Friday, November 13, 2009
Friday, Nov 13, 2009
Congressman Ron Paul appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning, cramming a mountain of information into a ten minute interview during which he was given the floor.
The CNBC analysts were so enamored with the Congressman’s analysis that they invited him back to talk for two hours, to which he quipped, “I don’t know if I could stand you guys for two hours!”
Watch the 10 min interview here
I finish by simply stating, that a continual interference in the affairs of others, falls in stark contradiction to Washington's farewell address as well as the Monroe Doctrine.
November 10, 2009
President Barack Obama will discuss four options for a buildup of U.S. forces in Afghanistan when he meets tomorrow with his national security team, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
Gibbs, speaking to reporters traveling with the president to Fort Hood, Texas, declined to give details on those options.
Obama is under pressure to make a decision on whether to grant a request by his top commander in the field, General Stanley McChrystal, to send 40,000 more troops. That would expand the 68,000-strong U.S. force that will be in Afghanistanby the end of the year, including 21,000 that Obama authorized earlier this year.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tonight, however, I had some free time and I came across an article which peaked my interest. (you can read it here)
In essence, Obama would like to penalize any person(s) unable to purchase health care. His stance is as foll owes: Since there is a penalty against not having car insurance, should there not also be a penalty for not having health insurance.
I am not sure what I think about this, but I am inclined to straddle the fence on this one. I do believe that all people have the right to their own health care, but at the same time, I also believe that we as tax payers should not have to front the bill. "What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty." (Obama)
I need more time to think through this one, but I wanted to put it out there and see what others thought as well.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
October 24, 2009
According to the CDC, swine flu infections have already peaked, and the pandemic is on its way out. Peak infection time was the middle of October, where one in five U.S. children experienced the flu, says the CDC. Out of nearly 14,000 suspected flu cases tested during the week ending on October 10, 2009, 99.6% of those were influenza A, and the vast majority of those were confirmed as H1N1 swine flu infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/)
Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, U.S. President Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections. The reasoning behind such a declaration? According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.
Emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights
That’s the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister. Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including:
The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population.
• The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination.
• The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city.
• The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health.
• The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
The declaration of this national emergency seems suspicious from the start. Where’s the emergency? The number of people killed by swine flu in the United States is far smaller than the number of people killed each year from seasonal flu, according to CDC statistics. People obviously aren’t dropping dead by the millions from H1N1 influenza. Most people are just getting mild flu symptoms and a few days later they’re fine.
So where’s the emergency?
The only emergency I can see is the emergency fabricated by Big Pharma to sell more vaccines. By declaring a national emergency over the H1N1 pandemic, Obama is playing right into their hands.
I find the timing of all this curious. Two days ago, New York gave up on its efforts to require mandatory vaccinations of health care workers. This was designed to defuse a large number of planned protests from health freedom-conscious people who don’t want government-mandated chemicals pumped into their veins.
The planned protests in New York would have fueled yet more resistance among health care workers across the country, and had it been allowed to continue, it could have resulted in a huge nationwide backlash against swine flu vaccines. By backing off the vaccine mandate and blaming it on a vaccine shortage (http://www.naturalnews.com/027313_N…), and then having Obama declare a national emergency, our state and national leaders have halted the protests and put in place a pro-vaccine Big Brother mandate that can be enforced at gunpoint.
Big Pharma must be pleased with all this. With these emergency powers in place, all that’s necessary to force vaccinations upon the entire population is a larger supply of the vaccines — and that’s coming in November
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Weekly Standard
October 7, 2009
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the “reformed” Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN’s lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an “abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”
Perhaps I am a bit disillusioned, but could someone please explain to me how this is making me more free? The argument is that "we are keeping terrorists at bay; by engaging them in war we are keeping them from attacking us." There is some truth to this claim, but when will the fighting stop? It's amazing to me that we are always looking for a way to gain peace, but then we make arguments such as this.
Maybe I am a bit uninformed, or simply a bit "out of touch" with the reality of this war, but sending more troops in Afghanistan not only goes against what Obama promised us, but simply does nothing to promote peace
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has recommended an increase of 40,000 troops as the minimum necessary to prevail, two sources familiar with his recommendations said on Thursday.
General Stanley McChrystal also gave President Barack Obama an option of sending more than 40,000 troops, the sources said, which could be politically risky given deep doubts among Obama's fellow Democrats about the eight-year-old war.
One of the sources, both of whom spoke on condition that they not be identified because of the sensitivity of talking about recommendations to the president, said McChrystal also gave a third high-risk option of sending no more troops.
