Tag Archives: congress

President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits


President Obama could get 3 terms if H.J.Res 15 abolishes term limits

By: Angel Clark

Americans around the nation were shocked Friday as they heard about H.J.Res. 15. H.J.Res 15 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Rep. José Serrano (D- NY15) introduced the controversial joint resolution on Friday, the second day of the 2013 legislative session.

The last President to serve more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt served three full terms as President and was elected to a fourth term. Roosevelt died 83 days into his fourth term in office.

Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment on March 21, 1947. The required number of states ratified it in 1951. There have been numerous attempts to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, including a previous attempt by Rep. José Serrano. Rep. Serrano attempted to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment with H.J.Res. 5 in 2009.

Opponents of H.J.Res. 15 are being urged to inform their representatives of their opinions and to voice their opinion on PopVox.com.

Learn more about possible laws! H.R. 193 was introduced and would force farmers to pay fees on their saved seeds after a harvest and register them with the government!

If you wish to ensure you receive email updates to all of Angel’s articles please subscribe clicking the link above or join her Facebook Fan Page. Angel is also the Wilmington Prepper Examiner and the Wilmington Elections Examiner. You can read Angel’s last article here.Feel free to comment below and follow Angel on her Twitter! You may listen to Angel LIVE Monday through Friday from 5-7 pm EST on RadioFreedom.us. You may learn more about her Talk Radio Topics and the Radio Freedom News Network on The Angel Clark Show Fan Page!

Do you like Capitalism? Literally, of course.

Do you know the Secrets of the FED?

SOURCE

Big Sis Refuses To Answer Congress On Bullet Purchases

Big Sis Refuses To Answer Congress On Bullet Purchases

Steve Watson
Infowars.com

Speaking at CPAC with Infowars and We Are Change reporter, Luke Rudkowski, Congressman Timothy Huelscamp revealed this week that the Department of Homeland Security has refused to answer questions from “multiple” members of Congress regarding its recent purchase of huge amounts of weapons and ammunition.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.

“I’ve got a list of various questions of agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed and opaque,” the Congressman added.

“They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

“It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire?”

“We’re going to find out… I say we don’t fund them ’til we get an answer. Those type of things really challenge Americans. They are worried about this administration,” Huelscamp urged.

Watch the clip below:

The Congressman’s comments come in the wake of a demand for answers from New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance on the same subject.

“I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done and I have every confidence that the oversight committee ….should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief, “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

The DHS has purchased over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the past year – enough to wage a 20 year plus war. Earlier this month, Forbes Magazine called for a “national conversation” on the matter.

During the CPAC interview, Congressman Huelscamp also spoke briefly about why he voted twice against the National Defense Authorization Act, stating that it was because of the lack of detail regarding the provision in the bill to allow for incarceration of Americans without due process.

“I think it’s something that is so Constitutionally suspect,” Huelscamp said. “It’s one of those things, if you’re not absolutely crystal clear on a Constitutional issue like that, we shouldn’t take those chances.”

“I gather there are folks on the other side who think they covered that. I just don’t think we did a good enough job,” the Congressman added. “And based on how hard it was for Senator Paul to get an answer out of the administration, very clearly we need to make it absolutely clear that there are Constitutional protections in this country.”

The Congressman also spoke with regards to the recent and ongoing furor over the Obama administration’s intentions for using drones domestically and it’s withholding of information on it’s overseas drone program.

“One of the difficulties I have as a member of Congress is the failure of this administration to provide information on what is actually going on,” Huelscamp said.

“When we take office we sign an oath to office, but we also sign a little card that says we have access to classified military intelligence, and I’ll just tell you, this administration and prior administrations are not very clear or transparent with the folks that actually control their budget.”

“Every member of Congress should know the answers to those questions, and whether or not they can share them,” the Congressman concluded.SOURCE

Congress? We don’t need NO stinkin’ Congress!

Obama makes election-year change in deportation policy

Custom Search

By Jonathan Easley and Jordy Yager –

The Obama administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age.

The politically charged decision comes as Obama faces a tough reelection fight against Republican Mitt Romney, and Hispanic voters in swing states will play a crucial role in the contest.

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday.

In a Rose Garden statement, President Obama said the measure would “lift the shadow of deportation” from immigrants, some of who have made “extraordinary contributions” by “serving in our military and protecting our freedom.”

“That we would treat them as expendable makes no sense,” Obama said.

“They study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods … they pledge allegiance to our flag, they are Americans in their hearts and minds … and in every single way but one: on paper.”

Obama was briefly interrupted by a reporter during his statement, a rare breach of protocol that caused the president to lose his temper.

“Excuse me sir, it’s not time for questions, sir, not while I’m speaking,” Obama said.

Later in his statement, Obama, pointing his finger at the reporter in front of the live TV cameras, said: “And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I prefer you to let me finish by statements before you ask a question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people. I didn’t ask for an argument, I’m answering your question.”

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

A memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordering the “prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children” argued that those covered by the order “only know this country as home.” It said these people “lacked the intent to violate the law.”

The new policy will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.

