The Pentagon’s senior military leaders are worried that the security situation in Afghanistan is stalemated or deteriorating, and now are preparing a far-reaching plan that would prepare the U.S. military for a war that could last three to five more years, officials said. The effort, which is being coordinated by the Joint Staff and is still in its early stages, is designed to create an experienced cadre of officers and senior enlisted soldiers, who would rotate between assignments in Afghanistan and at their home stations until the end of hostilities.
By doing so, the Pentagon hopes to end a problem that has plagued the effort in Afghanistan—the lack of familiarity with local conditions by U.S. forces who rotate in and then depart after a year, just when they are beginning to understand the area or the mission where they are assigned.
“These would be small groups who would deploy together for shorter periods, going back and forth to the same place and the same mission again and again, so they would know the culture and the terrain,” said a senior Pentagon official briefed on the plan, who said the teams could be asked to conduct training or other specialized counterinsurgency missions.
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama marked his 100th day in office by telling Americans that “we’ve begun the work of remaking America.” The president, speaking at a town hall meeting in the St. Louis suburb of Arnold, Missouri, said that while the U.S. still faces challenges in recovering from a recession, the country is making progress.
“We have begun to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off,” Obama said. “I’m pleased with the progress we’ve made, but I’m not satisfied. I’m confident in the future, but I’m not content with the present.”
Obama said he wants Congress to approve legislation revamping U.S. financial regulation by the end of this year, expressed hope for a potential auto deal to save Chrysler LLC from bankruptcy and reiterated a pledge to cut the budget deficit in half during his first term.
Over the next 100 days the president will be dealing with a host of thorny issues, including getting his proposals on the budget, health and energy pushed through Congress and dealing with the war in Afghanistan. The Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and continued high approval ratings give him a strong hand.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted April 23-26 found 61 percent of Americans approve the way Obama is handling his job. The poll of 1,005 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken April 22-26 gave him a 68 percent approval rating. Simultaneous Initiatives
The support has helped him press ahead with simultaneous initiatives on health care, energy and national security.
“The priorities that we’ve acted on are the things we said we would do during the campaign,” Obama said. “It’s not like anybody should be surprised.”
Answering questions from the audience, Obama repeated his stance that subjecting higher incomes to the Social Security payroll tax is the “best idea” for protecting the government retirement insurance system’s financial health. Making the wealthy “pay a little more payroll tax” is preferable to cutting Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age, Obama said. The tax currently is applied to all income up to $102,000 a year. Obama proposed subjecting income above $250,000 to the tax -- though at a lower rate -- to keep the system solvent. Chrysler Negotiations
On automakers, Obama endorsed a merger of Chrysler and Fiat SpA. The combination may help Chrysler make “fuel-efficient, clean-energy cars that’ll meet the needs of future markets,” Obama said. Chrysler is negotiating with lenders on a plan to cut its debt, a step needed to form the alliance.
Obama said environmental measures, such as his plan for a cap on carbon emissions, don’t require a choice between jobs and protecting the planet. “There’s a balance that can be struck, and the key principle is sustainability,” he said. The 100-day milestone only represents the “beginning of another long journey” with many challenges ahead, Obama said.
“I’m not a miracle worker,” Obama said. “We’ve got a lot of tough choices and hard decisions and hard work ahead of us.”
As Obama marked his 100th day, the Commerce Department said the U.S. economy capped its worst six-month slump in more than 50 years, with gross domestic product dropping at a 6.1 percent annual pace during the first quarter of 2009. GDP contracted at a 6.3 percent rate during the last three months of 2008. The latest decline reflected a record slide in inventories and further declines in housing. Not Surprising
Today’s GDP report is “not altogether surprising,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, saying it “demonstrates a pretty severe contraction in our economy over the course of the first three months of the year.”
The government also reported that consumer spending increased, which Gibbs described as “generally a very good economic statistic” that provides “some glimmers of hope.” Since taking office Jan. 20, the 44th president has pushed for changes in U.S. economic, social and defense policies and reversed many of those put in place by his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.
Obama has signed an order to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, enacted a law to make it easier for employees to sue for pay discrimination, extended health coverage to 4 million uninsured children, overturned restrictions on federal funding of stem cell-research and won passage of a $787 billion economic stimulus bill designed to revive an economy in recession. Target Date
Obama has set Aug. 31, 2010, as the target for ending the U.S. combat mission in Iraq, assigned 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and called in Prague for steps to eliminate nuclear weapons. He declared in Turkey that America is “not at war with Islam,” and lifted restrictions on Cuban-Americans sending money to Cuba.
The president forced out General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner and replaced him with Fritz Henderson, and demanded changes at GM and Chrysler as a condition for further government aid.
The president got a political gift yesterday when Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, strengthening Obama’s hand in the Senate and boosting his agenda on health care, energy, education and the budget. After the town-hall meeting, the president is scheduled to return to Washington for a press conference at 8 p.m. local time, his third prime-time White House appearance.
Notice that the desire of American parents to take responsibility for raising their children, coupled with the fact that American parents are telling the New World Order to keep its hands off their families...is called..."narcissistic" (i.e. selfish). Raising children is not narcissistic. It's the opposite.
Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children’s rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it, groups that support ratification said at a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday.“It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call, narcissistic sovereignty,” Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the American Psychological
Association, told CNSNews.com.But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the treaty should not be ratified.“This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,” Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com.Smith said that if Congress ratifies the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants – a fact advocates do not deny.“Every national government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,” Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference.“And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,” Davidson added.But Austin Ruse, president of the conservative United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com that the conventions reflect a worldview that rejects the idea of sovereign nations.“They no longer want independent nations deciding what to do, but good citizens in a new international order,” Ruse said.Ruse said that the very idea of children’s rights is “problematic,” because it sees children as having rights apart from their parents.“It separates parents from their children,” Ruse told CNSNews.com. “The rights of children can only be seen in the context of the rights and responsibilities of the parents.”
Panelists at the news conference portrayed the convention as a way to help children in the United States whose needs are not being met, including every child having access to health care, good nutrition and safe living conditions.“The convention’s articles on non-discrimination and adequate standard of living charge us to seek out exactly those children, families, and communities that live on the margins of society and design equitable policies that meet their needs,” said Dr. Jennifer Kasper, who represented the American Academy of Pediatrics at the press conference.“It states explicitly that nations must not only actively protect children from discrimination, but they also must refrain from actions that may have a discrimination effect on some children.”Ruse said the United States does not need to be regulated by those he describes as “radicals” on the U.N. committees that oversee such treaties.“U.S. laws for protecting children are the best in the world,” Ruse said, “and we don’t need a treaty to help us.”He also said Cook’s remarks about narcissism are a “smear” on the United States and show how his and other groups advocating ratification of the treaty want to promote a liberal global agenda.“It’s a power grab, pure and simple, by radicals like him,” Ruse said.Smith said the most dangerous thing about the convention is that rather than building stronger families, it could damage relationships by giving children “rights” to question their parents’ decisions on a range of issues, including discipline, religious training and education.“It pits children against their parents,” Smith said.When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”
Groups at the press conference expressed optimism about the new administration, including Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.“We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child’s survival, protection and development,” Gardinier said.
This article was taken from FOXNEWS.COM, under the title listed above.
The Food and Drug Administration, reversing field, will now let 17-year-olds get the 'morning-after' birth control pill without a doctor's prescription. The agency announced Wednesday that it is complying with a federal judge's order that overturns a Bush administration policy.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled in a New York lawsuit that Bush administration appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to allow over-the-counter access to these pills only for women 18 and older. Korman ordered the agency to let 17-year-olds get the medication, and separately to evaluate whether all age restrictions should be lifted. "The government will not appeal this decision," the FDA said in a statement Wednesday. Plan B is emergency contraception that contains a high dose of birth control drugs and will not interfere with an established pregnancy. Religious conservatives say it's the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The battle over access to Plan B has dragged on for the better part of a decade, through the tenure of three FDA commissioners. Among many in the medical community, it came to symbolize the decline of science at the agency. Top FDA managers refused to go along with the recommendations of scientific staff and outside advisers that the drug be made available over-the-counter with no age restrictions.
"The FDA got caught up in a saga, it got caught up in a drama," said Susan Wood, who served as the agency's top women's health official and resigned in 2005 over delays in issuing a decision. "This issue served as a clear example of the agency being taken off track, and it highlighted the problems FDA was facing in many other areas."
If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, Plan B can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent. It contains a high dose of birth control drugs and works by preventing ovulation, fertilization, or the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. If a woman is already pregnant, Plan B has no effect. However, social conservatives say that since it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill.
The treatment consists of two pills and sells for about $35 to $60. Women must ask for Plan B at the pharmacy counter, and show identification with their date of birth. The drug is made by a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company. It does not prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.
Supporters of broader access argued that Plan B was safe and effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy, and could also help reduce the number of abortions. Opponents, including prominent conservatives, countered that it would encourage promiscuity, and might even become a tool for criminals running prostitution rings, as well as for sexual predators.
Early in the Bush administration, more than 60 organizations petitioned the FDA to allow sales without a prescription. But according to court documents, the issue quickly became politicized. In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23 to 4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions. In his ruling, Judge Korman said that FDA staffers were told the White House had been involved in the decision on Plan B. The government said in court papers that politics played no role. In 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations sued in federal court to force an FDA decision.
The following year, the FDA allowed Plan B to be sold without a prescription to adults. But the controversy raged on over access for teens.
This is the sort of Information I love to read about!
Stephen C. Webster Raw Story Wednesday, April 22, 2009
In an unusual reversal of roles today, traditionally right-wing Supreme Court Justices formed a majority in a decision which expands, in practice anyway, citizens’ Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights.
From the Criminal Lawyer blog: In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today reversed its longstanding bright-line rule which had permitted warrantless car searches after an arrest, even when there was no concern for officer safety or the preservation of evidence. The case is Arizona v Gant. Writing for the majority in this important decision, Justice Stevens held that the police may only search the passenger compartment of a vehicle, pursuant to the arrest of a recent occupant, if it is reasonable to believe that the arrested person might access the car while it’s being searched, or that the car contains evidence of the crime for which that person was arrested. Interestingly, the votes were contrary to common stereotype. The majority, which limited police powers, included the two most right-wing justices in the popular mind, Scalia and Thomas. The minority, which would have expanded police powers, included two fairly liberal justices, Kennedy and Breyer.
“The high court’s conservative majority in recent years has generally sided with the police while cutting back on the rights of criminal suspects in car cases,” noted Reuters, reporting on the case in late March after the high court agreed to rule. The events leading up to the court’s decision were summarized in the court’s decision, available here (PDF link).
