If re-elected Obama will have few constraints on radical policies
For now, however, Obama is postponing action on several difficult issues, knowing that Republicans are determined to deny him political victories a few months before their chance to oust him. He's hardly the first to adopt that strategy.
Obama expressed a fundamental truth when he quietly told Russia's president that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with the touchy issue of missile defense after the Nov. 6 election - if Obama wins, that is. The statement might have raised few eyebrows had Obama made it nonchalantly to a U.S. audience. Instead, it kicked up a fuss because Obama thought the microphones were off when he spoke with Dmitry Medvedev in South Korea, and because Obama seemed to take his re-election for granted.
Presidents traditionally ease their foot from the gas pedal in their fourth year, when re-election politics overshadow almost everything.
President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, played small-ball in 1996, proposing school uniforms and midnight basketball programs after previously tackling much tougher issues such as welfare cuts and targeted tax increases (successfully) and a major health care overhaul (unsuccessfully).
President George W. Bush, a Republican, talked vaguely of overhauling Social Security during his 2004 re-election campaign, and then found the public wasn't ready for major changes after he won. Had he emphasized the proposed revisions during his campaign, Democrats' cries of "privatization" might have tipped the close election to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
"No president of either party has any flexibility whatsoever during a re-election year," said Dan Schnur, a former GOP presidential aide who teaches political science at the University of Southern California.
"Your honeymoon is long gone," he said. "Everything you do will be judged strictly in a political context. And anything you do that's remotely unpopular could cost you the election."
Obama has been blunt about election-year constraints. At a March 6 news conference, he acknowledged Hispanic supporters' anger over his failure to achieve immigration changes, including paths to legal status for some illegal immigrants.
"When I came into office, I said, `I am going to push to get this done,'" Obama said. "We didn't get it done. And the reason we haven't gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue."
Obama, foreshadowing what he told Medvedev, said a presidential election can change the policy landscape.
"My hope is that, after this election, the Latino community will have sent a strong message that they want a bipartisan effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform," he told reporters.
Obama also failed to deliver on his 2008 campaign promise to undo the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. The president postponed action in late 2010, when high unemployment made tax increases harder to defend.
Now the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone are set to expire shortly after the November election unless Congress acts. The agreement was part of a bipartisan compromise last fall in which Obama forced Republicans to agree to no more debt-ceiling showdowns until after the election.
Obama has had a shakier time slow-walking the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Environmental groups strongly oppose the plan, but Obama's GOP opponents hammer him almost daily for not approving it.
The president has struggled to finesse the issue. He recently directed the government to fast-track an Oklahoma pipeline while saying congressional Republicans refused to allow sufficient time to review the larger Keystone project. Republicans scoff at the claim.
On another front, many activists believe Obama will endorse same-sex marriage if he wins a second term; the White House has not promised to do so.
Presidents typically push hard for achievements in their first three years, show more caution in their fourth year and then aim high again if they win re-election.
Clinton tackled health care, tax increases on the rich, the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare revisions in his first term.
Bush sharply cut taxes, twice, as the budget surplus was changing to a deficit. Obama led a brutally partisan fight for the health care overhaul now before the Supreme Court.
Will Obama boldly push for big changes in immigration, Social Security or other difficult issues if he wins a second term?
Recent history offers few hints. The last four presidents to win re-election saw their second terms bog down in scandals or controversies: Richard Nixon and Watergate; Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra; Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky; Bush and Hurricane Katrina and the increasingly unpopular Iraq war.
Nothing illustrates the dilemma facing a fourth-year president better than Bush's handling of Social Security.
After narrowly defeating Kerry in 2004, Bush announced: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."
In his autobiography, "Decision Points," Bush wrote, "For someone looking to take on big issues, it didn't' get much bigger than reforming Social Security." He said he "embarked on a series of trips to raise awareness about Social Security's problems and rally the American people to insist on change."
Such a call to arms, of course, often takes place in an election campaign, not after it. Bush's bid to allow partial privatization of Social Security for younger workers quickly collapsed in the face of strong Democratic opposition and tepid GOP support.
"I may have misread the electoral mandate by pushing for an issue on which there had been little bipartisan agreement in the first place," Bush wrote. "The failure of Social Security reform shows the limits of the president's power."
Obama may have "more flexibility" to deal with missile defense, immigration and other issues if he wins a second term. Whether he will have a mandate to do so is another question.
Obama could sign Order at any time
Right now there is a new push to force the Gay Bill of Special Rights through the president’s office.
Rumors have been swirling for months that Obama will ignore the fact that Congress has not passed this despicable bill and sign it into existence by way of an Executive Order.
You see, Obama could make the Gay Bill of Special Rights a reality for all federal workers.
With an Executive Order, no department would ever be allowed to fire or reject an employee if they were homosexual or transgender.
And even worse, this would apply to any company working for the government on contract.
Defense contractors, construction companies... anything.
It might not even be long until special homosexual privileges are required for any institution -- such as schools -- that receives any government money at all!
At that point, we will have a de facto superior class of homosexuals, even if Congress never passes the legislation.
Obama could sign this Executive Order at any time -- he already has the final draft.
And sadly, Public Advocate is the only force out there who is willing to tell Obama and the Homosexual Lobby no.
Are you with me?
For the Family,
Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States
P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.
CIA the Gestapo of the Vaticans 4th Reich
Revelation 18:8 ~ and she shall be utterly burned with fire
Most people naively associate the Reich with Nazi Germany. Only a handful of people know that the Reich is and always has been a realm of Rome called the Holy Roman Empire (HRE; German: Heiliges Römisches Reich (HRR), Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum (IRS), Italian: Sacro Romano Impero (SRI)). Because the Reich is a Roman Empire it is governed by the Vatican.
The First Holy Roman Empire (controlled by the Vatican) or First Reich existed from 962 to 1806. The First Reich’s empire was centered on the Kingdom of Germany, and included neighbouring territories, which at its peak included the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy. For much of the First Reich, the Empire consisted of hundreds of smaller sub-units, principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities and other domains. Otto I was crowned King of Germany in 962 as the first Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser) of the First Reich. Otto was installed by the Vatican to lead the First Reich. The last leader of the First Reich was Francis II, who abdicated and dissolved the Vatican control over the empire in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars.
The Vatican regained some control of the Empire with the Second Reich, from 1871 to 1919. Germany was chosen again to lead the rebuilding of their empire. From 1914 to 1918 Germany tried to rebuilt the Holy Roman Empire for the Vatican (WWI) but the empire was again dissolved in 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.