The policy change will accomplish portions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress amid Republican opposition.

More from The Hill:
? Sen. Graham says Obama’s move is ‘possibly illegal’
? EPA issues tougher rules on soot
? GOP lawmaker: Policy violates oath of office
? Romney mum on immigration change

Obama has a massive lead over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney among Hispanic voters, but criticism from immigration activists over the administration’s deportation policies has intensified in recent weeks. Earlier this week a government report showed the administration’s attempt to cut back on deportations of law-abiding illegal immigrants has had little effect.

Hispanic voters could be key in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, and elsewhere.

“It’s a medium-risk, high-reward strategy,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. “I think you risk angering people who are upset about immigration, yes. But for a president who’s got to win Florida, Nevada, Colorado, it is definitely something that can give the Latino community something to rally around.”

A number of Republicans criticized the move, arguing it could be illegal.

“How can the administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions of Americans are unemployed?” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Twitter that Obama’s action could be unlawful.

“President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal,” Graham said in a Tweet.

“This type of policy proposal, regardless of motivation, will entice people to break our laws,” Graham said in another tweet.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) praised the policy but criticized Obama for going around Congress.

“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem,” the Cuban American Rubio said in a statement. “And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”

Rubio, a possible vice presidential candidate, has been working on his own version of the DREAM Act but has yet to release any legislative language.

The change in policy comes eight months after the Obama administration set an annual record for deportations by removing nearly 400,000 people who were in the country illegally in fiscal 2011.

Of the 396,906 individuals removed, more than half — 216,698 — had been previously convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, which represents a 90 percent increase in the number of criminals deported over fiscal 2008, according to the numbers released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement last October.

A spokesman for Homeland Security said the department would continue to focus its enforcement resources on “the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons and repeat immigration-law offenders.”

“Today’s action further enhances the department’s ability to focus on these priority removals,” the spokesman said.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), an immigration reform advocacy group, lauded Obama’s announcement on Friday, saying it was evidence of his “true capacity to lead.”

The group then said it was time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act.

“President Obama is showing the nation his true capacity to lead by taking the bold and courageous step to remove the fear of deportation and provide dreamers with the legal means to contribute their full potential to society,” said Marielena Hincapié, the executive director for the group.

“This announcement provides real and much-needed relief now, but it is not enough. President Obama cannot provide these youth with the path to citizenship, which would allow DREAMers to participate in all sectors of civil society. We therefore renew our calls to Congress to pass the DREAM Act.”

NILC is one of the immigrant activist groups that had previously been critical of the administration’s immigration policy.

“We’ve been disappointed by the administration’s record pace of deportations, and DREAMers have been among those deported,” said Adela de la Torre, communications manager for the NILC, in an email to The Hill. “This is why today’s announcement is so important.”

SOURCE

Congress Seeks To Establish Ministry of Truth!

Congress Seeks To Establish Ministry of Truth!

Editor’s note: Sometimes when researching a topic, we come across information and articles that are so important that we need to share them with as many people as possible. Please visit Ms. Hall’s site where you will find a vast number of well researched, well written articles on numerous topics. This particular article should give you a clear idea of how corrupt the federal government has become. Marti

_______________________________________________________________________

by KrisAnne Hall

htttp://www.KrisAnneHall.com

Once again, the National Defense Authorization Act is used as a Trojan horse to unload a dangerous threat on America. This time it is offered up in an amendment sponsored by Representative Thornberry from Texas and its called Dissemination of Information Abroad. This bill has also been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as a separate bill titled HR 5736, The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This bill will overturn a prohibition that has been in place since 1948 and make it possible for the US Government to fund the dissemination of propaganda to influence American citizens.

Immediately, the question comes up, why should we care? Isn’t domestic propaganda something that this administration has been engaging since 2008? Would any of us disagree that the mainstream media is a tool of this administration? Read on and see just why there should be national outrage over this bill.

Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information through an executive order with the purpose of influencing American public opinion toward supporting the US involvement in World War I. The man appointed to be the chairman over this committee was George Creel, a well renowned investigative journalist and editor of the Rocky Mountain News.

In 1942, FDR established the United States Office of War Information by executive order to “truthfully inform” the American people about the government’s efforts in World War II. FDR appointed Elmer Davis, a well-known CBS News analyst, as director of OWI. Davis’ job was to coordinate information from the military and mobilize public support of the war. OWI was to create an avenue for the government to develop and disseminate the information that they believed people needed to know about the war.

“Our job at home is to give the American people the fullest possible understanding of what this war is about …not only to tell the American people how the war is going, but where it is going and where it came from.” Elmer Davis. AP/Wide World

In 1946 Rep. Sol Bloom (D-NY) introduced a bill that would grant the Secretary of State the power to give monetary, service, or property grants to nonprofit public and private corporations to prepare and disseminate informational materials. Although this act was intended to disseminate information abroad, there were no limitations to keep it from being used upon the American people and opposition began to form. After having lived through two regimes of government propaganda and having seen the effects of such government propaganda machines as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Congress decided this was not something they wanted to engage in.

