October 30, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

With all of the comments on the Reading Eagle blogs as of late you would think that this man is their hero. For those of you that don’t know who this is it is Alger Hiss. The convicted communist that always had the ear of FDR. I will attach the link for more information on the Hero of Jim Keller, Stefan Kosikowski, and Al Walentis. You will see in the link that he was a main driving force for the New Deal along with many other Socialist programs. Enjoy Folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 22 Comments »

October 29, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

I am joining the call of many conservatives in endorsing a nomination for Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Supreme Court. Janice Rogers Brown is not only a Judge that fits the mold of Justices Thomas, and Scalia, but Janice Rogers Brown would be the ideal choice to begin to restore the Judiciary back to the founding founders original intent which is to interpret law from only the Constitution of the United States. Justices are not given the right to make law from the bench, or by referencing foreign law to justify their own agendas. Roe vs. Wade is a prime example of making law from the bench which is why the Liberals are going crazy. Liberals have not been able to pass their agenda from the congress which is where it belongs. Liberals believe in having a elite group of Justices setting the agenda for all of the American People, and that is simply not American. Roe vs. Wade is only one small reason why the Liberals will try to stop a fine Judge like Janice Rogers Brown, but private property rights, how we handle terrorists, and the list goes on and on.

To play a theory for a minute let’s just say that Roe vs. Wade gets overturned. As the Liberals would say this would ban abortion. That statement is not true. The issues of abortion would fall to the states to decide weather to make it legal, or illegal.

Bottom Line being is with a Constitutional Supreme Court in place a lot of the programs on the federal level such as social security, welfare, and so on would fall under the rights of the states to decide on what they want to do. California may want to have a social security system which is all in good if the people of that state approve of it, and maybe Pennsylvania want’s a different type of social security system, and then maybe Ohio does not want a social security system in place at all. Not all 50 states are the same, and our founders knew this with the original 13. They also believed in the concept of limited government, and would never wanted a federal government that we have today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 22 Comments »

October 23, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

Well here is yet another post to anger the crazy Liberal Establishment. The following is a letter to the editor of the Reading Eagle from Nicholas Amicone of Muhlenberg Township. My hats off to Nicholas for hitting a home run on this.

Editor:

John Murray’s letter (“Democracy disappearing,” Reading Eagle, Oct. 11) reminds us again how desperate haters of President Bush have become.

As usual, doom, gloom and scare tactics are the order of the day. Our environment is not destroyed, it will take years to see the end results in Iraq and the idea of a Bush-created militaristic dictatorship is laughable, not to mention impossible in our system of government.

Bush haters, mostly liberals, have given us accusations, complaints and race baiting. What they don’t give us are better ideas.

Bush has made big mistakes, but this hatred has made reasonable debate impossible.

Everything perceived wrong by these people is Bush’s fault. It has become as boring as it is irrational.

The new Democratic Party, with its Howard Dean/Michael Moore-type leadership, is an empty shell. Bush is damned if he does and if he doesn’t.

I believe that more than anything, Bush is a means for the liberal left to cover its own political and life failures.

Instead of writing foolish letters, Murray should spend his time try-ing to help convert the new Democratic Party into a reasonable party with ideas of its own and a vision other than the sky is falling.

Source: Click Here for the Source

Now this is what I have been talking about for quite some time. Where are the ideas? Remember folks these Liberals have been in power for over 40 years, and the Republicans have only been in power for 10 years. The problems we face from oil prices, the environment, national security, welfare, and other out of control spending programs take a long time to grow. As these problems evolved over the course of 40 years it will take almost as much time to reverse the oppressive tatics of Liberals. The Liberals do have a plan, but it’s the same failed policies from the 40 years that they have benn in power, and they don’t dare reveal that, because they would never win elections. They have to mask themselves over, and over again, and continue to smear, and attack people with new ideas to make every citizen of this country independent and not having to rely on welfare, social security, or some other failed program where it only leads to the financial cannibalization of their fellow citizens.

