Forum Discussions - Tea Party Patriots
| 02/04/2012 08:49 PM |
| MN Judge Lloyd Zimmerman whines about Suburban Court Security |
 The month of January 2012 in the Twin Cities started off with a series of articles about Suburban Court Security.Minnesota Judge State Judge Lloyd Zimmerman threw a temper tantrum and pouted that he would not hear court cases in Suburban Hennepin County Courts because they did not have enough Security. Judge Lloyd Zimmerman refusing cases in courtrooms he deems unsafehttp://bit.ly/xEf4HI And then Hennepin County Sheriff chided in: Hennepin County sheriff Rich Stanek backs judge's fears about safety in courtrooms http://bit.ly/xg9FPz But then the Minneapolis Star and Sickle Reported: Daily drama, but no violence, in evidence in suburban courts http://bit.ly/xMMA3Z It is ironic that one of the most corrupt judges in the State of Minnesota is worried about his safety.
[Article Continues below almost universal translator]
In John A. Fabian v Paul Volkkommer MN A10-1205, Judge Lloyd Zimmerman ruled that “the Minnesota Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied covenant of a Minnesota Lawyers Contract with their client”. (This is an unpublished opinion in an attempt to hide this departure from the Rule of Law)...
To Continue Reading for free, Click here -> http://exm.nr/zpyxuD
In Closing,
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here. Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last sentence, US Declaration of Independence ( http://bit.ly/ruPE7z)] Next, it has came to this author's attention that many local papers will not run letters to the editor, Op Ed pieces and articles that do not conform to the perspective of the local "Powers that be". If you have a letter to the editor that relates to this article, feel free to post it as a comment, noting that the local news source refused to run it. As long as it conforms with general decorum and is plausible, very rarely will we refuse to publish it. If you have unrelated subject matter and/or video and/or audio that you believe we would be interested in based (based on our prior articles), email it here .Send video/audio in common Internet formats or with Youtube.com links. Do not send video in Public Access TV and/or Cable formats. Our philosophy is that more open public dialogue is better than less public dialogue. This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar
TellMyPolitician http://goo.gl/1FWfz
Keep Fighting the Good Fight!
Those were my thoughts.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
WE THE PEOPLE TAR
Republic for united State of America #RuSA
End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System)
Examiner.com - Express Yourself -
Lawless America / Get A Grip America
Justice in Minnesota #JIM
Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
Get out of our House #GOOOH
Committees of Safety
United States Militia #USM
Food Freedom
Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective. |
| 02/04/2012 08:12 PM |
| Ron Paul "winning the argument" on foreign and defense policy. |
|
|
| 02/04/2012 08:05 PM |
| If Romney Gets the GOP Nod ... Many Christians Will Not Vote !!!! |
|
Please watch this video, and post your comments...What do you think ? Will Christians Not Vote if Romney gets the nomination ??? Please read some of the comments that are already posted on this discussion on Teamsarah.......
If Romney Gets the GOP Nod ... Many Christians Will Not Vote Posted by Katie Baker on February 4, 2012 at 10:51am I have been saying that if Romney gets the nomination, Obama will be re-elected. If you watch this video you will see why many Christians will not vote for Romney or will not vote at all. http://teamsarah.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2330231%3ABlogPost%3A2741042&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcnFtqYSHpU&feature=player_embedded |
| 02/04/2012 07:06 PM |
| Shocker: ACORN Manipulating Votes-Again! This Time, DOJ Helping. |
|
Not only is Barack Obama’s Department of Justice pleased to file suit against states which seek to legally ensure only registered voters who are American citizens will vote in the upcoming election; it is now actively working with ACORN’s “Project Vote” to register voters revealed to be quite illegal! Documents obtained from the Colorado [...] http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/shocker-acorn-manipulating-votes-again-this-time-doj-helping/ Get Informed! Read More About this topic::
|
| 02/04/2012 05:50 PM |
| Obama's Fascination with Taliban Baffles Even Democrats |
|
The Obama Administration is reportedly working on a deal to release five Taliban terrorists held at Gitmo as an “incentive” to talk peace in Afghanistan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar reportedly has “demanded” the Gitmo prisoners release as a pre-condition to any talks. The prisoners are among the most dangerous captured since the 9/11/01 attacks. As recently as last May, the White House announced that the 172 detainees still at Gitmo were too dangerous to move. The release of the prisoners from Gitmo is intended as a “goodwill gesture” by Obama merely for the Taliban’s willingness to establish a political office in Qatar to open “peace talks.” According to the Israeli News Organization Arutz Sheva, Afghan Taliban Leader Mullah Omar confirmed “peace talks with the United States are on the horizon.” But, in exchange for an implied willingness to talk, “Omar has demanded the release of Afghan prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and complete withdrawal of U.S. led forces from Afghanistan.” Included in Mullah Omar’s “demand” to Barack Obama is the release of Mullah Fazl Akhund, the former leader of the army in a war that has claimed the life of 1879 American troops and wounded 15,300 more. Democrat and Republican Presidents have historically maintained a rigid policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obama seems to have thrown that policy in the trash. The British newspaper, the Guardian, confirms the same “demands” by Mullah Omar and further reports that “the U.S. has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials” from Gitmo. Plenty more here: |
