Subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...

by Peach Pie
Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

Politicizing Citizenship

Thomas Nast captured the mood of the nation on November 22, 1869 with this award winning political cartoon in Harpers Weekly. One year after the ratification of the 14^th Amendment political party's were staking out territory and demogouging the issue of citizenship. Indians, blacks, chinese, whites, were the potential votes and head counts for representation in the House of Representatives. The new politcial cause celebre´- citizenship.

The current rhetoric on citizenship in regards to “Anchor Babies” - those children born to illegal immigrants - is incoherent and incompetent. The political ruling class don't hear the public's deafening outcry against illegal immigration and citizenship, as they recklessly pander to new voting blocks and turn their backs on good hard-working Americans. Both the Democrats and Republicans wrestle to gain favor with one immigrant group or another, trampling on “States Rights” and the people. It became fashionable to politicize citizenship on June 13, 1866 when H.R. 127 (the 14^th Amendment) was introduced in the House of Representatives.

From the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789 to the onset of the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) in 1861, Northern and Western Europeans mostly immigrated to the Northeast. Citizenship during this period was a state issue - “States Rights”. A person was a citizen of a state within the union of the United States and by the Constitution a citizen in all other states. On July 28, 1866 that all changed when the Federal government mandated to all the states whom would be a citizen.

The Citizenship intention of the 14^th Amendment is very clear;

Section 1, 14th Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

1. The “Citizenship Clause” ensured ex-slaves their fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States by virtue of citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution wherever they traveled within the Union, reversing the horrible Supreme Court decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford of 1857.
2. The “Due Process” Clause ensured ex-slaves were afforded “Equal Protection” and “Due Process” by incorporating the 5^th Amendment to the states. The 5^th Amendment is the “Due Process” clause w ritten into the Bill of Rights as a prohibition to the Federal government.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R-MI) the author of the citizenship clause told us exactly what it means and its intended scope as was introduced in the United States Senate in 1866 by H.R. 127.

Jacob M. Howard

“... I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”¹

Lyman Trumbull

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull participated in the debate, and stated; "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."²

Aboriginals (Indians) born on this soil were not included, because they held allegiance to their tribes and Indian nations. Chinese aliens in California, children of foreign nationals and ambass adors, and children of illegal immigrants were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Likewise, anchor babies, those children born to illegal immigrants are not citizens, because they and their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Absent from the debates was any consideration for the will of the people in the individual states -“States Rights”. During that same debate on May 30^th, 1866 Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the citizenship clause he said; 'Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?' Senator John Conness of California said; 'yes. The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens.'

*** STATES RIGHTS DIED ON PALM SUNDAY IN 1865 AT APPOMATTOX COURTHOUSE ***

Senator Coness' reply illustrated one important outcome of Lee's surrender at Appomattox - “States Rights” was dead. The Federal government was mandating whom was to be deemed a citizen within a sovereign state. Oddly enough it was the Democrats in Congress that wanted the decision of citizenship left to the individual states. Ohio originally ratified the 14^th Amendment on January 4, 1867, but rescinded it one year later on January 15, 1868 after the Democrats took power in the state legislature. The principal reason for this was a fear among a substantial number of white Ohioans that African Americans were receiving too many rights. California rejected the 14^th Amendment on March 20, 1868 by a vote of 46 to 29. ³ New Jersey originally ratified the 14^th Amendment on September 11, 1866, but rescinded the vote March 27, 1868 because the Republicans in the Senate were violating Article V of the Constitution: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Twenty-three Senators and 80 Congressmen from eleven states were not present.

Opposition in the South was two fold; 1. Political – States Rights - [Article 5 of the Constitution] and 2) Social - Federal interference in a sovereign society.

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 1866, rejected the Amendment and protested as follows:

Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. ...

This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as part of the Congress to act upon the question, "Shall these amendments be proposed?" Every other excluded State had the same right.

The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of the eleven co-equal States.⁴

Clearly the State of Georgia relying on states right insisted on participation in Amending the Constitution.

