End Forced Unions

Not long ago, I introduced a simple, one-page bill designed to usher in the biggest change in American politics in generations . . .

Today – with the Labor Day weekend right around the corner – I can’t think of a better time to launch the fight to free American workers and our fragile economy from forced unionism than right now.

So I’m counting on your IMMEDIATE action.

For nearly 70 years -- with our federal government's blessing -- Big Labor bosses have mocked our Constitution and strangled our economy as they've built a massive political empire on the backs of hardworking Americans.

These workers' FORCED union dues -- confiscated by union bosses under the threat of outright job termination -- have bankrolled tax-and-spend politicians like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for decades.

Just take a look at the federal Leviathan you and I live under today to see the horrific results.

If you and I are serious about restoring liberty and limited, constitutional government in America, you and I must strike at the very heart of Big Labor's illicit power by passing my National Right to Work Act (S. 204) to finally END forced union dues in America.

Of course, I'm depending on you to help make that happen.

As you'll see, I've made up a special "End Forced Unionism" petition for you to sign that urges your U.S. Congressman and Senators to cosponsor my National Right to Work Act (S. 204).

In fact, with your help, my hope is to generate such a flood of support for this legislation that my colleagues in Congress will realize they have no choice but to act.

The truth is, every American who has any interest at all in freedom has a stake in this fight because Big Labor's billions are at the very root of virtually every statist assault on our most basic freedoms, including:

*** The "ObamaCare" disaster, restrictive new economic regulations, higher taxes and bigger government as union bosses tighten their grip on the private sector and seek to control, bleed, and bankrupt the government;

*** Abortion-on-demand, gun control and assaults on the family as Big Labor uses forced union dues to bankroll politicians who support their radical social agenda; and

*** So-called "Green" boondoggles like Solyndra, federal taxpayer handouts and bailouts for Washington, D.C.’s politically-connected corporate cronies who have done union-label politicians' bidding and handed their workers over to Big Labor control.

And just like most problems in America, you can thank the federal government for this mess.

I know some Big Labor apologists try to pass their forced-dues privileges off as a "state issue."

But the truth is, federal laws on the books since FDR are the root source of the union bosses’ illicit compulsory unionism power.

And if Congress created the problem, it's up to Congress to end it.

But of course, I'm not naive.

I know the union bosses and their cronies in Congress are going to do everything they can to sweep this issue under the rug.

But with nearly eight out of ten Americans opposed to forced union dues, I'm not about to back down.

In fact, with poll numbers like that, my colleagues can vote against my bill if they want.

I know they'll pay the political price down the line, and you and I will only move closer to finally passing this critical bill.

So won't you please sign your "End Forced Unionism" petition?

And if you can, please agree to a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or $35 TODAY.

Your generosity will help me reach more Americans and generate even more support for this critical legislation.

If you're fed up with politics as usual, you MUST be involved in this fight.  Click here to sign this petition: http://www.randpacusa.com/rtwpetition.aspx?pid=0829

So please sign your "End Forced Unionism" petition and make your most generous contribution TODAY.

Please act IMMEDIATELY.


In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S.   If you and I are serious about restoring liberty and limited, constitutional government in America, you and I must strike at the very heart of Big Labor's illicit power by passing my National Right to Work Act (S. 204) to finally END forced union dues in America.

With Labor Day weekend right around the corner, I can’t think of a better time to launch this fight to free American workers and our fragile economy from the shackles of forced unionism.

2nd Amendment is STILL up for grabs

With so much talk of fiscal fights and defunding ObamaCare sucking up the political oxygen in Washington, it's easy to forget about another battle President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid haven't given up on.

You see, they haven't forgotten their desire to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

I promise to continue to stand and fight for your right to keep and bear arms.

But with so much at stake, I'm not taking anything for granted.

That's why I'm asking you to sign the Defend Liberty Mandate to your U.S. Senators I've made up for you TODAY.

As you'll see, the Defend Liberty Mandate urges your U.S. senators to vote no on the new anti-gun assaults both President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid say WILL come before Congress.

With your help, my colleagues will quickly learn they have no choice but to start listening to the folks they represent.

With this critical issue lying ahead I can't think of anything more important.

But with this fight rapidly approaching, it's absolutely vital you sign your Defend Liberty Mandate at once.