| 02/04/2012 03:10 PM |
| Public Private Partnerships(PPPs): The Back Door to Socialism |
|
Barack Obama plans to initiate public-private partnerships (PPPs) on a grand scale. While the media focuses on Obama's First Dog or his left-handed jump shot, behind the scenes he is planning how to become president of the world. Therefore, it is worth enumerating many of his proposed partnerships so as to expose his actual policies, and then offer an Austro-libertarian analysis of these partnerships. As we will see, a mix of public and private ownership is a socialist arrangement, and a sly tactic employed by those looking for increased power, albeit under a different name: the public-private partnership. PPPs are essentially contracts between a public agency and a private company where assets, risks, and rewards are shared in providing a good or service to the public. The rationale is typically that private enterprise provides greater efficiency and quality of service, while the government agency furnishes additional capital. They are claimed to (potentially) lead to "happy employees," better educational opportunities, and better public safety. Government agencies reportedly realize cost savings of 20 to 50 percent by using PPPs. Of course, PPPs, dating back to at least 1652 when the Water Works Company of Boston began providing drinking water to Massachusetts colonists, are nothing new in the United States (or any country), and most government agencies and offices are engaged in using them. From the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships website we read the following:
The treatment of so-called "public goods" in neoclassical economics is partly responsible for offering a justification for government intervention in providing for these goods and services. A large part of Obama's economic agenda is to encourage more PPPs —well beyond what neoclassical economists mean by "public goods" (e.g., defense services, streetlights). Obama claims these partnerships will promote innovation at a local level through federal funding. Before we can engage in an analysis of PPPs, we must provide an overview (lengthy, but I believe worth exposing) of the various partnerships Obama proposes. PPPs will be used in the following ways under an Obama administration:
PPPs: An Economic AnalysisObama uses PPPs to justify government involvement and intervention, and he typically associates PPPs with innovation, which seems like an oxymoron. Fortunately, the Austrian economist can point out the many likely effects and unintended consequences of government intervention in the form of PPPs, including the (tragic) effects on entrepreneurship. We will discuss a few of these, using as our guide Mises's excellent and insightful book, Bureaucracy. Two topics often associated with entrepreneurship, innovation and risk, are perhaps the most pertinent in our discussion. InnovationOne of the reasons Obama gives as a justification for these partnerships is to "spur innovation." There are many reasons why this will prove difficult, if not impossible. Private businesses that have a government-granted monopoly from a PPP will have less (or no) competition, decreasing any incentive to increase efficiency and provide better quality services and products at lower prices. With a government guarantee of revenue, either through the company (or government) charging a fee to customers for its services, or through government subsidy, there is less incentive to cut costs. Innovation is also less likely if the partnership specifies revenue will be obtained in a "cost plus percentage" arrangement where companies will be guaranteed a specified amount of gross profit, regardless of revenue or cost. When the PPP contract guarantees a period of time (typically years), companies may no longer be interested in increasing profits as there is little danger of going out of business during that timeframe. Thus, PPPs have no stringent requirement of meeting the market profit-and-loss test, since they cannot "lose." Mises pointed out the flaw in trying to use PPPs as a catalyst to innovation:
In addition, progress and innovation may also be trapped by old government regulations, codes, and established ideas. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is the motto of the government bureaucrat—and as Mises points out, these are typically old men with established ideas of what works (and what doesn't). In contrast, innovation is more than just making sure a product "ain't broke"—it is about improving an already functional and highly demanded product (think iPhone in the wireless industry, or Google Chrome in web browsers). In contrast to private businesses, companies in a government partnership that wish to introduce innovations require going through red tape and levels of bureaucracy for approval. If it were not for a government guarantee of monopoly privilege, such a time gap for bureaucratic approval would likely eliminate any first-mover advantage in the market. Furthermore, investment capital will not necessarily be generated from savings or business operations, but possibly from a shared government budget. Finally, instead of an incentive to earn as much