The sources spoke as a heated debate played out in Washington over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to try to put down the Taliban insurgency or to scale back the U.S. mission and focus on striking al Qaeda cells.
There are now more than 100,000 Western troops serving in Afghanistan, of whom 65,000 are U.S. troops. The number of U.S. troops already is due to increase to 68,000 later this year.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
As Luke bull horned that the people in this park meant the police no physical harm, and that they were simply exercising their right to free speech, a couple of masked individuals began to scream “He doesn’t speak for us”. These few provocateurs and well meaning idiots could have been easily dealt with by a handful of regular police officers dressed in their standard uniform, however that solution does not offer the pretext for over a thousand heavily armed psychotics to encircle and engage the American people.
I personally witnessed a young man on a bike being beaten for no reason whatsoever and as he fled the officers then beat his bike. When the young man tried to retrieve his bike his knuckle was broken. Another man was gassed so badly he had to be taken to the hospital. This is how “Peace Officers” treat us?
Luke Rudowski received multiple battens to his back and legs as the jackals descended on him with force, even though he had made it clear to all of them he wished them no violence. For his peaceful efforts Luke and Lee from We Are Change were separated from the rest of the more than one hundred detainees and sent to State Prison. Luke was strip searched, mocked, and charged with Disorderly Conduct and Unlawful Assembly, and will have to go back to Pittsburgh Wednesday to face charges. The Military and Police laughed as they took note of the
To see the video in question, click here
Saturday, September 26, 2009
G20 security officials took responsibility Friday afternoon for a video that seemed to depict US troops ‘kidnapping’ a protester.
The military was not involved in the incident, but G20 security did acknowledge that “law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team” had detained a protester they said was believed to be vandalizing a store.
Video posted at YouTube shows onlookers calling out “what the fuck” and “what the fuck is wrong with you?” as people in camo uniforms haul a protester along by his collar, shove him into the back seat of a car, and rapidly drive off.
Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:
“Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest which has appeared online are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.
Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”
The video was featured this morning at the Drudge Report under the heading, “SEE U.S. MILITARY SNATCH PROTESTER… .”
At the liberal website Democratic Underground, one commenter asserted, “This is staged” and then claimed, “Those were not the uniforms National Guard/military were wearing yesterday. Neither was that the vehicles they were driving. This was just a bunch of idiots trying to make
Read Full Article Here
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Senior US official says secret facility is right size to make 'bomb or two a year'
By David Usborne and Andrew Grice in Pittsburgh
Saturday, 26 September 2009
The crisis in relations with Iran escalated ominously yesterday after the leaders of the US, Britain and France accused the regime in Tehran of operating a secret uranium enrichment facility buried deep in a mountain bunker near the ancient religious city of Qom. Barack Obama called Iran's activity "a direct challenge" to the international community.
The accusations were made public in an extraordinary joint statement by the US President, flanked by Gordon Brown and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy before the start of the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh.
Iran had previously insisted that its plant at Natanz, which is open to international inspection, was the only one involved in enrichment. The new revelation sharply raises the stakes at a time when Israel has been signalling that military strikes against Iran are on the table.
Friday, September 25, 2009
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
With that stated, I post the following clip. In all fairness, I am not sure what took place prior to this particular point in time, but what I do know, is that the US military was acting with force against a group of, what appears to be, people who have goatherd to peaceably assemble at the G20 Summit
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, Sept 24th, 2009
The Justice Department made 763 requests for “sneak-and-peek” warrants in 2008, but only three of those had to with terrorism investigations, Sen. Russ Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.
“Sneak-and-peek” warrants allow law enforcement officials to break into homes and businesses and search the premises without the investigated party knowing. The authority for them was passed as part of the USA Patriot Act in late 2001, ostensibly as a counter-terrorism measure.
Sen. Feingold (D-WI) said that 65 percent of the cases for which sneak-and-peek warrants were used were drug investigations. And Assistant Attorney General David Kris told Feingold that, in most terrorism cases, surveillance methods are “generally covert altogether,” and do not use sneak-and-peek warrants.
The revelations strengthen the arguments of opponents of the Patriot Act, who have long said that the powers granted the government to fight terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would end up being used for other purposes. Now, it appears that one of those powers — sneak-and-peek searches — was never meant for terrorism investigations in the first place.
“It’s not meant for intelligence, it’s for criminal cases,” Kris told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “So I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”
“That’s not how this was sold to the American people,” Feingold responded. “It was sold — as stated on the DoJ’s Web site in 2005 — as being necessary ‘to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.’”
Both Kris and Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine agreed that “additional vigilance” is needed in monitoring the way the government uses surveillance powers.
