Tea Party
US Treasury Income and Expense Report
Monthly Treasury Statement
You all should take a look at this. This is the monthly income statement from the US Treasury, it is not very complicated if you have ever balanced your own checkbook you should be able to grasp this.
In May 2011 the Federal government had 170B, in income, and around 30B in debt payments. This means there is NO danger of an US debt default we are being lied to by the President and many members of Congress. It is shameful what they are doing to this country and even more shameful if we let them get away with it.
There is plenty of room in this budget for cuts that will “Balance” the budget NOW not in ten years. Don’t believe me, take a look at the numbers. The stupid NON-Necessary spending is beyond belief the things I read in here have me so mad I can barely type.
Here are some examples, for Comparison the whole Judicial Branch operates on 571m, that seems about in the right ball park or even a little low, but remember they are a Constitutionally mandated branch of the Federal Government. The Department of Agriculture spends 11,385m that’s 19 times what we for a whole branch of government? What the hell is going on?
Department of Education 8,519, that’s 15 times the Judicial branch, for what?
National Science Foundation 539m, what the hell is this, why does it cost the same as the Judicial Branch?
Department of Labor 9,897 – Really this is more than all the Federal Courts in the land, really? 17 times as much as the courts?
Department of Housing 3,633 – 6 times.
Department of Transportation – 5,925 At least we get highways in this somewhere
Transportation Security Administration or TSA is 572m, we spend the same to pat down babies and grandmas as we do on the whole Judicial Branch.
Ok, numbers too large to comprehend, try this; the US Coast Guard which is Constitutionally mandated only spends 723m. I find it interesting that things we expect the Government to be doing like stable courts and protecting the coasts are the things it spends the least amount of money on.
This is absolutely KRAZY with a K!
Please read this report linked above, highlight some spending cuts and send it to your Congressman, tell them what to cut since they can’t seem to get it!!!
Last month the SBA which helps create jobs spent 121m, while the EPA which destroys jobs spent 835m! Does that make sense?
The Non-Socialist Pledge of Allegiance
“I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The pledge should be changed as pledging allegiance to a flag doesn’t mean anything and leaves the “pledger” open to manipulation. Symbols can mean anything you want them too. However the US Constitution, is a document which has real intrinsic meaning. By pledging allegiance to it you can read and understand what you are committing yourself too.
By pledging allegiance to the republic it established, you are aligning yourself to ITS form of government, which is clearly defined.
I hope you all agree.
4rth Amendment Funnies
The other day June 17th, I was driving through Texas, headed north out of McAllen. When I came upon a border patrol check point. For those of you who don’t live in the southwest, a border patrol check point is a road block where the US border patrol asks you where you were born and where you are going, they usually have a drug dog there to passively sniff out your car.
Generally I drive through these incident free, a typical inspection is as follows;
BP Agent “Are you a citizen?”
Myself ” Yes”
BP Agent ”Where are you headed?”
Myself ”wherever I happen to be going”
BP Agent ”Are You Alone?”
Myself ” No my wife is with me she is a citizen also”
BP Agent “OK have a nice trip”
You then drive off.
My general view of these sort of blanket inspections within the interior of the U.S., is that they violate the 4rth amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I find it hard to believe that it is “reasonable” to ask everyone driving north out of Texas whether they are a citizen or not, and where they are going. Mind you that this is “NOT” taking place at the border or at the port of entry, but rather 100 miles or so north of the border well within the US. Most of the time I look on these inspections as just a petty nuisance and nothing more, so long as the BP Agent doesn’t ball bust.
However on the 17th, the BP was in true ball busting form. My wife was with me as usual, she was sleeping in the back of the vehicle which also is typical. The agent asked me if I was alone, I responded with the typical, “No sir, my wife is in the back sleeping and she is a citizen also.”
The agent wasn’t satisfied with this and said ” Wake her up so I can verify her citizenship”
“No sir” said I ” I told you she was a citizen”
“You have to wake her up, so I can ask her” he retorted.
“I’m not going to wake her, I told you she’s a citizen”
“Ok, pull over there and sit until you decide to wake her up” he directed me over to secondary inspection spot. I pulled on over, sat there a minute, and then started to get mad. I grabbed my wallet, hopped out of the vehicle and headed over to the BP trailer, to talk with a supervisor. I was met halfway by 3 agents, one of them had Lieutenants bars, he introduced himself as the shift supervisor. As we walked back to my vehicle, I explained what had happened and told him I was not going to wake my wife, I told him she was a citizen and I was a citizen. Me saying that should be enough anyway, since the highway checkpoint violated the 4rth amendment to begin with.