Bottom line I close with this. The only purpose of Liberals is to enslave people to rely on the government to expand thier oppressive power. As the Liberals continue to see their power going away by people starting a business, owning a home, and working for a living without any government programs especially minority groups they continue to get more angry and hostile. Where Conservatives believe that the people know what is best for themselves and having government out of their lives. Conservatives believe in the founding founders views of the pursuit of happiness. Who is happy living off of the government? Nobody.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 22 Comments »

October 20, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

Good old fast Eddie Rendell really has some nerve. He want’s to come out to support low income families pay their heating bills.

http://www.readingeagle.com/re/lead/1441428.asp

Then we have Mike (I take it in the ass) O’Pake, and David “Chip Head” Bright(Dollar)bill talking about how to pay for it. Here is one suggestion to get the Beavis & Butt Head of Harrisburg started. HOW ABOUT REPEALING THE PAY RAISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don’t know about you people, but I’m so sick and tired of us having to flip the bill for everything. Don’t get me wrong we have low income seniors on fixed incomes, but the nerve of these morons after they just milked our tits for all kinds of money to put into their own pockets and they don’t suggest giving that money back which is ours to begin with.

Some advice for O’Pake and “Chip Head sell out” Brightbill. How about getting rid of other burdens as well. Maybe we can suspend fuel taxes across the board until prices stabilize can be another good start. Now for the people out there that talk about revenue for the roads I got one question for you. Have you driven on our shitty roads lately? Somebody with an inflamed rear end would be suffering. driving on some spots of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The sad part about that one is that we pay tolls for that road. Look at I-78. That’s another joke. The point is that the revenue generated from fuel taxes hardly go to our highway infrastructure, so why don’t we just relieve a burden on everybody, and come up with a better way of funding our highways.

The bottom line is this whole proposal from Rendell should be an insult to us as citizens of this commonwealth. We will take money from you to put more in our own pockets, but if you are nice to us we will help you pay your heating bill so you don’t freeze to death. I close with this. The May 2006 Primary can not get here any sooner.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 26 Comments »

October 20, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

Well It’s time to rattle the cage again. To burst another buble in the Liberal world the claims of “neutral partys” handling this case is a bunch of B.S. Here is an article from Newsmax.com which right away the Liberals around Berks County will cry because the news soucre does not come from Dan Rather, or some other hack, but none the less here is the story.

Supporters of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay might not be overly paranoid to suspect that there is just a hint of politics complicating his legal troubles.

When the Texas Republican appears in court on Friday to face money-laundering charges, the presiding judge will be a Democratic Party activist who has contributed money to the George Soros-backed MoveOn.org, Sen. John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee.

DeLay will face a hearing in Austin before state district Judge Bob Perkins, whose political contributions include:

$200 to presidential candidate John Kerry on July 14, 2004.
$200 to Sen. Kerry on July 24, 2004.
$475 to Kerry on July 29, 2004.
$200 to MoveOn.org on Sept. 11, 2004.
$200 to the Democratic National Committee on Oct. 13, 2004.
Another $200 to the DNC the very next day.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/19/172530.shtml

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 34 Comments »

October 19, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

Now this is a story Al Walentis won’t talk about since it does not fit his Left Wing agenda. This is just like when a boy hits puberty, and intends to pleasure himself while looking at playboy models. Al is almost in a sense pleasuring himself over the prospect of Hillary becoming President. To Al Hillary is his political playboy model. Cindy Sheehan the mother that uses her son’s death to advance the kook fringe agenda came out on Michael Moore’s web site with an open letter against Hillary Clinton for President. This just proves that the constant picture that the media paints of unity on the left is a crock. Here is the link to the story I’m talking about.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46919

Now lets see how long this lasts as Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show today before the Democrats begin to politically take out Cindy Sheehan. The woman that Al Walentis, Stefan Kosikowski, Jim Keller, and all the other kook fringe Liberals of Berks County thought was so wonderful they supported the Moveon.org rally on the Penn St. Bride in support of her. Seeing their reaction in the days to come will indicate how much, or how less they want Hillary Clinton in the White House.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 36 Comments »

October 14, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

This was sent to me today and I could agree more with it.

Enjoy

Tough Life. . . . . .camping outside Bush’s Ranch
More about Cindy .

What is most interesting is that the press gives this little bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy’s background. This is a case of more press bias.

It’s been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist for the Democratic Party. She had very little to do with her son in his growing years.

She remarried. The 1st husband remarried. The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq.

He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many.