Feingold is spearheading an effort to reform laws on surveillance powers ahead of the expiry of parts of the Patriot Act later this year. The Obama administration has announced it would like to see three key elements of the Patriot Act renewed. Those elements include allowing authorities to collect a wide range of financial and personal information on targets, as well as allowing “roving wiretaps” to follow suspects around.
But last week Feingold and seven other Democratic senators unveiled the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act, which aims to “fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens” without damaging the government’s ability to monitor suspected terrorists, the senators said in a joint statement.
The bill’s reforms “include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the ’sneak and peek’ search provision of the PATRIOT Act, ‘John Doe’ roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities,” the statement said.
The bill would also repeal the Bush-era law that grants immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that participated in the federal government’s warrantless wiretapping program. The immunity measure was supported by then-Senator Barack Obama, but not by Vice-President Joe Biden, or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who as senators voted against it.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
If this is true, and there seems to be enough evidence to support such an argument, then I can only guess that this country is no longer on the road to facism/socialism, but rather, that we have arrived. When Americans no longer have the right to their own person, a principle clearly set forth in the Decleration of Independence, then it must be assumed that WE THE PEOPLE no longer are Independent.
Unless we act as Jefferson instructed us to, that is, to havge a revolution every 20 years, then I see very little hope for the American Dream, and this great American Experiment began so long ago, would appear, to have no future.
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Albany nurses and other health professionals are planning to stage a rally next week to protest a state regulation that mandates they will lose their jobs if they refuse to take the swine flu shot, as fears grow about the vaccine’s dangerous ingredients and government plans to forcibly inoculate whole populations with the H1N1 jab.
Earlier today we reported on the case of “Clare,” a daycare worker in Albany who, despite having minimal contact with hospital staff who work in a separate building, an exemption allowed in the official decree, was ordered to take the seasonal flu shot on the spot or be fired. She was also advised that the same procedure would be in place for the swine flu shot, as is outlined in the New York State Department of Health’s emergency regulation issued in August.
Now nurses across the state are standing up against government intimidation to take the shot, pointing out that the vaccine has not been properly tested and contains mercury, squalene and other dangerous additives.
The New York State Nurses Association is supporting a demonstration on behalf of nurses set to take place next week, reports Newsday.
“This vaccine has not been clinically tested to the same degree as the regular flu vaccine,” said Tara Accavallo, a registered nurse in Stony Brook’s neonatal intensive care unit, the division that has produced a number of protesters. “If something happens to me, if I get seriously injured from this vaccine, who’s going to help me?”
Accavallo says she is willing to lose her job if need be, which is exactly what will happen to thousands of other health professionals on November 30 if the government refuses to back down.
Rob Kozik, another registered nurse in Stony Brook’s neonatal intensive care unit, said he has no problems with a seasonal vaccine but he has deep concerns about being immunized against H1N1. “I usually get vaccinated against the flu, but they are mandating an untested and unproven vaccine,” Kozik told Newsday
“The H1N1 vaccine already has a poor track record,” he added. “Back in 1976 there was vaccine [to protect against swine flu] that caused death and Guillain-Barre syndrome,” said Kozik, referring to a nerve-damaging disorder that some people linked to the vaccine. He said he also worries about the vaccine additive thimerosal, which is used as a preservative in some doses of the vaccine.
According to Dr. Steven Walerstein, medical director of Nassau University Medical Center where H1N1 vaccinations have already started, 25 workers at the institution refused to take the shot and were later “referred to human resources and counseling.”
Thursday, September 17, 2009
“It is the biggest taxer of them all. Diluting the value of the dollar by increasing its supply is a vicious, sinister tax on the poor and middle class.”
Paul makes the case that the Fed is the main culprit responsible for the current economic mess the country faces through the destructive policies of cheap credit and excessive money printing.
“Prosperity can never be achieved by cheap credit,” says Paul. “If that were so, no one would have to work for a living. Inflated prices only deceive one into believing that real wealth has been created.”
The Federal Reserve, created in 1913, has been acting as the main central bank of the United States for nearly one hundred years. Many Americans are either not sure or not interested in what role the Fed plays in managing the economy. “The economic crisis has changed everything,” writes Congressman Paul.
Andrew P. Napolitano
The Wall Street Journa
lSeptember 16, 2009
Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” Then he shot back: “How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress’s powers only to those granted in the Constitution.
One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.
Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.
James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison’s understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept “regular.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The move will highlight the nation’s record debt, which has been central to Republican attacks against Democratic congressional leaders and President Barack Obama. The year’s deficit is expected to hit a record $1.6 trillion.
Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.
“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”
Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.
Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.
Read Full Story Here
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Therefore, I am led to ask why? Why is he addressing young students who, for the most part, have no sense of politics and government, nor do they posses the ability to logically asses that which they take in. Rather, students K-6 tend to ad hear to whatever they hear. The conclusion I draw then, is that this administration is looking to do more then have a simple "talk"
What then are they trying to do? To this no one can know for sure, but the entire Obama presidency as been hell bent on creating national unity, and a sense of state pride, not only for the nation, but for the state. I have said it once, and I will say it again: Fascism. It almost seems that this administration will try to raise a generation of youth who look to the state as a form of protection and comfort, and in so doing, will exchange their liberties for a "real sense of security and progress"
Of course, this can all be averted if the parents simply step in, and act on their children's behalf, right? Wrong, according to journalist John Ozberkmen, of the National Expositor, many parents are being told that they do not have the right to control their own children:
At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama’s speech." “I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president’s message on Tuesday,” Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. “In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president’s message, since this is a purely educational event.”
Not only is this a violation of parental right, but the outcome of it is requiring students to watch and listen to our president, even if it is against the will of their parents, who, at this stage in life, must act on their children's behalf. More startling still is the assignment these students were supposed to do after watching Mr. Obama:
According to Fox News, concern arose when one of the lesson plans was released. The lesson plans stated, students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, are suggested to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” After the speech students are supossed to discuss what, ”the president wants us to do.”
They are supposed to ask what the president wants them to do! Is not the president's job to ask what we want him to do? I find this altogether disturbing in light of the numerous other issues that have taken place over the past 8 months or so. I can but only fear that this splendid experiment began in 1776, is about to end, and fail.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Nonfarm payrolls fell by 216,000 jobs in the month, fewer than the 276,000 lost in July, the Labor Department said Friday. The economy has shed 6.9 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. The data reinforced expectations that employers will begin adding jobs by early next year, though the pace of job creation remains uncertain.
The latest figures are consistent with an economy pulling out of the deepest downturn since the Great Depression. But rising unemployment portends persistent weakness in consumer confidence, income and spending, even as manufacturers start bouncing back and stocks revive. The construction and manufacturing sectors together accounted for more than half of August's job losses. Losses in retail and business services narrowed. The biggest gains came in health care.
Stephen Stanley of RBS Securities said the report "strengthens our conviction of a relatively upbeat economic outlook," but added that "it was not far enough away from expectations to change the views of either optimists or pessimists."
Rising joblessness is likely to heat up the debate in Washington about the efficacy of the $787 billion fiscal stimulus. Government payrolls declined only 18,000 in August. If not for federal support for state and local budgets, they probably would have fallen further. On the other hand, stimulus funds are flowing too slowly to offset continuing cuts by private employers.
"I want to be clear about something: Less bad is not good," Vice President Joe Biden said. "That's not how President Obama and I measure success."
The rise in unemployment, after dipping to 9.4% in July, came as more Americans returned to the work force. Teenage unemployment hit 25.5%, the highest since the government began keeping records in 1948. Most economists expect the rate to top 10% in coming months and stay over 9% through 2010.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Chief Political Correspondent
September 2, 2009
There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.
But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.
In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.
Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.
The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.
If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
If you’re offended by the startling images of U.S. President Barack Obama smeared with clown makeup posted around Toronto, American libertarian radio talk show host and “alternative news” blogger Alex Jones says brace yourself.
“People are getting more aggressive because they realize being nice isn’t getting them anywhere,” said Jones, 35. “This is just the beginning.”
The self-proclaimed “freedom lover” from Austin, Tex., who runs American website infowars.com, launched a viral “Obama Joker” poster campaign last month, calling for people to put up as many posters of Obama as Heath Ledger’s villainous character from the Batman epic The Dark Knight as possible and to post videos on YouTube.
While Canadians have been known to be more moderate in critiquing their political leaders, the in-your-face poster campaign appears to have caught on around the city, with the placards plastered along University Ave.
Read Full Article Here
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
Read all article here
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Federal Reserve argued yesterday that identifying the financial institutions that benefited from its emergency loans would harm the companies and render the central bank’s planned appeal of a court ruling moot.
The Fed’s board of governors asked Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska to delay enforcement of her Aug. 24 decision that the identities of borrowers in 11 lending programs must be made public by Aug. 31. The central bank wants Preska to stay her order until the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York can hear the case.
“The immediate release of these documents will destroy the board’s claims of exemption and right of appellate review,” the motion said. “The institutions whose names and information would be disclosed will also suffer irreparable harm.”