The Vatican did not give up its aspiration of a Holy Roman Empire centered on Germany. Even after being defeated and humiliated the Vatican again chose Germany to rebuild its Third Reich (Third Holy Roman Empire). From 1933 to 1945 (WWII) Adolf Hitler succeeded in building the largest ever Holy Roman Empire for the Vatican. It had taken and controlled all of mainland Europe for the Vatican. On June 6, 1944 (D-Day) the United States, Canada and Britain landed on the beaches of France and began liberating Europe from Vatican control. On May 7, 1945 Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies and on May 8, 1945 to the Soviet Union, formally dissolving the Vatican’s Third Reich.
The CIA and the Gestapo are one and the same.
Most Americans naively believe that the CIA works for the United States government, not the Vatican. At the end of WWII the U.S. government smuggled hundreds of top Nazi SS officers, Gestapo agents and scientists involved in experiments on the Jewish people in the concentration camps, into the United States. Operation Paperclip (Project Paperclip) saw hundreds of Nazi officials given asylum in the U.S. (Fort Bliss) from prosecution for their crimes against humanity. Scientists who committed atrocities by using human beings as lab rats formed the US biological weapons division of the US military. Nazi scientists who developed the first operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me 262, and V-2 rocket formed the US ballistic missile weapons programs and later formed NASA. Nazi Gestapo (German Intelligence Agencies) agents were brought to the US and formed the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Nazi German Gestapo had the authority to investigate cases of treason, espionage, sabotage and criminal attacks against the Nazi Party and Germany. The CIA has the same authority in the United States. The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight. The CIA also operates without judicial oversight. The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws. The CIA has the exact same exemptions. SS officer Werner Best, onetime head of legal affairs in the Gestapo, summed up this policy by saying, “As long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally.”
President Truman knew what the CIA was. He personally opposed the creation of the CIA. He even referred to them as the “American Gestapo” “I CONSIDERED IT VERY important to this country to have a sound, well-organized intelligence system, both in the present and in the future. Properly developed, such a service would require new concepts as well as better trained and more competent personnel . . . it was imperative that we refrain from rushing into something that would produce harmful and unnecessary rivalries among the various intelligence agencies. I told Smith (Director of the Bureau of the Budget) that one thing was certain–this country wanted no Gestapo under any guise or for any reason.“ ~ President Harry S. Truman, Memoirs Vol I
The Origins of the Vatican’s Spiritual Entity called the SS
Under Pope Innocent VIII, the role of the Inquisition and Inquisitor changed to increase their legal and spiritual authority when despatching “heretics”. Around 1483 Tomás de Torquemada was named Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia.
His torturers and special militia were then blessed with being sworn into the highest sacred order of the Roman Cult– the SS or the Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum.
As a military order of the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum (SS) were bestowed by the legal orders of the Roman Pontiff on behalf of the Mother Church (Revelation 17:4 ~ “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.“) to wage constant Holy Inquisition against all heretics, including assassinations, torture and counter-intelligence, to protect the name of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and directly represent the interests of the Holy See as its primary order of Holy Knights– the SS (Sedes Sacrorum or Holy See).
As a spiritual order of the Roman Catholic Church, the SS were bestowed with the extraordinary Roman Catholic grace of being forgiven for all their mortal sins (therefore can go to Heaven) that “unfortunately” must be done in order to observe its temporal orders. In others words, the troops of the Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada were the first religious military order to be granted “immunity” from Hell by the Pope on account of its acts of torture, terror and evil.
The last open satanic ritual sacrifices under the Holy Inquisition was in the early 19th Century. By the beginning of the 20th Century, there were less than a few hundred SS soldiers still assigned to the Holy Inquisition. However, upon the appointment of Fr Heinrich Himmler S.J. in 1929 to the NSDAP in Germany, a new Nazi SS (Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum) Army of several hundred thousand was created by 1939 to wage the single greatest Inquisition ever undertaken by the Roman Cult– with over 18 million innocent people burned alive in ovens in Russia and Poland.
The German SS were disbanded at the end of World War II, with the Roman Scroll of the SS being handed to the United States SS (Secret Service/Sedes Sacrorum) by 1945. The United States SS was officially created into a military/spiritual force after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. After the staged gun-fight outside Blair House in 1950, the United States SS have had absolute protection of the President of the United States, holding him a virtual prisoner of the State under the guise of official protection.
short URL: http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=4871
Most people naively associate the Reich with Nazi Germany. Only a handful of people know that the Reich is and always has been a realm of Rome called the Holy Roman Empire (HRE; German: Heiliges Römisches Reich (HRR), Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum (IRS), Italian: Sacro Romano Impero (SRI)). Because the Reich is a Roman Empire it is governed by the Vatican.
The First Holy Roman Empire (controlled by the Vatican) or First Reich existed from 962 to 1806. The First Reich’s empire was centered on the Kingdom of Germany, and included neighbouring territories, which at its peak included the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy. For much of the First Reich, the Empire consisted of hundreds of smaller sub-units, principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities and other domains. Otto I was crowned King of Germany in 962 as the first Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser) of the First Reich. Otto was installed by the Vatican to lead the First Reich. The last leader of the First Reich was Francis II, who abdicated and dissolved the Vatican control over the empire in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars.
The Vatican regained some control of the Empire with the Second Reich, from 1871 to 1919. Germany was chosen again to lead the rebuilding of their empire. From 1914 to 1918 Germany tried to rebuilt the Holy Roman Empire for the Vatican (WWI) but the empire was again dissolved in 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.
The Vatican did not give up its aspiration of a Holy Roman Empire centered on Germany. Even after being defeated and humiliated the Vatican again chose Germany to rebuild its Third Reich (Third Holy Roman Empire). From 1933 to 1945 (WWII) Adolf Hitler succeeded in building the largest ever Holy Roman Empire for the Vatican. It had taken and controlled all of mainland Europe for the Vatican. On June 6, 1944 (D-Day) the United States, Canada and Britain landed on the beaches of France and began liberating Europe from Vatican control. On May 7, 1945 Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies and on May 8, 1945 to the Soviet Union, formally dissolving the Vatican’s Third Reich.
The Vatican Crusades Iron Cross is once again emblazoned on German Tanks
60 years later and Germany is once again chosen to build a new Holy Roman Empire – the Fourth Reich. This time however, a former Nazi German Youth – Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger ( served the Third Reich for at least 4 years) is now also the leader of the Vatican. To build the Fourth Reich a German installed another German to rebuild the Roman Empire. The German controlled Vatican installed the biological daughter (by Artificial insemination) of the leader of the Third Reich (Adolf Hitler) to build the Fourth Reich. She has been tasked to first weaken Europe and its American liberators through debt (U.S. and Europe Debt Crisis) and wars against an imaginary enemy (War on Terror), then launch major biological and nuclear attacks against the United States and Russia. The attacks in the United States will be carried out by the Vatican’s modern day Gestapo – we all know them as the CIA. The attacks against Russia will be carried out by the Vatican army – we all know them as NATO.The CIA and the Gestapo are one and the same.