He responded he didn’t want to get into a constitutional debate with me, but the check point is not a violation, agreed that the debate would be useless, since he obviously believes what he is doing is OK otherwise he would be doing it. I also added that stopping every car on the highway doesn’t seem very “reasonable” to me which is the Constitutional standard. His response was just to smile and say wake up your wife, so I can ask her if she’s a citizen and you can go on your way.
“I will not sir, I have already told you she’s a citizen and that should suffice, unless you have established probable cause or have a sworn affidavit that my wife and I are engaged in illegal activities you have no reason at all to justify having even stopped me”
He seemed surprised by this answer, told me he did not need probable cause to search but only reasonable suspicion. My response to him was that no doubt you were told that in your training,, but reasonable suspicion is not the constitutional phrasing, and in any case I would not wake my wife. He then went into a long explanation about all the drug runners they catch, and illegal aliens they catch at this checkpoint using these methods. I gave him no argument on those points, I even went on to say I totally understand his point of view which I do, but the effectiveness of these checkpoints doesn’t make them legal or proper. And in any case if his “Border Patrolling” expertise makes him reasonably suspicious, I’m doing anything “Illegal” he must be getting rusty. With this he smiled and the 2 rookies with him kind of laughed.
They seemed to be entertained by the ‘Curious’ person insisting that they are violating his rights. By this time I was so mad I was shaking, but was still measured and polite with my responses. He asked why I was shaking, I told him I thought it was adrenaline cause “I’m pissed off at being rousted”.
We went on like this for a few minutes, where he went on to say all us Vets, especially Vietnam vets go nuts when they come through one of these checkpoints, but that most of the agents were veterans so we should cut them some slack. I never told him I was a Vet, but in general military vets aren’t to hard to spot anyway so I’m not surprised he assumed I was. He then asked me again to wake my wife, I again refused. He said if I refused he would arrest me search my vehicle and wake here anyway.
I told him, I would not consent to a vehicle search under any circumstance, but if he was going to arrest me that was his call I won’t resist and in fact I was happy to be arrested. I added that I though failing to wake your wife was not a very serious charge. He turned me around asked if I had any weapons, did a quick pat down. Then he walked over to my truck, I asked him, “So am I under arrest?” he replied “Yes”. I said ok, I still do not consent to a vehicle search and as far as I knew “Not consenting to a search does not establish probable cause or even reasonable suspicion”. I guess he decided not to search but rather just slapped the side of the vehicle until my wife open the door, I was not privy to their conversation but she told me, he asked if she was a citizen and then told her I don’t know why your husband is so upset but you can go back to sleep.
He came back over to me and he again tried to explain the BPs point of view, I said I had no doubt at all what he was telling me was true but my point is not the effectiveness of what they’re doing but the constitutionality of it, which it is clearly not. As law enforcement officers and citizens it is imperative for them to be on the side of citizens and not politicians. That they should not just blindly enforce a policy they know to be unconstitutional even if it is borderline. I said I have no doubt of their good intentions, but that is not terribly relevant as I was the one who was under arrest, for doing nothing wrong or even illegal.
We talked around that for a few minutes, he then asked where I was from, ”California” I replied.
The lead agent replied, “Your from California huh, we get alot of you ‘Constitutionalist Movement’ guys complaining at us in California and Arizona, may I see your driver’s license.” He took my license and one of the other agents copied my info into his note-book.
I said, “OK I don’t know what that is, but ok.”
He then returned my license and said “Ok you can go”,
I said “alright, I have just one more thing for you guys before I leave, have you guys had a chance to read ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich‘?” they all shook their heads no. “Before Hitler, Germany was a constitutional republic, Hitler destroyed the republic by getting cops to violate people’s rights. This is not my opinion but historical fact, it was not some invading force of nazi thugs that rounded up all the jews and homos and political opposition, it was the regular police, the Berlin Police department, the Munich police dept, regular guys like you, who did what they were told even though it was illegal under German law at the time. Next thing you know 9 million people have been rounded up, and the world was at war, you guys ought to read it. Cause maybe in 10 or 15 years you will be in that position.”
They then sent me on my way.
It occurred to me while driving how odd it was to be accused of being in the “Constitutionalist Movement”, I had never heard that before. Now that I think about, I’m sure Napalitano over at homeland security has anybody who invokes their rights labeled as a “Constitutionalist” and part of a subversive movement. The BP Agent, said it like it was something they had been briefed to look out for. My wife’s brother is a sheriff deputy in Fl, so she called him to relate the story, he told her he was aware of the “Constitutionalist Movement” that there were a bunch of them in Fl. He thought they basically believed in ignoring laws and doing what they wanted under the guise of the constitution but he wasn’t sure.