“On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner,” reads the court document. “Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later. The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
“When the officers returned to the house that evening,they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and thewoman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Gantwas the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as itdrove by him. Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Gant’s car. Griffith immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him.
“Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.” Scalia, concurring with the majority, wrote:
“I believe that this standard fails to provide the needed guidance to arresting officers and also leaves much room for manipulation, inviting officers to leave the scene unse-cured (at least where dangerous suspects are not involved) in order to conduct a vehicle search. In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred. Because respondent was arrested for driving without a license (a crime for which no evidence could be expected to be found in the vehicle), I would hold in the present case that the search was unlawful.” Now that’s an interesting turn of events.
This is an awesome story in light of the incident which just took place between a pastor and the border patrol as it related to this very issue. Click here to see that story.
I have been covering this story, and to be honest, I was not sure that it would actually pass. I did not think that Americans were so naive and ignorant to the fact that a national civil an service agency is a bad thing. Yet, here we are. The bill , known as GIVE, has passed. This is totally unconstitutional, un-American, and undemocratic. This is fascist. If you have not followed this story, click the following links to watch the progression of this bill, AND then finish this article. Click Here. Begin at the bottom, the work your way up. THE FILM BELOW, TIES THIS STORY, AND THE ISSUE OF SECESSION, TOGETHER.
By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer Ann Sanner, Associated Press Writer Tue Apr 21, 7:40 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Calling on Americans to volunteer, President Barack Obama signed a $5.7 billion national service bill Tuesday that triples the size of the AmeriCorps service program over the next eight years and expands ways for students to earn money for college. "What this legislation does, then, is to help harness this patriotism and connect deeds to needs," said Obama, a former community organizer in Chicago.
"It creates opportunities to serve for students, seniors and everyone in between," he said. "And it is just the beginning of a sustained, collaborative and focused effort to involve our greatest resource — our citizens — in the work of remaking this nation." Joining Obama was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who has been battling brain cancer. Kennedy championed the legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and the bill was named in honor of the Massachusetts Democrat.
Kennedy told the audience that included former President Bill Clinton, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former first lady Rosalyn Carter that Obama's efforts echoed those of his late brother, President John F. Kennedy.
"Today, another young president has challenged another generation to give back to their nation," Kennedy said, citing his brother's advocacy for the Peace Corps. The service law expands ways for students and seniors to earn money for college through their volunteer work. It aims to foster and fulfill people's desire to make a difference, such as by mentoring children, cleaning up parks or buildings and weatherizing homes for the poor. "I'm asking you to help change history's course, put your shoulder up against the wheel," Obama said. "And if you do, I promise you your life will be richer, our country will be stronger, and someday, years from now, you may remember it as the moment when your own story and the American story converged, when they came together, and we met the challenges of our new century."
Bolstering voluntary public service programs has been a priority of Obama, who credits his work as a community organizer in his early 20s for giving him direction in life. The president cited his work in Chicago as an example of how one person can make a difference. "All that's required on your part is a willingness to make a difference," Obama said. "And that is, after all, the beauty of service: Anybody can do it."
Obama visited the SEED School of Washington, a public boarding school that serves inner-city students facing problems in both the classroom and at home, for the signing ceremony. Afterward, Obama and first lady Michelle Obama joined Clinton to plant trees at a national park site along the Anacostia River in northeast Washington. At the Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens, Obama rolled up his sleeves with volunteers from the Student Conservation Association and local public high schools.
"Somebody forgot my boots," Obama joked to the students. Obama on Tuesday also nominated Nike Inc. vice president Maria Eitel to lead the federal agency that oversees the country's national service programs. Eitel, who's also president of the Nike Foundation, would have to be confirmed by the Senate to become CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Congress passed the bill last month with largely bipartisan support and Obama is seeking $1.1 billion to fund it next year. Some Republicans complain it is too costly and is an unnecessary intrusion by government into something Americans already do eagerly and in great numbers — helping their neighbors and communities.
The legislation provides for gradually increasing the size of the Clinton-era AmeriCorps to 250,000 enrollees from its current 75,000. It outlines five broad categories where people can direct their service: helping the poor, improving education, encouraging energy efficiency, strengthening access to health care and assisting veterans. AmeriCorps offers a range of volunteer opportunities including housing construction, youth outreach, disaster response and caring for the elderly. Most receive an annual stipend of slightly less than $12,000 for working 10 months to a year. AmeriCorps has seen a recent surge in applications, according to the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees the program. In March, the organization received 17,038 online AmeriCorps applications, nearly double those received in the previous month and nearly triple the 6,770 received last March. Alan Solomont, who chairs AmeriCorps' board, said former President John F. Kennedy's call to service inspired more people to help others than just those who joined the Peace Corps. He said this national service legislation could produce the same effect. "It is not unlike the moment in 1960 when President Kennedy asked Americans, you know, to serve, but it is certainly going to engage millions more today," Solomont said in a conference call arranged by the White House.
The bill also ties volunteer work to money for college. People 55 and older could earn $1,000 education awards by getting involved in public service. Those awards can be transferred to a child, grandchild or even someone they mentored. Students from sixth grade through senior year of high school could earn a $500 education award for helping in their neighborhoods during a new summer program.
I normally would not put this many posts in one day, but this works just so well with the other three I have placed today. Before reading this, I would look at at least two of the post I put before it. The one is entitled "My Own Thoughts:, and the other deals with a pastor who was beaten by Border Patrol. As I opened up an e-copy of the Washington Times today, the headline read: "Federal agency warns of radicals on right." Many have talked about this and Karen DeCoster in today’s LRC blog here mentioned this report. Fox News, Drudge and many other "conservative" commentators are up in arms claiming that this is a direct attack against conservatives. I beg to differ. It is an attack against Americans!