The Fed’s “ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis” would be impaired, according to the motion. It said “significant harms” could befall the U.S. economy as well.
The central bank didn’t say when it would file its appeal
Full Article Here
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Alex Jones’ highly anticipated upcoming documentary Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama boldly lifts the lid and unveils the fraud behind Brand Obama and how the globalists are using their newest, and slickest ever puppet to destroy the last vestiges of America’s freedom, Constitution and economy, all while helping the bankers loot the country clean.
The film exposes the agenda that Obama was put in place to accomplish, a world government allied with a bank of the world run by globalist eugenicists hell-bent on destroying America’s first world status and replacing it with a hollow shell of tyranny.
The mind control, the television programming, and all the media talking points that serve to reinforce the image of Brand Obama are laid bare, unveiling the naked ruth, as legendary author and documentary film maker John Pilger recently discussed, that Obama is nothing more than a corporate marketing creation, a skilled hypnotist using seductive tools of propaganda – race, gender and class – to hoodwink the masses into accepting his rhetoric while ignoring the contradiction of his actions.
The film exposes how Brand Obama says one thing – to make people buy into the brand – and then the real Obama does another.
The burgeoning police state, warrantless wiretapping, secret arrests, indefinite detention of citizens, torture, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, have all been expanded under Brand Obama despite his promises to reverse them all.
The real question to ask is not which class Obama claims to represent or fight for, but which class Obama serves. Fall of the Republic leaves no room for doubt that the class Obama serves is the elite and it is their agenda he is diligently following
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A New York District Judge has ordered the Federal Reserve to disclose the destination of around $2 trillion dollars in bailout funds after the Fed failed to convince the Judge that the records should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
“Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling,” reports Bloomberg, the news outlet that originally filed the lawsuit.
Citing the fact that the US taxpayer is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks, Bloomberg argued that the risks behind the $2 trillion in lending needed to be made public.
“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”
The Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke in particular have attempted to hide the destination of the bailout funds at every step of the way since Bloomberg first filed the lawsuit over nine months
During a hearing on Capitol Hill last month, Congressman Alan Grayson confronted Bernanke on which foreign banks had received around half a trillion dollars in credit swaps.
Bernanke responded, “I don’t know.”
“Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?” asked Grayson.
It’s no surprise that the Fed is reticent to disclose who got the bailout funds, since the man appointed by Henry Paulson to dole out the ill-gotten gains was none other than his fellow ex-Goldman Sachs executive Neel Kashkari. This level of cronyism undoubtedly ensured that Bernanke and Paulson’s bankster gangster friends were well looked after.
“President elect Barack Obama, who in a September 22 campaign speech promised to “Make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s business,” refused to comment on the story when contacted by Bloomberg, which is no surprise considering the fact that the man who guaranteed “change” has indicated he will not only follow the Bush administration policy of a socialized financial system, but radically expand it,” we wrote in our original story on the lawsuit back in November.
That foresight has now manifested itself again today, with Obama set to nominate Ben Bernanke, one of the main architects of the bailout under Bush, as Fed chief for a second term
Monday, August 24, 2009
The American Chronicle
The power elite are also in the business of creating illusions. They use their politicians and the mass media to try to create a perception of reality they would like us to see.
I’m getting very upset by what I’ve been seeing since this health care issue has come to the fore. I’m becoming really angry by how much my intelligence has been insulted. I’m beginning to feel like the man who has to explain to his friends that Criss Angel is not really defying the laws of physics. He’s in the business of creating illusions. He does not really float above buildings, pull ladies in half, climb through closed, solid windows without breaking the glass, walk on water, or do any of the things one might see him do. These are illusions. They are parlor tricks. They are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed, likely expensive illusions, but they are nothing but illusions nonetheless.
The power elite are also in the business of creating illusions. They use their politicians and the mass media to try to create a perception of reality they would like us to see. The illusions they create are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed and likely expensive, but they are illusions nonetheless. The difference between the illusions the power elite create and those of Criss Angel is that Mr. Angel creates his illusions strictly for entertainment purposes, the power elite are creating theirs so that they can control mass consciousness and hence make it easier to control the population in general. The problem for them is that many people are beginning to realize exactly what’s been happening.
One of the ways to create a good illusion is to get the audience to look over there while something is happening over here. Another is to keep things hidden and produce them when you want them seen. Still another way is to make the audience believe something isn’t what it appears to be, or that something is what it doesn’t appear to be. Or any combination of these things can help produce a good illusion. Of course, if the audience looks where the action is and detects the slight of hand, or if they see the hidden element before it is produced, or if they are not convinced that something is or is not something else, then the illusion is ruined.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
I know that this story is a few days old, but I think it, and the response of Hardball, is one which need not die.
