the tea party platform: Recent Comments

Comment on Platform Item 34: Checks and Balances on the Courts

2012-02-05T16:52:46Z

Protection for U.S. Service Personnel?

"Non-consensual experimentation is illegal" [5] on convicted rapists and murderers but NOT on U.S. SERVICE PERSONNEL [2 & 7]!

U.S. convicted rapists and murderers are protected from human experiments by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment 8. This is demonstrated by the 1992 U.S. Senate signed United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) "...Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment."[5] Under the Article 7's "Basic Rights of Prisoners." is, "Written policy and practice prohibit the use of inmates for medical...experiments." and "Non-consensual experimentation is illegal"! Nineteen (19) times cited is the U.S. Constitution plus its 8th Amendment’s no cruel and unusual punishment.[5] On May 23, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that crowded prisons are in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s, Bill of Rights, Eighth Amendment no cruel and unusual punishments, i.e., Brown v. Plata (09-1233).

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress via the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 14! Still not stopped are the U.S. Senate's reported Department of Defense (DOD) "military research" "experiments that were designed to harm" conducted on "hundreds of thousands"![3] The withheld "to harm" evidence continues with the U.S. Congress's 2006 and 2005 rejection of the "Veterans Right to Know Act" [1], i.e., the needed for treatment but experiments [3] identifying evidence. In the 2002 U.S. Senate Feres Doctrine Hearing [2] the rejection of the underlying experimentation issue is verified by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ignoring testimony. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court Stanley DOD non-consensual, experiment was decided.[7] Stanley's injuring "to harm" drug experiment was classified as a 1950 U. S. Supreme Court Feres Doctrine "incident to service"![8] Stanley is one of the U.S. Senate's, "hundreds of thousands" of human "experiments that were designed to harm" documented by the Senate [3] and Government Accountability Office (GAO).[4] Millions of service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire, followed by Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act that censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving and future records. All consistent with: A. The still U.S. Congress and DOJ overlooked CIA, Inspector General's 1957 "it was necessary to conceal these activities from the american public in general, because public knowledge of the unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles...."; Stanley, PDF version, Section IV, Page 16 of 21, Footnote 4.[7] and B. The to-date continuation of the 1994 U.S. Senate Report's ignored, "The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human expe

Comment on Editorial: The SAD Tax

2012-02-01T20:33:53Z

Tax is always important in the history. This is very interesting posting.

Comment on GOP Presidential Race

2011-12-31T15:26:45Z

Leeza,

You go on believing that if you prefer but please don't involve me or other taxpayers. Global Warming is a hoax designed to enrich Al Gore and Goldman Sachs through the trading worthless pieces of paper called carbon credits. Ocean temperatures are not an indicator of anything unless we have information as to the length of the normal cycle. I prefer to rely on nature rather than the lunatic fringe that is willing to substitute hysteria for real science.

It is you who cannot be taken seriously.

Comment on GOP Presidential Race

2011-12-31T14:41:17Z

Anybody who denies global warming cannot be taken seriously.
It is a scientific fact...check only one indicator: the rise in ocean temp over the last 3 decades.

Comment on Statement on Religious Freedom

2011-12-31T08:48:34Z

Yes, 9/11 was perpetrated by a group of psychotic zealots who quoted their holy book as they crashed their planes into buildings and fields.  The point is that islam is not only a religion. It is a political ideology.   Would I blame all Christians for something the Nazi's did? Of course not, because there was nothing Christian about Nazi's. Nazi's were not a religion they were a political philosophy of fascism much the same as islam is a political philosophy based upon hatred of anyone but themselves. I have no problem with the religion of islam but I do have a significant problem with the political philosophy and ideology of islam that believes it is justified to kill anyone who is not a believer.

I do blame the people who perpetrated these acts but they were more than criminal acts, they were organized acts of war against our country and they were supported by members of the muslim faith all over the world, including here in America.  They were supported by imams and other men of religious faith using mosques as their sanctuaries. If it became necessary I would support closing every damn mosque in this country and sending every islamic alien home, green card or not until this stuff ends. Our national security is more important to me than the feelings of some islamic libertarian who either wishes harm to this country or is content with seeing harm done to it as long as it is in the name of allah.

It is easy to look back at 1941 and 1942 and say our parents were wrong to deprive Japanese citizens of their property and place them in camps. However, not having lived in that era I will not be so bold as to say it wasn't necessary. That generation made what today would be regarded as significant mistakes by depriving them and others of their civil liberties but they also took care of business and won that war in less than four years.

Comment on Jon Huntsman

2011-12-31T08:34:47Z

Jim,

If you believe the matter of importance is the drastic change in climate then substantiate it. I do not believe it. We know the data that supports your conclusions was fraudulently recorded and we know that scientists who dispute those models were not allowed to publish their rebuttals. Despite your statement about the polar ice melting, I also hear the opposite. CO2 is certainly not a pollutant and a ruling by the US Supreme Court cannot make it one. Scientifically, it is an necessary ingredient to life. Without CO2, we get no O2 and we have nothing to breathe. And please, etc. is not compelling in any kind of an argument for or against an issue.