Southern Democrat opposition to the 14^th Amendment also hinged on the people's opposition of the Freedman's Bureau interference in their sovereign society.

The Freedman's Bureau was created in March 1865 to address the issue of newly freed slaves. It was attacked by Southern whites for organizing blacks against their former masters, providing job opportunities, giving land grants, and essentially using tax money to assist ex-slaves to re enter society. The Democrats ran on a platform that the Republicans were giving blacks too many rights, which would lower the status of whites.

Northern confusion to opposition was expressed in a New York Times article; “it did not impose negro suffrage, but in case the franchise should not be given to negroes, it reduced representation.”⁵

In the end the Southern States ratified the 14^th Amendment in order to be allowed to re enter the union and be seated in Congress. Georgia ratified the 14^th Amendment on Tuesday July 21, 1868 and William Seward, Secretary of State, certified a July 9, 1868 vote inserting the 14^th Amendment as part of the Constitution. No longer could individual states decide which persons could hold citizenship.

The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14^th Amendment was upheld twice by the Supreme Court; 1. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) and 2. Elk v. Wilkins (1885). There are many sources available to help you understand both cases.

In the end citizenship is defined and granted by US CODE, TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part 1 §1401⁶ . The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;⁷

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Section 1401 (g) of this title shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201(g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940.

I see no reference to children born in this country by illegal immigrants being automatically granted citizenship. What I see and hear everyday are people politicizing the issue of citizenship in direct opposition to the will of the people of this nation.

Anchor Babies, those children born to illegal immigrants are not citizens

1 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1^st Session May 30^th , 1866 page 2890

2 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39^th Congress, 1^st Session May 30^th , 1866, page 2893

3New York Times, Pacific Coast, March 21, 1868

4 Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866 p 66-67

5 New York Times, July 17, 1868

6http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

7 Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 proclaimed: "BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)"

Pro-Life Policies in Nazi Germany

by Peach Pie

Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

July 27, 2010

Dr. Ernst Rudin

The term "Freedom of Choice" as it pertains to abortion was invented by a Nazi SS propagandist as a means to entice Polish women to have abortions and use contraceptives. The Nazis wanted to ensure that there were less births of what they considered “untermensch” or unfit for life.

The Nazis came to power in 1933 and one of Hitler's first official Acts was to legalize abortion. While abortion rights were liberalized during the Weimar Republic the Nazis purposefully identified those they felt unfit to reproduce. Two years later in 1935 Germany a nation of 65 million people was performing 500,000 abortions each year on German women deemed healthy and fit to reproduce. The Nazis encouraged Aryan women to produce children and subsequently made it illegal for a healthy German woman to receive an abortion.

The Nazis left the dirty little matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidedly pro-abortion medical establishment set up in April 1933 by Dr. Ernst Rudin the head of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. During the Weimar Republic [inter war years] marriage, sex and eugenic counseling centers were established. The Nazis used these files to target certain people for sterilization. Within a year of coming to power, the Nazis had started some 250 eugenic courts whose function was to decide who was worthy to procreate. These eugenic courts took applications from social workers and physicians urging sterilizations. These social workers and physicians were given the right to determine what female was unfit to reproduce and sterilized or a child that was unfit to live and destroyed.

On July 22, 1942, Hitler embraced the idea of abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. Hitler stated;

“They may use contraceptives or practice abortion--the more the better. In view of the large families of the native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-Germanic population."¹

On November 25 1939, the Reich Commission for the Strengthening of Germandom (RKFDV), an SS organization, issued this following decree in Poland:

"All measures which have the tendency to limit the births are to be tolerated or to be supported. Abortion in the remaining area of Poland [which was illegal under Polish law] must be declared free from punishment. The means for abortion and contraceptive means may be offered publicly without police restriction. Homosexuality [which was illegal under Polish law] is to be declared legal. The institutions and persons involved professionally in abortion practices are not to be interfered with by police."²

