There is a Congressional Resolution (H. Con. Res 362) currently in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that if passed, could lead to war with Iran. There is also a similar Resolution being considered by the Senate (S. Res. 580).

The House version begins as follows: "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes."

A key part of this resolution, in subsection (3) states:

"demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;"

H. Con. Res 362 is nothing short of an "authorization to go to war" resolution without passing a formal Declaration of War. It has been these types of resolutions and authorizations of force that have eventually gotten us into war in the past. Here's how it works: Congress gives the President an authorization to use the power of our military against a country that we are not at war with and in return, individual members of congress get wiggle room to change their minds if things do not go well.

The current resolution demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials. This is a proposed blockade of another country that we are not at war with. What right do we have to close down a country and where do we get the legal or moral authority to do so? Such authority or power is definitely not contained in our constitution. This is the type of action that led to the war in Iraq.

I know that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened violence against us and our allies. He is also aiding terrorist organizations and is suspected of developing nuclear weapons and that's wrong. But why is our making threats of blockades, sanctions and violence against Iran OK?

Congress and the President must take more time to look at this situation very carefully because their decision in this matter will effect not only us, but the rest of the world as well. Why are Members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) and their new world order friends so eager to keep us in an endless cycle of war without ever declaring war?

If congress is privy to information about Iran that they are using to justify some sort of military action on our part, then inform the American people of what it is because it is their sons and daughters who will have to pay the price if we go to war. Let the administration and congressional leaders follow the constitution and publically lay out their case to the American people, before we get into another undeclared war that will cost American lives.

The text of the resolution can be found at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:

For Freedom, Liberty and Sovereignty,

John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

Sandy Treadwell has filed a "Request for Judicial Intervention" with the Dutchess County Supreme Count in an attempt to keep John Wallace, of Columbia County, off the September Republican primary ballot.

There are over 60 different allegations outlined in the court filing that accuse Wallace and the people who helped him obtain the signatures for the nominating petitions of just about every technical violation there is in the election law regarding petitions.

"This is a classic example of the millionaire candidate using his vast resources to silence the grassroots candidate and at the same time disenfranchise all of the Republican voters who signed my petitions. Treadwell has accused me of everything but stealing the kitchen sink." Wallace said.

Wallace was still waiting to hear from the State Board of Elections when a copy of Treadwell's filing was delivered to his house on Friday afternoon via US mail. In the adjoining 21st Congressional District, the Republicans running in the primary did not file objections to each other petitions.

Wallace said: "I do not know why Sandy Treadwell is so afraid of givng the people in the distict a choice in the primary. What's wrong with an honest discussion of the issues that are facing the people here and in the rest of the country? Whether I win this petition fight or not, I think Sandy Treadwell, by his own actions in this matter, is showing that he is afraid of a candidate who talks about the corruption of our congress by special interest money and the federal government's increasing attacks on the freedoms and liberties of its own citizens."

A copy of the court papers can be found at:

www.FreedomCandidate.com/Treadwell-JudicialIntervention-072308.pdf

For more information contact:

John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
www.FreedomCandidate.com

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), while at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, told reporter John Gizzi, that she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine. The imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing points of view, which would essentially give the government control over what the people can and cannot hear.

Ms Pelosi also said she supported the efforts of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who has been very active behind the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep Slaughter had introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

The Democratic leadership knows that they can't directly pass a "Fairness Doctrine" piece of legislation, so they will most likely try to slip it in under another name or attach it to some 'must pass' piece of legislation. Their support of the 'Fairness Doctrine by any means' strategy poses a direct threat to American citizens' constitutonal right of Freedom of Speech.

The important questions for Americans to ask are: Why is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats against free speech for the American people? Why are they so determined to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? and why is the Democratic leadership refusing to bring a true piece of Freedom of Speech legislation, The Broadcaster Freedom Act HR-2905, to the floor for a vote?

