San Juan County Republican Party

Democrats are in denial and Republicans may be in disarray (if you believe the mainstream media). Conservatives must speak out and reform to Constitutional roots.

Pravda.ru sees slide, then the rush to Marxism, by the American government. If America walks like a Marxist and acts like a Marxist, then . . . . well read the article at Pravda.ru.

Quote:

“It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.”

[Obligatory link but content not recommended]
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

RNC: Resolution Urging Members of Congress to Abandon Earmarks.

Read the Republican National Committee’s Resolution regarding the service of the Honorable Jack F. Kemp.

RNC Jack Kemp Resolution

This American Spectator article makes clear that it is no exaggeration to say that the latest Supreme Court nominee is consistent with many racist appointees from the Democrat Party (see http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/28/sonia-sotomayor-taney).

by Michael P. Farris, J.D.
May 1, 2009

Child-rights advocates seeking to convince the U.S. Senate and the American public to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) are pursuing a curious line of reasoning. They say we can ratify the treaty, which preempts parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children, without incurring binding legal obligations. They argue that American legislators will choose how much, if any, of the treaty to implement.

Jonathan Todres, a professor at Georgia State, told the Associated Press that American parental rights would be safe because UN treaties contain “no enforcement mechanisms or penalties.” Meg Gardinier, who chairs a coalition of groups supporting the U.S. ratification of the treaty, told the AP, “No UN treaty will ever usurp the national sovereignty of this country.”

This smacks of the kind of American diplomacy the left demonizes whenever conservatives suggest that America “can go its own way.” Ratify the treaty, they say. It’s not legally binding. We can choose what to obey and what not to.

This argument is not only patently hypocritical, it is legally wrong.

The most important principle of international law is: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). In other words, keep your promises.

Make no mistake, whenever the United States ratifies a treaty it enters into a binding legal obligation to comply with its terms. Arguing that a treaty is a mere philosophical statement of intent with no binding legal consequences is blatant error. Besides, what message does this send to the international community the Obama administration seems desperate to please?

Arguing that America can enter into treaties and then comply on a piecemeal basis undermines our international reputation. Worse, it suggests that America cannot be trusted to keep its promises.

It is not difficult to discern the legal impact of a ratified treaty on our domestic law. It’s spelled out plainly in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI states that, along with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ratified treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Treaties trump state law.

The CRC is a comprehensive treaty covering the economic, social, political, civil, and cultural rights of children. No area of our law regarding children lies outside of its scope. And virtually all American law on children comes from the laws of our 50 states. Yet our Constitution says treaties override state laws.

How would this work in practice?
continue reading at:

Tags: http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E999C697-52A6-40A8-BA0E-8CD5325BA25F}

National News
by pudge, 11:52 AM

When (or slightly before) Obama became President, his people broke millions of links to historical transcripts and videos, removing them from the White House web site. For example, this link to President Bush’s so-called “Mission Accomplished” speech. It’s just gone.

This sort of loss is intolerable. It matters. And yes, I know you can still find the content in various archives. But maintaining the links themselves are crucial. These are the footnotes and bibliography of much of the Bush years.

What should happen is simple: first, Obama’s people should a new whitehouse.gov hierarchy for historical documents, perhaps ordered by year, perhaps by President’s name, whatever. So for example, (read the rest at)

Tags: http://soundpolitics.com/archives/012899.html

Beyond “Gay Marriage”
By Senator Dan Swecker

Political conservatives have little difficulty establishing that they are against “gay marriage.” The difficulty comes when politicians seek to curry the favor of conservatives and still try to find a middle ground on this issue to attract moderate voters. Many suggest they would support civil unions or domestic partnerships. They try to have it both ways. In doing so, they violate one of our most fundamental principles of the role of government. That principle is that the least government necessary to solve a problem is usually the best government.

Let’s look at the purposes of government in defining marriage. The best way to do this is to review the appropriate role of government in regulating private affairs.

What if we did not have a government institution called marriage? In that case, people would choose to live together base on their feelings for each other or for achieving some common purpose. We would recognize very quickly that only one type of relationship would rise to the level of critical government interest and concern. That is the relationship between one man and one woman, because it produces offspring.

Society would quickly determine that providing incentives to keep these relationships intact, for as long as possible, is a very high priority. Through reasonable legal means, we would make provisions for these relationships to hold property, share benefits, and provide the best possible nurturing environment for the next generation. We would spell out responsibilities in these relationships. We would also determine the conditions for the resolution of these benefits and responsibilities in the event that the marriage is terminated. That is exactly what we have done in defining marriage.

The failure of traditional marriages has a devastating impact on peoples’ lives, most often the lives of women and children. We need to look no further than the poverty statistics for single women with children. Such failures often have negative impacts on society as well, and increase the demands for government resources and services. No other relationship rises to this level of government concern. No other relationship is as important for the protection and provision of the next generation. For exactly those reasons, government has limited the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

One might ague that many other types of relationships have value for those who choose to participate in them. Why not include them in the definition of marriage?