profit as possible, governments often set a limit on the amount of total profit, and tax or remove any profit above the arbitrarily specified amount, thereby discouraging innovation. RiskRisk is another aspect that needs to be analyzed in relation to PPPs. Companies that are guaranteed a government contract in some situations may be less likely to take on risk, as risk only disrupts the existing circumstances, and increases the possibility of failure. This is because the company is "safe" (i.e., its revenue is virtually guaranteed) if it does not take any risks. Any risk the company takes may lead to its loss, not the government's. Companies in a partnership with government will also lose (ultimate) control of their decision-making abilities. For instance, government would be less likely to allow a company to take risks that could affect any government "revenue" originating from the company. Maintaining the status quo is the name of the game. Companies must, in the end, follow the government's wishes and whims, not their own—nor their customers'. The company sees risk not in terms of whether the consumer will buy its product or service, but in terms of whether it is in line with the designs of the bureaucrat. Any risk then becomes focused on pleasing the bureaucrat, at the expense of pleasing the consumer. On the other hand, risk of failure is essentially reduced to nil for the length of the contract due to government's ability to subsidize losses through taxation or other coercive measures. Obtaining government contracts for smaller companies becomes virtually impossible; and it eliminates any future or start-up companies and investment in that market. Thus, competition and the threat of competition are close to none. We now see that government is truly the enemy—not the oft-viewed, and mistakenly confused, supporter—of the start-up entrepreneur, i.e., the "little guy." In a PPP, while revenues are guaranteed for the length of the partnership agreement, stability is only limited to the length of the current administration, i.e., to the trust placed in government to keep its agreements and promises. Ironically, by the very act of creating a public-private partnership in an industry, and eliminating or decreasing competition, government reduces that credibility, and other industries are at risk of similar partnership arrangements. What is left of capitalism in the United States will be uprooted and supplanted with corporatism; any remnants of a free market will have to yield to the coercive measures of government, resulting in monopolies and cartels. PPPs as a Justification for Bigger GovernmentWhen government is able to partner with a private company and grant access to land, labor, or capital that would not have occurred absent government intervention, everyone's property is exposed to the risk of government takeover. A private company may not be able to construct a highway through the private property of others. Government, through powers of eminent domain, is able to seize private property from individuals and construct nearly anything it desires. In other words, government is able to not only extract money from private individuals (taxes) but also to take away their (more tangible) private property. In addition, public-private partnerships, because of the word "private," are often viewed as more legitimate, and with less hostility, than solely the term "public." Thus PPPs may expand and multiply without real justification, and with little hostility. The (already flawed and misunderstood) meaning of "public goods" then expands beyond the initial neoclassical interpretation to mean anything that could be deemed good for the public. Murray Rothbard explains how government's violent intervention in one part of the economy results in "calculational chaos," which inevitably spreads to other parts:
Rothbard states that government cannot be run on a "business basis":
Thus, the greater the extent of government ownership, the larger the amount of calculational chaos, and the closer we move toward socialism. Conclusion: The Power of IdeasIn 1942, Joseph Schumpeter wrote that capitalism would be threatened and condemned by intellectuals, not for its failures, but its successes—and that socialism was inevitable. It seems the public desires the move toward socialism. There are more and more clamors for government intervention in nearly every aspect of an individual's diurnal activities—and as H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." Government propaganda is required to promote such a foolish message. Mises phrased it accurately: "Truth does not need any propaganda; it holds its own." The danger in public-private partnerships and their promotion by both government bureaucrats and private businesspersons was perhaps best expressed by Rothbard:
Nevertheless, there is hope. We live in a world of ideas, where the QWERTY keyboard is truly mightier than the latest military contraption. The rapidity and magnitude of government failure, and the more it is exposed and can be replaced with the idea of free markets—and with greater communications technology than at any other time in history, ideas can spread faster than ever—the faster will be the shift toward free markets, and most likely toward a level of prosperity never before experienced. Obama's public-private partnerships would become extinct and despised, being recognized for what they are: back-door socialism, making a mockery of true partnerships and freedom. Entrepreneurship and innovation would be free to flourish in such an environment. |
| 02/04/2012 02:27 PM |
| Qeustion for Computer literate people |
|
Is this a real picture or has it been photo shopped ?