I believe that it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” a Liberal talk station, that has led to this attempt to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. It appears that if certain political views can’t compete in the world of ideas, then the solution is to pass a law that forces radio stations to air those views.

I am opposed to any resurrection of the “The Fairness Doctrine,” the 1940’s law that effectively censored political talk radio for many years, because it is a violation of the First Amendment and limits Free Speech. The real issue here is not what you “are able to” see or hear, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s about placing limitations on the Freedoms you currently have to “choose” what to see or hear.

In the 1940’s and 50’s, Americans had few choices with only three major networks and there was some validity to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Americans have an almost unlimited choice of where to get their information: regular TV, cable TV, regular radio, satellite radio, internet, web-blogs, etc., which makes the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

I support the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR-2905), introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind) which would prevent these first amendment restrictive regulations from returning. Representative Mike Pence introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 2008, two hundred Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are still needed. So far, not one single House Democrat has signed the petition to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

It should also be noted that two of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners have already indicated that they favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine. All that would be needed to reinstitute Fairness Doctrine regulations would be for the next President to appoint a third sympathetic commissioner. Then, the regulations could go back into effect without any vote at all and the constitutional Freedom of Speech rights and guarantees of all Americans would suffer another blow.

By not bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor for a vote, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to limit the constitutional rights of Free Speech of those American citizens who happen to oppose her political views.

The constitutional right of Freedom of Speech guarantees that people or organizations have the right to express their ideas without danger of censorship, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that people or organizations with different views must be provided with a meeting hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express their ideas. Those who value the First Amendment, as I do, must oppose the Fairness Doctrine, in any form, as a serious threat to their Freedom of Speech.

By:
John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

 

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a program of the US Department of Agriculture that is supposedly designed to identify and track all livestock animals, including poultry, horses, cattle, goats and sheep for the purpose of disease containment. The proposed NAIS national system requires the use of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) and GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) technology to track the location of animals as part of the concept that all such animals in the US are part of a “national herd.” It requires every farm, private home or other “premises” having these types of animals to be registered with government agencies, even if that private home or premises contains only a single animal that might be just a family pet. While NAIS’s stated goal of disease containment appears on the surface to be beneficial, the requirement for American citizens to register privately-owned property for tracking and monitoring purposes has very serious implications for Americans’ privacy rights, freedoms and liberties.

The NAIS program was created as the result of extensive lobbying from large corporate agribusinesses and RFID chip manufacturers. It is really designed to protect the large corporate farms against possible legal liability when some sort of animal epidemic occurs.Agribusiness giants also want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data. But small and independent livestock owners would face a costly mandate if NAIS was to become law. While the federal program is supposed to be voluntary, money given to some states from the US Department of Agriculture, through cooperative agreements and funding, has been used to make some or all of the NAIS provisions mandatory in those states.

Although the initial NAIS plan covers only livestock, provisions of the plan call for the registration of farms, private homes and other premises into a federal database even if it contains just one horse, one goat, etc. All pet owners should also be aware that dogs, cats, rabbits and all other domestic pets are not specifically excluded from any expansion of the NAIS program. Under NAIS, all livestock animals must be RFID chipped, and the owners of these animals would be required to report all transfers, sales, births, deaths etc. of these animals. The real danger here is that with the RFID chips in place, the US government will be able to track the movements of the tagged animals and the American citizens who are transporting them.

In a landmark ruling on June 4, 2008, (in Mary-Louise Zanoni v. United States Department of Agriculture), Federal District Judge for the District of Columbia, Emmet Sullivan, suspended the implementation of the NAIS program indefinitely. Although the program has not been declared unconstitutional and may return in a new form, the decision effectively keeps the USDA from using the 1974 federal Privacy Act to place severe limitations on access to the national NAIS database by members of the public, as well as the livestock owners and other individuals whose personal and business information might have been included in the database without their knowledge. The information in question is a list of farms and ranches collected through voluntary premises identification and through other means including information supplied by state Agricultural agencies, state veterinarians, avian flu records and even entry lists of animal entries from county fairs.  It would appear that the USDA was collecting data on thousands of American citizens, whose farms or other private properties were added to the NAIS registry database without their knowledge or permission.