The Department of Homeland Security is warning "law enforcement officials" (jackbooted criminal types) about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," but a footnote in this report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines rightwing extremism as "including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that (don’t miss this part) reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." If I’m interpreting this correctly, this report is going after anyone who dares to question federal authority. This would put libertarians directly in the government’s crosshairs. In fact, I have been against federal authority my entire life, so am I a prime target? In addition, this report was sent to police and sheriff’s departments all over the country. This is after thousands of combat troops have taken up permanent residence as domestic police, with thousands more on the way. This sounds like nothing more than a recipe for tyranny.
The government’s destruction of liberty has been with us for generations, but due to the incremental nature of this assault on freedom in the past most paid little attention. But now our liberty is being pushed aside like a bulldozer mowing over anthills. Is anyone other than LRC readers and small (l) libertarians watching?
In the past I have talked about illegal wiretapping, illegal spying, government/private spying partnerships (Infragard), thought crime legislation, financial transaction monitoring, anti-money laundering legislation, immoral taxation policies and privacy invasions among many other government indiscretions, and many thought that I was too negative or too cynical. I even wrote an article about pending legislation that would allow government to round us all up and put us in federal camps. Now, after just recently seeing the leaked Missouri MIAC Strategic Report, The Department of Homeland Security is informing police to be on the lookout for any who would not be in favor of federal authority. Orwell as prognosticator has been well vindicated; more so than even he probably could have imagined.
I write this today after just learning this morning that in Billings, Montana (population 100,000) the Yellowstone County Sheriff's Department rolled out its new 13-foot tall, 35,000-pound Ballistic Engineered Armored Response vehicle (BEAR) purchased with, you guessed it, a Homeland Security grant. It is to be used by not only the sheriff’s department but also by the Billings Police Department. They got this war machine just in time to tame those who are not in favor of federal authority. It is bullet-proof, has 2-inch shatterproof glass and gun ports on both sides. This idiocy is going on all over the country, and why more aren’t fearful of the danger of this military arming of local police I don’t know. In order for the normal citizenry to defend themselves from this onslaught of military weaponry, rifles and shotguns will need to be traded in for bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers. Unfortunately, these are still illegal.
All the federal government’s offensive and defensive mechanisms are being put in place while the lowly sheep await the slaughter. More economic tensions with more unemployment along with over-zealous police thugs bent on revenue creation; what will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back? What will it take before civil unrest is not just discussed on talk shows, but is evident in the streets of America? How much unrest will be tolerated by the now fully armed military-type police before they become physical?
If you want to continue to hide your head in the sand, don’t dare connect these dots! We now have militarized police, combat soldiers on our streets, war-zone materials and weaponry in the hands of domestic government agents, FEMA camps, and a neutered rule of law. These atrocious changes have happened quickly, and at a time of civil restlessness. Is this a coincidence? I think not. Everything happens for a reason, and this time that reason is easy to spot. Are you looking? If not, you had better open your eyes soon!
This clearly illustrates that American liberties are becoming nothing more then a thing of the past. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
Here's your free country...internal checkpoints, no 4th Amendment, and if you assert your rights you get your property smashed and your person tortured. And for those who doubt his account of events, know that I almost always hold back from posting police bruitality news. This kind of thing is becoming more and more common in America. Police and military need to visit Oath Keepers to commit to their oath of office: the Constitution.
I think this story is very interesting, and so I will do my best to cover it.
Rockwell.com Blog - Stephan Kinsella - April 16
I've been telling people for quite a while now how great it would be if Texas were to secede--it's big enough to be a separate country (and, of course, it was at one point, with President Sam Houston). Texas Governor Rick Perry has become my new favorite governor, by publicly entertaining the idea of secession. As noted here, "Speaking with reporters after a tea party rally in Austin today, Gov. Rick Perry said Texas can leave the union if it wants to."
"Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that," Perry said. "My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."See also Perry fires up anti-tax crowd.
Now I think Perry is mistaken about the treaty of annexation whereby Texas joined the Union--it merely contemplated Texas splitting up into 5 separate states--and that would probably require Congress's approval anyway. (see also Snopes) It's a common myth that this Treaty explicitly gave a right to secede; I believe this is a confusion of the 5-state-split issue. That said, however, as pointed out here, Texas, like all states, of course has the constitutional right to secede, in part because the federal government was never granted the authority to prevent this (it's inconceivable the 13 original states would have signed a compact creating a new agency that had the power to make war on them if they decided to leave the arrangement!).
(I'm sure the libertarian centralists (2, 3) will disapprove of Perry here--why, if a state were to leave the union, the federal courts could no longer tell it what to do, and the Fourteenth Amendment and its Privileges and Immunities would be lost!)Update: Kevin Gutzman writes with an intriguing argument for the right to secede:As I discuss in ch. 3 of Virginia's American Revolution and in my 2004 Review of Politics article "Edmund Randolph and Virginia Constitutionalism," Virginians retained the right to reclaim the powers they were delegating to the Federal Government (that is, to secede) in case those rights were perverted to their oppression (which has to be a matter that is for them alone to decide).