The fundamental question here is do we, under the 2nd amendment, have a right to bear arms, even at a presidential event? My own position on this issue is yes! I understand the counter argument here, and it is a legitimate one, but where do we begin to draw the line where our rights begin and where they end. If I have a right to bear arms, as it says in the Constitution, then don't I have that right wherever I am, or do my rights have boundary lines? If so, where must I stop practicing my religion, where do I no longer have the right to due process, and is there a court somewhere where I can be held for double jeopardy or forced to incriminate myself?
Obviously the answer to these questions is no; there are no lines which exist where I must stop practising my right to free religion or to due process. If this is true for these rights, then why are there restriction upon other rights, not just the 2nd amendment, but even my right to peacefully protest, which is what this man was doing. Owning and carrying a gun does not make a person a terrorist; if such is true then there are many rednecks and hunters who, by that shere logic, are terrorists.
I am not saying we all bring semi-automatic weapons to presidential events, but the shere fact that he was carrying a gun, and if legally registers, is protected by the Constitution, and to remove that right only opens up opportunities to remove other rights. We might say that it is unsafe to bring a loaded weapon to an event like this, but isn't it much more unsafe to stand by and allow the rights we have to be stripped away. If we do that long enough this discussion will be moot, for there will be no right to bear arms, no right to free speech or the like.
New York Times
WASHINGTON — When former President Bill Clinton landed in Pyongyang on Aug. 4 to win the release of two imprisoned American journalists, senior officials said, he met an unexpectedly spry North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, who feted him over a long dinner that night, even proposing to stay up afterward.
Kim was flanked by two longtime aides — a surprise to Americans who had suspected that both men had been pushed aside — and he gave no hint that North Korea was in the throes of a succession struggle, despite the widespread questions over how long he might live.
Clinton was determined not to extend a public relations coup to Kim, who expressed a desire for better relations with the United States. Clinton did not ask to see the North Korean leader, requesting instead a meeting with "an appropriate official."
To ensure he would not leave empty-handed, Clinton asked that a member of his entourage meet with the journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, shortly after he landed to make sure they were safe, said a senior administration official.
For all the billions of dollars a year that the United States spends on intelligence gathering about mysterious and unpredictable countries like North Korea, it took just 20 hours in Pyongyang by an ex-president to give the Obama administration its first detailed look into a nuclear-armed regime that looms as one of its greatest foreign threats.
Tuesday, Clinton went to the White House to brief Obama and his top aides about the trip. Even before the 40-minute session in the Situation Room, Clinton had spoken to the president by phone and briefed his national security adviser, Gen. James Jones. But the meeting was rich in symbolism, and the president invited Clinton to the Oval Office to talk further.
Joseph DeTrani, the government's senior officer responsible for collecting and analyzing intelligence on North Korea, played a key role in arranging the visit.
Officials said Clinton's visit cleared up some of the shadows surrounding Kim's health. After a stroke last year, he looked frail in photos and missed important meetings, spurring questions about who might replace him — and when. Those questions have not gone away, officials said, but they may recede a bit in the wake of Clinton's visit.
Clinton did not engage in a wide-ranging discussion about North Korea's nuclear program. Nor did Kim give Clinton any indication that Pyongyang would relinquish its nuclear ambitions — a condition the United States has set for resuming negotiations, officials said.
"We didn't hear things that altered our perception on the North Korean attitude," one official said.
Clinton's visit was valuable, analysts said, largely because North Korea is so opaque.
It is perhaps the hardest spying target, more difficult even than Iran, according to current and former officials. Its political and military structure is nearly impenetrable, and Western intelligence services have had to rely on information from defectors who cross the border into South Korea.
"The Clinton trip has got a lot of people rethinking and reassessing," said Victor Cha, a top North Korea adviser in the Bush administration.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change, saying that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are "two very good programs that have been around for a long time."
Dean appeared on morning news shows Monday amid increasing indications the Obama White House is retreating from the public option in the face of vocal opposition from Republicans and some vocal participants at a town-hall-style meetings around the country.
The former Vermont governor was asked on NBC's "Today" show about President Barack Obama's statement over the weekend that the public option for insurance coverage was "just a sliver" of the overall proposal. Obama's health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, advanced that line, telling CNN Sunday that a direct government role in a system intended to provide virtually universal coverage was "not the essential element."
Dean, a physician, argued that a public option is fair and said there must be such a choice in any genuine shake up of the existing system.
"You can't really do health reform without it," he said. Dean maintained that the health insurance industry has "put enormous pressure on patients and doctors" in recent years.