I believe the normal cycle of the earth, that shows periods of warming and periods of cooling can be explained by the earth's elliptical orbit and its constantly changing proximity to the sun as well as the activity on the sun. This makes more sense than any argument stating that man can have an appreciable effect on the climate of our planet. In the entire scheme of things, we are not so significant.

However, you believe I receive kickbacks from the oil companies. Oh how I wish I did. I would like to work for an oil company. They provide a good product that could be at a cheap price that everyone needs. They are necessary, productive contributors to our economy.

There is only one ill-informed person arguing this topic today and unfortunately, it is you. If you want to convince us that the earth is on a tragic course caused by man's affect on the climate then prove it. Show your data, not your opinion. Debate as an adult and stop the sophomoric rants and talking points of the radical left. Show some substance in your arguments. Tell me about the science that you can prove. Cite your sources and provide your evidence. Until then I would not support one dime of tax money going to fight global warming. The concept is simply too ridiculous.

Comment on Jon Huntsman

2011-12-30T13:17:23Z

The fact of importance is not that the climate is changing, it is the dramatic rate of change that is critical. The evidence is compelling of the increase in global temperatures, CO2 levels, polar ice melt, etc. The environmental devastation caused by "clean" coal, oil exploration, fracking for natural gas, etc. only exacerbates the problem. You are the one who could not be more wrong. What kind of kick-back do you get from the oil companies for your ill-informed statements? It's time to stop subsidizing industries that continuing destroying the earth as we know it.

Comment on Statement on Religious Freedom

2011-12-19T21:50:06Z

First of all 9/11 was perpetrated by a group of psychotics using the veil of a religion that no more perpetuates violence than christianity does. People have allowed the psychotics' delusion to become an accepted fact. If the Nazi's claimed they killed jews because god told them to, would we then blame christianity because of thier actions, or would we rightly so see them as nuts who warped an innocent belief system in which most followers live in peace with the rest of society. Instead of blaming the religion out of ignorance to it, blame the people who did the actions blame al queda not islam there are millions of muslims around the world who love mankind in all it's forms, do not find guilt in them based on an implied association by the criminals. I'd hate to be associated with Nazis because i'm Christian. If one commits a crime against one's nation then one.s nation should be defended against said group or individual. But, in reference to the comparison to pearl harbor, we don't want to repeat our own sins of those times, which were the Japanese concentration camps created out of fear of all Japanese, because of the actions of a group that weren't even associated to the one's put in the concentration camps. I agree we should be careful, but I also believe we should not become fearful bigots. That would definetly be against our founding fathers dreams for this nation. God bless.

Comment on Jon Huntsman

2011-11-29T17:21:06Z

If you mean that our climate is always changing, yes, that is a fact. If you mean that we should be fearful of the dire consequences man has created by burning fossil fuels, no, that is not a fact. If it were a fact, you could prove it and no, you cannot prove it. What is a fact is that a concerted effort has been undertaken over the last several years to falsify climate data, ignore contrary data and deceive the population in an effort to gain economic power. The panel you cite on climate change has proven nothing. There has been a consensus of opinion by some scientists who are themselves dependent upon the study of climate change that man is creating havoc on the environment. This is not scientific proof. It is pure conjecture by people who lack independence of judgment. A tax on carbon would promote recession or perhaps depression. It would enrich men like Al Gore at the expense of every American, including yourself. The real solution to finding substitute sources of energy is not a tax but to allow all forms of energy exploration and retrieval and allow the market itself to identify cheaper substitute sources of energy. All government and carbon taxes can do is introduce artificial stimuli into a market that works against such research and innovation. You could not be more wrong.

Comment on Jon Huntsman

2011-11-29T16:42:46Z

While I do believe that the global economic downturn is the most significant challenge facing our nation today, it is very closely followed by our addiction to fossil fuels. Climate change is not a religion or an opinion-- it is a fact. If we do not take serious action within the next 10 years, our children will not be able to breathe their air, drink their water, or be proud of their parents. WE are the generation who will determine whether the earth remains livable, yet 46% of Americans do not "believe" in climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has conclusively shown that the climate is being unsustainably altered by human activity. By supporting fossil fuels, we are supporting petrodictators, a worlwide anti-democracy trend, and the growth of European nations over our own. The energy revolution is the next frontier, and the U.S. is not only failing to lead the charge but failing to recognize the issue at all. Germany and Denmark are pushing ahead without the U.S., and even China now has a more stringent renewable energy portfolio than the U.S. (which has no nation-wide energy portfolio at all). A tax on carbon would promote innovation, provide income to lower the national debt, improve our national security, improve our balance of trade, be a source of pride for Americans, entice international businesses to build factories and create jobs in the U.S. instead of abroad, and renew America's economy, international standing, and government. THIS is what our 2012 campaign should be about. The fact that Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul all deny that climate change is real and manmade is an indication of how skewed the American political sphere has become.