Most Americans naively believe that the CIA works for the United States government, not the Vatican. At the end of WWII the U.S. government smuggled hundreds of top Nazi SS officers, Gestapo agents and scientists involved in experiments on the Jewish people in the concentration camps, into the United States. Operation Paperclip (Project Paperclip) saw hundreds of Nazi officials given asylum in the U.S. (Fort Bliss) from prosecution for their crimes against humanity. Scientists who committed atrocities by using human beings as lab rats formed the US biological weapons division of the US military. Nazi scientists who developed the first operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me 262, and V-2 rocket formed the US ballistic missile weapons programs and later formed NASA. Nazi Gestapo (German Intelligence Agencies) agents were brought to the US and formed the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Nazi German Gestapo had the authority to investigate cases of treason, espionage, sabotage and criminal attacks against the Nazi Party and Germany. The CIA has the same authority in the United States. The basic Gestapo law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight. The CIA also operates without judicial oversight. The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws. The CIA has the exact same exemptions. SS officer Werner Best, onetime head of legal affairs in the Gestapo, summed up this policy by saying, “As long as the police carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally.”
President Truman knew what the CIA was. He personally opposed the creation of the CIA. He even referred to them as the “American Gestapo” “I CONSIDERED IT VERY important to this country to have a sound, well-organized intelligence system, both in the present and in the future. Properly developed, such a service would require new concepts as well as better trained and more competent personnel . . . it was imperative that we refrain from rushing into something that would produce harmful and unnecessary rivalries among the various intelligence agencies. I told Smith (Director of the Bureau of the Budget) that one thing was certain–this country wanted no Gestapo under any guise or for any reason.“ ~ President Harry S. Truman, Memoirs Vol I
The Origins of the Vatican’s Spiritual Entity called the SS
Under Pope Innocent VIII, the role of the Inquisition and Inquisitor changed to increase their legal and spiritual authority when despatching “heretics”. Around 1483 Tomás de Torquemada was named Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia.
His torturers and special militia were then blessed with being sworn into the highest sacred order of the Roman Cult– the SS or the Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum.
As a military order of the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum (SS) were bestowed by the legal orders of the Roman Pontiff on behalf of the Mother Church (Revelation 17:4 ~ “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.“) to wage constant Holy Inquisition against all heretics, including assassinations, torture and counter-intelligence, to protect the name of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and directly represent the interests of the Holy See as its primary order of Holy Knights– the SS (Sedes Sacrorum or Holy See).
As a spiritual order of the Roman Catholic Church, the SS were bestowed with the extraordinary Roman Catholic grace of being forgiven for all their mortal sins (therefore can go to Heaven) that “unfortunately” must be done in order to observe its temporal orders. In others words, the troops of the Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada were the first religious military order to be granted “immunity” from Hell by the Pope on account of its acts of torture, terror and evil.
The last open satanic ritual sacrifices under the Holy Inquisition was in the early 19th Century. By the beginning of the 20th Century, there were less than a few hundred SS soldiers still assigned to the Holy Inquisition. However, upon the appointment of Fr Heinrich Himmler S.J. in 1929 to the NSDAP in Germany, a new Nazi SS (Knights of the Sedes Sacrorum) Army of several hundred thousand was created by 1939 to wage the single greatest Inquisition ever undertaken by the Roman Cult– with over 18 million innocent people burned alive in ovens in Russia and Poland.
The German SS were disbanded at the end of World War II, with the Roman Scroll of the SS being handed to the United States SS (Secret Service/Sedes Sacrorum) by 1945. The United States SS was officially created into a military/spiritual force after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. After the staged gun-fight outside Blair House in 1950, the United States SS have had absolute protection of the President of the United States, holding him a virtual prisoner of the State under the guise of official protection.
short URL: http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=4871
DHS Clueless About Unauthorized Foreigners In U.S.
It gets better. When congressional investigators demanded answers from the agency, officials said they had not yet completed a review of the cases to determine the extent of the risk. Your government at work! It’s as if nothing has been learned from the 2001 terrorist attacks, when security was so lax that Middle Eastern extremists slipped right through to plan their plot from inside the country.
Outlined in an investigative congressional report, these lapses are of special concern. The first involves foreigners who enter the U.S. from 36 countries that have special visa waiver agreements with Uncle Sam. They still need authorization, though the system is more lax than a typical visa process. Foreigners must comply with a special DHS Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) that requires them to submit biographical information and answer eligibility questions before traveling.
It’s almost as if the monstrous agency created after the 2001 terrorist attacks to protect the nation is blowing off Congress. This theory appears to be supported by the DHS’s handling of visa over stayers. If you recall, several of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. with valid visas but simply never left. This should be an area of deep concern for the DHS, though it doesn’t appear to be.
Read More at Judicial Watch
Feminism Takes A SlutWalk
By
Sandra Fluke’s colleagues at the Law Students for Reproductive Justice are having a “slut-pride” seminar at Harvard’s Sex Week. I thought we weren’t suppose to use that word or any misogynist terms in the public lexicon since it “shame[s] women out of advocacy and into silence.” Yet, it’s ok when this word is thrown around in the halls of liberal academia.
This current wave of feminism is in the wilderness. The first wave fought to give women the right to vote. The second wave went to war against employment and workplace discrimination. Equal pay, another item on the second wave’s agenda, is still an ongoing struggle. However, this third and current wave thinks slutwalks are the embodiment of womanhood. American women are the most free and successful in human history. Women can compete with the men in almost any aspect of American life, especially politically conservative women, whose dispositions are pervasively undercut by the liberal media and their affiliates. Case in point: Gloria Steinem’s column in 2008 arguing how Palin is an “unqualified woman.”
As we progress through the 21st century, sexual assaults against women have been a problem. Dickinson College, my alma mater, actually had protests concerning increased campus security, and the legal ramifications more defined and transparent. It was a concerted effort that got the attention of college president William Durden, and reforms were made. It was a victory; however, this would never have happened if the ladies of Dickinson staged a slut walk. They might have, but I don’t take little notice in disgraceful acts disguised as public advocacy.
When has the N-word been used in a positive manner? When has “gook,” “chink,” “slope,” or “Chinamen” been used positively towards or between Asian people? There is a reason why Asian-Americans don’t greet each other by saying “what’s up chink”; it is stupendously idiotic. It is a massive waste of political and social resources to reclaim such words like “slut”, “whore,” “c*nt,” “bitch,” etc. because no woman will ever greet another woman like that or, in a surreal way, use it in a positive fashion that’s appropriate for children’s television.