President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both guaranteed gun control would be back before Congress.

And after the votes on gun control last spring, they know whose arms they need to twist.

The whispers have been growing louder.

Gun-grabbers want a bill.

And their top goal remains expanding so-called "background checks" to give President Obama and his pals all the tools they need to create a National Gun Registry.

You and I have already seen President Obama's IRS vastly abuse their power over American citizens.  And we're supposed to believe this power won't be abused?

And now anti-gun groups are dumping millions of dollars on TV ads to try and switch the few votes they need to RAM their gun control bill into law.

I'm going to continue fighting back with everything I have . . .

But I'm counting on you to stand with me.

Nothing I do will make any difference unless good folks like you contact your elected representatives.

When my colleagues start hearing from the folks back home, they start to listen.

That's why your signed Defend Liberty Mandate is so critical.

And if you can, I hope you'll agree to a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or $35.

Every dollar you give will help me contact millions more Americans to alert them to the critical fights we're facing.

Through email, Internet ads, mail . . . whatever it takes.

I'm prepared to pull out all the stops if I can raise the resources.

But with Congress returning for session, your action is critical.


Click here to sign the petition: http://www.randpacusa.com/dlm.aspx?pid=0827
 
In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

A Plea from Sean Hannity

**A Special Message from Sean Hannity**

Dear Patriot,

The usual "Republican" suspects in the U.S. Senate are working overtime to stop Senator Mike Lee's effort to halt Obamacare.

It's maddening that some of the very politicians who promised to fight against this law are now battling to save it!

That's why I am personally fighting back and helping Tea Party Patriots' national campaign to Exempt America from Obamacare.

Please sign the National Petition to Exempt America from Obamacare right now. It's the very best way to help get rid of this horrible law before it goes into effect on October 1st. To go to the link, click here: https://secure.teapartypatriotscitizensfund.com/tpp/exemptamericapetition/POL1527

It's critical that every Tea Party supporter sign this petition while Congress is on vacation. Tea Party Patriots wants to bombard Senate Republicans with these petitions when they finally come back to work and confront this issue.

My friend, this is the only way we will ever convince the Republican establishment to stop Obamacare.

Senators Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz are waging a valiant fight. Obamacare is a disaster.

But "Republicans" like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Richard Burr are standing in the way.

For instance, Senator Burr of North Carolina told the press that "I think this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard." Lindsey Graham said dismantling Obamacare was "a bridge too far." John McCain says it's a "nonstarter."

Senators like Burr, McCain, and Graham actually want to protect Obamacare. They actually believe that keeping this horrible law is politically popular!

They are very, very wrong. That's why I am so personally involved in this fight.

Please sign the National Petition to Exempt America from Obamacare right now.

Remember, career politicians like John McCain, Richard Burr, and Lindsey Graham are going all out to protect Obamacare. They believe that giving Barack Obama what he wants and standing up to the Tea Party is "good politics."

They don't believe that ordinary grassroots Americans like you will stand up to them.

Tea Party activists MUST demonstrate to them in dramatic fashion that they are wrong. We must overwhelm them with these petitions.

We must show them that the Tea Party and the conservative grassroots won't sit idly by while they fritter away yet another chance to undermine this economy-killing law.

Please sign the petition now. And then, as a personal favor to me, forward this email around to everyone you know.

This is that important.

Now, I'll be the first to tell you that Tea Party Patriots has the know-how and the capacity to accomplish this task.

In fact, right this minute, Tea Party Patriots is running TV ads in states all over the country to inform uninformed Americans about the IRS's targeted harassment of American citizens.

They're single-handedly driving the fight against this criminal behavior by America's most feared agency.

But right now, the most important fight in America is the fight to stop Obamacare, and that's why we need your help today.

Obamacare is on the ropes. The President knows it won't work. That's why he's delaying its implementation for businesses.

Between now and October 1st we must convince the Senate Republicans to take a stand and delay this law.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

For liberty,

-- Sean Hannity

Remember Those NAFTA Jobs?

Remember Those NAFTA Jobs?

In the 1992 presidential debates, businessman Ross Perot squared off against President George H.W. Bush and Governor Bill Clinton regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). From the debates, most people remember that Perot talked about that "giant sucking sound" in reference to the sound of U.S. jobs being shipped to Mexico if NAFTA were to be passed.