He called a direct government role "the entirety of health care reform. It isn't the entirety of insurance reform ... We shouldn't spend $60 billion a year subsidizing the insurance industry."
Dean also said he doesn't foresee any Republican support for a public option. "I don't think the Republicans are interested and in order to have a bipartisan bill, you've got to have both sides interested," he said.
The shift in the administration's stance on a government-run insurance program leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority.
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who is co-chairman of the Middle Class Caucus, said that "leaving private insurance companies the job of controlling the costs of health care is like making a pyromaniac the fire chief."
But Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., told reporters in Philadelphia on Monday that the success of health care overhaul doesn't hinge on any one element and co-ops might provide the same results under a different name.
"I believe that the president has to make the evaluation as a matter of leadership as to what the administration wants to do. There is an alternative to the so-called public option by having co-ops. I think these matters are subject to exploration," Specter said.
Officials from both political parties are looking for concessions while Congress is on an August recess. Facing tough audiences, lawmakers and the White House are looking for a way to cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured while maintaining political standing.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
By PETER BAKER
As White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel was the one to bring the hammer down on Sidney Blumenthal.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” more than a decade ago. But President Obama’s campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year.
So Mr. Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton, said Democrats informed about the situation, and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go. The bad blood among his colleagues was too deep, and the last thing the administration needed, he concluded, was dissension and drama in the ranks. In short, Mr. Blumenthal was out.
Perhaps nothing illustrates how far Mr. Emanuel has come than that conversation last month. Sixteen years ago, it was Mrs. Clinton, then first lady, who helped have Mr. Emanuel demoted as a senior official in Bill Clinton’s White House after he ruffled feathers with his aggressive style. Now all these years later, it is Mr. Emanuel telling Mrs. Clinton what she cannot do as a member of the cabinet.
Seven months after moving into his office in the West Wing, Mr. Emanuel is emerging as perhaps the most influential White House chief of staff in a generation. But with his prominence in almost everything important going on in Washington comes a high degree of risk.
As the principal author of Mr. Obama’s do-everything-at-once strategy, he stands to become a figure of consequence in his own right if the administration stabilizes the economy and financial markets, overhauls the health care system and winds down one war while successfully prosecuting another.
If things do not go well — and right now Mr. Obama’s political popularity is declining, his health care legislation is under conservative assault, the budget deficit is at an eye-popping level and Afghanistan remains volatile — it is Mr. Emanuel whose job will be on the line before Mr. Obama’s.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.
President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.
Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
For the 2,000th post since the inception of CIVICS NEWS in early 2008 (when it functioned as a current events log for my high school classes!), it is fitting that the honor go to...drum roll...Greg Boyd.
Boyd's book The Myth of a Christian Nation is a MUST-read, and this audio file that I just finished listening to should not be missed by anybody who wants to take seriously what it means to be a Christian.
The title of his message is, "What Does a Christian Look Like?" Download the audio here and enjoy on your iPod or your lap top. Boyd wrestles with issues such as nationalism & the kingdom of God, how to look at every human being as loved by God (and how this impacts our politics and militarism), and much, much more. Boyd confronts the issue of the relation of Christians to human governments in an up-front and Christ-centered manner. His message is unquestionably biblical. He will make us uncomfortable (as I'm sure his articles previously posted did), but that's a good thing.
CIVICS NEWS has by and large been devoted to chronicling the evils of the state in order to wake people up to the fact that we should not put our trust in princes (politicians), but instead in Christ. I want to make an effort beginning with this post, the 2,000th post, to bring in more material that points us to Christ and his Kingdom, in addition to pointing us away from Satan and his kingdoms.
What does "Christ and his Kingdom" mean, exactly? Perhaps you are not particularly religious and you don't look forward to a bunch of religious jargon and Christian cliches. Well, start by listening to Boyd's "What does a Christian Look Like?" Much more will come, but the simple principle is love. We believe not only that there is a Creator God, but that this God IS LOVE, a concept that I'm sure most Christians don't grasp, as I myself have not actually understood it until recently, and even now, dimly so. If you're typically offended or annoyed by religion, this will be one message that I'm confident you can buy into and agree with. Stick around and see what you think.
The news coverage will continue in the same libertarian, watch-dog posture, since governments will continue to oppress and steal and kill, and we Christians should be out front calling it what it is, disassociating Christ from those evils, and even being non-violently politically active to help to roll back the violent oppression of the state. These aims will still remain, but I hope to bring in more material about the Kingdom of Love and the character of our Lord in addition to the news coverage. Enjoy Boyd's audio message.