I’m floored that the whole controversy surrounded the “helpless” Fluke was centered on a word that is now being hailed and “reclaimed” in the name of sisterhood. It is another ignominious event in the annals of American liberalism. This current wave of feminism has a real nexus point to lead an effort to curb and reduce violence against women in America, but it seems to blinded by hyper-emotionality to see clearly. They prefer to dress like “sluts” and hold up signs saying “am I asking for it?” No, you’re not. But it doesn’t mean I cannot call you a moron in the process.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/fluke-associated-reproductive-justice-group-hosts-slut-pride-event-at-harvard/#ixzz1qG5rNX6W
Hannity's Media Mash for 3-29-2012 "Trayvon Martin edition"
Chances Are There Will Be No Election This November
As you can see with NDAA and NDRP, the Government is preparing for Martial Law.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
http://inquisitionnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/chances-are-there-will-be-no-election.html
As you can see with NDAA and NDRP, the Government is preparing for Martial Law.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
http://inquisitionnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/chances-are-there-will-be-no-election.html
Barack Obama's Hypocrisy of 'Civility' Inciting Riots
Chances Are There Will Be No Election This November
As you can see with NDAA and NDRP, the Government is preparing for Martial Law.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
http://inquisitionnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/chances-are-there-will-be-no-election.html
As you can see with NDAA and NDRP, the Government is preparing for Martial Law.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
http://inquisitionnews.blogspot.com/2012/03/chances-are-there-will-be-no-election.html
John McCain Is Furious That He Can't Lock Up Americans Under The NDAA
 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
After Obama capitulated and signed the bill into law January 1, we identified the additions everyone was freaking out about:
- Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
- Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
- Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
This power was apparently much anticipated by Senator McCain because he's now doing everything in his power to get the legislation enforced, including tying up defense appointments made by the president.
McCain pledged yesterday that until the Pentagon and the White House meet his demands to enforce certain provisions of the NDAA, including indefinite detention, he won't participate in voting on nominees and will do all he can to see the process grinds to a halt.
The Senator even put his ire to paper and sent off a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta referring to a series of bullet-pointed NDAA grievances, one-by-one.
The list is filled with concerns over force assessment and budgetary priorities, but in the second to last bullet-point McCain lashes out directly at Obama for undermining the indefinite detention clause in the 2012 NDAA.
From McCain's letter to Panetta:
Following a lengthy and intense debate on provisions in the FY 2012 NDAA regarding detention in military custody of suspected terrorists, Congress and the Administration reached a bipartisan agreement that is reflected in Public Law 112-81 enacted on December 31, 2011. However, on February 28, 2012, the President issued a Presidential Policy Directive that effectively eviscerated major sections of that law, clearly contradicting the letter and spirit of the law.
McCain concludes his letter, drafted on Senate stationary from the Committee On Armed Forces, by saying he hopes his grievances are "simple misinterpretations of the law or inadvertent oversights, rather than willful disregard."He looks forward to working with Panetta to resolve the matters.
GOP weighs changes to indefinite detention law
By Donna Cassata
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders.
Republicans and Democratic lawmakers said this week that the GOP majority on the House Armed Services Committee was weighing several proposals to revise the provision on indefinite detention that was part of the far-reaching defense bill that Congress passed in December and President Barack Obama signed into law.
Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups. The anger still lingers, and GOP leaders are under pressure from a number of rank-and-file members, tea partyers and libertarians to change the law.
"I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible," said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., whose staff has spoken to the Armed Services panel. "I intend to spend a lot of time - and I already have been doing so - making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it."
Officials for the committee led by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., had no comment on the possible changes to be included in a defense bill, which could be completed this summer. The discussions are preliminary, but one possibility is greater review for those detained indefinitely, said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the committee's top Democrat.
Conservatives fear that the detention provision could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that's later linked to terrorism. They argue that would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by Democrat Obama.
Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration's war against terrorism, creating an unusual political coalition in Congress.
In the months since the bill became law, some Republicans who backed the legislation have been challenged at town halls and other meetings with constituents, a turn of events that unnerves the GOP.
"There clearly has been some blowback and that's what the Republicans are trying to address," Smith said.
The indefinite detention provision denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. In hopes of quelling the furor, lawmakers added language that said nothing in the law may be "construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
In February, the Obama administration outlined new rules on when the FBI, rather than the military, could be allowed to retain custody of al-Qaida terrorism suspects who aren't U.S. citizens but are arrested by federal law enforcement officers. The new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a waiver when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual's cooperation or confession.
But that's not sufficient for some lawmakers.
Smith and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., have introduced legislation that would repeal the provision on indefinite detention and reverse the mandatory military custody for foreign terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or attacking the United States.
"I will continue to push that bill," Smith said in an interview. "I know the majority is also putting together some ideas. They're very process-focused. ... I have not seen specifics of that proposal yet and we'll talk to them about it, but obviously I have a much stronger position on that and think that we don't need to have indefinite detention or military custody for the people in the U.S."
Amash is determined to change the law, using town halls in his district and the long reach of Facebook to get his message out. He said many Republicans voted for the defense bill in December after they were promised that legislation fixing the provision would be introduced after Christmas. He's still waiting.
"What I've seen from members of Armed Services Committee is basically an attempt to justify the language as it stands," Amash said. "And considering the extent to which they've dug in their heels on this issue, I'd be surprised if they're actually going to make a real and credible change to the language."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing a conservative backlash, House Republicans are working to change a new law that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders.
Republicans and Democratic lawmakers said this week that the GOP majority on the House Armed Services Committee was weighing several proposals to revise the provision on indefinite detention that was part of the far-reaching defense bill that Congress passed in December and President Barack Obama signed into law.
Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups. The anger still lingers, and GOP leaders are under pressure from a number of rank-and-file members, tea partyers and libertarians to change the law.
"I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible," said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., whose staff has spoken to the Armed Services panel. "I intend to spend a lot of time - and I already have been doing so - making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it."
Officials for the committee led by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., had no comment on the possible changes to be included in a defense bill, which could be completed this summer. The discussions are preliminary, but one possibility is greater review for those detained indefinitely, said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the committee's top Democrat.
Conservatives fear that the detention provision could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that's later linked to terrorism. They argue that would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by Democrat Obama.
Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration's war against terrorism, creating an unusual political coalition in Congress.
In the months since the bill became law, some Republicans who backed the legislation have been challenged at town halls and other meetings with constituents, a turn of events that unnerves the GOP.
"There clearly has been some blowback and that's what the Republicans are trying to address," Smith said.