Under the Supreme Court's long-standing Equal Footing Doctrine (that all states must be treated alike), which reflects the universal understanding of the ratifiers, that means Texas can secede if it wants to. Now, of course, it could be that the president, in the mode of Lincoln, would ignore Texas's right. That's a separate issue.
It is all together fitting that I should, in addition to news posts, set forth some thoughts of my own, bearing not only on the major state of affairs as they are, but rather, as they should be. This of course is done with great intent on illustrating the need for smaller government, and above all else, greater liberty; for we must remember that to sacrifice liberty for safety, is ultimately to pave the road to tyranny. I intend these "thoughts" to come often, and over a period of time.
Today, I wish to make mention of the ever encroaching reality that our 2nd amendment right to bear arms is at risk. The first step at creating a fascist government is to first disarm its members. An undertaking of this has already begun, and it is nothing more then a violation of our Constitutional rights, and the rise of the government as a tyrant. According to Thomas Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not for the right to abuse power, but rather, to keep that power in check. Jefferson went on to say, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And take it away they are attempting to do, and if they succeed in this endeavor, then where, as Washington noted, will the teeth of our Constitution be? Where will we turn when Washington marches on Lexington and Concord? Where will we go when oppressive taxes are levied? What will we turn to when Revere rides through town in a frenzy haze calling upon minutemen? And in the end, what will we be left with, but only a fleeting notion of what once was, and a yearning for yesterday.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"
An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.
Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package. Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.
Texas did secede in 1861, but the North's victory in the Civil War put an end to that. Perry is running for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican. His anti-Washington remarks have become more strident the past few weeks as that 2010 race gets going and since Perry rejected $550 million in federal economic stimulus money slated to help Texas' unemployment trust fund.
Perry said the stimulus money would come with strings attached that would leave Texas paying the bill once the federal money ran out.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, also Republicans, have been outspoken against the federal economic stimulus spending and were supportive of tea parties in their states. The protests were being held throughout the country on federal income tax deadline day to imitate the original Boston Tea Party of American revolutionary times.
In an appearance at the Texas Capitol last week, Perry joined state lawmakers in pushing a resolution that supports states' rights protected in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He said the federal government has become oppressive in its size and interference with states.
Since then, Perry has been featured on the online Drudge Report, and other conservative commentators and citizens have latched on to his words.
After praising veterans in the cheering crowd Wednesday, he said: "I'm just not real sure you're a bunch of right-wing extremists. But if you are, we're with you." Perry said he believes he could be at the center of a national movement that is coordinated and focused in its opposition to the actions of the federal government.
"It's a very organic thing," he said. "It is a very powerful moment, I think, in American history." For her part, Hutchison issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill. "On April 15 — Tax Day — some in Congress may need a reminder of just who is underwriting this spending: the American taxpayer. I am deeply concerned over the swelling tax burden that will be imposed on all Texas families," she wrote.
The crowd at the Austin tea party appeared to be decidedly anti-Democrat. Many of the speakers were Republicans and Libertarians. One placard said, "Stop Obama's Socialism." Another read, "Some Pirates Are in America," and it showed photographs of Obama, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wearing pirate hats.
Rebecca Knowlton, 45, of Smithville, said she took the day off of home-schooling her three children and brought them to the rally to teach them about civic duty. Knowlton, a critic of the Social Security system and the United Nations, said she felt camaraderie at the demonstration. "The movement is growing stronger," she said. "You're not alone."
If you are not familiar with the 10th Amendment, then let me spell it out for you. It states that all powers not listed in the Constitution are thereby granted to the states and the people at large. We must remember that the Federal government was created, and confirmed, by the states, and not the other way around. In light of this, we, as Americans, must stop bowing to the will of a Federal government, and start invoking the rights of the states. Thomas Jefferson once stated, "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." Jefferson understood, as did John Locke, that man was born with inalienable rights, and that those rights could never be infringed upon by any government. Jefferson's dedication to this idea is further shown in the Declaration of Independence when he said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The governor of the state of Texas clearly understands this point as well!
Kurt NimmoInfowarsApril 14, 2009 It’s not enough the disinfo operative Glenn Beck and the neocons posing as Republicans led by Fox News are attempting to undermine grassroots efforts to undermine and render politically correct — for milquetoast Republicans — the grassroots tea party movement. Now the sinister organization ACORN, funded to the hilt by the globalist George Soros and the one-world foundations, has piled on.
“Some believe ACORN, which has been under scrutiny for accusations of voter fraud, is preparing to crash some of the tea parties. But ACORN says it is only helping to organize dozens of rallies on the same day in support of President Obama’s first budget,” reports Fox News. ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring pretends he lives in a vacuum where there is no corporate media. “This is the first we’ve heard of these so-called ‘tea parties.’ And, frankly, a bunch of small get-togethers by fringe conservative activists dedicated to simply saying ‘no’ is of little interest to us…. The idea that ACORN is out to disrupt these meet-ups of fringe activists is yet another conservative fantasy.” On April 7, however, Jeff Poor, writing for the Business & Media Institute, mentioned Fox’s Neil Cavuto’s report on the plan to disrupt tea parties around the country. “Cavuto reported that the Tax Day tea party protests on April 15 will be ‘infiltrated’ by their political opponents and led by left-wing activist organizations. He specifically named Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN),” Poor wrote. Arianna Huffington has set up a website for so-called citizen journalists to infiltrate the protests, according to Poor. Huffington is also connected to the one-worlder Soros through his Democrat “Shadow Party,” according to the neocon duo of David Horowitz and Richard Poe (Horowitz and Poe are not necessarily opposed to big money networks and political operatives, so long as the networks are comprised of neocons and big war machine government Republicans). “The Huffington Post wants to have citizen journalists at as many of these events as possible,” writes Arthur Delaney for Huffpo. It is reported followers of the wannabe CIA employee and Democrat operative Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and his Daily Kos crew will also “report” on (disrupt) tea parties around the country. Zuniga posted the following on his website on April 7 in yet another underhanded attempt to link the Fox News faux conservatives (neocons) to the murder of three cops in Pittsburgh: Dear Conservatives, If having hilarious tea bagging parties keeps you guys from shooting people up, then I heartily endorse them. Hugs and kisses, kos It is unfortunate the tea party movement was hijacked by neocon Republicans and now serves as a punching bag instead of an anti-tax tea bag for the foundation liberals and the globalist minions of Soros. Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich and the statist, one-worlder Republicans — who have no problem with government and the bankster debt expanding forever, so long as neocons are running the show — have effectively disarmed a movement originally created by the Libertarian Party of Illinois in 2008.