The NAIS program is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases since most contamination happens in the processing plants after the animals have been sold and. tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won’t help find the sources of the suspected disease. It’s about helping big corporate agribusinesses and RFID chip manufacturers make bigger profits at the expense of the small family farmers and ranchers. Besides, states already have some sort of animal identification systems in place. Protecting America's food supply and preserving the country’s livestock’s resistance to diseases can best be protected by the continued decentralization of our nation’s food production and processing. 

The implementation of any NAIS-type program would place small American family farmers and ranchers at an economic disadvantage against big agribusiness and overseas competition. Under the proposed NAIS program, larger livestock operations would be allowed to tag whole groups of animals with one ID device, while smaller ranchers, farmers and even some pet owners, would be forced to tag each individual animal, at a cost of anywhere from $3 to $20 per head. Should a NAIS-type program ever be implemented in the US, livestock owners would be forced to comply with the burdens of additional paperwork and new monitoring rules and regulations. American livestock owners would literally be paying for an assault on their own property and privacy rights.

The current US Department of Agriculture NAIS program means bigger government, more government intrusion, more regulations, more paperwork, more fees and taxes and more federal spending, that will result in less privacy, less freedom, less liberty and less property and 4^th Amendment rights for American citizens. It’s exactly the kind of unconstitutional federal program every American citizen and their elected federal representatives should oppose. 

By:

JOHN W. WALLACE

Candidate for Congress

New York’s 20^th Congressional District

www.FreedomCandidate.com

 

BreakTheMatrix.com Vows to Disprove Critics Claiming 'Freedom Movement' Is DeadJuly 1, 2008 12:35 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 07/01/08 -- http://www.freedomslate08.com/ -- Over 25 congressional candidates running on a Ron Paul "Freedom" platform have united for a mass fundraising "Money Bomb" event July 4th to raise funds for their campaigns, including John Wallace from New York's 20th Congressional District.

Each http://www.freedomslate08.com/ candidate is committed to four major tenets: ending the overseas empire and bringing the troops home, ending the Federal Reserve, limiting the federal government to its proper Constitutional framework, and dismantling the police state.

"Our goal was to create a national platform for these candidates to have their issues heard and to expand their fundraising reach beyond their districts," explained Trevor Lyman, organizer of the original Money Bombs that raised over $14 million for Ron Paul's presidential campaign. "The success of the July 4th Money Bomb will send a clear message to Congress that we aren't backing down, and that our message is resonating with a growing number of Americans across the country."

Candidate Steven Vasquez adds, "All of us across the nation must work together to take back Congress. That is why FreedomSlate08.com is such an important vehicle in demonstrating the strength of our movement. It's compelling enough to bring the masses back to volunteer for their local candidates and donate across the board."

He continues, "We are in a unique position to empower these candidates to run competitive campaigns, with a very good chance of winning 5 to 10 new seats. That is a tremendous beachhead to grow our voting block by upwards of 1000% in Congress, and create enough momentum to bring in many more candidates for the 2010 races."

http://www.freedomslate08.com/ was launched by http://www.breakthematrix.com/ as one of many groundbreaking efforts to educate people about foreign policy, economics and civil liberties. For more information, visit http://www.freedomslate08.com/.

John Wallace

Candidate for Congress

NY's 20th Congressional District

http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

A special U.N. Human Rights investigator has been invited to come to the United States to probe racism and Islamophobia in America. During his three week visit, which starts today May 19th, Mr. Doudou Diene, a Senegalese lawyer, will be visiting eight cities and will meet with various federal, state and local government officials, lawmakers and members of the judiciary. According to the United Nations, the purpose of his visit is to gather information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other related intolerance in America.

