Written by Joe Sanger | 28 January 2012

THE GAMBLING DEN

Dear EDITOR:

I am appalled that Mr. Bernero proposes inflicting a gambling den on the people of Lansing.  A place where working men and women can take their paychecks and lose the money needed to feed, clothe,  and house their children.  I understand that these outfits have full time Notaries on  staff so that  their victims  may sign over title to their cars and homes right on premises.

Does Mr. Bernero  have no compassion for the suffering of  the cold,  hungry, and homeless  children?  Casinos add nothing to the wealth of a nation.  They merely redistribute income from the working people who earned it to wealthy FOP’s  (Friends of Politicians).

We don’t need more income redistribution in our community.   With City government, State government, and a plethora of “Economic Development” outfits, we have quite enough income redistributed to FOP  “fat cats”.   FOP’s ought to be taken off of “welfare” and be required to  work for a living–just like the rest of us.   

Yours truly,

Joe Sanger

Written by Christine Schwartz | 27 January 2012

Tonight (January 26, 2012) at Allegan High School, a local gathering was made to end after the chief of police decided it was unsafe for the others in the building.  Ex-Terrorist Kamal Saleem was speaking to a group of about 150 people for about 20 minutes when the announcement was made.  The attendees were shocked at the news since this event has been advertised in the area for quite some time and that there is the freedom of speech and  the freedom to assemble in the United States.

When questioned what statute he used to govern his decision, he said none, just public safety.  He stated that he was given information that Mr. Saleem has a price on his head and that there are many other people in the building.  He said it was just common sense to have the meeting end, even though there were several police in the vicinity of the meeting room.  The meeting was moved to  a local business where Mr. Saleem continued his presentation. It has also been reported that CAIR contacted the school to try to shut down the event.

Written by Darrell Castle | 25 January 2012

The Constitution Party Response to the State of the Union Address

By Darrell Castle
Constitution Party Vice-Chairman

Last night President Obama delivered his constitutionally required State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. The speech contained a little bit of hope and a great deal of the Obama kind of change.

The hope occurred in the opening and closing, when he reminded us of the sacrifice of the troops and how he ordered the Navy Seals to kill Osama Bin Laden. The speech also contained some truth – at least in the section that took us back to the Great Depression and WWII – and pointed out that we were once a great nation.

Hope and truth were very scarce for the rest of the speech.

The president listed many problems that confront the nation and then proposed changes for each of them. He failed to point out that virtually all of the problems happened because of government action in the first place. The speech’s proposals will make each of the problems, and the pain of dealing with them, much worse when someone finally has the courage to confront them.

Read more...

Written by Chuck Baldsin | 16 January 2012

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),otherwise known as the “Indefinite Retention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary.

Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and CharlesDent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

To continue reading Chuck’s column, click here:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4405