“Never mind that the original point of the Tea Parties, so far as I can tell, was completely libertarian in nature and was to be as much a protest of the Republicans as it was of the Democrats,” writes Mark Thompson. “Movement conservatives saw an opportunity to co-opt it — and they did.” Thompson explains how Republicans have loaded up the tea party movement with their pet causes — “gay marriage, affirmative action programs in government hiring policies, and just about everything else that movement conservatives oppose even more vehemently now that they’ve been beaten — badly — in consecutive national elections.” In fact, the Fox News and the Republican leadership have subverted the tea party movement because it represents an effective grassroots way to organize against the corporatist and bankster plan to increase the size of government and load-up on the federal debt. Of course, the globalist bankers in control of both the Democrat and Republican parties are not about to let that happen. On April 15, as demonstrations kick off around the country with Republicans in control and steering the show — and the ACORN, Kos, and Huffpo Democrats in opposition — the tea party movement will be reduced to an absurd and partisan politics circus sideshow of the kind the corporate media loves.
This deficit has been bad, but this article just caught my attention because I recall Ron Paul warning of this some 3 months ago. America, listen, learn, and act.
Apr 10, 3:25 PM (ET) By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Treasury Department said Friday that the budget deficit increased by $192.3 billion in March, and is near $1 trillion just halfway through the budget year, as costs of the financial bailout and recession mount. Last month's deficit, a record for March, was significantly higher than the $150 billion that economists expected. The deficit already totals $956.8 billion for the first six months of the budget year, also a record for that period. The Obama administration projects the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.75 trillion. A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous annual record of $454.8 billion set last year. The March deficit was nearly four times the size of the imbalance in the same month last year. Nearly $300 billion provided to the nation's banks and other companies to cope with the most severe financial crisis in seven decades has pushed government spending higher. The Treasury report said that through the end of March, $293.4 billion had been provided to support companies through the $700 billion bailout fund Congress passed last October. That support has been provided primarily to banks, although insurance giant American International Group Inc. (AIG) and auto companies General Motors Corp. (GM) and Chrysler LLC also have received assistance. Besides the bailout fund, Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) received $46 billion last month, bringing the total assistance provided to the mortgage finance companies to $59.8 billion since October. The government took control of both last September after they had suffered billions of dollars in losses on mortgage loans. Through the first six months of the budget year that began Oct. 1, tax revenues have totaled $989.8 billion, down 13.6 percent from the year-ago period. The government's receipts have been reduced sharply by the recession, which is shaping up to be the longest of the post World War II period. The downturn began in December 2007. Government outlays totaled $1.95 trillion through March, 33.4 percent higher than the year-ago period. Besides higher payments for the financial rescue, the government is paying more in such areas as unemployment benefits and food stamps. The Treasury report showed benefit payments from the unemployment trust fund totaled $44.6 billion so far this budget year, up from $19.4 billion last year. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that President Barack Obama's budget proposals would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, a figure $2.3 trillion higher than estimates made in February in the administration's first budget proposal. The CBO review projected Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion annually over the decade ending in 2019. The administration said it remained confident its forecasts for declining deficits over that same period could be achieved. But private economists have faulted those estimates for relying on economic assumptions they believe are too optimistic. The administration projects that after hitting $1.75 trillion this year, the gap between spending and tax revenues will dip to $1.17 trillion in 2010, and plunge to $533 billion in 2013. If accurate, that would fulfill Obama's pledge to cut the deficit he inherited in half by the end of his current term in office. Some economists have expressed concerns that the massive deficits being forecast could push interest rates up sharply, especially if foreign investors worry about the size of the U.S. deficit projections. Lawrence Summers, director of Obama's National Economic Council, said Thursday there have been no indications that investors are growing worried about the size of the deficits. On the contrary, he said yields on Treasury securities have been pushed lower by increased demand from investors seeking to hold Treasury bonds as a safe haven in uncertain economic times.
Yet again, U.S. Citizens "Inalienable Rights" are being infringed upon.
Canadian Free PressFriday, April 10, 2009 BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.
“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”
Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.
“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”
In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”
“These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the firearm of their choice,” Gottlieb said.
“They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi’s California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn’t disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won’t prevent crime, either.
“The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights,” Gottlieb said. “The press seems deliberately blind to the statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their incompetence in dealing with crime. More than 90 million gun owners haven’t hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like criminals.”