Mr. Diene is from Senegal, a country with a 95% Muslim majority that is also a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which makes up the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations. The 57 Islamic countries in this (OIC) bloc have a record of consistently voting against Western-style democracies and routinely condemning Israel. Mr. Diene has a personal history of focusing his human rights investigations mostly on Western-style democratic societies, issuing biased reports on alleged institutionalized racism and ‘Islamophobia’ in democratic countries such as Japan, Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland while ignoring real human-rights violations in the non-democratic Muslim countries of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

It should also be pointed out that the United Nation’s Human Rights Council includes some of the world’s worst human-rights violators, including China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. This same UN Human Rights Council has previously urged the United States to halt the post 9-11 racial profiling of Americans of Arab, Muslim and South Asian descent. At the same time, the United Nation’s Human Rights Council has ignored the fact that United Nations’ own peacekeepers in Africa are currently raping women in the Congo and have turned a blind eye to the man-made starvation of millions in southern Africa. In the arena of human rights, the United Nations is not only morally bankrupt, but it is rapidly becoming an irrelevant institution.

Doudou Diene has a clear record against freedom of speech and free expression when it comes to Islam. Mr. Diene had criticized Danish newspapers when they published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, accusing them of placing their country’s right of free speech above fighting religious intolerance and incitement to religions hatred against Muslims. It would appear that Mr. Diene would not be a supporter of the First Amendment of the US Constitution either.

As we all know, copies of the Quran are available in almost any bookstore in America and the book is studied in countless American universities, while Christians and other non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to possess a copy of their holy books. The Saudi government routinely desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points coming into the country or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately. Just days before Crown Prince Abdullah recently met with President Bush, two Christian gatherings in Saudi Arabia were raided in Riyadh where Bibles and crosses were confiscated to be eventually incinerated. Why hasn’t the United Nations’ Human Rights Council sent Mr. Diene to investigate Saudi Arabia’s overt religious intolerance and persecution of non-Muslims? Why hasn’t the United Nations sent Mr. Diene to investigate the anti-Christian persecution and murders in Albania and Kosovo committed by the Muslim governments? It’s because a very clear double standard now exists at the United Nations.

American taxpayers contribute approximately $5 Billion a year to the operations of the United Nations, which devotes much of its double-standard energy to shielding dictatorial regimes, attempting to usurp individual nations’ sovereignty and promoting a future new world order in which UN bureaucrats will be in charge. Worst of all, the United Nations serves as an on-going forum for rampant anti-American and anti-democratic diatribes.

The United Nations has been granted no authority over the American people or our government because the UN does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. Americans need to stop thinking that the United Nations has some legitimate, legal authority over our country. It does not! Americans have a choice. We can follow the U.S. Constitution and protect our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty, or we can continue to contribute billions of dollars to a bottomless pit and submit to the unconstitutional interference by the United Nations in our country’s internal affairs.

In this particular investigation into racism and ‘Islamophobia’ in the USA, Mr. Diene is interfering in our country’s internal affairs and he is hardly an objective reporter or an impartial judge of racial conditions, xenophobia and other related intolerance in America. Indeed, Mr. Diene will find a great deal more racial, religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution in his own backyard in Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps, the time has finally come for Americans to rethink the value of our membership and participation in the United Nations. The evidence is clear. Not only should we get out of the United Nations, but maybe it is also time for the United Nations to get out of the United States as well.

I support the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007” (HR-1146), introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, to end the membership of the United States in the United Nations.

By: John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY’s 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

1. Granting a 3-year work visa to illegal aliens followed by a permanent green card for those who have been working as shepherds, goat and dairy herders.
2. Grant a 5-year work visa to the estimated 1.3 million illegal aliens working in other agricultural jobs – plus all of their family members. The legislation doesn’t state what happens after 5 years.
3. Grant a tripling of the maximum number of H-2B Visas for lower skilled, non-agricultural seasonal workers.
4. Grant industries an extra 218,000 additional green cards for skilled foreign workers.