The indefinite detention provision denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. In hopes of quelling the furor, lawmakers added language that said nothing in the law may be "construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
In February, the Obama administration outlined new rules on when the FBI, rather than the military, could be allowed to retain custody of al-Qaida terrorism suspects who aren't U.S. citizens but are arrested by federal law enforcement officers. The new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a waiver when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual's cooperation or confession.
But that's not sufficient for some lawmakers.
Smith and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., have introduced legislation that would repeal the provision on indefinite detention and reverse the mandatory military custody for foreign terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or attacking the United States.
"I will continue to push that bill," Smith said in an interview. "I know the majority is also putting together some ideas. They're very process-focused. ... I have not seen specifics of that proposal yet and we'll talk to them about it, but obviously I have a much stronger position on that and think that we don't need to have indefinite detention or military custody for the people in the U.S."
Amash is determined to change the law, using town halls in his district and the long reach of Facebook to get his message out. He said many Republicans voted for the defense bill in December after they were promised that legislation fixing the provision would be introduced after Christmas. He's still waiting.
"What I've seen from members of Armed Services Committee is basically an attempt to justify the language as it stands," Amash said. "And considering the extent to which they've dug in their heels on this issue, I'd be surprised if they're actually going to make a real and credible change to the language."
Court bars challenge to bundled cable channels
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday found that the plaintiffs - cable and satellite TV subscribers - failed to state an antitrust claim against Walt Disney, Fox Entertainment Group Inc, Comcast Corp and several other companies. The plaintiffs intended to seek class-action status.
Maxwell Blecher, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was very disappointed in the decision and that his clients will likely seek review before a larger 9th Circuit panel.
"It is so wrong," Blecher said of the ruling.
Glenn Pomerantz, an attorney for Fox, said the company was "extremely pleased" with the ruling.
"The agreements between television programmers and cable and satellite operators do not injure competition in any way," Pomerantz said. "They are totally legal and justifiable."
Representatives for Disney and Comcast could not immediately be reached.
The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, alleged that television programmers exploit their market power by requiring distributors to sell less desirable cable channels, along with select "must have" channels. Those business practices impair competition among distributors for consumer business, the plaintiffs alleged.
The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and on Friday, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel unanimously affirmed.
"The complaint does not allege that programmers' practice of selling 'must-have' and low-demand channels in packages excludes other sellers of low-demand channels from the market," the court wrote, "or that this practice raises barriers to entry into the programming market."
The case in the 9th Circuit is Rob Brantley et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NBC Universal Inc., Viacom Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Fox Entertainment Group Inc., Time Warner Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications LLC, CoxCom Inc., The DirecTV Group Inc., Echostar Satellite LLC, Cablevision Systems Corporation, 09-56785.
(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Gary Hill)
Inciting Riots: Chances Are There Will Be No Election This November
As you can see with NDAA and NDRP, the Government is preparing for Martial Law.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
To activate Martial Law, the Government only needs such an incident such as a race riot.
The Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying perpetrate just such an incident.
When Martial Law is declared there will be no election! This is why DHS has ordered over 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.
It's all about race now: Inciting Riots
By Pat Buchanan If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.
So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
And they may be right.
Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been "murdered and martyred."
Maxine Waters would not be screaming "hate crime."
Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been "executed." And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.
Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.
It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.
It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.
And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.
Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.
But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?
He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.
Why would this raise Zimmerman’s antennae?
Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.
In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.
Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.
For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.
Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp is often a black male wearing a hoodie.
Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers – about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes – one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.
The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.
Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.
That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?
As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.
Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.
Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.
Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, “Profile your passengers” for your own protection. “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics.”
Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.
To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”
Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon’s body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.
But, to Florida Congresswoman Federica Wilson, “this sweet young boy … was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large.”
Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.
But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?
As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.
Is this our idea of justice?
No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.
Click here to read Pat Buchanan's full column.
Click here to learn more about WorldNetWeekly.
Response from Senator Casey RE: House Concurrent Resolution (H.C.R.) 107
On March 7, 2012, the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a hearing to discuss the situation in Syria. During his testimony, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was asked whether the administration planned to consult with Congress about U.S. options for addressing the ongoing violence in Syria. Secretary Panetta replied that “our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this.” According to a Department of Defense official, Secretary Panetta’s comments were intended to “emphasize the need for an international mandate,” and that the administration was “not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body.”
The same day, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina introduced H.C.R. 107, Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. This legislation has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No corresponding legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Should similar legislation come before the Senate for consideration, please be assured that I will have your concerns in mind.
The United States Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. In addition, the War Powers Resolution is intended to ensure that Congress is directly involved in decisions to commit U.S. military resources around the world. It stipulates that the President can only exercise his or her powers as Commander in Chief “to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances… pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” As your United States Senator, I take very seriously my responsibility to oversee U.S. military operations and executive branch activities related to our national security.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
Ron Paul: "Give Me Liberty" Money Bomb
Tomorrow marks the end for the first fundraising quarter for 2012.
The national media and their pals in the Washington, D.C. political establishment can hardly wait.
They want more than anything to crown Mitt Romney the nominee - so they're preparing to scour these reports and declare all other campaigns dead in the water!
But with states just beginning to select their delegates to the Republican National Convention, now is our chance to show them this race is anything but over!
So won't you please agree to an IMMEDIATE contribution to my campaign before the end of quarter deadline?
The great news is, we raised over $1 million during my "Give Me Liberty" Money Bomb, but with the 1st quarter deadline fast approaching, now is the time for a final push!
Even if all you can give right now is $10 or $25, your contribution will make a tremendous difference.
Right now, my campaign's delegate strategy is being put to the full test.
Tomorrow, Minnesota and North Dakota will begin selecting their delegates to the Republican National Convention.
Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, and Washington State will follow not long after.
If my campaign has strong showings there - which I'm very hopeful it will - it could turn this entire presidential race on its head.
And if we do get to a brokered convention, all bets will be off.
But if we're going to succeed, I'm going to need to run a full-scale GOTV program, including targeted mail, email, and phone banks.
My staff also needs to stay prepared to fight back against any "funny business" my opponents' supporters or "old guard" establishment hacks might try to pull.
You've heard the stories. You know what we're up against.
I just wish you could watch the "old guard's" jaws drop when my supporters beat them at their own game!
So can I count on you for a generous and IMMEDIATE contribution before the end of quarter deadline?
I hope I can.
As I mentioned, any amount you can give will be a tremendous help - even if it's just $10 or $25.
Of course, I hope you'll be even more generous.
With your financial support, we can show the national media and the Washington, D.C. political establishment that this race for the presidency has become a whole new ballgame!
Please act IMMEDIATELY!
For Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. With the end of quarter deadline coming tomorrow, the national media is preparing to scour the reports of every presidential campaign and declare all other campaigns but Mitt Romney's dead in the water!