I normally post news dealing with political aspects of the Nation and world. However, as a major Angels fan, I think it appropriate to post this in honor of the former Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart
SANTA ANA, Calif. -- A 22-year-old man was charged with three murder counts and drunken driving Friday in the crash that killed Los Angeles Angels rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart and two others.
Andrew Thomas Gallo ran a red light in his minivan early Thursday and broadsided a car carrying Adenhart and three friends, police said. "At the time of the crash, Mr. Gallo's blood-alcohol content is estimated to be almost three times the legal limit," Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said.
Gallo could receive almost 55 years to life in prison if convicted of all charges, Rackauckas said. Adenhart died at a hospital, hours after pitching six scoreless innings in his season debut against Oakland. He was to be remembered before the start of Friday night's Angels game against the Boston Red Sox.
"This Angel and his two friends were too young to be sent to heaven but the defendant selfishly and recklessly [got] behind the wheel after getting drunk. They didn't have a choice. Bad decision, blink of an eye, five lives ended, including the defendant's life is wrecked," Rackauckas said at a news conference.
Gallo will likely be assigned a public defender at his first court appearance, scheduled for Monday.
Gallo also was charged with driving under the influence causing injury, and driving with a blood-alcohol level over .08 percent causing injury with a sentencing enhancement that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. In addition, he was charged with fleeing the scene of a traffic accident causing death or injury. Fullerton police Lt. Kevin Hamilton said homicide detectives interviewed Gallo for nearly four hours Thursday. "There was a lot to talk about," Hamilton said, without disclosing details.
Click here for another cool video on Nick Adenhart
There has been, for many decades, an attempt to create a new world order. This article below, simply illustrates that it is already on its way. This new world order will ultimately destroy the sovereignty of each nation as a nation-state. Further information can be found on this topic by typing into any search engine G20, or go to prisonplanet.com or infowars.com.
It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.
JEREMY SCAHILL Counterpunch Friday, April 10, 2009
Much of the media attention this week on President Obama’s new military budget has put forward a false narrative wherein Obama is somehow taking his socialist/pacifist sledgehammer to the Pentagon’s war machine and blasting it to smithereens. Republicans have charged that Obama is endangering the country’s security, while the Democratic leadership has hailed it as the dawn of a new era in responsible spending priorities. Part of this narrative portrays Defense Secretary Robert Gates as standing up to the war industry, particularly military contractors. The reality is that all of this is false.
Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum). Obama’s budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense “represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration’s projections for FY 2010,” bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress’ report supporting Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, ” Obama’s Defense Budget Is on Target.”
Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn’t think much of Rep. Barney Frank’s call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. “To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit,” Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. “If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs.” Well, not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a “supplemental” spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush’s campaign to mask of the full military budget and total cost of the wars. Obama could seek the funding as early as Thursday.
Now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that we may actually see some spine coming from Congress in standing up to Obama’s request for this additional $75.5 billion in war funds. The WSJ characterized the situation as one of “raising tensions” between Obama and some lawmakers opposed to the wars. It should be noted off-the-bat that the Congresspeople speaking out are, predictably, members of the usual suspects club and the Democratic leadership is probably at this moment sharing cocktails in the backroom with McCain and McConnell, but, nonetheless, it is worth examining what is being said:
“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House. Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. “I don’t think we should be going there,” she said.
Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. “I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said. Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as “embarrassingly naive,” and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. “He’s the smartest man in American politics today,” Rep. Conyers said. “But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.”
Obama has vowed to break with the Bush-era tradition of seeking such supplementals to fund the war, saying that beginning in 2010 he will fund the wars as part of his overall budget. The anti-war caucus of Democrats is unlikely to have enough votes to block it given the increasingly overt pro-war nature of the Democratic leadership. And, as the WSJ notes, the funding bills are likely to pass “since many Republicans will support them.”
An interesting point nestled half-way through the WSJ piece illustrates a point some antiwar activists have been making since Obama’s election—he is likely to win increased support from Democratic lawmakers for wars they may not have supported when Bush was in power: The president argues that Afghanistan has been neglected, allowing al Qaeda to regroup and exposing the U.S. to new dangers.
Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. “We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them,” said Mr. Larson, the House’s fourth-ranking Democrat.
This truly is one of the most important trends to watch with the Obama presidency, particularly as it relates to war policy. Obama is in a position to greatly advance the interests of empire, precisely because he is able to build much wider support for policies that are essentially a continuation of those implemented by Bush.
While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.
He said that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election.
I was always opposed to George Bush's foreign policy; A policy that promoted continual war, for we were to eradicate terrorism. Unfortunately no matter how much you fight, you will be unable to defeat terrorism, and so I ask, when will the fighting stop? Well, not any time soon. Despite the fact that Obama said he would withdraw troops, this is not the case. He has just asked Congress for more then 83 billion dollars to fund war efforts in both in Iraq Afghanistan. When will America wake up and realize that we simply have another "George Bush Administration: as it concerns foreign policy.
WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama asked the U.S. Congress for an additional $83.4 billion to fund the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday, saying the security situation along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier was urgent.
"The Taliban is resurgent and al Qaeda threatens America from its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border," Obama said in a letter to Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, that was released by the White House.
Obama said 95 percent of the $83.4 billion in supplemental funds he was requesting would go to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and the U.S. effort to disrupt and defeat al Qaeda.
This is an awesome idea, and of course is spawned by our early founders who, in 1773, protested a harsh tax on tea by dumping tea into the Boston Haber. In very much the same way, throughout the nation on April 15, many angry taxpayers will be conducting another "tea party" of their own. The following story is just one example of this.