This conversation confirms my suspicion about Homeland Security flagging people as constitutionalists, if they invoke their rights. So I guess I’m part of a movement I was ignorant of until I was told I was in the movement. It is also strange to me that he didn’t ask to see any ID, until he mentioned the “Constitutionalists”, I have no doubt now that I am enshrined on some list of subversives hidden in Napalitano’s drawer. It’s a good thing I don’t fly.
Thoughts About Trump
On O’Reilly Trump said the Republican candidates are weak and Paul Ryan has no common sense. He went on to say if they don’t get their act together he will run as a independent candidate.
Personally I find Trump entertaining and I’ve read a couple of his books, which I enjoyed. I am however not totally convinced he is a constitutional conservative. I’m not even convinced he isn’t just another liberal businessman who talks a good game but in the end would really turn out to be a big government goof-ball like every President we’ve had since Coolidge.

His claim to run as an independent, if carried out will most certainly only benefit Obama. Trump is no dummy so he must know that. This makes me think that perhaps Trump is just a “sleeper” or even a “poisoned pill” just to muck things up.
The country needs a strong executive willing to exercise the VETO and fire a few useless bureaucrats. I don think that is Romney, he wants to be liked so he won’t veto or cut anything. Pawlenty has some good ideas, but he’s about as inspiring as white wet paint. The others who have declared aren’t exactly thrillers either.
So I’m with Trump in spirit, but I hope the third-party talk is just Trump bravado and nothing else.
As an afterthought;
I listened to a Hannity interview with Trump, where he expounded on his third-party threat. His position is if the Republicans pick another “STIFF”, he’ll probably run as an independent.
Though I have reservations about Trumps Constitutional positions, I have no doubt he would be a better President than Romney, whom I view as a democrat in republican clothing. So if the republicans pick a “Stiff” like Romney, and then try to trick us by giving the VP slot to Cane or Bachman, Then I will urge Trump to run as an independent and I will vote for him.
If the Republicans get their act together and pick anyone other than Romney, I’ll probably vote with the party. The idea that Mit, the liberal should be the republican nominee I find appalling.
Herman Cain – Best At Debate
I have long been a fan of Ron Paul, at heart I am a libertarian.
I am baffled by Americans who are not, our founders were libertarians. If I thought Ron Paul could win I wouldn’t be making this post. Having said that, it is so refreshing to have a Non-Politician who is actually qualified for the office. Our country needs a businessman at the helm, that means either Donald Trump or Herman Cain. As for Donald Trump I am suspicious on his conservative bona fides, also as a Christian myself I find it hard to believe that a man in the public as much as Trump is just now revealing his Christianity. It seems to me that if Trump had real “Christian” values it would not come as a surprise announcement, it should have been widely known. Also Trump is a Pro-Business Progressive, which is better than Obama but not better than Herman Cain who I view as a pro business libertarian who is actually qualified for the office.
If Ron Paul gets the nomination I will support him. If Herman Cain gets the nomination I will support him. I was not particularly impressed by the other candidates at the debate. The other leading Candidates in the field are weak GOP progressive sleepers. Mit Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich these guys may be good Americans but they are in fact progressives, I’ve had enough of progressives. As for the others who were at the debate many I have supported in the past but nothing they said tonight did much to make me think “This is Refreshing”.
Herman Cain actually gave me hope, if we support him he’ll kick Obama’s socialist ass!
In closing, I just made a donation to Herman Cain, please support him.
He’s not a politician, he is a successful businessman and a clear leader with real conservative bona fides.
How the House Can Fix The Budget
I am having a hard time seeing what all the trouble is with geting spending under control. It seems to me the House of Representatives holds all the cards.
All bills for appropriations must originate in the House. This is a fancy way of saying the House controls the check book. So it seems to me that if Boehner really wanted to cut spending in a meaningful way they could just do it. The house can go ahead and approve a budget and send it on up the chain. NO compromise take our budget or you get NOTHING. If the House approves a budget its up to the Senate and President to take it. If either does not than it is they and not the House that is shutting down government. The House is supposed to be firm with the nations finances. Instead they act like little whiping boys.
The whole thing is pathetic, man up, pass a balanced budget and then tell the Senate and President, that’s it Take it or Leave it. It seems to me they have spent so much time compromising they have forgot how to be firm.




