By Jared Law (Founder, The 9.12 Project Network) | December 28th, 2010 House Republicans have a sacred responsibility to taxpayers, Tea Partiers/Conservative Republicans (who unquestionably handed them their victories in November), and to every American, whether they agree with us or not, to begin fulfilling their Constitutional duty to limit the size of government, to reduce federal taxation and spending to match the original intent of the Constitution of the United States of America, which document I believe to be inspired by God himself. Republicans and independents, those of us who kicked Nancy Pelosi and her co-conspirators out of their leadership positions (for betraying the trust the American people mistakenly placed in them in 2008)...WE know what's coming, WE know what must be done, and if the House Republicans don't begin moving in this direction, IMMEDIATELY, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves for a third party or total irrelevance, as the Whigs also did to themselves long ago. I am not a fan of the idea of a third party, but Republicans REALLY, REALLY need to do what we've asked them to do if they expect to remain in office, much less earn an expanded majority in the House, and control of the U.S. Senate, and the Presidency in 2012, or any of the above. America is awake. We know what 'Progressives' are, and that they are a cancer on America, they infest both parties, and they are a cancer which must be removed ASAP. We must undo the damage they've done, or America will be nothing but a tragic footnote in the history of the world. America is literally fighting for our life, and after Nancy Pelosi & co. pumped America full of toxic progressive policies while America was under the knife, we're at the brink, right at the razor's edge. You must be extremely careful, but you MUST eliminate the destructive 'progressive' policies, legislation, and government spending which has brought America to her knees, and laid her low on the operating table of the surgical center. Her life is in your hands. DO NOT FAIL AMERICA! We're watching you like hawks. Scratch that...Eagles. Millions of Bald Eagles with attitudes. Like the rest of the Tea Party/9.12 Project/Freedom movement, I love America with every fiber of my being. I am so incredibly grateful to be an American, and thankfully, I woke up years ago, and was educated by myself and others, over the past few years (especially the past 22 months), so that like most Tea Partiers, I know of what I speak. While I am not perfect, nor am I a lawyer, not a Senator or Congressman, and certainly not a politician (in fact, perhaps FOR this reason), I have studied the Constitution and the Principles of Freedom enshrined therein, so I know what my rights are. I know what natural rights and natural law is. I understand the laws of nature and of Nature's God. We all do. The whole Tea Party /9.12 Project movement has been studying, self-educating, through books, seminars, videos, and discussion. We know what we want. And the first priority of the mandate we handed to House Republicans on November 2nd, 2010, is to END THE GROWTH OF FEDERAL SPENDING IMMEDIATELY, and END DEFICIT SPENDING ASAP. The great decline of the wasteful, unconstitutional spending by the federal government MUST FINALLY BEGIN! In addition to this reality, we must also begin the final repayment of America's national debt. We know the true number is many times the $13.9 Trillion that is officially being reported. National Debt interest payments in FY2010 were about $164 BILLION DOLLARS. That's a bit absurd, don't you think? Why is the most powerful, successful nation on earth the largest debtor nation? This is absolutely unsustainable, and you know it. Sadly, for Americans, the window of opportunity to pay it off in a RELATIVELY painless fashion has passed. It's going to be painful, but it must be done. The time for easy solutions is long gone, and the 111th Congress made your job indescribably more difficult. And if you fail, they'll blame you, and spend $Billions convincing America it's your fault. Only the Tea Party MOVEMENT (not individual Tea Party leaders, groups, etc.) can and WILL defend you, assuming you do the right thing. Now we realize you don't have all the power you need to get everything done this first year, but don't think you can let off or compromise. You have a sacred duty, and if you fail to honor your duty, you will not only be thrown out of office, but your name will become a hiss and a byword. Nancy Pelosi has destroyed her name among honest, tax-paying Americans. Now it's your turn to either shine or self-destruct! Show us what you're made of, Republicans! We have granted you the power of the purse; use it to the fullest extent possible so we can praise, defend, and re-elect you in 2012, with an expanded majority in the House, and a Majority in the Senate, not to mention the Presidency! If you fail to honor the Principles of Freedom which are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, if you ignore us, if you fail to honor your oath of office, in which you will "solemnly swear (or affirm)" that you will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." and that you "will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office" you are about to enter. So help you GOD...then you'd better pray for God's help. Because you'll get none from those who love America if you refuse to honor that oath of office! For this reason, here are some of my suggestions, as a 9.12 Project/Tea Party organizer and network creator of the largest 9.12 Project-specific social network in the world. We don't number in the millions, only the tens of thousands nationwide, but we are quite representative of the cross section of principled Tea Partiers nationwide. You would do well to heed our message. So with our purpose crystal clear, and with a solid understanding of what's at stake, let's define Constitutionality: Any part of the United States Federal Government which fails to be justified, using the Founding Fathers' original intent, by Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution of the United States of..., is inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and must be eliminated from the federal budget. EVERYTHING. The only question is how fast do we eliminate them; not if. Just when. And please note, Republicans, that the so-called 'General Welfare Clause' of the Constitution isn't a clause, it's a statement of intent, or in other words, it's a purpose, and the Constitution does that by LIMITING government as Congress would if it stuck with justifying every single bill passed by Congress with Article I, SectionVIII. Here is the preamble, the statement of intent, of the Constitution of the United States of America: " of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Basically, the 'general welfare clause' isn't a clause, it's part of the statement of intent, or the preamble, and the structure they laid out in the Constitution IS SUPPOSED TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, BY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH GIVES WE THE PEOPLE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF FREEDOM WHILE MAINTAINING A PROPERLY-POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that is, when compared to inadequately-powerful governments, such as the previous ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. Those created a federal government which was TOO WEAK to allow America to become what we have become, but our federal government is now so incredibly powerful and large, so UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that is is severely limiting America's potential! We need to abolish every federal agency and department which IS NOT justified under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution of the United States of...: -------- Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. -------- And remember, the NECESSARY AND PROPER clause (the last paragraph above) does NOT mean you get to make up new powers, gobble up the states' or the peoples' rights, and ignore the ninth and tenth Amendments: -------- Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. -------- The 'Necessary and Proper' clause simply means Congress can make common-sense laws which enable the carrying out of Article I, Section VIII (and the rest of the Constitution). It is NOT a blank check of unlimited power. So let's get into some common-sense details. To avoid riots, I would start it by an across-the-board freeze in the budget of every federal department, without exception, rather than eliminating all of them and starting over. In addition, I would insist upon an across-the-board federal pay cut of all taxpayer-funded salaries over the average salary of the American people (let's say $50,000/year), INCLUDING Senators & Representatives. All federal salaries should decrease by something on the order of 20% each year until we reach private sector parity. For those making UNDER $50K/year, they can accept a $10% pay cut in each of the first two years. On the other hand, I think that active-duty servicemen (& women) deserve an immediate 20% raise, with another one the following year, to help make up for the fact that they've been vastly under-compensated ever since they signed up. All raises should not be allowed to increase somebody's salary beyond $100,000.00/year. All such individuals would get a 10% raise instead (these are rough figures, and could be adjusted as needed to make for a more smooth transition). And anybody who is killed while active duty should be immediately paid $100,000.00 to their estate (plus $20,000 additional for each child dependent under the age of 18). And everybody who completes a tour of duty in harm's way should get a $5,000 'thank you' from the American taxpayers ($10K if they have children under 18). Every time. Also, in the first year, I would insist upon a 25% funding cut for all unconstitutional agencies/departments, and a 25% workforce reduction in those departments/agencies, with equal (25% of the original funding/payroll) cuts each of the following three years. In the fourth year, we would celebrate the total elimination of the unconstitutional departments/agencies. See? A 'Managed Decline' of unconstitutional tax expenditures! I would prefer to do it immediately at 100%, but I would also like to avoid a civil war. The obvious exception to these cuts would be the following departments: Education, Energy, Environmental Protection. HUD, and Labor, as well as 100% of Medicaid/SCHIP payments (let the states pay for such things if they wish to keep those programs). Since these departments/agencies all contribute directly to the 'fundamental transformation' of America from a Constitutional Republic to a fascist state, they must go immediately, as in de-funded 100%. Welfare would immediately be slashed by 25%/year until it's totally phased out in year four. The steps listed above, alone, would save an estimated $579 billion in year one, $722 Billion in year two, $866 Billion in year three, and just over a $Trillion dollars in the fourth year, based on FY2010 numbers. This only reflects the elimination of welfare and the unconstitutional departments/programs listed. The cuts in the additional unconstitutional departments/agencies, when combined with federal pay cuts, would add another half $Trillion in savings by the fifth year. In fact, by the end of the fifth year, we'd be spending about $1.5 Trillion less than before, not counting savings from reduced Social Security and Medicare costs. I would estimate we would realize another half-$Trillion in savings there by the half-decade mark. That means $2 Trillion/year savings from year five going forward, and adding to that as we continue to reduce our interest payments, SS/Medicare expenditures over time, etc. From year five onward, there is A REAL BUDGET SURPLUS, assuming the freeze remains, we don't enter additional wars, and our interest rates remain close to what they are today, since we're paying down the debt, for once! As for Social Security, I would privatize all accounts for those under the age of 40, extend the age of eligibility to 75, and do a thorough audit of all accounts, eliminating all which are paying fraudulent 'benefits.' Medicare? That's the trickiest one, but we'd need to rescind Medicare Part 'D' ASAP. Probably phase it out over a 5-year period, by reducing benefits by 20% of the original amounts each year for a half-decade. Perhaps that sort of thing would work for Medicare itself, as well, but stretch it out to 10% annually for a decade. And 'Federal Employee Unions' would be immediately abolished. There should not be unions capable of extorting additional cash from taxpayers! This may seem simplistic, but imagine the amount of investment which would begin to flow into America again once we got into surplus territory, started paying down the national debt (once we had cleared a couple $Trillion, people would take us seriously, and borrowing costs would plummet!), and cut corporate and income taxes to reasonable rates, in preparation for an eventual flat tax of no more than 10%! We'd have the "official' national debt paid off within 15-20 years, depending upon economic growth. As for the 'off the books' national debt, such as the unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, well, those start to look much, much better once we restructure them and prepare them for eventual phase-out. Two decades down the road, we're where we would have been today had we started ten years ago, rather than waiting until near-total collapse! Of course, that PRESUMES that we'll continue our efforts to eliminate Progressivism from polite society, and keep it on the run from then on. You leave that to us. But the best thing is that we don't have to cower and fear the future. It may take us five years to show the world we mean business, but it CAN be done, and without bloody, violent revolution! And seriously, the accomplishments begin to be realized, and especially once we cross that critical line to a real, no-gimmicks BUDGET SURPLUS, our opponents will become politically-toxic to even moderate, ignorant Americans, for an entire generation (assuming we have restored our education system)! Then it will be up to our children to keep up the good fight, to defend America from progressives, Communists, Fascists, and other evil leftists who wish to destroy America. Yes, there are people like that out there. Many of them meet regularly at (or via secure videoconferencing, in) the White House. They are progressives, fascists, and communists, and they despise what America is, and what she can become, if only we'll rid her of the cancer that is progressivism!