This order was put into place immediately upon occupation in all countries deemed un Aryan composed of mostly Slavs to the east. The Nazis were particularly brutal after they forced millions of Jews into ghettos throughout Poland. In a diary of a Polish Jew living in the Shavli Ghetto named E. Yerushalmi this entry was made for 13 July 1942:

"In accordance with the Order of the Security Police, births are permitted in the ghetto upon up to August 15, 1942. After this date it is forbidden to give birth to Jewish children either in the hospitals or in the homes of the pregnant women. it is pointed out, at the same time, that it is permitted to interrupt pregnancies by means of abortions. A great responsibility rests on the pregnant women. If they do not comply with this order, there is a danger that they will be executed, together with their families."³ All pregnant Jewish women arriving at concentration camps were immediately sent to the gas chambers.

During the Nuremburg Trials after the war, almost all the Nazi defendants were accused of "crimes against humanity" and part of those 'crimes' were promotion of abortion.

The most outspoken German critic of the Nazis was Dietrich Bonhoeffer; a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, and pro-Life advocate wrote:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."⁴

Bonhoeffer wrote this poem:

"They came for the Jews,
and I [Germany] did not object, as I am not a Jew.
They came for the Catholics,
and I [Germany] did not object, as I was not a Catholic.
Finally, they came for me, and there was no one left to object."

Dietrich Bonhoffer was executed by the Nazis on April 19, 1945, in the shadows of Berlin burning and a mere three weeks before the war ended.

In conclusion, the Nazis were not anti-abortion. They converted entire hospitals to abortuaries. They were just selective on who should get an abortion and who should not. We must ask constantly what the terms “Freedom” of “Choice” actually mean.

Abortion prevents a life that has already happened, because the unborn is the second life to consider in any pregnancy. The Nazis, experts in killing, knew this and exploited it. When you make exceptions on what child may or may not be aborted, you are picking and choosing what life has value and what has none. No human has the right to pick and choose what life has value.

1 Harvest of Hate, 1954, pp. 273-4

2 Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe, 1961, p.171

3 Pinkas Shavli, 1958, p.88

4 Ethics, pp.175-6

The Great Picture Hunt - Where's Waldox?

by Peach Pie

Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

July 12, 2010







It is no accident that John Oxendine, Republican Candidate for Governor seems to be hiding from the electorate. It is a cold calculated strategy to reinvent this candidate and his handlers are hunting for the best pictures.



The first inkling we read of this was in the Political Insider Blog in the piece The new, improved John Oxendine campaign, 3:00 pm June 5, 2010, by Jim Galloway. Galloway wrote; "But one of the biggest changes in the Republican race for governor in the past three months has been the quiet transformation of the John Oxendine campaign." Oxendine brought in campaign manager Stephen Puetz, who had been political director of the Tom Foley gubernatorial campaign and Jeff Roe, the man who focused on getting out the vote for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign in ‘08 throughout much of the South, including Georgia. Why do this when Oxendine has been the front runner in the race from the beginning? Simply put Oxendine had been running all over the state and his message was stale and tiring. When consumers get tired of a celebrity that celebrity risks overexposure.



In High Visibility: The Making and Marketing of Professionals into Celebrities (NTC, 1997), professors Irving Rein, Philip Kotler and Martin Stoller argue that overexposure of celebrity endorsers may come about: When consumers get tired of the celebrity; or When the product and celebrity conflict. John Oxendine's product his message prior to March was the same old and disjointed Conservatism promised for decades by pandering politicians from the Republican Party. That message conflicted too with allegations of corruption and insider contributions. John Oxendine needed to reinvent himself to an electorate that is growing more and more Conservative if he had any chance of winning the Governor's race.



To illustrate lets take the reinvention of the Miller Beer brand. In the late 1970's Miller Beer executives recognized their brand needing reinventing if they were to be successful marketing to baby boomers with increased wealth and a penchant for "tony" brands. This commercial is from 1977 and featured four hard hat working men.