Now is our chance to show them this race is anything but over!
So won't you please agree to an IMMEDIATE contribution to my campaign before the end of quarter deadline?
The truth is, my campaign's delegate strategy is being put to the true test right now. So your IMMEDIATE support is critical.
ObamaCare is a nightmare for our healthcare system and for our economy
Ava Isabella Stimson's birth on June 25, 2009 was a shock to her parents. That's because she was born a full three months before her due date, weighing only 2 pounds and 4 ounces. Like with nearly all babies born so early, she had serious health complications -- "brain bleed" and respiratory distress.
But being born three months before her due date wasn't the biggest problem facing little Ava.
You see, Ava was born in Ontario, Canada where the government runs healthcare. And the government-run hospital where she was born "didn't have room" for her.
Can you possibly imagine what her parents must have been feeling?
Well, you won't have to imagine it, if you and I let ObamaCare stay in place.
You see, while it might have been a good idea for those parents to come down from Canada in 2009, it won't be if we let this election season go by without electing enough good men and women who will repeal ObamaCare once and for all.It is very clear, and unfortunate, that stories like little Ava's are commonplace in countries with government-run healthcare -- and they often don't have happy endings.
There will be more stories. More parents fearing for their children, their parents, their friends and neighbors.
ObamaCare is a nightmare for our healthcare system and for our economy.
As a lifelong Doctor before coming to the U.S. Senate, I can tell you that our healthcare system and our economy will NOT recover from ObamaCare if we allow it to take full effect after the upcoming elections.
That's why I'm asking for you to act today, by signing the Repeal ObamaCare Pledge, and by supporting RANDPAC and our efforts to push repeal legislation while helping support ONLY candidates for office who will vow to FULLY REPEAL ObamaCare if elected.
We all know what is at stake. If you and I don't succeed today, ObamaCare WILL:
*** Grant hundreds of waivers to Big Labor while forcing the rest of us into government approved health care.
*** Cost over $1.6 TRILLION, a price tag which -- especially under the current economic downturn -- the U.S. just simply can't afford;
*** Place American healthcare under the control of government bureaucrats who will decide who gets procedures and who doesn't;
*** Force American citizens into government run or "approved" healthcare plan, stripping nearly 120 million Americans of their current health coverage;
*** Hike taxes on those Americans who are lucky enough to keep their existing health benefits by taxing them as income.
That's why you and I must fight back NOW!You see, all this is bad enough, but you and I have both heard the economic news, the jobs reports, and watched the stock market roller coaster over these past several years.
If we want the economy of Greece with the healthcare of Canada, well, then we should sit back and watch it happen. And happen it will.
You and I must act to stop it. You can start today by going HERE to sign your pledge and make your contribution to RAND PAC.The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that could invalidate some parts of ObamaCare. You might think that has the situation under control.
I can assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.
First, the Supreme Court will rule narrowly.
There is virtually no chance they will throw the entire law out the window.
Second, there is some skepticism the Supreme Court will offer ANY relief at all.
That's why you and I must act. Today. Next week. Through November.
You and I both know we simply do NOT have the votes right now to repeal ObamaCare. But that's where RANDPAC come in.
From now til November, RANDPAC will be laser focused on electing Senators and Congressmen who will be LEADERS. People who will not just cast a vote, but stand up and FIGHT to FULLY REPEAL ObamaCare.
RANDPAC has already endorsed Ted Cruz in Texas and Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, who have made ObamaCare repeal a centerpiece of their campaigns.
But both are in competitive primaries against establishment opponents, including one who openly supported parts of ObamaCare.
This battle CAN be won, but only if you stand with me today.
For Liberty,
Rand Paul
United States Senator
P.S. While the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on throwing out ObamaCare, there is simply no guarantee the court will offer any relief.
Big Labor has received hundreds of ObamaCare waivers while the rest of us are shunted into government approved health care.
You and I cannot count on the Supreme Court, but we can fight back by electing a Congress next November that will repeal ObamaCare lock, stock and barrel.
This is a battle you and I can win, but only if you support RANDPAC's efforts to elect Senators and Congressmen who will not waiver in their committment to repeal ObamaCare.
So please, click here to sign your Repeal ObamaCare Pledge. After you sign the pledge, please chip in a contribution of $50, $25, $10 - or whatever you can afford - so RANDPAC can continue to fight through November to elect candidates who have made repealing ObamaCare a centerpiece of their campaign.
IRS seeks 4,000 agents and $303 million for Obamacare
Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman testifies recently before Congress. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The Internal Revenue Service wants to add about 4,000 agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303 million building a system to oversee Obamacare even though its future looks bleak in the U.S. Supreme Court.
A new Government Accountability Office review of the IRS 2012 tax return season and the taxman’s fiscal 2013 budget request also found that the agency’s customer service rating has slipped and 5.5 million returns were delayed a week because of a computer programming glitch.
The news isn’t all bad though. A March 20 GAO performance audit found that the agency has seen a steady increase in e-filing and had processed 68 million returns so far, a 3 percent bump. What’s more, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said that the American Customer Satisfaction Index for his team has jumped to 73 percent and he added that for every $1 spent on enforcement, the agency collects a return of $4.30.
The audit looked at everything from customer service to pending budget issues. It found that the agency’s “level of service” via phone calls dropped from 70 percent last year to 61 percent currently, and that the number of “abandoned (calls,) busies and disconnects” jumped 41 percent this year and almost 150 percent since 2009. The average wait time for IRS help also surged 48 percent to 16.6 minutes.
As for the new workers sought, the GAO said the total will be about 4,500 with nearly 4,000 slated for enforcement. The IRS, however, argues that past budget cuts have forced the agency to cut jobs and set a hiring freeze. On the $303 million for Obamacare, the GAO said it will “continue the development of new systems and modifications of existing systems required to support new tax credits.”
A new Government Accountability Office review of the IRS 2012 tax return season and the taxman’s fiscal 2013 budget request also found that the agency’s customer service rating has slipped and 5.5 million returns were delayed a week because of a computer programming glitch.
The news isn’t all bad though. A March 20 GAO performance audit found that the agency has seen a steady increase in e-filing and had processed 68 million returns so far, a 3 percent bump. What’s more, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said that the American Customer Satisfaction Index for his team has jumped to 73 percent and he added that for every $1 spent on enforcement, the agency collects a return of $4.30.
The audit looked at everything from customer service to pending budget issues. It found that the agency’s “level of service” via phone calls dropped from 70 percent last year to 61 percent currently, and that the number of “abandoned (calls,) busies and disconnects” jumped 41 percent this year and almost 150 percent since 2009. The average wait time for IRS help also surged 48 percent to 16.6 minutes.