HUGO CHAVEZ MILITARILY CONFISCATING FARMS IN VENEZUELAN PATRIOTS?

Late Sunday night, we began to see sketchy reports from individuals that farmers in the region of Sur del Lago, Venezuela were being attacked by Venezuelan as well as foreign military, all directed by Hugo Chavez. Initial and unconfirmed reports allege that fellow perpetrators are Cubans, thugs from the drug cartel FARC, and even Hezbollah, all there for the action. This seems to be a crackdown on elements of the Venezuelan populace which opposed Hugo Chavez in the recent Venezuelan election. The blog, Venezuelan News and Views puts it this way: “Sur del Lago people are resisting. The legislative assembly of the state moved down there to seat, the representatives elect are stirring the pot, the regime sent a Cuban general!” Twitter tweets which have been reporting these events have used hashtags: #SOSinternetVE, #SurdelLago, and #Venezuela. It was reported that up to 47 farms have been taken by Marxist forces. Is it the official Venezuelan military? Just who if any, are assisting them? Here are a few tweets: Hugo Chavez initiates Dictatorship by Confiscating Dairy and Cattle farms in #SurdelLago #Venezuela #TCOT pls RT The Venezuelan regime wants to take over productive lands in Zulia State to hand them over to the Russians for banana production. #Venezuela geralmoncada December 20th, and the majority of #Venezuela is in PROTEST and RIOTS!!! People’s sick of Chávez and his government! We want freedom! Another said that the media in Venezuela has been completely closed and that Twitter is the only way they can get the word out.Another said that the media in Venezuela has been completely closed and that Twitter is the only way they can get the word out. For background on the gradual communist revolution of Venezuela, the one the Marxstream media in America does not present, we suggest a recent report by an American communist organizer raised by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn: Chesa Boudin. Here, in March of this year, he reported about the “Bolivarism” revolution taking place there, led by friend and comrade of Ayers and Boudin, Hugo Chavez: http://www.archive.org/details/Venezuela_March07_Boudin. It should be noted that Chesa Bodin is a child of Ayers’ fellow Weathermen, criminals David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, also grand nephew of communist organizer in America of a century ago, Louis B. Boudianoff (Boudin). After Chesa left the Ayers/Dohrn household for Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship (he was also one of the very first class of Goldman Sach’s Global Scholars) he became an intern working for Hugo Chavez. We hope to provide further information soon. Two articles which may provide further background: * in La Patilla, “Así protestaron en el Sur del Lago (Fotos),” December 18, 2010 * in The Hindu, “Venezuela’s oil sector troubles revealed: WikiLeaks,” December 10, 2010 --------