 

In 2011, an Economic Policy Institute study concluded that the growing trade surpluses as predicted by NAFTA supporters did not materialize and neither did the promised jobs. The study concluded "As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Of those jobs, 116,400 are likely economy-wide job losses because they were displaced between 2007 and 2010, when the U.S. labor market was severely depressed."

 

Thus, Perot's predictions have unfortunately come true. For 2013, Congress is facing the same "free trade" rhetoric that the next proposed free trade agreement is promising. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) seeks to establish a government regulated trade partnership with Pacific Rim nations, but the consequences will be much worse than just losing jobs.

Common Sense in Washington, D.C.?!

The horrific bloodshed in Egypt has forced President Obama to temporarily halt shipping F-16s to Egypt's military government.

This needs to be permanent.

When Congress returns from recess, I plan to reintroduce my amendment to shut off the flow of taxpayer money to the Egyptian government.

I hope you'll take a few moments to read my op-ed below on why it's vital the senate adopt my amendment and chip in a contribution so I can continue to lead the fight against this radical scheme.

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

---

Paul: At last, common sense about Egyptian aid

As the tragic situation in Egypt continues to deteriorate, President Obama has delayed the delivery of F-16 fighter jets and canceled scheduled joint military maneuvers, and members of Congress are now having second thoughts about sending military aid.

These are welcome developments, not only because situations on the ground in Egypt require adjusting our policy, but also because common sense seems to have made some progress in Washington, at least on this issue.

When I introduced an amendment last month that would have stopped aid to Egypt during this time of unrest, it was for two primary reasons: First, U.S. law states that when a coup takes place, American aid must be suspended. By any conventional definition, what has happened in Egypt qualifies as a coup. We either have laws, or we do not.

Second, a nation in the midst of a violent civil war should not be killing one another with American-supplied weapons.

The F-16s we once gave to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were used against the protesters who would eventually overthrow his regime.

Those protesters were part of the forces that would eventually elect President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Now that regime is gone, but the American weapons remain.

Who will use them now — friend or foe? What can we expect the average Egyptian citizen to think of the United States at this point?

Why would we send more weapons?

Why give $1.5 billion in aid, when there are no clear good or bad guys and when there is no clear American national interest?

As many in both parties are now relenting, intervening in Egypt right at this particular juncture would likely cause more problems than it would solve.

The situation is too murky, and the end results are far too unclear.

However, hasn’t this long been the case? Does the situation have to become so incredibly violent before politicians will re-examine our policies or deviate from Washington groupthink?

When my amendment to stop Egyptian aid failed three weeks ago, some in the press characterized this as a rebuke. A more accurate understanding would be that Congress is out of step with the people.

More than 80 percent of Americans — and Egyptians — oppose more military aid.

During the past few days, news sources have shown pictures of unarmed protesters trying to ward off tanks (American tanks operated by the Egyptian military).

In one image, an unarmed man is gunned down as he tries to stop a tank.

Sending more American tanks is not engagement. Sending more fighter jets feeds no one and incurs more enmity than appreciation.

Sending more weapons to despots and dictators is the opposite of engagement. It breeds discontent and dislike of America among the Egyptian people.

If there is foreign-policy extremism in Washington today, it is not hesitancy to act, but rather a hyper-interventionism in which leaders in both parties seem hell-bent on always acting first and thinking second. They insist that we must send Egypt billions in aid because, well, it’s what we’ve always done.

The only consistent aspect of their interventionism is that it doesn’t seem to matter who receives the aid as long as American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. The same senators who now support arming the generals used the same arguments to arm the Muslim Brotherhood.

On July 31, 86 senators voted against my amendment to stop Egyptian aid, while only 12 Republicans joined me.

Now many Republicans and even President Obama are coming around to my way of thinking.

The question remains whether talk of ending aid is mere pomp and circumstance or whether my new “allies” will actually vote to end aid.

Washington has no monopoly on knowledge. In our foreign policy, as in so many other policies, politicians are almost always behind the curve.

Those who still insist on sending Egypt aid, no matter what — though shrinking in number — are actually projecting American weakness in the name of projecting American strength and influence.

