Several things in this CBS write-up got me thinking, so I just want to offer my view on the whole thing.

… surveyed 1,580 adults, including 881 self-identified Tea Party supporters …
… Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. …

At first glance, those numbers do not appear to crunch; however, here is an explanation from the footer of the article:

An oversample of people who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement were interviewed, for a total of 881 interviews. The results were then weighted in proportion to the adult population.

So there you go.

Just one percent [of them are] black.

Speaking of crunching numbers, I want to take a minute to see what we’re talking about.
If, indeed, 18% of Americans are Tea Party supporters (hereinafter referred to as TPers), then going on a rough estimate of 300 million for the U.S. population, that means 54 million Americans are TPers. Wow, nice!
Next, we’re talking about the ethnicity of one percent. One percent of 54 million is 540,000. Again, wow! That’s a good number of blacks!
So my point here is that when I look at the raw numbers rather than the percentages, for me, the intended effect of the original language is reversed.
But I’m not done here. I also want to point out the fact that they are bringing race into this at all. Sure, it’s just facts, but they chose to present this fact which really doesn’t/shouldn’t matter, thus getting people to think things like “TPers are racists” and such nonsense.

Onward.

They are better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall.

This is good news! It means that any liberal who says things like “Since when does a poor education mean you know how to do things better than the government?” now automatically looks uninformed.
Also, I would be interested in seeing this education-level stat for Obama supporters.

They are more likely than American adults overall to attend religious services weekly (38 percent do so) …

In other words, we are more likely to have a moral compass than the general population.

More than half — 58 percent — keep a gun in the household.

T’ain’t nothin’ wrong with exercising our rights.

Fifty-three percent of Tea Party supporters describe themselves as “angry” about the way things are going in Washington, compared to 19 percent of Americans overall who say they are angry.

I’m surprised the 53% number isn’t higher — isn’t that the reason we’re all organizing?

Asked what they are most angry about, the top four answers among Tea Party supporters who identify as angry were the health care reform bill (16 percent), the government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending (11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).

Methinks the “government not representing the people” option is the real reason for the movement, and it seems to encompass the other three options.

More than nine in ten (92 percent) say America is on the wrong track, while just six percent say the country is headed in the right direction. Fifty-nine percent of Americans overall say the country is on the wrong track.

Again, I thought “America is on the wrong track” was the reason for our organizing. Who are those other 6 percent, and why do they identify themselves as TPers?
The third stat, when compared with the 18% of Americans that call themselves TPers, tells me that we in the movement have a lot of work to do! There are people out there that agree with us that we have not brought into the fold, and we need to figure out why. Is it for a lack of effort on our part? on their part? Is there something about these organizations that they don’t like or agree with? If so, what? These are all good questions.

Asked to volunteer what they don’t like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don’t like him.

Embarrassing FAIL. We, as a whole, should be better educated on the facts than that.

Fifty-six percent say the president’s policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.

Hmm. On the surface, yes, I might agree; however, “trickle-down economics”, which the President has ridiculed, is quite a fact, and thus, I would argue that his policies really don’t favor the poor at all (much less everyone else).

Only one percent of Tea Party supporters approve of the job Congress is doing, compared to 17 percent of Americans overall.

Both numbers are quite low, but again, who are that one percent, and why do they call themselves TPers?

Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel, compared to 23 percent of Americans overall.

I see what you did there, CBS, but I’m not falling for it. Really, look at that number; a whole 37% of them (that’s about 20 million people) DON’T get the majority of their news from Fox, yet they call themselves TPers just the same. That tells me that a majority of TPers prefer Fox — not necessarily that TPers are TPers because they get their information from Fox.

Forty-seven percent say television is their main source of Tea Party information, the top source; another 24 percent say they get Tea Party information from the internet.

I can understand that the skewing-older of the movement would result in more traditional media consumption, but I still wish the TV number was lower and the Internet number was higher.

But Americans overall disagree: Just 25 percent say the Tea Party movement reflects their beliefs, while 36 percent say it does not.

And the other 39% don’t know, or what? If not knowing is the case, then I would disagree with the wording above (that “Americans overall disagree”).

Asked what socialism means, roughly half of Tea Party supporters volunteered government ownership or control, far more than any other answer.

Yay, they got it right!

Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Since ample means “more than enough”, that sounds like bias to me.