An AP Press Release stated “government cannot engage in news casting without creating the fear of propaganda which necessarily would reflect the objectivity of the news services from which such news casts are prepared.”

The Bloom Bill passed the house, but failed in the Senate. In 1948, the Smith-Mundt Act was passed with three key limitations on the government. The first and most well-known restriction was originally a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department. This restriction has been supported by the courts even in the face of freedom of information act challenges. In November 1996 the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the material under the Smith-Mundt Act is not to be available, applying the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 3 to block access.

The Smith-Mundt Act is now found in 22 USC 1461-1a titled, Ban on domestic activities by United States Information Agency. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is set to change all of that. This act does several very destructive things. First, it puts the President’s Board of Broadcasting Governors on the same level of authority as the Secretary of State. The Board of Broadcasting Governors is an independent government agency whose members are appointed by the President and whose sole function is to create American propaganda and disseminate this propaganda abroad.

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 created a limitation for propaganda to be released in the United States. If such propaganda was requested, the information could not be released until 12 years after its publication. This was an additional protection established so that this government created information could not be used to influence current public opinion. Thornberry’s HR 5736, The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, would preserve that 12 year limitation for all propaganda created prior to the adoption of this act but would remove the limitation for everything created after. Therefore, you have to wait 12 years to obtain propaganda created in 2010, but propaganda created in 2013 would be immediately available for dissemination domestically.

Finally, although I am sure supporters of this legislation will attempt to tell you that this act has protections built in to prevent the use of propaganda to influence Americans; make no mistake this act fails to ensure that result. It is true the Act maintains the original prohibition for domestic use.

(a) In General- No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, in accordance with other applicable law.

However, this new Act adds new language that completely nullifies that prohibition through a couple rather clever loopholes.

The original Act does not include “program material” in the list of items that must be provided. This is how the courts could decide that the propaganda material was covered under the Freedom Information Act’s section 3 limitations. The addition of “program material” will now require the actual propaganda to be available through a FOIA request.

As if that was not bad enough, the new Act adds a section“b” that will create the most effective loophole to nullify the prohibition in section (a).

(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.

Section (b) tells the Secretary of State and the Board of Broadcasting Governors that they do not have to worry about the limitation of section (a). They are to go about business as usual in spite of the fact that this information will be immediately available for domestic distribution. This creates a loophole the size of the Grand Canyon for these agencies to create propaganda that they know will be distributed domestically and will be used to influence Americans.

So, why should we care? We should care, because this crime against the American people is not being perpetrated by a Socialist President through executive order. It is CONGRESS authorizing this manipulation. It is coming from alleged CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN. This act will not only legitimize the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but will allow Congress to FUND IT with TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

Are you Tyrannized Enough Already? CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN NOW.

SOURCE

“War With Iran” Bill Passes House Committee

AIPAC’s “War With Iran” Bill Passes House Committee

Wasting no time after its success in getting the administration to oppose Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and still celebrating the UNESCO funding cut-off, AIPAC has returned to its #1 priority: pushing for war with Iran.

The Israelis have, of course, played their own part in the big show. In the last few weeks, it has been sending out signals that it is getting ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities (and embroil the United States in its most calamitous Middle East war yet).

But most observers do not believe an Israeli attack is imminent. (If it was, would Israel telegraph it in advance?) The point of the Israeli threats is to get the United States and the world community to increase pressure on Iran with the justification that unless it does, Israel will attack.

Naturally, the United States Congress, which gets its marching orders on Middle East policy from the lobby which, in turn, gets its marching orders from Binyamin Netanyahu, is rushing to do what it is told. (If only Congress addressed joblessness at home with the same alacrity and enthusiasm.)

Accordingly the House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new “crippling sanctions” bill that seems less designed to deter an Iran nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.

The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill’s supporters comes in Section 601 which should be quoted in full. (It is so incredible that paraphrasing would invite the charge of distorting through selective quotation.)

It reads:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that — (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

What does this mean?

It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the “appropriate Congressional committees” (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.”

To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time.

If President Roosevelt wanted to meet with Hitler, he could have and, of course, he did repeatedly meet with Stalin. During the Cold War, U.S. diplomats maintained continuous contacts with the Soviets, a regime that murdered tens of millions and, later, with the Chinese regime which murdered even more. And they did so without needing permission from Congress. (President Nixon was only able to normalize relations with China by means of secret negotiations which, had they been exposed, would have been torpedoed by the Republican right.)

But all the rules of normal statecraft are dropped when it comes to Iran which may, or may not, be working on developing a nuclear capacity. Of course if it is, it is obviously even more critical that the American government officials speak to Iranian counterparts.

But preventing diplomacy is precisely what Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee which reported out this bill, seek. They and others who back the measure want another war and the best way to get it is to ban diplomacy (which exists, of course, to prevent war).

Think back, for example, to the Cuban missile crisis. The United States and the monstrous, nuclear armed Soviet regime were on the brink of war over Cuba, a war that might have destroyed the planet.

Neither President Kennedy nor Premier Khrushchev knew how to end the crisis, especially because both were being pushed by their respective militaries not to back down.