So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink. She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford and demands another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them. Cindy didn’t care about her son. She let another woman raise him. Cindy doesn’t care about the other soldiers in Iraq. Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush. And the press is helping her. Why?

Then a few days ago, Cindy’s 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy. Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also. We should be fed up with the press. They manipulate us into their “group think” and into the responses that they want on their polls.

H. A. Brown

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 34 Comments »

October 11, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

Throughout the year I have seen numerous ideas for reforming our property tax system in this commonwealth. We got the Commonwealth Caucus plan in one corner and Act 72 in the other. Act 72 is morally wrong because is collects funds off of the misfortunes of others by gambling. The Commonwealth Caucus plan has a closer approach, but tampers with the sales tax which can interfere with commerce within the commonwealth. Here is my plan for not just Property Tax Reform, but Tax Reform in general and I welcome all comments on this.

1. We go to a flat 10% income tax on earned and unearned income. In the process all other taxes such as gasoline, cigarette, sales, etc. are wiped from the books. Harrisburg should only have one source of revenue coming in. The citizens of the commonwealth have a right to know exactly how much of their money is funding their state government, and all of these hidden taxes like I mentioned above only continue to misplace the trust of the commonwealth citizen.

2. As for the property tax problem part of the income tax will fund the local schools evenly, but there are exceptions. The money that is dispersed from Harrisburg to the schools must go to educational purposes only. That means the money will only go to things like books, computers, and so on and not on things like new turf for the football field, or a new swimming pool.

3. Another issue that comes up often from people in the commonwealth that don’t have children and pay through the nose in property taxes. Just as a parent has to pay for child support for his or her child if the couple is separated they should share in the burden for paying for their child’s education. I call this the Al Walentis proposal for those of you that don’t know Al he is the online editor of the Reading Eagle. Al made this suggestion some months back, and while we don’t agree on everything I give him credit for coming up with this idea. Another name for this could be the You Play You Pay proposal. This system can work like child support where part of your income pays for your child’s education. I have two boys, and I know my responsibilities as a parent, and I see so many parents that don’t care about their kids anymore, and this would be a good start in the right direction of responsibility. This plan is simple. Each parent for the child pays 5% of their income to the school district in which they reside.

4. In the process the school board is stripped of any power to burden citizens with any form of oppressive taxes.

Now keep in mind this is a rough draft, but I believe this is a good start in the right direction. I welcome all comments and suggestions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 59 Comments »

October 7, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

I just got done reading an interesting article written by Ryan Walters. He details a lot of information and History about the actions of the Supreme Court. He details facts on how to put a stop to the Liberal agenda driven ideas of our current Supreme Court. This is a great read that everyone should look at. Here it is. WARNING!!!!! BEFORE READING ON SOME CONTENT MY CAUSE NIGHTMARES TO LIBERALS, OR WANT TO MAKE LIBERALS CRY. SO HERE IT IS.

Many conservatives were understandably outraged at President Bush’s recent choice of White House counsel Harriet Miers as his nominee to the United States Supreme Court. Bush promised a reshaping of the Court with justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas but what we have been given are two stealth nominees, one with a very thin paper trail and one with no evidence at all of where she stands on the issues except the words of her mouth, which is generally suspect in Washington. With many outstanding, well-qualified judges with long track records of strict constuctionism at the appellate level to choose from, the conservative movement has been basely betrayed with this latest pick, to say the least.

The upcoming battle will be a difficult one for sure but conservatives in Congress should make a valiant effort and stand on principle here, even if it is a futile cause. Defeating a Miers nomination would send a strong message to President Bush from congressional conservatives. However, should she be confirmed and turn the way of David Souter, all is not lost here. Conservatives have plenty of firepower in Congress and in the states that should be used to put the Court back in its proper constitutional role.

For starters, my fellow conservatives should stop paying lip service to liberal notions of an all-powerful court system. Conservatives boast about the power of the legislative branch and the sway that it has over the federal judiciary but yet work themselves into a panicked frenzy when considering nominees, careful to make sure strict constructionist conservatives are chosen so the decisions will come out like we want them to. This is important and must be done but, irregardless of who is picked, Congress can steer the courts any way it chooses on most issues. Our brilliant Founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to be nearly as powerful as it has become and made sure that the representatives of the people and the states had power over the unelected judiciary and the sole power to make laws. Alexander Hamilton admitted this, for the most part, in Federalist #78: “The judiciary…has no influence over the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.”