Miller ran ads from 1978-1980 featuring a bottle in a fresh babbling brook not associated with people. The idea was to let the public forget the hard hat image Miller had become. By the mid-1980's Miller had successfully transformed itself into a brand that baby boomers identified with.

It all comes down to exposure management. The basic challenge in exposure management is balancing the amount of energy (money) that goes into generating an audience (voter) against the rewards that can be expected from that audience. Will they vote for the candidate?

Authors Rein, Kotler, and Stoller identify five kinds of celebrities. There are one-day celebrities — the hero who rescues a boy from drowning; one-week celebrities — the politician immersed in a scandal; one-year celebrities — Time’s “Person of the Year”; one-generation celebrities — Elvis Presley; and finally, legends — Winston Churchill. There is no question John Oxendine is a one-year celebrity having started his campaign before any other candidate.

Sociologist Chris Rojek of Nottingham Trent University in Great Britain feels it is primarily the celebrity of the year who must be concerned about overexposure. Noting the large number of rising and falling first-year stars, he feels that the greatest risk of over-exposure probably occurs during the first year of the celebrity’s ascent. “I guess the antidote is to have a clever manager who rations your appearances accordingly.” says Rojek. During this absence the candidate can reinvent himself credibly.

According to Professor Rein, who teaches at Northwestern University, “One of the big themes now in terms of brand management is reinvention — looking at a tired brand and asking how it can be freshened. It’s possible to reinvent a one-year celebrity," says Rein, "but it might take speech lessons, walking lessons, music lessons, exposure to a different kind of crowd or audiences, or building a much broader base."

John Oxendine is broadening his base to include Conservatives with a strong Pro-Life message, tough on Illegal Immigration, fiscal soundness with the Fair Tax, smaller government, and local control of schools. According to the independent candidate rating agency Elect the Right Candidate John Oxendine scores perfectly as a Constitutional Conservative in the race for Governor.

When you ask the question Where is Waldox? He is quietly reinventing himself to appeal to a broader base of support outside the traditional Liberal Republican base.

Will the run-off be between the two most Conservative Candidates Ray McBerry and John Oxendine or two RINO candidates? Time will tell.

Karen Handel is she really a Conservative? (Part 3)

by Peach Tree

Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

June 30, 2010







This is the third and final part in the series to look at Ms. Karen Handel's position on the issues as it pertains to her race for Governor of Georgia in 2010. Ms. Handel professes on her website; "Karen is a lifelong conservative and Republican." The Peach State Voice will be the judge whether Ms. Handel is a Conservative, as for being a Republican we stipulate.

Part 1 - Abortion - Karen's Handel's vision for Georgia.

Part 2 - States Rights - Will she fight hard for all Georgia's citizens?

Part 3 - Economy - Does Karen Handel know Austrian economics?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3 - Economy - Does Karen Handel know Austrian economics?

If you read the issues on Ms. Handel's website regarding taxes and the economy it seems Conservative. Ms. Handel does indicate a willingness to lower taxes for families and businesses, which is a good thing. Ms. Handel also favors repeal of bureaucracy that hinders job creation. This is all well and good, but you need to look deeper into the statements and dig deeper into the meaning of what she says.

For example, Ms. Handel supports the Fair Tax, but she does not recommend elimination of the state income and property taxes, replaced with a consumption tax. You can call it a Fair Tax, flat tax, consumption tax, but the crucial test is whether is stops feeding the state Leviathan. The only way to starve the state Leviathan is to replace the state income and property taxes with a state consumption tax. While we applaud Ms. Handel's strategy of lowering tax rates, that will do nothing to starve the state Leviathan and only shuffle money through a bloated state bureaucracy.

Ms. Handel also recognizes the destructive nature of state bureaucracy for job creation. We applaud any and all initiatives to eliminate rules and regulations that hinder job creation. Still the only way to eliminate the destructive bureaucracy is to slay the state Leviathan and you do that by starving it of money. It's a zero sum game if you successfully grow the economy but simultaneously expand the state Leviathan.