Just ten percent say the stimulus package had a positive effect on the economy (compared to 32 percent of Americans overall), while 36 percent say it actually made things worse.

I can see how both could be true.

And while the vast majority opposes the health care reform bill, 62 percent say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers. (The figure is even higher among Americans overall, at 76 percent.)

Good catch, CBS. This number is too high.

Tea Party supporters are less likely than Americans overall to believe whites have more opportunities to get ahead than blacks. …

A side effect of our not being racist (not counting any radicals who may be in the movement, of course).

Lastly, you might find interesting these further details comparing general TP “supporters” to “activists” (those who donate and/or attend events, as opposed to just mentally supporting the ideas of the movement, I guess).

After the meeting I happened to talk with a Perry supporter whose main objection to Medina seemed to be that she had no experience. She said “Obama had no experience and look where that got us!” Well, that’s a fallacy. She and Obama couldn’t be more different. Plus, in Texas, the real clout lies with the Lieutenant Governor, as he controls the legislative agenda. I also told her that I can’t support term limits and vote for Perry’s 3rd term without being a hypocrite.
Not to mention his record. But she told me how bad of shape California is in, with their “Governator” who had no experience going in, and says that “here in Texas, we actually seem to be doing ok, we have a little padding.” That’s not good enough for me.This lady seemed to disagree with me about Medina owning a business. What?? She does, and its a fact!

I can’t help it if Medina makes me believe she will really do what she says. I believe she really has the conviction to stay strong. The other two talk a good game (some of the time) but their record speaks for itself. If Medina doesn’t turn out to be good then we can pick someone else in four years. But in our nation’s current state, we need Texas to be more than just maintaining the status quo. We need to be a beacon for truly conservative principles that other states can look to when the federal government falls down on the job (which it has and will).
Perry says he champions the 10th amendment but how long has it been since he actually used his powers of nullification and interposition? Has he ever? (I know nullification is really a power of the legislature, but still, the governor can provide the leadership.)

Regarding her slip-up on Glenn Beck’s radio show: I believe she was just caught off-guard. She has since clarified her position. Don’t let people tell you (like this lady did tonight) that at first she said she WAS a “truther”. She DID NOT say that at any point. What she said was that she did not have all the information to make an informed decision on the matter, and that some good questions have been raised. She has clarified that recently, saying that those “good questions” are concerning the 9/11 Commission, not about the government’s possible involvement, and that she 100% is NOT a “truther”. I think Beck did her a disservice by twisting her words and later only playing partial sound bites that did not portray Medina accurately, lacking their original context.

Interesting tidbit: did you know that while Perry’s and Hutchison’s campaign each had just under 1,000 donors, Medina has nearly 6,000 donors?!

Last call: if you can find it within yourself (and also if you can find the time) to support Medina, the Virtual Phone Bank is ready and waiting. You can register and call all day tomorrow if you want.
Go to: callforkokesh.com — create an account, log in, and get going. (You’ll use your own phone. The app just gives you names, numbers, a script, and a way to log the outcome of calls, as well as a leaderboard to make it competitive!)
(Adam Kokesh is running for one of New Mexico’s seats in Congress and has donated the use of his phone bank app to Medina’s campaign. We might oughta repay him by helping his campaign after tomorrow!)

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.
So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:

“Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.”

UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’
Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:
“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.[88]”

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):
“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”
No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:
“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ ”
That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.
And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.
The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:
“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:
‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]
What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.
By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”
Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.
Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”
Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know [very] well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:
“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”
The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a break.
But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ ”
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, that is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] ”
This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.

excerpt from http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/stimulus.next/

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, insisted Tuesday that Democrats are willing to work in a bipartisan fashion as they proceed with the bill.

“We will do our best to bring more Republicans over to our side. And I hope that happens this week. And we will be open to new suggestions just as we were to $106 billion in suggestions that were added to the bill,” he said. “But we will not — we will not sacrifice the focus of this bill — jobs, tax cuts for the middle class and infrastructure — for anything.”

In addition to reaching a bipartisan agreement and working out differences in the House and Senate, Democrats also have to come to terms within their own party.

And Obama’s character is where I take issue.

Congratulations, you uneducated Americans, for electing our first Socialist president because “he sounds good.”