As for the new workers sought, the GAO said the total will be about 4,500 with nearly 4,000 slated for enforcement. The IRS, however, argues that past budget cuts have forced the agency to cut jobs and set a hiring freeze. On the $303 million for Obamacare, the GAO said it will “continue the development of new systems and modifications of existing systems required to support new tax credits.”
President is working to put the final mechanisms in place to enact martial law
Hide Your Valuables, The Feds Are Coming
by Sam Rolley
PHOTOS.COM
Does a recent executive order give the government the right to take your gold and silver investments?
The order calls for government acquisition of resources and the ability of the government to “foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness” if it is deemed vital to national security interests.
The blog Lonestar Watchdog, in a recent post, raises new concerns about the President’s executive order: Can it be used to confiscate American citizens’ gold, silver and other valuables?
The author writes:
To speak hypothetically of a possible scenario that I would not put past Obama to try to pull. We can see again that the government is going to run out of money. This time congress is less reluctant to give in to the President’s wishes this time around. The dollar might fully collapse at a time they did not plan for in their timetable. It can be a fabricated crisis. Congress can refuse to raise the debt ceiling this time due to public pressure. Anything the President perceives as a national emergency, or does he need the money to fund the wars. He can enact the powers of these executive orders to go after anything.It is unknown whether the author is correct in being concerned that the Federal government will use such measures in an outright effort to confiscate individuals’ physical gold and silver investments. What is known is that the elite have been quietly confiscating wealth from hardworking Americans via currency debasement and wealth-redistributing social welfare programs for decades. Bob Livingston has been warning his readers about this for more than 40 years with newsletters (The Bob Livingston Letter™), books and websites. If you are interested in finding out how you can protect your wealth from the Federal government and the elite banksters, you can find a collection of Livingston’s most informative titles here.
We can see a phony crisis being concocted to go after the American’s people gold, maybe even silver. He will order people like back when FDR was President to seize all safety deposit boxes and demand American to turn in their gold and silver coins, jewelry and would not surprise me if that be a couple’s wedding rings now required to be surrendered this time around.
Boehner Seeking Answers After Obama’s Blunder
by Bryan Nash
Over the past few days, the President has worked himself into a corner that even the most experienced contortionist would not be able to get out of. On Monday, Barack Obama told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to relay a message to Medvedev’s successor, Vladimir Putin, that he would “have more flexibility” in regard to missile defense in Europe after the November election. Apparently, Obama forgot that the mic was on. It was the whisper heard ’round the world.
The next day, Obama answered the inevitable criticism by saying he simply meant that the current election environment is not conducive to a discussion of the issue.
“The only way I get this stuff done is if I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support and frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations,” Obama said.
Obama’s answer wasn’t enough for House Speaker John Boehner. He wants a real response.
Boehner wrote in a letter on Wednesday:
Dear Mr. President:
UPI
House Speaker John Boehner wants answers from President Barack Obama.
The next day, Obama answered the inevitable criticism by saying he simply meant that the current election environment is not conducive to a discussion of the issue.
“The only way I get this stuff done is if I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support and frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations,” Obama said.
Obama’s answer wasn’t enough for House Speaker John Boehner. He wants a real response.
Boehner wrote in a letter on Wednesday:
Dear Mr. President:
I was alarmed to learn of the message you sent to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin while in South Korea Monday.
America’s missile defense program is critical to our homeland security and the collective security of our NATO partners, and it has clear implications for the security of our allies in the Middle East. I and other Members of the House have previously expressed concern about your administration’s apparent willingness to make unilateral concessions to Russia that undermine our missile defense capabilities. Your comments reinforce those worries.
The Russian government has not lived up to its obligations to support the world community in reining in the rogue nations of Iran, Syria, and North Korea. On the contrary, Russia has at times offered support for these dangerous regimes. And it is increasingly evident that Russia is intent on expanding its boundaries and power through hostile acts – including invading a neighboring American ally. It is troubling that you would suggest to Russian leaders that their reckless ambition would be rewarded with greater “flexibility” on our missile defense program after the upcoming election. That has significant implications for the security of our homeland, sends a terrible signal to our allies around the world, and calls into question the effectiveness of your “reset” policy with the Russian government.
Your message also implies you understand such concessions would not be supported by the American people or the Congress. As you know, the House has passed legislation prohibiting the administration from making any agreements to diminish our missile defense capacity absent congressional authorization or treaty. This is an imperative upon which we continue to insist.
Your immediate clarification provided little clarity and instead sought to conflate the issue of missile defense – the focus of your words – with the separate matter of Russia’s nuclear weapons program. I ask that you explain what greater “flexibility” on missile defense you were suggesting Mr. Putin could expect in a second term. With Congress’ expressed interest in this matter and America’s objective of preventing rogue states from launching missile strikes, it is important to know what changes you are contemplating or offering. Further, what actions does your administration believe the Russians have taken that warrant any change in our missile defense policy?
Given the specter you have raised of shifting positions, it would be appropriate that you state publicly and clearly that no unilateral concessions will be made to the Russians, before or after the election. Or, if your administration is planning any concessions to the Russians on missile defense, I request that you report on them and consult immediately with the congressional committees of jurisdiction. A misguided missile defense policy would have far-reaching consequences, and any concessions you may have under consideration require an open and thorough justification. A post-election surprise on this critical issue would not be welcomed by the American people, the Congress, or the world community.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
Supreme Court will use Obama’s own words against his individual mandate
“Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” So read the “Miranda” rights. For Obama, it may become a case in point, as the Supreme Court will probably use his own words against him in regard to the ObamaCare “individual mandate.”
As the Daily Mail (UK) reports, Obama made the criticism during the 2008 primaries, when HillaryCare proposed an individual mandate, but at the time, Obama’s proposal did not:
At issue today was the so-called ‘individual mandate” – the federal government’s act of compelling Americans to buy health insurance. It is the centrepiece of the Affordable Health Care Act – aka Obamacare – which is the signature achievement of Obama’s presidency thus far.
But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”
In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:
As the Daily Mail (UK) reports, Obama made the criticism during the 2008 primaries, when HillaryCare proposed an individual mandate, but at the time, Obama’s proposal did not:
At issue today was the so-called ‘individual mandate” – the federal government’s act of compelling Americans to buy health insurance. It is the centrepiece of the Affordable Health Care Act – aka Obamacare – which is the signature achievement of Obama’s presidency thus far.
But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: “A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”
In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:
TREASON: Obama Leaks Israeli Strike Plan on Iran
“‘We’re watching what Iran does closely,’ one of the US sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed,’” according to the article. “But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.’” And this is just the latest in a series of high-profile stories – based, in most cases, on unnamed American sources – warning about a possible strike.