Then, at the darkest moment of the crisis, when war seemed inevitable, an ABC correspondent named John Scali secretly met with a Soviet official in New York who described a way to end the crisis that would satisfy his bosses. That meeting was followed by another secret meeting between the president’s brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and a Soviet official in Washington. Those meetings led to a plan that ended the crisis and, perhaps, saved the world.

Needless to say, Kennedy did not ask for the permission of the House Foreign Affairs Committee either to conduct secret negotiations or to implement the terms of the deal. In fact, it was decades before the details of the deal were revealed.

It is this latitude to conduct diplomacy that the lobby and its cutouts on Capitol Hill want to take away from the White House. And it’s latitude that is especially essential if it is determined that Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear arsenal.

Writing in the Washington Post last week, Fareed Zakaria explained that the best way to approach Iran is not to ban diplomacy but to intensify it, nukes or no nukes.

Obama should return to his original approach and test the Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement. Engaging with Iran, putting its nuclear program under some kind of supervision and finding areas of common interest (such as Afghanistan) would all be important goals…

Strategic engagement with an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in that country. That’s how Washington dealt with the Soviet Union and China in the 1970s and 1980s. Iran is a country of 80 million people, educated and dynamic. It sits astride a crucial part of the world. It cannot be sanctioned and pressed down forever. It is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. We need a strategy that combines pressure with a path to bring Iran in from the cold.

In other words, it is time for more diplomacy not less — even if that means offending a powerful lobby that is hell-bent for war.

SOURCE

Congress moves to Nationalize Media

Congress Wanting To End Local TV Stations, Creates National Control over Media

Source: USWGO Alternative News

When Hitler wanted national control over Germany he took control of all media including the newspapers and radio when he implemented national socialism. I had just discovered that months ago elite members of the U.S. congress we’re planning to take away our local TV stations due to the fact that the truth movement, 9/11 truth activists, Alex Jones, and other political activists have appeared in Local TV Stations which prompts that Local TV is beating the mainstream medias attempt to control and silence the truth.

It is very difficult to keep control of all TV Stations across the country unlike the national and international mainstream corporate controlled media, so if the congress had a plan to oust the local news stations all across the country then that would mean that the only TV Stations we would be allowed to watch are all national news media that don’t care about the violence in local neighborhoods or anything that goes on in the local areas all over America.

I found out that months ago and the mainstream media will not cover this, apparently certain members of congress were plotting to shut off local TV stations according to WJXT Jacksonville and a YouTube user named NABroadcasters.

Even if it just means that we cannot access it for free anymore via TV Antennas even with DTV Converters and that’s all the threat is, any attempt to make the local news stations wanna shut down would be a success in the elites eyes to further control and suppress the truth.

Now of course why am I saying that the local TV Stations are better then the mainstream media, because they have been covering things that the mainstream national media will not cover.

First of all KXAN the Austin Texas local news station covers Alex Jone’s rants, protests, and anything to do with Alex Jones that affects Austin Texas has been covered by KXAN.

Two of KXAN videos are embedded below:

TSA pat-down bill fails in the Senate: kxan.com

Former sheriff charged as radio pirate: kxan.com

Then with me being targeted by a proxy law firm called Righthaven that buys copyrights under the Strategic Alliance Agreements to secretly keep control of copyrights but claims they own the copyrights when they sue individuals. The law firm that targeted me was highly connected with the Clintons, Bushes (The Bushes are at the heart of the New World Order master plan), and it’s CEO Steve Gibson was connected with the Obamas making it a choice law firm to target me. The reasons I am even mentioning this is because even though I run a truth website exposing the Bilderberg elite the local news stations covered my story even though they know I am against the Bilderberg Group.

Then a 9/11 truther managed to get himself on a local news station in his area according to the video embedded below:


Local News Covers Arizona 9/11 Truth by BadKitty

Even a local news station confirms that barium is in the chemtrails spread out in the sky.

So the fact that the truth activists are making local news networks are creating a problem for the high class elite that controls the tip top of the mainstream corporate media. The fact is even though they do they cannot possibly control every local TV news station across the country, even if they do some may slip up and let the truth go out to the masses of a regional or local area.

So for that reason alone the congress wants the local TV stations to disappear forever so that we watch only National media programs where you are brainwashed into anything even youth brigades.

Of course the local stations could just be online only and the newspapers are still around but many are being bought up by pro NAFTA Super-highway corporations, Stephens Media, Media News Group Inc., and WEHCO Media. That means that local newspapers may not even tell you the truth. Then what about the local stations online? Even if they are a last resource they can easily be ignored since the public are more opt to watch their cable or satellite TV then they would a YouTube video for news so instead of Local TV Stations people will watch the national and international hand picked media outlets.

Also before the attempt to squash the local TV Stations Hillary Clinton old the congress that they are losing the information war.

If the elite succeed with shutting down local news stations then it will be another milestone in the scheme to control information. Then the last thing the elite will shut down will be the Internet. Once that is done there will be no means to getting the word out about certain political issues anymore.

SOURCE

Donations First, Safety Last: White House Pressure for a Donor?