|
| 02/04/2012 02:22 PM |
| corrupt goverment and taxes. |
|
The goverment of america is out of control! The american goverment has no concern for its people! The american goverment gives billions to other countrys, gives billions to companys in america who shut their doors and tell we the people they don,t know where the money went! And what does the goverment do about it? Nothing! If the people remember the money our goverment gives to other countrys, and failed business in america is our money! Tax dollars they collect from its legal american people! We the people, those who still have jobs, and those who have lost their jobs the american goverment cares nothing about. Lies is what the american politicians gives america. Obama says with his agenda our future will be better, and then he turns around and adds a new tax on the american people! Now while americans go hungry, and lose their jobs, hopes and dreams, and see prices go up everyday, Obama and his crew the dummycrates, gives billions of our tax dollars to their pet projects,and other countrys. Obama came to office not a millionaire. But less than four years later he is a millionaire, along with many of his top people! To re-elect Obama and his crew will destory america! To vote for any current politican who is running to lead us we the people is a mistake! For they are all liers! Americans need to stand up and take this country back from its out of control goverment. Obama preaches that what he is doing is for our future. What about we the people now and our children now? I don,t know about you but my family is alive and hungry now! In america yes we are born free, But thanks to our goverment we are taxed to death! Obama has created more jobs as he preaches! More goverment jobs! Thanks to all the taxes he has imposed on the american people, and he says we need to do more! How many jobs do we need to lose, how many familys in america need to lose their homes, how many americans need to see their kids suffer now, before we stand up and fight the goverment back. We the people need goverment, But less goverment, and less taxes. We once fought a country who imposed to many taxes on us, and won! What is so sad now is we must fight our own goverment to gain our freedom back! We the people need to remember that goverment was created to serve we the people! Not we the people serve their goverment! The american goverment today tells us what to eat, tells us how to raise our children. In america today we are still slaves for the goverment of america! We the american people are not free, for we are goverment controlled. This is true for what can you do in america that is not under goverment control? No matter what you do in america a tax is imposed upon it! Freedom is to live and raise your family as you choose and live what once was the american dream!
Rick a fighter for freedom |
| 02/04/2012 01:57 PM |
| A Great Liberty Song!! |
|
don’t teach me about politics and government just tell me who to vote for don’t teach me about truth and beauty just label my music don’t teach me how to live like a free man just give me a new law (pre-chorus) i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy so just bring it down from the mountain to me (chorus) i want a new law i want a new law gimme that new law (vs. 2) don’t teach me about moderation and liberty i prefer a shot of grape juice don’t teach me about loving my enemies don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit just give me a new law (pre-chorus/chorus) (bridge) what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep for one you can that cannot get you anything do not be afraid do not be afraid do not be afraid |
| 02/04/2012 01:51 PM |
| Sugar Tax- Really? |
|
So what can we do about this? Has anyone else heard of this?
A sugar tax.............really? really? I was listening to a coservative blog on youtube just now, and... well... isn't this what we fought in the revolution for to not have happen?
Can this thing be passed? Is this even legal? |
News Sites
Other Feeds
Other Tea party news
- Tea Party Patriots Ia News
- Sheldon Tea Party Patriots News
- BV Tea Party Patriots News
- Sioux Falls 9.12 News
- MN Tea Party Patriots News
- Glenn Beck News
- Central Iowa 912Project News
- Des Moines 912project News
- National 912project News
- Tea Party Patriots.org News
- Campaign for Liberty News
- 912Project Des Moines
- Dems-V-Reps
Senate Congress votes
- Grassley Votes (R- IA)
- Harkin Votes (D- IA)
- Bruce Braley Votes (D-01)
- David Loebsack Votes (D-02)
- Leonard Boswell Votes (D-03)
- Tom Latham Votes (R-04)
- Steven Kings Votes (R-05)