 

Just a short reminder to let you know that I will be interviewing Mr. Eric Sundwall, who is the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of New York and a member of the party's National Committee. He was also a candidate for congress in NY's 20th Congressional District in 2006. We will be discussing some key issues facing America today and look forward to hearing the Libertarian approach to these issues.

 

The Racial and Ethnic classification of Americans is nothing more than institutionalized racism and must be ended. The United States of America has been known as a country of rugged individualism based on individual freedom and liberty. Why has America become a country obsessed with classifying its citizens into different racial and ethnic sub-groups?

The only groups that actively support the continued collection of racial and ethnic data are big government bureaucrats and "racial and ethnic special interest groups” that also happen to receive significant funding from the federal government. These organizations argue that identifying people by race and ethnicity is necessary in order to redress some past injustice and that the federal government must continue to collect and use this information in order to set up special racial and ethnic programs, affirmative action quotas and other set-asides for these groups, some of whom consist of new immigrants, illegal aliens and non-citizens. Nothing can be further from the truth. In a country where we can no longer ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is, why are we still asking them about their racial and ethnic background?

Americans are beginning to realize that racial and ethnic identification is more a matter of personal choice than anything else. In the 2000 Census, seven million American citizens refused to place themselves into a single category by refusing to describe themselves as only white, black, Asian, Latino or any one of the other specific categories listed, because they were of mixed race. Attempts by the government to create a “mixed race” box for the 2000 Census was met with resistance by racial and ethnic special interest groups like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, because they feared that a mixed-race box could pose a danger to the justification for their existence. The fuzzier such racial and ethnic categories become, the harder it will be for these racial and ethnic special interest groups and the government to traffic in them. If a mixed-race category were to be added, every brown-skinned person of mixed race registered in this category would shrink the government’s official count of Blacks, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, eventually reducing their political influence and ultimately the amount of money these groups receive from the federal government, which amounts to approximately $185 billion a year.

Through the mandated collection and use of racial and ethnic specific information, more and more of American taxpayers’ hard earned money is being routinely distributed to these racial and ethnic special interest groups at the expense of all other Americans who may or may not be members of these groups. Through executive orders, congressional legislation, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and other programs based solely on race and ethnicity, our federal government is playing the key role that pits one racial and ethnic group against another, which could eventually lead to our destruction as a country.

Rather than helping a diverse population become assimilated and united as one nation, the Federal government is doing what the Nazi government of Germany did in the 1930’s and 40’s; creating government supported institutionalized racism by the intentional classification of it’s citizens by race and ethnicity.

With the support of racial and ethnic special interest groups, our federal government seems to view our citizens not just as Americans, but rather as “pawns” in some social science experiment to be classified and separated into different racial or ethnic sub-groups for some unknown purpose. By mandating the classification of Americans into specific racial and ethnic sub-groups, the federal government and the advocates of “diversity” are actually perpetuating institutionalized racism and keeping Americans divided. Maybe the real purpose of collecting this data is to justify the continuing flow of government money to these racial and ethnic special interest groups.

If we want to help poor Americans escape poverty, get better health care, find a job or get a good education, why should it matter what their race or ethnic background is? The answer is: It should not! Americans need to come together as members of one country and remember that we are all individual Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which people would be judged by the content of their characters, "not the color of their skin." The answer to this government encouraged racism is the concept of Liberty with a limited, constitutional government that is devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than the claims of different racial and ethnic special interest groups. Where Liberty is present, individual achievement and competence are rewarded, not people’s skin color or ethnicity.

I will support legislation barring the federal government from the collection of racial and ethnic information about the American people and/or the classification of American citizens by race and ethnicity, including the collection of census information. Exceptions should be made for law enforcement, hospitals and medical research purposes.