Courts function merely to administer the law, not to make it. The job of creating law was given to the legislature, in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” It does not mention the Supreme Court.

In fact, if you were to examine an original map of Washington, D.C., as the planners laid out the proposed capital city, you will quickly discover that there was never even a plan for a building to house the Court. This was no accident. The Supreme Court met in the basement of the Capitol building for decades. In fact, the current building in which our infamous Court holds session was constructed during the 1930’s as part of the New Deal. It doesn’t sound like a co-equal branch of government to be shoved in the basement.

Congress has enormous power over the federal courts though they do lack the will to use it. For one, Congress sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. The original Court, in 1789, contained only six justices. Eventually that number was raised to seven, then later to its current limit of nine. If you recall, FDR sought to raise the number of seats to fifteen but was rebuffed. Yet Congress is under no constitutional obligation to fill the seat of any retiring or deceased justice. It could simply leave it empty if it so chooses and abolish it. Congress also created ALL appellate and district courts. These courts could be abolished just as easily. And though a judge’s salary can not be touched, there is nothing that protects his office and funds needed to operate it.

In addition, Congress can impeach and remove judges and justices that it views are not acting in “good behavior.” The Founders, in using that phrase, did not mean that a judge in “good behavior” was not a criminal but one who was not fulfilling his oath of office. Using foreign law to make decisions and legislating from the bench are as impeachable as corruption and bribery. However, in today’s current political makeup, gaining a two-thirds majority in the Senate would be next to impossible.

If these powers are not practical today, Congress does possess the power to curb the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and limit what cases may be decided by it with a simple majority vote. The Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction by the Constitution but in all other cases it has appellate jurisdiction, “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations, as Congress shall make.” Congress can pass legislation and then simply attach an amendment that states that the federal courts have no appellate jurisdiction in this matter. Case closed. It has been erroneously suggested recently by many conservatives that Congress should pass a constitutional amendment whereby a Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a two-thirds vote of each house. This is ignorance and stupidity! Congress already possesses amble powers to overturn any and all Supreme Court decisions. There just seems to be a lack of political will to challenge the courts.

But what of the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that conflict with it? Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist # 78 – 83, which discusses the federal judiciary, felt that the courts had the power to strike down congressional legislation that it decided was unconstitutional. This is not really in dispute today. Yet, as we have seen, Congress can take appropriate action on those matters, should it decide to do so. And Congress, throughout our history, has used legislation to overturn rulings of the Supreme Court.

Those advocating strong judicial powers, however, point to a phrase in the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, which states that the judicial power shall extend to all cases “arising under this Constitution” as proof that the Supreme Court may take and rule on any case which it pleases, for almost anything can be construed to be a constitutional issue. Yet this is not so. The Constitution does not mention abortion, education, the environment, public assistance, or any of a number of issues taken up by the federal courts.

Along with Congress, the president has his obligation to the Constitution as well. President Thomas Jefferson, who fought John Marshall during the Court’s initial grab for power, did not believe that the judiciary was the all-powerful deciding factor in matters of legislation and constitutional interpretation. “The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” Here Jefferson admits a key factor in deciding just what the Constitution means. Why does the president and Congress not have as much right as the judiciary to decide whether a federal law stands up to constitutional scrutiny? The answer is obvious – they do!

The Executive Branch, it is often said, must enforce all Supreme Court decisions, yet no word in the Constitution gives the president that power. The chief executive must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But as we have seen, a Court decision is NOT a law! Only Congress can pass laws. In fact, past presidents have simply ignored many Court orders. President Jefferson ignored a Supreme Court order to deliver a commission to William Marbury and President Andrew Jackson actually defied John Marshall’s decision in the Cherokee cases and forcefully removed Indian tribes that the Court had declared were a “domestic, dependent nation.” Lincoln ignored Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who ruled that the president had exceeded his power. He even went so far as to write out an arrest warrant for Taney’s confinement! We might not want to go quite as far as Mr. Lincoln but it does demonstrate the early attitudes toward the Supreme Court.

