the 1970s, Democratic fundraising scandals during the Clinton years in the 1990s and most recently, the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling case, Congress has periodically tried to rein in political spending only to have loopholes emerge or political players mount successful constitutional challenges to the rules.
The court seemed to sweep those concerns aside, saying that it doubted election-time ads could lead to the corruption of lawmakers and that in any case, proponents of the ban hadn't provided any proof of corruption.
Campaign finance watchdogs predict members of Congress now will cast their votes on controversial legislation with an eye to whether their position on it risks inviting a barrage of special-interest ads against them before the election, or on the flip side, could draw outside spending favorable to them.

And in the middle of it all are voters, the people whose opinions the new spending will seek to influence.
The court seemed to agree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's contention that voters want more election ads and that they are craving the viewpoints and information that will be presented in them.

But if the country's experience in the years before the McCain-Feingold law, when corporations and unions poured millions of dollars into election-time ads that targeted candidates but stopped short of calling for their election or defeat, is any indication, much of the new ad spending will likely be aimed at turning voters against a particular candidate, rather than urging them to vote for one.
That may please voters who do not like the candidate anyway, but it could turn off some voters so much they tune out. Getting key voting blocs to stay home on Election Day can be as important as getting voters to turn out.

The bottom line ...we need to see beyond all the crap and lies that are going to thrown at us and lets see who is getting all the money and who is giving it to them and why??

PATRIOT ACT IS NOT NEW

Nations sometimes lose their bearings when confronted by an enemy. In a state of crisis or even panic, they implement measures that are later viewed as regrettable. From 1798 to 1800, the French were considered terrorists, pirating ships and making things uncomfortable for the fledgling American republic. The Federalist Party led a backlash against the French, and Thomas Jefferson and his Republican Party were seen as Francophiles. The XYZ Affair--a scandal centering on the fact that some French officials demanded bribes from American diplomats--brought relations between France and the U.S. to the breaking point. The Federalist Administration of President John Adams considered such solicitations to be grave insults. There were cultural differences as well. In the view of Abigail Adams, Frenchwomen were risqué at best.
The reaction to the threat from France came in the form of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were championed by the Federalists, passed by Congress and signed by Adams in 1798. The Alien Act required immigrants to reside in the U.S. for 14 years instead of 5 to qualify for citizenship. The act also gave the President the legal right to expel those the government considered "dangerous." The Sedition Act punished "false, scandalous and malicious" writings against the government with fines and imprisonment. Most of those arrested under the Sedition Act were Republican editors, and instead of sending boatloads of aliens back to France, it resulted in no one's deportation. In a foreshadowing of the climate that inspired today's USA Patriot Act, at the turn of the century 200 years ago, it was common practice to question the patriotism of citizens, immigrants and the political opposition.
Jefferson, who was Vice President at the time, drafted his position in secret and wrote it into the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. James Madison, in collaboration with Jefferson, subsequently authored the Virginia Resolutions. In the second and fourth of the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson cited the 10th Amendment, which gives the states powers not delegated to the government by the Constitution, to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional. Jefferson feared that a strong central government might put an end to slavery. Jefferson's fight against the Alien and Sedition Acts is often placed in the context of free speech, but it had unintended consequences beyond that. The Kentucky Resolutions were among the first to defend states' rights, and Jefferson had even threatened secession. Similar ideas helped spark the Civil War.
After Jefferson defeated Adams and was elected President in 1800, the Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire. Adams, looking to distance himself from the mess, blamed the whole idea on Alexander Hamilton--who by then had been murdered by Aaron Burr.







Full text of it http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

Wisconsin SR-6 bill would free WI from acting as agent of USA

Wisconsin Senate Resolution 6 (SR-6)

April 9, 2009 − Introduced by Senators LEIBHAM, LAZICH, DARLING, GROTHMAN,
HARSDORF and SCHULTZ. Referred to Committee on Ethics Reform and
Government Operations.
Relating to: state sovereignty.
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads,
“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”; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as
being that specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution and no more; and
Whereas, as the scope of power is defined by the Tenth Amendment, the federal
government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, today the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, the legislature has forwarded to the federal government numerous resolutions opposing federal encroachment on state powers but has received no response or result from Congress or the federal government; and
Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992) that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, a number of federal proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the U.S. Constitution; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the senate, That the senate hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not
otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S.
Constitution; and, be it further Resolved, That adoption of this resolution does not constitute an application for the calling of a federal Constitutional Convention within the meaning of Article V of the U.S. Constitution; and, be it further
Resolved, That this resolution shall serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that
are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
Resolved, That the senate chief clerk shall provide copies of this joint
resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives, to the presiding officer of each house of each state legislature of the United States, and to each member of this state’s congressional delegation

Shows the states are getting tired of the fed's attempt taking over

Who said you can't make money in a recession!

Fed profits: $52 billion in 2009

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The Federal Reserve banks made a $52 billion profit in 2009, reaping extra income on the government securities they bought in an effort to stabilize the financial system.
The Fed, in a statement on Tuesday, said its members returned $46 billion of that sum to taxpayers. The central bank is an independent arm of the government and its member banks are required to return all profits to the Treasury, after certain deductions.

Give Me Liberty !

This is an interesting site where they held a Continental Congress in November of 2009 with delegates from many states. http://givemeliberty.org/ http://www.cc2009.us/about-wtp/we-the-people-foundation-homepage.

Here is a little of what came out of it.

Articles of Freedom
Declaration and Resolves
of Continental Congress 2009
In Defense of a Free People, the time has come to reassert our God-Given, Natural Rights and cast off tyranny…
Let the Facts Reveal: The federal government of the United States of America was instituted to secure the Individual Rights of our citizens and instead now threatens our Life, Liberty and Property through usurpation's of the Constitution. Emboldened by our own lack of responsibility and due diligence in these matters, government has exceeded its mandate and abandoned those Founding Principles that have made our nation exceptional;
Our servant government has undertaken these unconstitutional actions in direct violation of its enumerated duties, to the detriment of the People‟s liberty and the sovereignty of our Republic;
Over many years and spanning multiple political administrations, the People who have, in good conscience, attempted to deliberate our grievances and voice our dissent against these offensive actions through both Petition and Assembly, have been maligned and ignored with contempt;
The People of the several States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, justly alarmed at these arbitrary and unconstitutional actions, have met as Citizen-Delegates, and sat in a general Congress, in the city of St. Charles, Illinois;
Whereupon we, as these Citizen- Delegates, have gathered in defense of Divine Justice, Liberty and the principles of limited government, now stand in clear recognition of the Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution for the United States of America;
Therefore, We demand that Government immediately re-establish Constitutional Rule of Law, lest the People be forced to do so themselves; and we hereby serve notice that in the Defense of Freedom and Liberty there shall be NO COMPROMISE to which we shall ever yield.

They are a non- profit org and here is the link for the rest of it.......http://www.cc2009.us/images/pdf/Articles-of-Freedom.12.24.2009.pdf

I thought you might like the reading and opinions that were expressed

OldHippy