East Bay conservatives say they are TEA'd off — taxed enough already. The sentiment is expected to spur hundreds of local residents to join the nationwide "Tea Party" movement at a Pleasanton protest April 15, which is not coincidentally that most beloved American deadline to file tax returns.
Organizer Bridget Melson, a psychologist and owner of a Pleasanton psychiatric practice, says as many as 1,000 people have signed up to attend the Pleasanton Tea Party at Amador Valley Community Park.
Angry taxpayers will protest, listen to speakers, sign petitions and send faux tea bags to their elected representatives. Targets of the East Bay taxpayers' ire include the Tri-Valley's congressional representative, Jerry McNerney, of Pleasanton, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
People are fed up with taxpayer-funded bailouts of banks and car companies, rising sales taxes, talk of new parcel taxes for ailing schools and the $787 billion economic stimulus package, Melson said.
"People are hurting right now," Melson said. The tea party movement got its start in February when CNBC commentator Rick Santelli railed from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor about what he called federal mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.
"We're thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July," he said.
The original tea party, of course, was in 1773 when American settlers, angered over a new British tax on tea, boarded ships anchored in the Boston harbor and dumped the tea cargo into the water.
Over time, the tea party has come to symbolize unhappiness with taxes and the way the government spends them.
Sandi Tierney of Danville says she and colleagues at the Blackhawk Republican Women Federated have held a half-dozen tea party protests in the past few months alongside several of the area's major traffic intersections.
"We have signs and flags and we've even had people stop, talk to us and then go home and come back with their spouse and join the protest," Tierney said. The Tea Party protest may get a lot more popular come Tax Day.
As of late Monday, TeaPartyDay.com reported that Tax Day events were scheduled in 1,817 cities, including Pleasanton and the Capitol in Sacramento.
In another measure of the tea party's populist appeal, a Web site that aggregates conservative blogs, NetRightNation.com, contained dozens of entries about the movement.
There is a great film dealing with this issue of Income tax called From Freedom to Fascism. Click on this link and watch it!
I was looking through the news this morning, and I stumbled upon this article shown below. It details a new movement in Congress where President Obama would be allowed to regulate "Internet traffic in a state of emergency." Now, I understand why some might think this a good thing, but we must understand that the Internet is a medium where free speech flows. Any regulation of it would would be a violation of that freedom. Furthermore, the language of the bill does not specify what an "information network or a cybersecurity emergency" is; this definition would be left to Obama himself. What then constitutes an emergency? If no boundaries are explicitly stated, then anything would constitute an emergency because the president says so.
Furthermore, as I understand the Constitution, no stated powers in the Constitution would allow for the President of the United States to make such a definition, nor, do I think, Congress has the power to delegate this authority to him, for, as I already said, it is a violation of our first amendment right to restrict the freedom of speech. This seems to be what this bill is about.
This proposition worries me!
Steve Aquino Mother Jones April 3, 2009
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws. Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.
While the police stood off the hardcore anarchists smashing up the windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland, riot squads were ordered to wade into the “climate camp” protesters, a few streets away, and “kettle” them into a very confined space.
The police use this tactic to effectively wear down peaceful demonstrators, thus significantly halting the protest. These scenes were not shown on the major news networks
This is a very unique story, and, to be honest, I am a bit baffled by it. This is because I'm not sure whet Constitutional power grants the President of the United States, or any member of our government, the right to fire the heads of corporations. Unless Obama's adminsitration are majority stock holders, then, this is a clear example of power abuse. A very brief synopsis is below.
"The Obama administration has forced the longtime head of General Motors to resign and said yesterday that it would withhold additional federal aid to the auto industry unless the ailing companies undertake changes they so far have been unwilling or unable to make."
It seemed like a victory, of sorts. Last week the Senate approved a bill to radically expand the AmeriCorps program. The bill initially contained language that proposed a study for mandatory service for all young people in the United States, but this language was removed as the bill moved through the Senate and did not appear in the final version.'
Well, it’s baaaaaaack. The language was stripped from one bill, but it suddenly appeared in another. It is now contained in HR 1444, due to crawl across the House floor this week. HR 1444 is sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington state Democrat, and is assigned to the House Committee on Labor and Education. The bill, under Section 4 (b)6, states:
Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
How “mandatory service,” i.e. servitude, strengthens the “social fabric of the Nation” is not explained.
HR 1444, like its earlier parent 1388, includes the prospect of a “public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders” and reaches all the way down to primary school, requiring a review of “the means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding and promoting service options for primary and secondary school students and by raising awareness of existing incentives.”
That is, “existing incentives” as determined by the government. In addition to Obama’s election campaign pledge to create a 250,000 strong national security force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has authored a book (The Plan: Big Ideas for America) that calls for three months of compulsory civil service for all Americans aged 18 to 25. So it looks like the goblin of compulsory national service has not gone away, it has simply morphed into another bill, soon to be considered by the House.
One thing is for certain: the federal government considers you and your children little more than ciphers to be press ganged into mandatory “service” to a government addicted to wars waged in the name of international bankers.
The following is a list of films, many of which are made by Alex Jones, ranging on a number of different topics concerning America, and the American System. Those with links attached are films I have both watched and personally endorse; the rest are films I am currently evaluating, and, at present, take no personal stand on. Those not linked can most likley be found by doing a search on the web.