The federal courts have also been in the business of striking down legislation passed in the individual states, a power assumed since the end of the Civil War, when states’ rights and the concept of state sovereignty were destroyed. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests the federal judiciary can reach down and overturn a law passed in Mississippi, Texas, New York, or any other state. Hamilton outlined federal judicial power in Federalist # 80 and an internal matter within a single state jurisdiction is not included. The federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving two states in dispute or any other cross-state controversy, such as a citizen of one state suing someone in another, but individual state matters are off limits.

Our state governments, which Jefferson referred to as “the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies” is a key battleground for confronting and regaining control of the federal judiciary. Simply put, we need defiance at the state level. It is high time some courageous governors stood up and declared that no longer will we abide by the rulings of federal courts that interfere in the internal matters of the state. Supreme Court decisions in the past have gone so far as to order states to raise taxes to implement federal desegregation plans and turn loose violent criminals from state penitentiaries to ease overcrowding. State officials that comply with such rulings are cowards and do not deserve to represent the people! I want to see a governor somewhere point his finger at the Court and declare, just as Andrew Jackson did to John Marshall: You have made your ruling, now YOU enforce it!

Conservatives had high hopes to build a strong, strict constructionist Supreme Court with Bush’s two terms but that dream has seemingly slipped from our grasp, probably never to return. But don’t panic my friends! Even if we can’t stop the Miers nomination, we can continue to build and maintain strong, determined conservative leaders in Congress and on the state level. Then the Supreme Court can have no power over us and will never again decide the issues rightfully belonging to the people!

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 3 Comments »

October 5, 2005 by Matt Heckman.

I have been talking about this recently on the Reading Eagle Blog. The Liberals on the Blog continue to get upset over being called Liberals. What I find funny is that we never hear about the label game when they call conservatives Reich Babies, racists, bigots, and so on. Be honest Liberals you are upset over the fact that you are no longer in power, and the American People don’t buy your bull anymore. I mentioned on a recent Reading Eagle Post that if they ever want a chance to win elections again then they need to be honest no matter how insane, or destructive their views are. Allow me to give some free campaign talking points for them to use to help their agenda. Now you Liberals should take this openly because it’s free, and you are a just a bunch of freeloaders that don’t want to work for a better life, and want hard working people like me to pay for your lazy ass. Now that being said here is your free Liberal talking points of honesty.

Our gasoline prices are still cheep, and we need to take measures to make sure they continue to go up. We need more environmental regulation, gasoline taxes, no more refineries, no more production, and any other means necessary to make gasoline over 10.00 a gallon. Once that goal is achieved we can begin to force the American people into hybrid bubble cars they don’t want in the first place, and we can recycle every SUV to contribute to the construction of these hybrids as revenge of all the years of SUV oppression, and mass killing that they have caused.

Our taxes everywhere are too low as well. We need to increase them, and have equal wealth. We got a lot of needy people out there, and even though some of them are not even citizens, or can speak an ounce of English we still owe it to them because they will vote for us. We need to make sure that the poor drug addicts have clean needles. They deserve to get high in a sterile environment. We also need to keep our property taxes high, because that way those minorities will stay in the city where they belong. This is one of the examples we need to follow from the residents of Wyomissing Hills, and Riverview park. As Charlie Stephan said at a recent community gathering at Riverview Park “Our property taxes give us security from Blacks, and Hispanics attempting to lower our property values” With the right planing between Blacks, and Hispanics we the Liberal Establishment will ensure generations of slaves to come to secure our power.

We need hope for more American soldiers in Iraq to die so we can stick it to Bush. As a matter of fact we should hope for more beheadings of Americans and we will be guaranteed to win the House, and Senate in 2006. After we win in 2006 we can use the left overs from the war as slaves too.

We need to cripple our military because they are a waste of our money. We need to put them back on the meals on wheels track like President Clinton did. After all they are a bunch of baby killers, and we need to follow the example of Jane Fonda in the 70’s. She had the right idea.

Now it is time for you Liberals to come out and be honest. I only mentioned a few points of what you believe. Don’t try to say you don’t think this way because everybody with a quarter of a brain knows you people have thought this way for years. As a matter of fact during the last election you mentioned about leaving the Union. I encourage you to try. It would be interesting on how a 100% Liberal Pinko nation would develop over the next couple of decades. So bring on the comments. I look forward to your responses I need some good comic relief.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | 57 Comments »