All of this is well and good, but I want to address Ms. Handel's concept of Tax Credits; "Karen also calls for tax credits for capital investment in Georgia start-ups." "Establish an "Angel Investment and Venture Capital Tax Credit to encourage investment in Georgia businesses with high growth potential." This sounds fabulous, but we need to look at the details. Some things to note about tax deductions/tax credits.

Look at the front of the 1040 tax form. There are a number of possible deductions that can be made before figuring the amount of tax due. Any deduction allowed is a good thing. Then on the back of the 1040 tax form there are further itemized deductions or exemptions. Again this is good. At this point the amount of tax due can then be lowered by tax credits, of which there are two types; nonrefundable and refundable.

Nonrefundable tax credits lower the amount of taxes that are due. If no taxes are due because of deductions and exemptions that lowered taxable income, then the credits are unnecessary. Refundable tax credits lower the amount of tax due, but it refunds the unused portion of that credit. The taxpayer actually gets money back from the government over and above what they paid in. This money comes from Leviathan's coffers and taxpayer money. That is called "redistribution of wealth" or welfare. In this case, corporate welfare.

An Angel or Venture Investment Tax Credit can't be nonrefundable, because early stage businesses have no income to be taxed, so nonrefundable tax credits are worthless to start up's. There is no incentive to invest. But, the refundable tax credit is attractive to the early stage investor. The Angel or Venture investor is attracted to the guarantee that all or part of the yearly capital investment in a start up will be received back as a tax credit. This lowers the investors risk and offers no incentive to make resource allocation decisions, which means shutter the business or expand capital investment.

Ms. Handel's tax credit idea is simply welfare for business. It will guarantee tax payer dollars are redistributed to investors instead of allowing market forces to determine whether a business idea is good or bad.

Ms. Handel is not Conservative. She is a creation of the Liberal Republican welfare state. She uses feel good soundbites to further her career, but if you dig deeply you'll find she is not a Conservative and will further expand the state Leviathan.

Next week: Mirror, mirror on the wall ... who is the biggest Democrat of all?

Democrat Tug of War - Nathan Deal vs. Roy Barnes

by Peach Pie

Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

June 30, 2010












Two men fighting to be Governor are trying desperately to out Democrat each other - Nathan Deal and Roy Barnes. Nathan Deal is registered Republican, but Democrat blood flows through his veins. Nathan Deal was elected to Congress in the 9th District of Georgia as a registered Democrat, but switched parties in 1995 after Newt Gingrich took the house. Curiously Nathan voted for Dick Gephardt (D) as Speaker of the House, not Newt Gingrich in January 1995. Roy Barnes is a life long Democrat and former Governor of Georgia. If you look closely at their records, read their campaign material, and listen to their words ... they are fighting to out Democrat each other and Nathan Deal is winning.


Healthcare:


"Nathan fought to cut government spending through earmark reform and cost-saving Medicaid reforms." - From Nathan Deal's website


This statement from Nathan Deal is an absolute fabrication. Nothing could be further from the truth -- it's FALSE. Nathan Deal voted to increase government spending to levels not seen in human history during his tenure in Congress and he voted YES to nationalize our health care not cost-saving reforms.


1. Nathan Deal voted YES for the Medicare Prescription Drug Act in 2003 which is a $18.0 trillion (PV) unfunded mandate; $85.0 trillion in future value out 30 years. This Act was the defining step to nationalize health care in the United States. The Medicare Prescription Drug Act is a fundamental portion of Obamacare and Nathan voted YES for this horrible and unnecessary piece of legislation.


Now compare this to Roy Barnes. "In the field of health care, he passed legislation that expanded patients’ right to choose their physicians and held insurance companies accountable for providing prompt, quality care. " -- From Roy Barnes website.


Roy Barnes signed Legislation to give the individual the right to choose their physicians and expanded prompt quality care. Nathan Deal is more a big government Democrat than Roy Barnes when it comes to health care.