White House Pressure for a Donor?

The four-star Air Force general who oversees Air Force Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.

The episode —confirmed by The Daily Beast in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee —is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers. Already, the FBI and a House committee are investigating a federal loan guarantee to a now failed solar firm called Solyndra that is tied to a large Obama fundraiser.

Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone.

According to officials familiar with the situation, Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to the company. And the White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon’s position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, officials said.

“There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias his testimony,”
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said in an interview. “The only people who were involved in the process in preparation for the hearing included the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Office Management and Budget.”

Turner is chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee that oversees Shelton’s space command and GPS issues; the panel explored the issues between LightSquared and the Pentagon at a hearing Thursday.

On Thursday, LightSquared CEO,Sanjiv Ahuja told The Daily Beast that his company was not trying to use politics to affect the regulatory process and the firm’s goal was to expand broadband access across America.

“Any suggestion that we have run roughshod over the regulatory process is contradicted by reality: Our plans to begin implementing America’s first privately funded, wholesale, affordable, coast-to-coast wireless broadband service have been delayed for a year and we have been forced to commit more than $100 million to find a solution that will allow consumers to benefit from both our service and GPS,” Ahuja said.

“For a company that allegedly is ‘wired’ inside the Beltway, we’ve been unable to even get the House Armed Services Committee to allow us to have one representative today’s hearing — a hearing in which we are the subject,”
he said.

Shelton finally gave his testimony Thursday, and made clear the Pentagon’s concern about LightSquared’s project.

The general told Turner’s committee that preliminary tests of a new LightSquared proposal to use only a portion of the band that it was licensed originally in 2004 would cause significant disruptions to GPS.

He said the GPS spectrum was supposed to originally be a “quiet neighborhood,” meaning that lower strength signals could exist near the GPS spectrum. Speaking of the LightSquared plan, he said, “If you put a rock band in the middle of that quiet neighborhood, that’s a different circumstance.”

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its Office of Management and Budget suggested changes to the general’s testimony but insisted such reviews are routine and not influenced by politics. And it said Shelton was permitted to give the testimony he wants, without any pressure.

OMB “reviews and clears all agency communications with Congress, including testimony, to ensure consistency in the administration’s policy positions,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “When an agency is asked by a congressional committee to testify, OMB circulates the agency’s proposed [draft] testimony to other affected agencies and appropriate [executive office of the president] staff. If a reviewer has a comment to the proposed testimony, that suggestion is typically conveyed to the agency for their consideration. When divergent views emerge, they are often reconciled through discussions at the appropriate policy levels of OMB and the agencies.” The general’s office declined to comment.

LightSquared has previously acknowledged it met with officials from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as it tried to shepherd the project, which is consistent with President Obama’s goal of trying to expand broadband wireless access nationwide. That office has a mandate to meet with members of private industry.

Melanie Sloan, who runs the nonpartisan ethics groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the emerging allegations about possible White House involvement in LightSquared’s matter seemed to mirror earlier allegations in the Solyndra case.

“With this new set of facts, it starts to sound like a pattern of the White House improperly pressuring people at agencies involving decisions that affect companies tied to donors and fundraisers,
” Sloan said. “It’s always a problem when the White House is pressuring anyone’s testimony. I don’t care if you are a four-star [general] or a GS-15 [career employee], you should be giving your true opinion and not an opinion the White House is seeking for political expediency.”

Sloan recalled similar instances during the Bush administration, when officials were accused of trying to meddle with climate scientists’ testimony. “It doesn’t matter what party is in charge, money frequently trumps good policy in Washington,” she said.

Mr. Ahuja gave a little more than $30,000 to both the Democratic and Republican parties in the last two years. Mr. Falcone and his wife have gave more than $60,000 in 2009 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Falcone has also given a smattering of money to Republicans.

At issue is a conditional Federal Communications Commission waiver granted in January to LightSquared to build cheap terrestrial wireless capacity in a section of the wireless spectrum close to the GPS bandwidth. Harbinger Capital, the hedge fund belonging to Falcone, owns a majority stake in LightSquared.

“There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias his testimony,”
said Rep. Mike Turner.

The FCC license has come under scrutiny because technical experts have warned that LightSquared’s proposal to build tens of thousands of ground stations for a wireless network could drown out the GPS signal. On Tuesday, the FCC issued a public notice stating that LightSquared may not move forward on establishing its wireless service until further testing proves the GPS would not be harmed.

Falcone says the FCC waiver was spurred by the demands of the wireless industry. “LightSquared wanted the waiver because some of its wholesale partners wanted the choice of being able to sell devices with either satellite only, terrestrial-only or combined satellite-terrestrial service,” he told The Daily Beast. “The waiver allows us to meet the specific needs of our customers — but it in no way affected the spectrum issue.”

Falcone added, “The GPS industry decided not to oppose us in the early 2000’s because they thought we’d never be successful. It was only after they realized we were not just a concept, but a viable technology with a viable business model, that they decided to oppose us. Meanwhile, LightSquared invested billions of dollars — that is money that comes from private individuals all over the country — based on the promise the FCC gave us under a Republican administration six years ago. The point is that any suggestion that the waiver created LightSquared out of thin air is both specious and absurd.”