When we send foreign aid without strings or conditions, we are saying to governments around the world that no matter how despotically, violently or immorally they behave, they can always count on American dollars unconditionally.

I am glad that so many in Washington are now waking up to the fact that sending Egypt military aid at a time like this is a recipe for disaster.

We cannot prevent mistakes in the future if we refuse to learn from our past. America’s foreign-policy past offers example after example of giving billions to tyrannical dictators at great cost to the people of the countries we are allegedly helping while yielding little benefit to the United States.

Egypt is simply the latest example. Things shouldn’t have to always get worse before they get better.

The current situation in Egypt is a teachable moment for Washington. Lawmakers had better start learning.
Click here to read the article from the Washington Post: The horrific bloodshed in Egypt has forced President Obama to temporarily halt shipping F-16s to Egypt's military government. This needs to be permanent. When Congress returns from recess, I plan to reintroduce my amendment to shut off the flow of taxpayer money to the Egyptian government. I hope you'll take a few moments to read my op-ed below on why it's vital the senate adopt my amendment and chip in a contribution so I can continue to lead the fight against this radical scheme. In Liberty, Senator Rand Paul Paul: At last, common sense about Egyptian aid As the tragic situation in Egypt continues to deteriorate, President Obama has delayed the delivery of F-16 fighter jets and canceled scheduled joint military maneuvers, and members of Congress are now having second thoughts about sending military aid. These are welcome developments, not only because situations on the ground in Egypt require adjusting our policy, but also because common sense seems to have made some progress in Washington, at least on this issue. When I introduced an amendment last month that would have stopped aid to Egypt during this time of unrest, it was for two primary reasons: First, U.S. law states that when a coup takes place, American aid must be suspended. By any conventional definition, what has happened in Egypt qualifies as a coup. We either have laws, or we do not. Second, a nation in the midst of a violent civil war should not be killing one another with American-supplied weapons. The F-16s we once gave to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were used against the protesters who would eventually overthrow his regime. Those protesters were part of the forces that would eventually elect President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Now that regime is gone, but the American weapons remain. Who will use them now — friend or foe? What can we expect the average Egyptian citizen to think of the United States at this point? Why would we send more weapons? Why give $1.5 billion in aid, when there are no clear good or bad guys and when there is no clear American national interest? As many in both parties are now relenting, intervening in Egypt right at this particular juncture would likely cause more problems than it would solve. The situation is too murky, and the end results are far too unclear. However, hasn’t this long been the case? Does the situation have to become so incredibly violent before politicians will re-examine our policies or deviate from Washington groupthink? When my amendment to stop Egyptian aid failed three weeks ago, some in the press characterized this as a rebuke. A more accurate understanding would be that Congress is out of step with the people. More than 80 percent of Americans — and Egyptians — oppose more military aid. During the past few days, news sources have shown pictures of unarmed protesters trying to ward off tanks (American tanks operated by the Egyptian military). In one image, an unarmed man is gunned down as he tries to stop a tank. Sending more American tanks is not engagement. Sending more fighter jets feeds no one and incurs more enmity than appreciation. Sending more weapons to despots and dictators is the opposite of engagement. It breeds discontent and dislike of America among the Egyptian people. If there is foreign-policy extremism in Washington today, it is not hesitancy to act, but rather a hyper-interventionism in which leaders in both parties seem hell-bent on always acting first and thinking second. They insist that we must send Egypt billions in aid because, well, it’s what we’ve always done. The only consistent aspect of their interventionism is that it doesn’t seem to matter who receives the aid as long as American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. The same senators who now support arming the generals used the same arguments to arm the Muslim Brotherhood. On July 31, 86 senators voted against my amendment to stop Egyptian aid, while only 12 Republicans joined me. Now many Republicans and even President Obama are coming around to my way of thinking. The question remains whether talk of ending aid is mere pomp and circumstance or whether my new “allies” will actually vote to end aid. Washington has no monopoly on knowledge. In our foreign policy, as in so many other policies, politicians are almost always behind the curve. Those who still insist on sending Egypt aid, no matter what — though shrinking in number — are actually projecting American weakness in the name of projecting American strength and influence. When we send foreign aid without strings or conditions, we are saying to governments around the world that no matter how despotically, violently or immorally they behave, they can always count on American dollars unconditionally. I am glad that so many in Washington are now waking up to the fact that sending Egypt military aid at a time like this is a recipe for disaster. We cannot prevent mistakes in the future if we refuse to learn from our past. America’s foreign-policy past offers example after example of giving billions to tyrannical dictators at great cost to the people of the countries we are allegedly helping while yielding little benefit to the United States. Egypt is simply the latest example. Things shouldn’t have to always get worse before they get better. The current situation in Egypt is a teachable moment for Washington. Lawmakers had better start learning. Click here to read the op-ed on washingtontimes.com