Education:


"Deal has worked as a strong advocate for public education throughout his career in public service. As a husband who stayed up at night with his wife grading papers, he knows that politicians' rhetoric on education doesn't always, if ever, reflect what happens in real Georgia classrooms. As governor, Nathan will take power away from education bureaucrats and empower local leaders to cater their plans to their local needs and resources." - From Nathan Deal's website.


Again this is FALSE - this is a mirage and fabrication. Nathan Deal voted YES for every Bill while in Congress to Federalize our childrens' schools and place mandates on the citizens of Georgia.


1. 1993 - HR 1804 Goals 2000: Educate Americans Act - Established and mandated seven year accomplishment goals without input from local communities.


2. 2001 - HR 1 No Child Left Behind - Burdensome mandates to states and local communities, destroyed technical and vocational training, and Liberalized testing outcomes.


3. 2003 - HR 2211 Ready to Teach Act - Mandates for teacher certification without input from local communities or teachers.


Now compare this to Roy Barnes.


"In order to prevent policy makers from losing touch with the classroom teacher, I would have two classroom teachers in residence on the governor’s staff who would participate in all policy and legislative discussions. I would also convene teacher panels across the state to provide input to policy makers on the issues that classroom teachers deal with every day." - From Roy Barnes website.


Roy Barnes does not support government mandates, while Nathan Deal actually voted YES to mandate and force the federal government into our local school rooms.


Jobs:


"Fuel growth in biotech and medical device industry." - From Nathan Deal's website


"Biomedical research and development could be a stepping-stone to the future." - From Roy Barnes website.


Transportation:

"Nathan supports the actions by the Legislature to approve a long-anticipated regional transportation plan." - From Nathan Deal's website


Now compare this to Roy Barnes. "Policy makers must get serious about a cohesive, long-term transportation plan for the state, or the prosperity we have enjoyed since the 1960s will quickly diminish. We will lose the ability to maintain industry and attract new business." - From Roy Barnes' website


Home Ownership:


Nathan Deal voted YES for HR 3838 Housing and Community Development Act in 1993. This Act was; 1. the primary cause of the financial housing meltdown in 2008, 2. it forced banks to make loans to families unable to afford their mortgage, 3. it authorized GNMA to issue mortgage back securities, debt instruments backed by mortgages, and 4. it funded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up risky mortgages. This one Act has indebted your families future with bad mortgages up to $417,000. You are paying taxes for people that made bad decisions up to a $417,000 mortgage.


Compare that to Roy Barnes. "Roy strengthened economic support for families by successfully implementing property tax cuts for homes and family farms and by establishing a sales tax holiday for Georgia." - From Roy Barnes website


Tax cuts for property owners is what works. Not mandates that force banks to make loans to those who can't pay. Nathan Deal is one of the career politicians from Washington DC that has destroyed our financial system.


Make no mistake about it both men are big government, big bureaucracy, and big spending advocates and the Peach State Voice will not endorse either candidate. Both men are Democrats to the core, both men will expand government, but in the end Nathan Deal is a better Democrat than Roy Barnes.

Karen Handel is she really a Conservative (Part 2)

by Peach Tree

Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

June 8, 2010



This is the second of a three part series to look at Ms. Karen Handel's position on the issues as it pertains to her race for Governor of Georgia in 2010. Ms. Handel professes on her website; "Karen is a lifelong conservative and Republican." The Peach State Voice will be the judge whether Ms. Handel is a Conservative, as for being a Republican we stipulate.

Part 1 - Abortion - Karen's Handel's vision for Georgia.

Part 2 - States Rights - Will she fight hard for all Georgia's citizens?

Part 3 - Economy - Does Karen Handel know Austrian economics?

----------------------

Part 2 - States Rights - Will she fight hard for all Georgia's citizens?

I've toiled at every piece of information, attended speaking engagements, and read everything in print and available to the public written by Ms. Handel in order to assess her State's Right's beliefs. Click on the audio widget below to hear her score.


Powered by Podbean.com

Ms. Handel is NO Conservative when it comes to States Rights.

Next week Part 3. Does Ms Handel's education extend into the natural laws of Austrian economics. She will be judged against the teachings and writings of the Mises Institute in Auburn, AL.