Turner said Shelton told his committee that LightSquared had obtained his earlier prepared testimony. But Jeffrey J. Carlisle, Executive Vice President for Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy for LightSquared said Thursday that the company never received Shelton’s testimony scheduled for August 3.

A U.S. government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the White House specifically asked Shelton to include a paragraph in his testimony that stated the military would continue to test the proposed bandwidth for ways LightSquared could still use the spectrum space without interfering with GPS. The proposed language for Shelton’s testimony also stated that he hoped the necessary testing for LightSquared would be completed within 90 days.

The White House has said it did not try to influence the licensing process for LightSquared at the FCC. Chairman Julius Genachowski also has said the White House never lobbied him about LightSquared. Republicans are now questioning whether the administration has been rushing approval of the project over the objections of experts ranging from GPS companies like Garmin to the military’s own advisory committee on satellites.

The FCC’s fast-tracking of LightSquared raises questions about whether the government is rushing this project at the expense of all kinds of other things, including national security and everyone who uses GPS, from agriculture to emergency medical technicians,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). “Without transparency, and with media coverage of political connections in this case, there’s no way to know whether the agency is trying to help friends in need or really looking out for the public’s interest.”

In April, Grassley asked Genachowski to hand over all records of communications, including emails between Falcone and the FCC, and LightSquared and the FCC. Genachowski declined to turn over those records.

The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, published emails this week it had obtained showing meetings between White House technology advisers and LightSquared officials.

SOURCE

Czar Barack I – An Empire Unto Himself

Obama Literally Stops Enforcing The US Constitution
Gives A Free Pass To 20 Million Illegals

By Frosty Wooldridge

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

In the most anti-American act of his short term in office, Barack Hussein Obama, an outsider president gave amnesty to over 20 million illegal aliens and possibly a much higher number when the final count arrives.

Obama, America’s chief law enforcement officer, decided to stop enforcing the law. No more deportations of illegal aliens! Usurp every legal immigrant and American citizen! U.S. borders do not mean anything anymore and U.S. sovereignty has been assigned to the highest bidder: employers of illegal aliens.

We will watch a border charge by the world’s poor like never before. At least three billion people on the planet live on less than $2.00 per day and they all want to come to America “for a better life.” You can bet a huge percentage of them will do everything they can to cross America’s borders to become a resident of the United States.

But, as they pour over the U.S. border, they degrade the American environment, quality of life and standard of living. Their numbers cannot be sustained.

Cecilia Munoz, formerly of the racist group La Raza, posted on the White House Blog that under the president’s direction an amnesty was declared for illegal aliens in America. In Orwellian Newspeak she said, “Today, (DHS) announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation.”

California writer Rick Oltman said, “It was cowardly and was accomplished with lies and deception and it will do irreparable harm to America and Americans. It was cowardly because Obama and the political elites of both parties who want amnesty for illegal aliens knew they couldn’t get the legislation passed. Obama didn’t even try it when the Democrats controlled both Houses in Congress because poll after poll shows super majorities of Americans don’t want amnesty, they want enforcement.

Obama violates his oath of office, “To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

What Obama’s action actually accomplished: free ride for employers of cheap 21st century slave labor. It gives every corporate employer free rein to hire a compliant work force. It takes jobs away from millions of Americans. It aids and abets meat packing plants, hotels, restaurants, construction companies, roofing companies and fast food companies to hire with immunity from the law. It maintains minimum wage and keeps Americans unemployed.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce heralded the move by licking its chops for all the money it puts into the pockets of elites while U.S. taxpayers pick up the subsidizing tab by paying for schools, hospitals and prisons.

A 19 point bulletin spells out who should be exempt from federal law enforcement. Everybody, every type of illegal alien can be exempted. “This list is not exhaustive and no one factor is determinative.”

Enforcement Is Out – Illegal Aliens Are In

“News reports also indicate that the Obama Administration will be dropping active deportation cases against over 300,000 illegal aliens,” said Oltman. “They will all be getting work permits, if they don’t have them already. Ten percent unemployment in the country and 300,000 were just added to labor market. And, of course, if they don’t find jobs, expect them to start sucking up taxpayer benefits like welfare and food stamps and healthcare. Expect, in very short order, a surge on the border.”

If you remember, back in 1986, Reagan signed an amnesty for 1.2 million illegal aliens. It turned out to be 4.3 million applied for citizenship. At 20 million illegals in the USA in 2011, we will see a demographic nightmare emerge from wholesale avoidance of U.S. laws.

Mass immigration pushes this country toward an added 100 million within the next 25 years and 138 million by 2050. (Source: US Census Bureau, PEW Report, “US Population Projections” Fogel/Martin) The ramifications of this amnesty guarantee that the United States will become a polyglot of poverty, ethnic tension, environmental degradation and lowered quality of life and standard of living for most Americans. No one will escape the coming water shortages, energy shortfalls and resource scarcities.

