<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tenth Amendment Center &#187; democrats</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/tag/democrats/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:25:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Partisanship instead of Liberty</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/10/19/partisanship-instead-of-liberty/</link>
		<comments>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/10/19/partisanship-instead-of-liberty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american-freedom-agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily-os]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dailykos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detentions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fisa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Habeas Corpus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kidnapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Tribunals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military-commissions-act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secrecy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Signing Statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/10/19/partisanship-instead-of-liberty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week, Rep. Ron Paul introduced HR 3835 &#8211; the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. This bill, if passed, would go a long way towards restoring liberty and the constitution in this country, and eliminate a number of &#8220;laws&#8221; that were enacted beyond the Constitution&#8217;s limit on federal power. More specifically, The American Freedom [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This week, Rep. Ron Paul introduced HR 3835 &#8211; the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.  This bill, if passed, would go a long way towards restoring liberty and the constitution in this country, and eliminate a number of &#8220;laws&#8221; that were enacted beyond the Constitution&#8217;s limit on federal power.<span id="more-57"></span></p>
<p>More specifically, The American Freedom Agenda Act would</p>
<ul>
<li>bar the use of evidence obtained through torture</li>
<li>require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)</li>
<li>create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements</li>
<li>repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees</li>
<li>prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad</li>
<li>protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch</li>
<li>ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists.</li>
</ul>
<p>None of these were constitutional in the first place, and all are morally repugnant to the ideals of a free society.  There is evidence of strong support for ending each of these individually, but no one in government seems to have the courage to do anything about it.</p>
<p>Ron Paul, on the other hand, had the courage to introduce legislation to end all of it.  No one on either side of the aisle has done anything close.</p>
<p>I was browsing around the net looking for people who were writing about this big news, and came across <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/18/164259/39" target="_blank">an article on DailyKos.com</a> (the hotbed of Democratic bloggers online) &#8211; which simply gave the text of the legislation and asked people to support it:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Please contact your Rep and ask for them to support this Resolution that has been introduced in the House today. The details of the Act are under the fold. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>This didn&#8217;t get much traction on Kos &#8211;  which I thought was odd, because it was a call to repeal so much of what the Bush administration had instituted over the last 6 years.</p>
<p>In fact, reading the comments was even worse &#8211; of the few posted, there were two that were downright hostile to the bill &#8211; not because it was a bad bill &#8211; but because it was introduced by Ron Paul, a Republican.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a comment by &#8220;<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/user/uid:72037" target="_blank">Marcus Tullius</a>&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Instead of supporting Ron Paul&#8217;s bill, I&#8217;d like to see the Dems propose their own. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>And another:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>I do not plan to help Ron Paul make political points.  Imo, the Majority needs to put forward a bill proposing essentially the same thing.  Couple of reasons why. </em></p>
<p><em>First, it denies R&#8217;s the ability to say that they are the party advocating a restoration of the rule of law.  I aim to kill their party, and helping R sponsored bills pass is not on my list of shit to do right now.</em></p>
<p><em>Second, it requires any R that would support to vote against his/her party, and his/her president.  That&#8217;s helpful because it further splinters their party, and it weakens the president.</em></p>
<p><em>So, to my mind, the only solution is a Dem sponsored bill.  And they need to propose one, imo.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Although no one in his party has introduced legislation that&#8217;s even remotely similar &#8211; and although he supports the repeal of these awful laws, he won&#8217;t support it unless it&#8217;s been done by a Democrat.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just this kind of attitude that, in my opinion, has gotten us to where we are now, and people like Marcus make me sick.</p>
<p>Marcus has no problem with torture, kidnapping, ending habeas corpus, and the like &#8211; and refuses to support the end of such activities, unless ended by a democrat.</p>
<p>I wonder how pervasive this kind of attitude is.</p>
<p>Party vs Freedom?</p>
<p>People like Marcus are happy to throw away your liberty, as long as it serves his party.</p>
<p>Now that&#8217;s a traitor if I ever saw one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/10/19/partisanship-instead-of-liberty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>House Democrats aim at oil industry subsidies</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/house-democrats-aim-at-oil-industry-subsidies/</link>
		<comments>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/house-democrats-aim-at-oil-industry-subsidies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CLEAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government-subsidies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house-of-representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil Subsidies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil-industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenth-amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/house-democrats-aim-at-oil-industry-subsidies/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Reuters: Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday introduced a bill that would rescind billions of dollars worth of tax incentives extended to U.S. energy companies and put the money into a fund earmarked for renewable energy. Sponsors of the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, or CLEAN, said it [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.aol.com/politics/story/_a/house-democrats-aim-at-oil-industry/n20070112174709990039?cid=771" target="_blank">From Reuters</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives  on Friday introduced a bill that would rescind billions of dollars worth of tax incentives extended to U.S. energy companies and put the money into a fund earmarked for renewable energy.</em></p>
<p><em>Sponsors of the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, or CLEAN, said it will save U.S. taxpayers about $13 billion over an unspecified number of years, but industry groups said it could hinder U.S. oil companies&#8217; ability to find and develop new energy sources.</em></p>
<p><em>Going after &#8220;Big Oil&#8221; is a top priority of the House of Representatives&#8217; Democratic leadership, which says oil companies have earned record profits at the expense of U.S. motorists paying high gasoline prices. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>Although the politicians on both sides of the aisle would like us to think that it&#8217;s in their Constitutional authority to engage in subsidies, energy research and the like, we challenge everyone to find one word in the Constitution that authorizes such activity.</p>
<div style="padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 10px; float: left"><!--adsense--></div>
<p>The title here is interesting, and may even mislead.  While it&#8217;s quite good for politicians to &#8220;go after&#8221; subsidies (and hopefully end them) &#8211; it doesn&#8217;t do any good at all if they just take that subsidy and give it to someone else.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s just what&#8217;s happening here.  The politicians, acting like a mafia cartel once again, are taking money from one group, and giving it to another.  All the while, they continue extracting your tax money for these and other unconstitutional ventures.</p>
<p>They claim this program will &#8220;save $13 billion&#8221;  But remember, virtually every time the government starts a new program, it ends up costing much much more than they advertised in the beginning.</p>
<p>If they told us the truth about these things, the war in Iraq would be paid for by Iraqi oil, the income tax never would&#8217;ve gone above 6%, Social Security tax would only be 2%, and on and on, and on.</p>
<p>What really needs to happen is for &#8220;we the people&#8221; to &#8220;go after&#8221; big government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/house-democrats-aim-at-oil-industry-subsidies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