WASHINGTON – Bowing to populist anger, the House voted Friday to prohibit pay and bonus packages that encourage bankers and traders to take risks so big they could bring down the entire economy.
Passage of the bill on a 237-185 vote followed the disclosure a day earlier that nine of the nation's biggest banks, which are receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout aid, paid individual bonuses of $1 million or more to nearly 5,000 employees.
"This is not the government taking over the corporate sector," Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C, said of the House action. "It is a statement by the American people that it is time for us to straighten up the ship."
Aware of voter outrage about the bonuses, Republicans were reluctant in Friday's debate to push back, even though they voted overwhelmingly against the bill. They said severe restrictions should apply only to banks that accept government aid. The legislation's ban on risky compensation would apply to any firm with more than $1 billion in assets, including bank holding companies, broker-dealers, credit unions, investment advisers and mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The White House and Senate Democrats haven't endorsed the measure, leaving its prospects uncertain. The Senate Banking Committee planned to take up the proposal in the fall as part of a broader bill overhauling financial regulations.
"Obviously it has some important things that we think need to become law, and we'll take a look at the full bill," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday.
The legislation includes President Barack Obama's suggestion that shareholders get a nonbinding vote on compensation packages. It also would prohibit members of compensation committees from having financial ties to the company and its executives, as Obama wanted.
But House Democrats added a provision that would require regulators to issue new guidelines prohibiting pay packages that encourage "inappropriate risks" that could "threaten the safety and soundness" of the institution or "have serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability."
Read full article here
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
As momentum builds for Ron Paul’s efforts to audit the Fed, a new Gallup poll shows that Americans are turning against the Federal Reserve, with just 30 per cent saying the agency is doing a good job.
35 per cent rate the job the Fed is doing as “only fair” and 22 per cent say it is doing a “poor” job.
The contrast compared with when the question was last asked in 2003 is clear. Six years ago, just 5 per cent thought the Fed was doing a “poor” job, while 53% thought it was doing a “good/excellent” job.
The Fed is bottom of the pile when compared to the ratings received by other agencies in the poll (we hesitate to call the Fed a “government agency” because it isn’t). The IRS and the FDA are the other two least popular agencies.
According to Gallup editor in chief Dr. Frank Newport, “Americans are blaming to some degree the actions or inactions of the Federal Reserve board” for the economic turmoil.
Increasing skepticism towards the role of the Federal Reserve arrives alongside efforts on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul to audit the Fed with his widely supported H.R.1207 bill.
The legislation would amend existing law to allow the Comptroller General to audit the Federal Reserve Board and its member banks.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke seems frightened to death at what might be revealed if the Federal Reserve were forced to open its books and has been busy scuttling around lying about the bill in order to try and shoot it down
Monday, July 27, 2009
Democratic and GOP officials acknowledged Sunday that Obama's ambitious plan would not pass without the aid of a doubtful GOP, whose members are almost united against the White House effort.
"Look, there are not the votes for Democrats to do this just on our side of the aisle," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the budget committee.
Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat and a member of the fiscally conservative "Blue Dogs," said he doubts the Democratic-controlled House could pass a proposal as it's drafted now.
"We have a long way to go," Cooper said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, insisted she has the votes to move forward with the plan despite concerns among fiscally conservative fellow Democrats.
"When I take this bill to the floor, it will win. We will move forward, it will happen," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Not so fast, Republicans said. Sensing a public uneasiness over the pace and price tag of the overhaul, Republicans said the longer the delay, the more the public understands the stakes of a policy that has vexed lawmakers for decades.
"We could have a plan in a few weeks if the goal is not a government takeover," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "We've never seen the government operate a plan of any kind effectively and at the budgets we talked about."
Democrats countered that their plans — and there are many iterations on Capitol Hill, as committees in the House and Senate work on versions — would expand coverage without adding to the deficit. Even so, they are likely to leave for an August recess without a vote.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said they are "80 percent" in agreement on what a final version will include and are making progress.
Obama adviser David Axelrod said, "Now, we're at the final 20 percent and we're trying to work through those details."
That final piece, however, will require GOP backing — something Sen. Mitch McConnell said was unlikely. The Senate minority leader said congressional Democrats are having difficulty selling a health care bill to their own members.
"The only thing bipartisan about the measure so far is the opposition to it," said McConnell, R-Ky.
Conrad and DeMint spoke with ABC's "This Week." Cooper appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Pelosi and McConnell were interviewed for CNN's "State of the Union." Gibbs spoke on "Fox News Sunday." Axelrod appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and CNN's "State of the Union."