We will all experience a diminished America as we slide into educational demise as well as becoming a scattered and disenfranchised country. When it comes to “Flash Mobs”, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

_________

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself:

“Immigration by the numbers-off the chart” by Roy Beck

This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a word “Mind boggling!” www.NumbersUSA.org

SOURCE

Time to end America’s two-party system?


Time to end America’s two-party system?

Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Confidence in the U.S. Congress is at a historic low, more than half of Americans think that the Republican and Democratic parties are doing such a bad job that a third party is needed, and the word “dysfunction” has been common currency in the drawn-out debate over the national debt.

Does this mean the bells are tolling for the Republican-Democratic duopoly which has dominated American political life for more than 150 years?

The answer is yes for a budding political force that aims to get the millions of voters who are disaffected by the present system to bypass the traditional selection of presidential candidates through primary elections.

Instead, the new organization, Americans Elect, says it wants voters “to decide the issues that matter, find candidates to match your views and nominate the President and Vice President directly.”

It’s a novel and extremely ambitious idea, backed by a 50-strong board of advisors that includes business executives, seasoned political operatives and senior former government officials, including ex-FBI director William Webster and former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills. Also on the board: Doug Schoen, a pollster who worked for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The chairman of the group is Peter Ackerman, who heads the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and made a fortune in the 1980s working for Drexel Burnham Lambert, the junk-bond dealers. His son Elliot is chief operations officer. Both are confident that the Internet and social media are the right tools to change the way the system functions.

The debt debate has strengthened the case of those who think the two-party system is failing. According to a CNN poll this week, 77 percent of Americans say that elected officials in Washington have behaved “like spoiled children” in the tug-of-war over raising the debt ceiling.

Schoen described the disenchantment of many Americans with the bickering in Washington as an “extraordinary opportunity” to win support for the Americans Elect project and said some 40,000 voters had added their signatures in the past few days to the 1.7 million the campaign had already collected. “We are winning greater public acceptance than anyone might have expected,” he said.

Traffic to the website also jumped, according to Americans Elect. “We had more than 600,000 page views on AmericansElect.org in the past 10 days,” said Ainsley Perrien, the project’s press secretary. “And, in the same period, more than 3,000 ideas and comments.”

These are substantial numbers for a new website and for an organization barely known nationally until an influential New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, wrote about it in enthusiastic terms in July: “What Amazon.com did to books, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life – remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in.”

FORMIDABLE OBSTACLES

Perhaps. There are formidable obstacles on the road to the goals of Americans Elect: win access to all 50 state ballots as an essential step to holding an online convention in June, 2012, open to registered voters who have signed up to select a candidate for president and vice president. The running mate must be from a different party (or independent).

Joshua Levine, the group’s chief technology officer who joined Americans Elect from the same position at E-Trade, has predicted that the way the group is planning its online convention will be a model for the way the voting process will be shaped in the future. Again, perhaps.

Old traditions die hard. But it is worth noting that according to polls, 41 percent of Americans are describing themselves as independents, beholden to neither of the two parties – which are more polarized than the electorate as a whole.

Will the disenchanted middle go to the trouble of registering with Americans Elect, participating in debates, selecting candidates?

It’s difficult to predict whether the depth of disgust shown by the polls will translate into action, and the will to try something novel and untested. What Americans Elect is hoping to do is more than a twist on an old story of third party candidates taking on the establishment, as did Ross Perot in 1992 (he won almost 20 percent of the vote), John Anderson in 1980 (6.6 percent), or Ralph Nader in 2000 (2.7 percent).

Officials of the group say it’s more about opening a second, 21st century process than about a third party.

To paraphrase a Wall Street phrase – past polls are no guarantee of future results but it’s useful to keep in mind the surveys mentioned at the beginning of this column. Gallup began asking about Americans’ confidence in various institutions in 1973. Then, 42 percent of respondents said they had confidence in Congress. By June 2011, it had dropped to 12 percent, dead last on a list of 16 institutions.

Gallup began asking about support for a third party in 2003, when 40 percent of respondents said there was no need for it. By May 2011, 52 percent thought there was a need for a third party. Among independents, 68 percent of independents thought so.

And by June 2012, when Americans Elect plans to hold its online convention? Let the betting begin.

You can contact the author at [email protected]

SOURCE

Toke of the Town

Lawmakers to introduce bill to legalize marijuana

AFPBy Luis Robayo | AFP –

A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.

The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.

The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana. Ron Paul and Barney Frank have teamed up to introduce legislation legalizing marijuana. Not decriminalizing it, but actually totally legalizing it.

It is being billed as “bipartisan legislation” but Ron Paul is the only Republican co-sponsor. According to the Marijuana Policy Project: “The legislation is the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.”

On this, the 40th anniversary of the WAR ON DRUGS, basically every thinking person agrees that marijuana prohibition is an expensive failure. Will this bill even get a floor debate in the House of Representatives?

Sixteen of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

But planting, selling or commercially distributing marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Last year, California citizens voted not to legalize recreational marijuana use, although the debate continues in about half a dozen other states.