Mises Institute

Karen Handel is she really a conservative? (Part 1)

by Peach Tree

Peach State Voice (Atlanta)

June 4, 2010





This is the first of a three part series to look at Ms. Karen Handel's position on the issues as it pertains to her race for Governor of Georgia in 2010. Ms. Handel professes on her website; "Karen is a lifelong conservative and Republican." The Peach State Voice will be the judge whether Ms. Handel is a Conservative, as for being a Republican we stipulate.

Part 1 - Abortion - Karen's Handel's vision for Georgia.

Part 2 - States Rights - Will she fight hard for all Georgia's citizens?

Part 3 - Economy - Does Karen Handel know Austrian economics?

---------------------------------------------

Part 1 - Karen Handel's vision for Georgia.

"Karen is pro-life. As a matter of law she believes society may allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when there is a real threat to the mother’s life." - Karen Handel website.

The Declaration of Independence, our Founding document, clearly states that every person has a GOD given right to Life and Liberty. Conservatives believe the United States Constitution, our governing document, embraces the philosophy and ideas of our Founding to nurture our society. Abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution, therefore it violates the very principle that GOD bestowed upon all human beings expressed in The Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the United States Constitution - the right to Life and Liberty. If you reject this truth, you are not a Conservative.

What does it mean when Ms. Handel makes the statement about abortion in which she "believes society may allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when there is a real threat to the mother's life." It means that Karen Handel believes in a society that picks and chooses what human beings have the right to Life and Liberty. We fought a great Civil War to end this notion that one group of people whether by skin color or nature of birth were free. We fought a great war in Europe to end the slaughter of millions of innocent people of particular religions and ethnic backgrounds. In the end, our elected representatives must respect the value of all human life.

"Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value." - Ronald Reagan

Perhaps the most eloquent Conservative thoughts on abortion were penned by Ronald Reagan in The Human Life Review (Spring of 1983) in this article Abortion and Conscience of the Nation. President Reagan explains the real meaning of abortion. President Reagan concludes; "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life." Ms. Handel believes those lives categorized 'conceived during the crime of rape and incest' are somehow less valuable than those conceived in the privacy of a couples bedroom. The crimes of rape and incest are punishable by society with stiff jail terms, yet Ms. Handel would also condemn the most innocent in this crime, the child, to death. President Reagan warned us; "every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not." What lawmaker, what doctor, what citizen has the right to condemn one child to death and allow another to live?



The concept of abortion-on-demand no longer sits well with the general population of the United States. A recent Gallup poll in June 2010 shows that more Americans now identify themselves as pro-life versus pro-choice. Forty-seven percent of Americans self-identify as pro-life, as compared to 45% pro-choice.


Still the number of abortion providers in the State of Georgia has increased from 26 to 34 from FY2000 to FY2005. The number of abortion slaughter houses has increased 31% across Georgia, while the number across the nation has fallen 2%. Exit interviews of aborting females of reproductive age indicate that 4.9% were performed under the guise of 'protecting the mother's health/rape or incest' not to protect the mother's life. Of the 33,180 abortions performed in Georgia in 2005, 1,626 children were deemed valueless and destroyed for reasons to 'protect the health of the mother/rape or incest' and another 31,554 for all other reasons.

Ron Paul, MD, Congressman from the State of Texas has delivered 4,000 babies during his medical career and he says; "People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted."

I leave you with this quote by Ronald Reagan.

"What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn."

Karen Handel's vision for the State of Georgia means picking one group of children for destruction over another; deeming one category of human life as valueless and worthy of destruction, and overseeing the ever expanding apparatus of abortion in the State of Georgia. On this issue Karen Handel is NO Conservative.

Next week - State's Rights - We look at Ms. Handel's knowledge and understanding of the United States Constitution as it pertains to the 10th Amendment/States Rights. Can Karen Handel stand-up to special interests and the Federal government to protect the health and welfare of all Georgia's citizens, not just a chosen few?