Constitution Day Quiz

Constitution Day Quiz

The upcoming Constitution Day, September 17, marks the day that our founders signed the Constitution in 1787. In this spirit, here is a quiz we occasionally make available regarding the Constitution.

 

How will you do? Answers to come next week!

 

1. Has the Constitution always guided the country?
 

2. Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law? 
 

3. Does the Constitution allow the President to make law?
 

4. Does the Constitution give the federal government any power in the field of education?
 

5. Where in the Constitution is there authorization for foreign aid?
 

6. What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution? 
 

7. Does the Constitution require a minimum age requirement for a Senator?
 

8. What are the Constitutional requirements for a person to be President? 
 

9. Did the Constitution give the federal government power to create a bank? 
 

10. Can treaty law supersede the Constitution? 
 

11. Does the Constitution allow a President alone to take the nation to war?
 

12. Are there any specific crimes mentioned in the Constitution? 
 

13. Are the Bill of Rights considered part of the original Constitution?
 

14. According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officials be removed from office?
 

15. What authority does the Constitution give the Vice President?
 

16. How many amendments to the Constitution are there? 
 

17. Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?
 

18. Does the Constitution tell us how new states are added to the union?
 

19. How is an amendment to the Constitution added?
 

20. Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution?
 

21. Which part of Congress is designated by the Constitution as having the “power of the purse?”
 

22. How does the Constitution explain expelling an elected member of the House or Senate?
 

23. What does the Constitution say about financing a military arm?
 

24. How many times is the word democracy mentioned in the Constitution?

Obama's Idea of Free Trade

If you knew the Obama administration was negotiating two super-sized free trade agreements, would you be concerned? Perhaps. However, if we defined the realm of what the administration considers free trade, you'll begin to see an agenda that encompasses much more than trade.

 

Average Americans see nothing wrong with trading with other countries. In fact, we encourage trading among business owners of various countries. But when governments step in and negotiate free trade agreements, the result does not resemble free trade. Rather, it's highly regulated trade.

 

Upon examining the agreements, you'll find much more than trade being regulated. You find regulating bodies set-up outside of the US, skirting sovereignty and Congress's responsibility to regulate foreign commerce. You'll also see where various aspects of our government and economy are being harmonized for merger.

 

The New American has just published a special report highlighting these concerns for the two free trade agreements that the Obama administration is indeed negotiating. "How the Free Trade Agenda is Knocking Down America" gives historical context to how the European Union was formed through free trade agreements, discusses the disastrous results of the North American Free Trade Agreement, what the two new trade agreements might result in and how you can get involved.

 

Digital subscribers of the magazine have already received their copy, while print subscribers will receive it starting the end of this week. It's available as a digital download now, with printed copies arriving later this week.

 

Additional tools are located at the Choose Freedom -- Stop the Free Trade Agenda page.

 

Covenant America

The Covenant America Event will be September 13-15 on an 1800 acre ranch about 25 miles away from Branson, MO. Glenn Beck will be the keynote speaker on Saturday.

 

Event organizers expect about 50,000 attendees. JBS will be there with a booth. If you are a member in the area and would like to volunteer to help with the booth, please contact Regional Field Director Dan Sexson.

 

Educational seminars and workshops will be held on Friday and Saturday mornings through the Freedom & Liberty Education Summit. And a number of speakers and entertainers are also on the schedule.

 

JBS has agreed to promote the event. The goal of the event is to remind Americans of the covenant that exists between God, the people and government, specifically as illustrated within the Declaration of Independence.

 

Many organizations will be attending. Tickets are now available. Hope to see you there!