First, it is important not to change the focus of people entering into the marriage contract. This is not about feelings and it is not about the mutual benefit of the two parties. It is about the next generation. If we change the definition of marriage solely to accommodate these other purposes, then the expectation of people entering into marriage will change.

Marriage will become a decision to stay together as long as two people love each other or as long as it is to their mutual benefit. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient for the welfare of our children. Marriage needs to be a commitment that goes beyond the moment and looks to what is best for the children in spite of these other considerations.

A second argument is that we could easily include other relationships without hurting the traditional institution of marriage. There are many valid two-party relationships that could easily be added to the list. The homosexual community says “gay marriage” is one of those. What about brothers and sisters, same sex siblings, an elderly parent dependent upon an adult child, two good friends, and so forth? All of these relationships have value for the parties involved. Why not include them as well?

Of course, the answer is that we need to keep government intervention in relationships to a minimum and focus our resources on the critical group we originally identified, the children. To do otherwise would simply reduce resources available to sustain children and families of traditional marriages and diminish the level of societal commitment to this one most important union.

Government has a compelling interest to intervene in this one relationship and define marriage as it has traditionally done. Other relationships do not rise to this level of government involvement and government should stay out of them!

Despite Huge Turnouts At T.E.A. Party Rallies,
Olympia Democrats Don’t Think So

April 15th, 2009, was a bad day for the Democrats.

All over the state, you and your neighbors gathered together to raise your collective voices against the government first, people second mindset that pervades in our state and national capitols. The T.E.A. Party Rallies sent a loud message, and were a tremendous success.

I spoke at the T.E.A. Party Rally in Bellevue, and we had a boisterous turnout, as was the case throughout the state. Everyone who attended or helped promote a T.E.A. Party Rally should be proud of their efforts.

But we can’t relax, pat ourselves on the back, and let the Democrats think they can go right back to raising our taxes and growing government!

Our top priority at the State Party is to defeat any tax increase that the Democrats in Olympia approve and send to the ballot this year. But we can’t do it alone. Your contribution of $100, $50, $25 or whatever you can afford on our secure website will give us the resources needed to fight this important battle in every corner of the state.

The Democrats heard from the people yesterday, but will they listen? On the very day so many said a resounding “NO” to more tax increases on our families and small businesses, State House Democrats introduced a new bill to increase your sales tax burden.

Olympia Democrats are in total denial about the true cause of today’s state budget mess: their reckless overspending. Their Senate Leader said of the concerned citizens who attended T.E.A. Party Rallies, “I completely disagree with their argument that it is a spending problem.”

The Washington State Republican Party is the only group in the state with the organization and grassroots muscle to push back and stop these tax increases. Help us be the voice for overburdened citizens whose biggest problem is an out-of-control government determined to grab more of their money. Please donate $100, $50, $25, or whatever you can afford today.

Olympia Democrats will stop at nothing to pass more tax increases. We know their plan, which is to cut popular programs, keep funding unpopular ones, then hold taxpayers hostage at the ballot box. The Washington State Republican Party stands with you, and with all taxpayers, to oppose their tax hikes.

The Democrats who covet your money heard you yesterday, but they’re determined not to listen. It’s up to you and me to deliver a message they can’t ignore.

Sincerely,

WSRP Chairman Luke Esser

P.S. Your support is critical if we are to stop the tax increases the Democrats are preparing. Please send in your donation of $100, $50, or $25 today.

We Need You At The WSRP Gala Dinner Auction
Calling all Republicans! You don’t want to miss the 27th Annual WSRP Gala Dinner Auction on Friday, May 1st at the Bellevue Hilton. Jennifer Dunn started the Gala Dinner Auction when she was WSRP Chairman, and the event has grown bigger and better every year since. This year’s Gala Dinner Auction features Attorney General Rob McKenna, Congressman Dave Reichert, many of our Republican legislators and a Special Salute to Dino Rossi. It’s a one-of-a-kind event that you won’t want to miss! You can RSVP at our WSRP website, or call Anitra Beruti at our headquarters (425.460.0570)

The tax day protest at the Friday Harbor Courthouse against government waste and over spending was a non partisan, non violent protest. These photos were taken early on, then later more people arrived to stand unified with fellow citizens who are against the out of control government spending at all levels. These tax day protests took place all across the country, making it the largest tax protest in the history of our country. Remember to write to your legislator frequently to ask them to not raise taxes, and to extend the Bush tax cuts, including the Child Tax Credit

On April 9th in 1866, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Every Democrat in Congress voted against it.

The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party’s 13th Amendment.

Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.

This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.

Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960’s civil rights movement.

Republicans today would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party.

Michael Zak

Tags: www.RepublicanBasics.com