THE POWER GRAB HAS BEGUN

By AMY SCHATZ WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear. A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC's action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC's action "flawed" and said lawmakers would "have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations." The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services. The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks. The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes. Companies that operate mobile wireless networks would have fewer rules to contend with. Phone companies wouldn't be able to block legal websites from consumers. They also can't block mobile voice or video-conferencing applications. Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks. The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency's two Republican members rejecting the measure. "For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment." Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic. The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to." At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski's proposal didn't go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency's other two Democrats. Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski's proposal was better than nothing. "In my book, today's action could, and should, have gone further," said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps. Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic. Although this is the first time the FCC has passed formal rules on "net neutrality," or the idea that Internet providers can't deliberately block or slow web traffic, it is not the first time the agency has tried to act as an Internet traffic cop. In 2007 the agency sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing the web traffic of some subscribers who were downloading large files over peer-to-peer networks. Comcast sued and in April, a federal appeals court sided with the cable giant, saying that the FCC didn't have clear authority to enforce net neutrality. The rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.

THE FCC's THREAT TO INTERNET FREEDOM

'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers. By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling. How did the FCC get here? For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast. Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure. Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market. It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are. Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach. In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill. Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus. After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net. Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty? To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths. On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom. Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission

SUNDAY EVENING SURPRISE

The Senate unexpectedly approved food-safety legislation by voice vote Sunday evening, rescuing a bill that floated in limbo for weeks because of a clerical error. The Senate passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act on Nov. 30 by a vote of 73-25. But the bill was later invalidated by a technical objection because it was a revenue-raising measure that did not originate in the House — Senate staff had failed to substitute the food-safety language into a House-originated bill. A coalition of groups supporting the bill sent a letter Sunday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) calling for action on food safety. “Our organizations are writing to support attaching S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, to the Senate's proposed short-term continuing resolution,” the groups wrote. “Strong food-safety legislation will reduce the risk of contamination and provide FDA with the resources and authorities the agency needs to help make prevention the focus of our food safety strategies.” The American Public Health Association, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and other groups signed the letter. Democrats first attempted to attach the food-safety bill to a short-term spending measure, but Republicans balked because they wanted to keep that measure clean, according to Senate aides. Republicans, however, later agreed to pass it by voice vote. Reid announced he would send the legislation — this time properly attached to a House-originated measure — back to the lower chamber for final approval. “Our food safety system has not been updated in almost a century. Families in Nevada and across America should never have to worry about whether the food they put on their table is safe," Reid said in a statement. "This is a common-sense issue with broad bipartisan support. "Tonight we unanimously passed a measure to improve on our current food safety system by giving the FDA the resources it needs to keep up with advances in food production and marketing, without unduly burdening farmers and food producers,” he said. The legislation is a high priority for Reid and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Reid’s staff earlier in the day had told a coalition of groups supporting the legislation that it had a chance of passing, but the prospects appeared to dim as Sunday wore on. The swift approval by unanimous consent caught some aides and lobbyists working on it by surprise. Sen. Tom Coburn, the outspoken conservative Republican from Oklahoma, had been blocking the legislation, and lifted his objection at the final moment.

OBAMA'S DREAM................