But as always, I trust that God is in control and knows what is best… if He has seen fit that this nation should fall, then so be it.
Romans 13:1 – “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

BUT…

Acts 4:18-20 – “So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.’”
Let us not forget that our duty of obedience is to God, first and foremost.

You have to be more than brain dead to vote for Mccain.
that bimbo that mccain selected has no experience
Mccains tactics are dirty and racial…

1. Although liberal candidates aren’t rife with personal attacks, their supporters consistently are. I don’t go around saying things like “you must be brain-dead if you support Obama,” whether I believe it or not – and I don’t hear other conservative voters doing it either.
2. Calling names? I will admit that many conservatives do similar things, but nothing so crude as “bimbo”. And for the record, I think all these nicknames that BOTH SIDES make up for the other party’s candidates are quite childish. Just call people who they are and what they go by. Please no more of this “McSame” and “B. Hussein Obama” etc. etc.
   Also, the experience issue is moot. Palin has about the same amount of experience as governor that Obama has as a senator. Incidentally, “governor” is the office Bush came from, and nobody cried “inexperience” when he ran, that I can recall.
3. McCain’s tactics might have gotten a bit dirty, but racial? Honestly? Again, a talking point of liberals. I haven’t heard John McCain mention race with the exception of (accurately) accusing Obama supporters of calling his supporters racist just because they don’t support Obama. I mean, I’m not racist at all, I’d vote for Alan Keyes in a heartbeat if he had a chance of winning.

excerpt from David Frum’s Diary, 09/15 11:37 PM

To the extent that there are scandals in this crisis, they are not Wall Street scandals. They are Washington scandals – scandals in which there appear names of one Clinton-era appointee after another.

The press and the Democrats will want to present the crisis as a crisis of regulation v. deregulation. In fact, Fannie and Freddie represent exactly the kind of disastrous “public-private partnership” that Barack Obama has long advocated. – and if you think things are bad now, just wait till he gets to do for all of America what he did to Chicago.

The people who say we need MORE government intervention must be conveniently forgetting the fact that if the government hadn’t been involved in the first place, it never would have come to this. The goverment had no business supporting either bank. Just realize that the “regulations” that we need now would really involve shoving Freddie and Fannie out from under the protective umbrella of government, out into the real world, where you bear 100% of the consequences of your actions.

The people who advocate more regulations just show how unaware they are of what really went on. A select few government officials back in the day were wise enough to see trouble coming and not turn a blind eye to it … people like Peter Wallison and, you guessed it, John McCain. Yes, they knew about Fannie and Freddie’s “unusual vulnerabilities” and tried to warn people of the dangers surrounding those companies … but “few lawmakers would take action”, and “[o]ne of the reasons for this was the extraordinary power of Fannie and Freddie.” “Congress, as usual[,] knuckled under to the special interest.”

(Read the whole article.)

People, clearly this problem has been around for a while. I know of no better example, right now, of why our voices in Congress should not cater to the special interests. Why do we continue to elect those who do just that? And don’t get me wrong, this issue is on both sides of the aisle.

BE the voice of change against the establishment … MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT. Elect senators and representatives who care not for special interests and are not afraid to make the changes we need.

Vote for McCain ‘08 and let’s get some real leadership in front of the reform effort.
Say “NObama” because we want someone who will make change happen … break with the status quo … and not use smokescreens of hope and change to mask political ideas that are nothing new at all … ideas that are “tried and failed”, as it were.
And believe me when I say it is possible to break with tradition and choose the candidate this country really needs.

I’ll leave you with one last thing:

excerpt from David Frum’s Diary, 09/17 11:36 AM

By contrast, Barack Obama was accepting Fannie’s political contributions – and inviting its former CEO to head his vice presidential selection contrast.

• A billion seconds ago, it was 1976.
• A billion minutes ago, the Catholic Church had not been formally organized (i.e. people were just Christians with no other name attached, worshipping at autonomous churches, following the teachings of Christ and not tradition).
• A billion hours ago, the universe didn’t exist.
• A billion days ago … well you get the idea.
• A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes ago, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in your brain, let’s take a look at New Orleans. It’s amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) asked Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans from the damage of Katrina.
Interesting number … what does it mean?

• Well … if you are one of the 453,726 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child), you each get $550,993 worth of aid.
• By that reckoning, a family of four would get $2,203,973.
• Or… if you go by per-home division, and you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,328,014.