 

 

 

LPAC 2013

Once again, we are pleased to be a sponsor and participant at the 2013 Liberty Political Action Conference, hosted by Campaign for Liberty. The event has a great line-up of speakers, including Senator Rand Paul, Congressmen Justin Amash and Paul Broun, Ben Swann, and Dr. Ron Paul.

 

LPAC will be held at Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, VA, September 19-22. Tickets are available.

 

If you're a member and are attending, contact us if you'd like to volunteer in the booth. Hope to see you there!

 

Here They Go Again

This past weekend, the State Department and President Obama renewed the administration’s call for U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), a dangerous U.N. treaty that would greatly diminish parental rights for those whose children suffer disabilities. It is unfortunately clear that ParentalRights.org is not alone in hoping to sway the Senate regarding CRPD ratification before their session reconvenes in September.

On Friday, August 9, the State Department released a John Kerry video and published a new web page promoting ratification of the treaty. Neither featured any new arguments or citable facts. Rather, they echo the same inaccurate arguments that have been pushed since the middle of last year. Still, their publication demonstrates that the State Department is not letting the lack of accurate information halt their push for ratification.

Then on Saturday President Obama delivered a speech before the Disabled American Veterans in which he renewed his commitment to the treaty as well. In his comments, Obama said,

“I know how disappointing it was last year when the Senate failed to approve the Disabilities Treaty …. But we're going to keep fighting to ratify that Treaty, because the United States has always been a leader for the rights of the disabled. We believe that disabled Americans like you deserve the same opportunities to work and to study and to travel in other countries as any other American. It's the right thing to do. We need to get it done.”

To his credit, he did not literally make any claims that the treaty would benefit anyone – but he strongly implied (as Kerry out-right claimed) that its ratification would protect the rights and opportunities of Americans with disabilities when they travel abroad. Not surprisingly, of course, he also did not explain how this could be, since ratifying a treaty does not bind any nation but our own.

Well, there they go again! Unfortunately for treaty proponents, the Administration’s assertions about the treaty do not become truer through repetition.

Perhaps the two most frequent claims are that the treaty will help Americans with disabilities when they travel abroad, and that it will not reduce Americans’ parental rights. Here again is the truth on each of these assertions.

Ratifying the CRPD will not help Americans with disabilities who travel abroad. The treatment Americans receive in other countries depends on the laws in those countries, not the laws of the United States. (If the opposite were true, the Americans with Disabilities Act would already be protecting Americans abroad.) Chief Justice John Marshall as early as 1825 said, “No principle of general law is more universally acknowledged, than the perfect equality of nations…. It results from this equality, that no one can rightfully impose a rule on another.” This principle is still true today; our ratification of a treaty is only binding on us, not other nations. Their law is based on their own ratification and how they choose to implement it.

Ratifying the CRPD will negatively impact parental rights in America. Article 7(2) of the treaty establishes that “[i]n all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This “best interests” principle has already been interpreted by international legal scholars as giving bureaucrats the authority to override the decisions of the parent or the child, provided it is in the best interests of the child. Further, its inclusion in the treaty makes it the responsibility of the federal government, and not parents, to determine what is in a child’s best interests.

Action Items

1. Contact your senators to oppose ratification of the CRPD. Set an appointment to meet them in your district office during August recess, while they are in your state. You can find their contact information by clicking on your state at parentalrights.org/states, and you can find a step-by-step guide to planning your visit here.

2. Become an official ParentalRights.org volunteer for your area. We can connect you with other volunteers and provide you with the resources you need to mobilize parental rights supporters where you live. Simply complete the form here. If you have any questions, email Grassroots Director David Scheurn.

3. Donate to help ParentalRights.org gear up for the next battle to halt the CRPD, expected this September. Remember that this week your donation of $35 or more gets you a free copy of the Everyday Family Chore Chart System as well.

As the push for this treaty heats up again, I hope this email and our website provide you with the answers you need to refute the false claims of those who would subject America to this intrusion. Together we can win again. Thank you for standing with us!

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

Clinton & Benghazi...2 Peas in a Pod

Did Hillary Clinton tell the truth?

She appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January and testified that she had no knowledge of a CIA gun-running operation in Benghazi.

Clinton's exact words were, "You'll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex," and then she claimed that she did not know whether a gun-running operation was taking place.