CARACAS, Dec 16 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Thursday he had a "battery" of decrees ready to issue once parliament grants him special powers that opponents say are an attack on democracy in the South American nation. The National Assembly -- dominated by members of Chavez's ruling Socialist Party -- was set to approve the controversial "Enabling Law" giving the socialist leader yearlong decree powers late on Thursday or on Friday. Latin America's leading U.S. critic has used such powers three times before during his 11-year rule to pass about 200 laws, and says he needs them again to respond to an emergency caused by floods that have made about 140,000 people homeless. "I have the first battery of 20 laws ready," Chavez said during a visit to land near the international airport outside Caracas being taken over to build low-cost housing. <^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ More stories on Chavez's decree powers at [ID:nVEDECREES] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> Chavez says his motives are humanitarian, but he clearly intends to use decrees powers to entrench his "21st century socialism" revolution in Venezuela and outflank the opposition before a new National Assembly convenes on Jan. 5. An opposition coalition won 40 percent of seats in the incoming parliament in September elections and had hoped to use that at least as a soap box to criticize Chavez and possibly to put brakes on some legislation. But Chavez's move effectively sidelines the new parliament for a year, giving him the political initiative but also opening himself up to accusations of dictatorial behavior two years before Venezuela's next presidential election. "They say I am a dictator and tyrant, but look what I am doing," said Chavez, surrounded by refugees who he said would be housed within a year on the land by the airport. 'OWNER OF VENEZUELA' Chavez has already announced an imminent rise in the sales tax and is expected to use the decree powers to push forward a wide range of legislation on all fronts. CARACAS, Dec 16 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Thursday he had a "battery" of decrees ready to issue once parliament grants him special powers that opponents say are an attack on democracy in the South American nation. The National Assembly -- dominated by members of Chavez's ruling Socialist Party -- was set to approve the controversial "Enabling Law" giving the socialist leader yearlong decree powers late on Thursday or on Friday. Latin America's leading U.S. critic has used such powers three times before during his 11-year rule to pass about 200 laws, and says he needs them again to respond to an emergency caused by floods that have made about 140,000 people homeless. "I have the first battery of 20 laws ready," Chavez said during a visit to land near the international airport outside Caracas being taken over to build low-cost housing. <^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ More stories on Chavez's decree powers at [ID:nVEDECREES] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> Chavez says his motives are humanitarian, but he clearly intends to use decrees powers to entrench his "21st century socialism" revolution in Venezuela and outflank the opposition before a new National Assembly convenes on Jan. 5. An opposition coalition won 40 percent of seats in the incoming parliament in September elections and had hoped to use that at least as a soap box to criticize Chavez and possibly to put brakes on some legislation. But Chavez's move effectively sidelines the new parliament for a year, giving him the political initiative but also opening himself up to accusations of dictatorial behavior two years before Venezuela's next presidential election. "They say I am a dictator and tyrant, but look what I am doing," said Chavez, surrounded by refugees who he said would be housed within a year on the land by the airport. 'OWNER OF VENEZUELA' Chavez has already announced an imminent rise in the sales tax and is expected to use the decree powers to push forward a wide range of legislation on all front. Although he gave no more clues about specific laws on Thursday, more nationalizations look inevitable. Chavez has said repeatedly that land was needed to solve Venezuela's housing shortage and move people out of precarious shantytowns where recent rains have caused most damage. "The (Enabling Law) request forms part of Chavez's ongoing efforts to broaden his revolution, on the basis the government needs to react to the heavy rains, floods, and landslides," said IHS Global Insight analyst Diego Moya-Ocampos. "Nevertheless, in practice, these extraordinary powers are likely to be used to continue targeting businesses and private property," he added in a report by the economic think tank. Chavez has nationalized large swaths of the OPEC member's economy since taking office in 1999. Opposition parties, which have failed to dislodge Chavez with mass marches and a national strike in the past, are not gearing up for another major protest campaign, although there have been small demonstrations and skirmishes outside parliament. Opposition leaders appear to be hoping Venezuelans will judge that Chavez is going too far and vote him out in 2012. Foes say Chavez's behavior is an abuse of democracy given that the outgoing parliament is giving him powers that will limit the incoming assembly's space. "This (Enabling Law) is a sort of coup d'etat by the state, since it annuls the next National Assembly for a year," leading Chavez critic and newspaper editor Teodoro Petkoff said. "The president does whatever he wants, as if he is the owner of Venezuela," Petkoff told Reuters, saying Chavez was taking Venezuela on an ever more totalitarian path. Chavez supporters say he is redressing decades of injustice under previous governments and has encouraged democracy by giving power and funds to grass-roots groups.