Three weeks ago a group of ex-presidents of Latin America as well as former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan denounced the failure of the global war on drugs and called for urgent changes, including the legalization of cannabis.

Between 1998 and 2008, worldwide consumption of opiates increased 35 percent, with cocaine use growing 27 percent and marijuana use growing 8.5 percent, according to the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

June marks the 40th anniversary of the “WAR ON DRUGS” launched by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the first major US anti-drug initiative.

SOURCE

WAR POWERS ACT does NOT apply to Libya?

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.

On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.

“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”

It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House’s response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,
” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Weednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.

The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a “war” in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.

Since then, the conflict in Libya has dragged on longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya may be a diplomatic goal, the military mission is separate, and remains limited to protecting civilians.

The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities. But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.

While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon’s veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980,the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.

Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.

It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House’s interpretation of what “hostilities” means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations.

Mr. Koh argued that the administration’s interpretation of the word was not unprecedented, noting that there have been previous disputes about whether the 60-day-clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments where — unlike the Libya operation — there were troops on the ground and Americans suffered casualties.

Still, such previous cases typically involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited to take part, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence, like those in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. Libya, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardment of a government’s forces.

The closest precedent was the NATO-led air war over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, the Clinton administration’s legal team characterized the campaign, which involved many piloted American warplanes, as “hostilities” even though there was little exchange of fire from Serb forces after their air defenses were destroyed and there were no United States casualties.

In Kosovo, however, Congress appropriated specific funds for the mission before 60 days had passed. The Clinton administration decided that by providing the money, Congress had satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

SOURCE

Blackmailing America with Martial Law: Raising the debt limit

Eric Blair
Activist Post

In the fall of 2008, during the lead up to the TARP bailout of the financial industry, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned members of Congress that there will be Martial Law in America should they fail to pass the multi-trillion dollar looting of the taxpayer.

Well, despite the American public being overwhelmingly against the bailout, the blackmail worked and the banks got their money. If it worked once, why not try it again?

With the economy no better off for having borrowed trillions to “stabilize” criminal financial institutions, the national debt ceiling is rapidly approaching.  As some Republicans begin to float the notion of blocking this extension of credit, the Treasury Department, Democrats in Congress, and Ben Bernanke issued apocalyptic warnings clearly showing how pathetically fragile the U.S. economy is.

These threats, reminiscent of Paulson’s 2008 ransom demands, once again appear to be offering two black-and-white choices: Armageddon or more debt.  The coordinated pitch for higher debt levels is echoing the same urgency as the TARP looting, as Treasury Secretary Geithner said the government is insolvent and will run out of money in about two months’ time unless Congress votes to raise the federal debt ceiling.

The American Dream

The AFP reported Thursday that Senate Democrats warned that the government would “shut down” if the debt ceiling was not raised.  Chuck Schumer (D-NY) explained what that would mean if a shutdown were to occur: “citizens couldn’t get their checks, veterans couldn’t get their benefits, military payments would stop.”

Ben Bernanke doubled down on the debt-fear campaign in a rare press conference where he said, “Beyond a certain point . . . the United States would be forced into a position of defaulting on its debt. And the implications of that on our financial system, our fiscal policy and our economy would be catastrophic.”

Fiscal conservatives who oppose raising the debt ceiling say it is just delaying necessary belt-tightening and massive spending cuts, and say that raising the debt ceiling further only forestalls needed austerity moves to avoid a more catastrophic collapse in the future. House Republicans presented a plan to cut $32 billion from the budget, which is laughable given the impossible-to-pay-off debt levels.

AMERIKA

The U.S. national debt is approaching the ceiling of $14.29 trillion; unfunded liabilities like Social Security and Medicare are estimated to be around $100 trillion; and the total cost of stabilizing the financial industry is reportedly upwards of $23.7 trillion.  And these numbers say nothing of the fraudulent $600-trillion derivatives scam. No amount of tax increases, spending cuts, or economic growth will be sufficient to satisfy this equation.

The notion that America can somehow pull itself out of this mess if average citizens, who had no part in creating the national debt, would only “tighten their belts,” seems preposterous.

None of the options are exactly attractive to the already over-burdened taxpayer. Indeed, the people are being given a lose-lose-lose scenario: 1) the status quo of slow economic demolition through raising the debt ceiling; 2) crippling austerity cuts and public asset looting; or, 3) catastrophic collapse.

Although the banks and their pocket-change politicians describe market conditions that would result in a collapse should the ceiling not be raised, it seems obvious that the only power capable of drastically changing economic conditions are the banks themselves.  Therefore, market conditions appear to be an increasingly insignificant part of a bigger illusion.

As if the sun would not rise if a piece of legislation was not passed, the gun-to-the-head urgency will likely result in raising the debt ceiling.  If the level of resistance comes close to the near unanimous public disgust over the TARP bill, you can bet we’ll hear new warnings of “martial law in the streets” in order to keep the illusion in tact.  If for some reason collapse is unavoidable, the U.S. military is actively war gaming “large scale economic breakdown” and “civil unrest” should they choose otherwise.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/another-economic-martial-law-in-streets.html#more