In March, The New York Times reported that the CIA has been involved with secret shipments of weapons to Syria for over a year: "The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.

"It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi, and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports."

CNN now reports that at least 35 American agents were in Benghazi and the CIA is doing everything possible to prevent them from testifying to Congress.

Did Clinton lie because the CIA program was classified?

Is it OK to lie to Congress about classified programs?

I need your help to get answers.

I'll provide you the link to a simple one question survey, but first let me take a few moments to explain why this is so important.

Much has been made of the altered talking points in the aftermath of the Benghazi assassinations, but I think almost everyone has fallen for the President's misdirection campaign.

The altered talking points were never about trying to get anyone to believe that the attack was not perpetrated by terrorists. By its very nature the attack was an act of terrorism, and no thinking human ever doubted otherwise.

The misdirection campaign was always about the CIA annex and the gun-running operation. The administration feared an Iran-Contra-like scandal so close to the election. Many republicans fell for the bait because they support arming the Islamic rebels in Syria.

As Fox News reported, "On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time."

According to the Times of London, a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey."

The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

A few months later, the Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the now-exposed CIA annex.

Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton, said to be the leading supporter of arming the Islamic rebels, did not know of the CIA operation?



There is only one way to find out.

Chairman Issa should depose Hillary Clinton and bring her back before the House Oversight Committee.

He should ask: Did you have any knowledge of the CIA gun-running operation in Benghazi?

And he should also ask: Did you have any conversations with military personnel about not sending reinforcements to Benghazi from Tripoli or elsewhere?

But Congress will only act if enough Americans are furious about the Obama administration's refusal to provide answers over what took place at our consulate in Benghazi.

So please take your "Should Hillary Clinton Testify about Benghazi" survey right away.

Your survey will send a clear message to Congress that you DEMAND answers about the fiasco at Benghazi.

After you complete your survey, please make a generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50, $25, $10 - or whatever you can afford - so I can continue to lead the fight to get to the bottom of the attacks in Benghazi.



The American people have not forgotten about the Benghazi attacks and the innocent lives that were taken that day.

We deserve real, honest answers from our President and his administration, not a cowardly misdirection campaign.

Your support could make all the difference!

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S.  Did Hillary Clinton tell the truth?

In January, she testified before the Senate Foreign relations committee and denied any knowledge of a CIA gun-running operation in Benghazi.

The American people deserve answers and I need your help to get them.

Rotten to the {Common} Core

Rotten to the Core: How Common Core Rewrites Educational Standards

"If something is not done soon, the vast majority of American K-12 school children will be taught using dubious, federally backed national education 'standards' that have come under fire from across the political spectrum. America’s kids, as well as their parents, will also be monitored and tracked in unprecedented ways from early childhood into the workforce. Opposition is growing by leaps and bounds, but government officials are not yet backing down."

 

The previous paragraph comes from Alex Newman's cover story from the latest issue of The New American. When reading about it, Common Core sounds very surreal, until you realize that 45 states have already adopted the program without even seeing the standards. How was this done? By using a federal incentive that nearly all states get weak in the knees over: funding.

 

The states adopted these standards in the midst of being cash-strapped and stimulus money was freely flowing.

 

Of course, one way around this would seem to be to homeschool or send kids to private schools. However, when national tests used for college entrance are rewritten to reflect the Common Core curriculum, how well do you think non-Common Core taught students will do?

 

As hard as we fight against having nationalized healthcare, we need to oppose all initiatives by the federal government that are outside of its constitutional limitations.

 

We need to educate others, including our elected officials, voters and opinion leaders about the proper scope and make-up of the federal vs. state governments. The states created the federal government and granted it enumerated powers as listed in the Constitution. Then, as stated in the Bill of Rights, the states defined specific rights that the federal government could not infringe upon. In fact, the Tenth Amendment essentially states that anything outside of the enumerated powers is left to the states and the people.

 

We have seen the disastrous effects of an unconstitutional federal government merely in the results it has produced: declining value of the dollar, irresponsible spending, and an absolutely ridiculous debt, not to mention subverting the American way of being self reliant and self responsible. The states are not meant to be subservient to the federal government. The states are to stand up to the federal government when the fed acts outside of its limitations, thereby protecting the people of the state.

 

Scariest Post Ever!