100 ASSAULT RIFLES ARE PASSED OUT TO BORDER DEPUTIES

By IDLEFONSO ORTIZ Brownsville Herald To prepare for potential confrontation against armed gunmen, the Cameron County Sheriff’s Department recently purchased about 100 AR-15 assault rifles to be carried by deputies in their patrol cars. “We are all here on the border, and as we all know the cartels have some of these type of weapons,” Sheriff Omar Lucio said. “With these rifles, we have at least the same if not better firepower in case of a major event. We also have to point out that these weapons are powerful enough to penetrate some types of body armor. If we ever get into a tough situation with someone from over there, we’ll be able to go ahead and take care of our people. Hopefully, it never happens. but if it does we’ll be ready,” he said. On Thursday morning, some two dozen deputies spent several hours at the sheriff’s department shooting range off FM 511 near the Port of Brownsville as part of their 24-hour certification course. Patrol cars are in the process of getting special holders that will keep the rifles secure in the vehicle in a place where the deputy has immediate access in case of an emergency, Lucio said. “As with all weapons, there are security procedures and regulations to avoid any accident with the weapons or to prevent someone from breaking into the car and taking the rifle,” he added. Previously, deputies carried 12-gauge shotguns, which according to Lucio, while powerful only had an effective range of about 100 yards. With the new rifles, which shoot .223-caliber ammunition, the effective range tripled to approximately 300 yards. Also, the shotguns had a capacity of five to eight rounds of ammunition, while the new rifles carry 30 rounds per magazine. “With each deputy carrying at least three magazines, it means that at any moment our guys will have 90 rounds ready to use,” Lucio said. “Also, other agencies carry the same type of weapon. In case of a major situation, our guys will be able to exchange magazines with them.” An AR-15 ranges in price from $800 to $1,500. According to Lucio, the shotguns were exchanged for the rifles, and the difference in value was paid using proceeds seized from narcotics trafficking. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7343760.html

DID YOU KNOW?