I will also support legislation that bans affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and any other programs that give special preferences based on race and ethnicity.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.FreedomCandidate.com

 

"The Global Poverty Act – Another Attack on American Sovereignty"

On September 25, 2007, the US House of Representatives passed the Global Poverty Act (HR 1302) that basically commits the U.S. to spending a minimum of 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid to developing countries. The bill was passed by a voice vote with no discussion of the effect this legislation will have on our sovereignty or the potential costs to the American taxpayers. Attempts are currently being made to push Senator Barack Obama’s version of the “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, although no hearings have been scheduled.  If the Global Poverty Act is passed by both houses and signed by the President, American Sovereignty would suffer another blow by making US foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates and whims of corrupt United Nations bureaucrats.

The Global Poverty Act would require the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” While the goals of the Global Poverty Act sound laudable, the adoption of the UN supported plan will mandate the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of its GNP in increased foreign aid spending that would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002 to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this will amount to $845 billion.

America is the most generous country in the world in terms of how much it spends on foreign aid, not to mention the billions of dollars donated by individual Americans through private non-profit aid organizations.   Let us continue to give the people of developing countries the aid they need, but don’t give the corrupt United Nations any legal rights to tell us to whom and how much we should give.

Most of the poverty in the third world is created by corrupt governments that are oftentimes aided by corrupt UN bureaucrats. Much of the money we donate goes never gets to people we are supposed to be helping because of this corruption. Giving any control of our foreign aid funds to the corrupt United Nations will surely enhance, rather than reduce corruption. It will aggravate the current poverty levels, rather than reduce or eliminate them.

Americans should also be aware of another stated United Nations Millennium Development Goal that if implemented, will mandate the elimination of trading in small arms. The real goal of this particular mandate is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately will supersede the laws of all nations, including our own Second Amendment, which means nothing to the globalists at the United Nations.

Americans should not discount the growing power of international law, whether through changes in the United Nations charter and UN mandates, the World Trade Organization, Global Poverty Acts, Law of the Sea Treaty or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties which are direct assaults on America’s sovereignty. American citizens must understand that the forces behind the new world order movement and the expansion of the United Nations powers are hostile toward our Constitution and America’s sovereignty.

For additional information, contact:

JOHN W. WALLACE

Candidate for Congress

 

The term "Earmark" is most comonly used to refer to a provision (line-item) in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Members of Congress insert earmarks into bills in order to direct specified amounts of money be given or spent on particular organizations or projects in their home states or districts. This differs from the appropriation of budget money to a particular government agency where the agency head can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. If the funds aren’t earmarked by members of congress, the agencies are free to spend money on projects they believe are most appropriate to meet their organizational goals and objectives.

Earmarks can more accurately be described as giving away the taxpayers hard earned money by secretly attaching line-items into non-related congressional bills for specific projects or specific recipients in order to get re-elected.

Many of the beneficiaries of these earmarked funds are state or local public agencies, but just as often, the money goes to private entities where the beneficiaries are political supporters of the legislators pushing the earmarks. Earmarks are the principal means by which Members of Congress “bring home the pork” and publishing their earmarks during an election year is a common tactic used to help incumbent members of congress get reelected.

It is not so much that any single earmark is the problem, but rather it’s the entire process. There is no real transparency or accountability in the current system. Members of congress try to re-direct billions of dollars of funding to specific projects within their district without subjecting these projects to debate by their colleagues, or to scrutiny and oversight by the public. The earmarking process invites backroom deals and sometimes unethical, or even corrupt behavior. It has become part of a “pay-to-play” culture where lobbyists, contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for receiving federal funding via earmarks for their special projects.

While the vital interests of the nation are being ignored by members of both houses of congress regardless of party affiliation, many legislators concentrate their efforts on diverting appropriated agency money to low-priority and sometimes outrageous special interest projects that will generate local publicity and additional campaign contributions.

While the country suffers from an invasion of illegal aliens and cannot seem to find the funds for increased border security, con