Imagine learning Barack Obama had just announced plans to seek a third term as President of the United States.

Left-wing radicals all over the country would cheer their chance to tax, spend and regulate our country into oblivion for four more years . . .

Thankfully, that nightmare won't come true. Our Constitution limits Presidents to two terms.

But if term limits are a good idea for Presidents, why not Members of Congress?

I've created a special Term Limits Now petition for you that I'm counting on you to sign IMMEDIATELY.

I'll give you the link in just a moment. But first let me explain exactly why term limits are so important.

I can already tell you, my colleagues here in Washington, D.C. are going to FIGHT my Congressional Term Limits Amendment every step of the way.

For them, politics as usual is just fine.

But for virtually everyone else I talk to across our country, it's clear career politicians have FAILED.

After years of raiding the national treasury to buy more votes for their next elections, our federal government is saddled with over $17 TRILLION in debt.

Yet cutting spending is barely even mentioned in Washington, D.C.

Instead, my colleagues are falling all over themselves to find solutions to allow them to keep up the Big Government, big spending gravy train for just a little longer . . .

Well, the politicians' gravy train is about to cause an enormous economic train wreck for our entire country - and it's one we can all see coming.

The good news is, perhaps more than anything else, your support for term limits can completely change the poisoned political culture here in Washington, D.C. once and for all.



That poison is the corruption wrought by career politicians who care more about their next elections than doing what's right for our country.

Sadly, the longer politicians stay in Congress, the worse it becomes.

Of course, there are exceptions, but they're few and far between.

I was just elected in 2010, and I'm already tired of watching my colleagues trade what principles they have left for the special interests' support in their next reelection campaign!

That's why I believe we need more citizen legislators and fewer career politicians.

So I've introduced legislation to send them all home!

My Congressional Term Limits Amendment would limit House Members to three two-year terms.

For Senators, it would be two six-year terms.

Of course, as with any Constitutional Amendment, once passed by Congress it has to be sent to the states.

But realistically, the real fight is in Congress where my colleagues will do virtually anything to keep my amendment from passing.

But they'll do it behind the scenes and in the shadows where they know they won't get their hands dirty in front of American voters' watchful eyes.

If you want to take your country back from the iron grip of career politicians in BOTH parties, it's going to take action.



The good news is, polls consistently show between 70%-80% of American citizens support term limits.

If you and I can force the issue to the forefront of the public debate, my colleagues won't dare oppose it.

So please sign your Term Limits Petition, and if you can, please agree to make your most generous contribution today.

I will be leading the charge for the Congressional Term Limits Amendment.

But this fight will go nowhere without your support.

To overcome Washington, D.C.'s outright HATRED for strict term limits, you and I are going to have to start a massive nationwide mobilization campaign.

With your help, I'm prepared to do just that.

In fact, with your generous support, I will be able to implement a three-part plan to force the term limits issue to the national forefront, including:

>>> Contacting up to 12 million patriots from all over the country via mail, email and phones to mobilize them to this fight;

>>> Working the talk radio shows and TV news shows to advocate for term limits;

>>> Launching a hard-hitting internet, radio, newspaper and TV ad blitz to "encourage" my colleagues to vote to pass my Congressional Term Limits Amendment.

Of course, none of this is possible without your support.

So, in addition to signing your Term Limits Now petition, won't you please agree to a generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50, $35 or whatever you can afford?



I didn't come to Washington, D.C. to buddy up to Big Government status quo politicians.

The reason I ran in the first place was because - like you - I'm worried about our nation's future, and I'm determined to do whatever it takes to put our country back on the right path.

We need more citizen-statesmen here in Congress who feel the same way, and fewer career politicians who are wedded to Washington, D.C. corruption.

So please sign your Term Limits Now petition and agree to your most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50, $35 or whatever you can afford TODAY.

In Liberty,

Senator Rand Paul

P.S. We need fewer career politicians in Washington, D.C. and more citizen-statesmen if we're going to solve our nation's problems.

If you agree, please sign your Term Limits Now petition IMMEDIATELY.

The truth is, my colleagues are going to fight my Congressional Term Limits Amendment every step of the way.

So I'm counting on you to help me force this issue to the forefront of the national political debate by making your most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50, $35 - or whatever you can afford - TODAY!