According to the logic in the last piece, if Israel attacked, then Iran – which essentially developed its program in contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed, and despite international inspectors – may choose not to let those inspectors back in and, as a result, have an easier time pursuing nuclear weapons.
Now, that is an interesting bit of logic: Don’t attack, because if you do, Iran won’t let back in the inspectors who were so impotent in the first place that Tehran is now on the cusp of nuclear capability.
And this constant drumbeat of Israel-must-not-take-action articles is not only in press reports. A report Wednesday by the Congressional Research Service – the US Congress’s nonpartisan “think tank” – said Iran could recover from a strike and rebuild its centrifuge workshops within six months, meaning that such a strike would be futile. It is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,” the report read.
These reports and stories are not being made up out of whole cloth. Rather, they are fed by sources intent on sending a clear message: Do not attack.
That a spate of these reports is coming out just a couple of weeks after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Obama in the White House shows that despite the smiles and the talk then about understanding and hyper-close coordination, the US and Israel are not seeing eye-to-eye on the Iranian “military option” issue.
The US wants Israel to wait, and what this constant drip of stories indicates is a sense in Washington that its efforts to convince Israel to do so are failing.
As a result, some in Washington are using a more public route to get that message across and to try and tie Jerusalem’s hands.
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/03/treason-obama-leaks-israeli-strike-plan-on-iran/
By REUTERS/Handout Yossi Klein Halevi, in an article on The New Republic’s website earlier this month entitled “Why Israel Still Can’t Trust That Obama Has Its Back,” argued that Washington seemed more concerned about warning Israel than stopping Iran.
“Even when he seemed to be warning Tehran, he was really warning Jerusalem,” Halevi said about US President Barack Obama’s speech at the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference.
“His goal these last days hasn’t been so much to deter them but us.”
A mere look at the headlines in some key Iran-related stories in the media over the last few weeks proves Halevi’s point.
These are stories whose conclusions are that Israel cannot stop Iran’s nuclear program, or that such an attack would actually get Iran to speed up its program, or that it would suck the US into a war.
Thursday’s piece in Foreign Policy magazine by Mark Perry about Israel’s ties with Azerbaijan just proves this point. There was something off-putting about the whole tone of the piece, as if the bad guy in this story were not Iran, for trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Israel, for establishing close ties with Baku and securing the use of air bases near the Iranian border to more effectively carry out an attack if needed.
“‘We’re watching what Iran does closely,’ one of the US sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed,’” according to the article. “But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.’” And this is just the latest in a series of high-profile stories – based, in most cases, on unnamed American sources – warning about a possible strike.
Either Israel doesn’t have the ability to carry it out (The New York Times, February 19); or – according to the conclusions of a classified war simulation – it will drag the US into a wider conflict and cost hundreds of American lives (The New York Times, March 19); or an attack would only further accelerate Iran’s bid for the bomb (Reuters, March 29).
According to the logic in the last piece, if Israel attacked, then Iran – which essentially developed its program in contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed, and despite international inspectors – may choose not to let those inspectors back in and, as a result, have an easier time pursuing nuclear weapons.
Now, that is an interesting bit of logic: Don’t attack, because if you do, Iran won’t let back in the inspectors who were so impotent in the first place that Tehran is now on the cusp of nuclear capability.
And this constant drumbeat of Israel-must-not-take-action articles is not only in press reports. A report Wednesday by the Congressional Research Service – the US Congress’s nonpartisan “think tank” – said Iran could recover from a strike and rebuild its centrifuge workshops within six months, meaning that such a strike would be futile. It is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,” the report read.
These reports and stories are not being made up out of whole cloth. Rather, they are fed by sources intent on sending a clear message: Do not attack.
That a spate of these reports is coming out just a couple of weeks after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Obama in the White House shows that despite the smiles and the talk then about understanding and hyper-close coordination, the US and Israel are not seeing eye-to-eye on the Iranian “military option” issue.
The US wants Israel to wait, and what this constant drip of stories indicates is a sense in Washington that its efforts to convince Israel to do so are failing.
As a result, some in Washington are using a more public route to get that message across and to try and tie Jerusalem’s hands.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=264052
Recent stories:
“Even when he seemed to be warning Tehran, he was really warning Jerusalem,” Halevi said about US President Barack Obama’s speech at the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference.
“His goal these last days hasn’t been so much to deter them but us.”
A mere look at the headlines in some key Iran-related stories in the media over the last few weeks proves Halevi’s point.
These are stories whose conclusions are that Israel cannot stop Iran’s nuclear program, or that such an attack would actually get Iran to speed up its program, or that it would suck the US into a war.
Thursday’s piece in Foreign Policy magazine by Mark Perry about Israel’s ties with Azerbaijan just proves this point. There was something off-putting about the whole tone of the piece, as if the bad guy in this story were not Iran, for trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Israel, for establishing close ties with Baku and securing the use of air bases near the Iranian border to more effectively carry out an attack if needed.
“‘We’re watching what Iran does closely,’ one of the US sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed,’” according to the article. “But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.’” And this is just the latest in a series of high-profile stories – based, in most cases, on unnamed American sources – warning about a possible strike.
Either Israel doesn’t have the ability to carry it out (The New York Times, February 19); or – according to the conclusions of a classified war simulation – it will drag the US into a wider conflict and cost hundreds of American lives (The New York Times, March 19); or an attack would only further accelerate Iran’s bid for the bomb (Reuters, March 29).
According to the logic in the last piece, if Israel attacked, then Iran – which essentially developed its program in contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed, and despite international inspectors – may choose not to let those inspectors back in and, as a result, have an easier time pursuing nuclear weapons.
Now, that is an interesting bit of logic: Don’t attack, because if you do, Iran won’t let back in the inspectors who were so impotent in the first place that Tehran is now on the cusp of nuclear capability.
And this constant drumbeat of Israel-must-not-take-action articles is not only in press reports. A report Wednesday by the Congressional Research Service – the US Congress’s nonpartisan “think tank” – said Iran could recover from a strike and rebuild its centrifuge workshops within six months, meaning that such a strike would be futile. It is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,” the report read.
These reports and stories are not being made up out of whole cloth. Rather, they are fed by sources intent on sending a clear message: Do not attack.
That a spate of these reports is coming out just a couple of weeks after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Obama in the White House shows that despite the smiles and the talk then about understanding and hyper-close coordination, the US and Israel are not seeing eye-to-eye on the Iranian “military option” issue.
The US wants Israel to wait, and what this constant drip of stories indicates is a sense in Washington that its efforts to convince Israel to do so are failing.
As a result, some in Washington are using a more public route to get that message across and to try and tie Jerusalem’s hands.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=264052
Recent stories:
You might like:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)