Islamic Jihadists Chop off Catholic Professor’s Hand It happened in India. Suspected Islamic militants have chopped off a Catholic professor’s hand in Kerala for allegedly insulting Islam in an exam question paper. Professor T.J. Joseph was attacked on July 4 in while returning home from Sunday mass with his mother and sister, a Catholic nun. Kochi inspector-general of police, B. Sandya, told ucanews.com that an Islamic extremist group is suspected of the crime and have arrested four people and impounded a vehicle. She said the attackers used the vehicle to block Joseph’s car before dragging the professor from his vehicle and chopping off his right hand. The attackers then threw the hand away before fleeing. Just call it the Religion of Pieces. http://blogs.cbn.com/stakelbeckonterror/Default.aspx

WHAT THE MEDIA DOESN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE WESTBORO BAPTIST GROUP AND THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION

By Kevin “Coach” Collins The death of a soldier who has given his or her life to protect our freedoms is always a sad event. Having to put one of our best and brightest to rest is made still more difficult by the fiendish antics of Fred Phelps and his band of evil bastards from the Westboro Baptist Church. This bunch has made it their mission to disrupt and make more painful as many military funerals as they possibly can. They carry signs claiming our fallen heroes are guilty of promoting homosexuality and that “God hates fags.” Watching these low lifes begs the questions: Who are they and who is their leader? The answers are never clear because of a systematic media cover up. The Democrat controlled media would love to write about Phelps and his gang being “Right Wing fanatics”, but of course it can’t because the truth is 180 degrees to the opposite. Fred Phelps is a long time Democrat supporter and frequent Democrat candidate for various offices in Kansas. As recently as 1998 Phelps got 15% in a Democrat primary for governor. He has been a devoted supporter of Al Gore and led his church members in working for Gore in 1988. Phelps’ son Fred hosted a fund raiser for Gore in his home. Have you ever heard of that? Why do you think these things are left out of news reports about Phelps? Fred Phelps is a disbarred attorney who made a living suing institutions. His disbarment followed his disgraceful conduct during a trial alleging a court reporter intentional failed to provide Phelps with a transcript on time. He had the woman on the stand for a full week reducing her to tears with his demands for details about her sex life. Ultimately Phelps himself was convicted of perjury and stripped of his law license. Apparently he is not only evil but stupid as well In 2003 Phelps wrote a letter to Saddam Hussein praising him because Iraq was, “the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets.” Knowing what we have learned about how the media has sold its collective soul to support socialist Democrats is there any wonder these facts, that took just a few minutes to find, are left out of reports on Phelps and his evil bunch? To learn more about Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church use these links: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/22/2009-06-22_manhattan_synagogue_makes_money_off_of_westboro_baptist_church_protest.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

TEA PARTY CANDIDATE AND GOVERNOR-ELECT NIKKI HALEY CHALLENGES OBAMA TO HIS FACE ON OBAMACARE!

You gotta love this story. Tea Party Candidate & Governor-Elect Nikki Haley challenged Obama to his face on Obamacare. Now I didn't see that she realizes that she should stand up to the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of Obamacare; rather, she responds to Obama's 'conditions' for 'allowing' South Carolina an exemption. I'm sorry, but this isn't about exemptions. This is about the Constitution, it's about Individual Rights, it's about The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. That said, at least ONE Governor is saying SOMETHING to Obama's face! Here's the story: -------- Friday, Dec. 03, 2010 Obama, Haley go head to head By James Rosen - Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Gov.-elect Nikki Haley challenged President Obama over his landmark health insurance law Thursday in a candid, personal exchange in front of Cabinet members and newly elected governors from across the country but away from reporters. In an exchange recounted by Haley and confirmed by White House aides, Obama rejected Haley's request to repeal the health care bill - but said he'd consider letting states opt out of its mandates if they ran exchange programs, banned insurance firms from denying coverage of pre-existing conditions and enabled people to pool together for better rates. With only four Democratic incoming governors joining 18 Republicans and one independent, Obama acknowledged the Nov. 2 elections hadn't gone as he'd hoped. "I'm a very proud Democrat, as many of you in the room are, though not as many as I expected," Obama quipped. Reporters covered Obama's opening remarks, but they weren't allowed in the room for the unusual exchange of questions from the newly elected state executives and answers from the president at Blair House, an elegant guest house across Lafayette Square from the White House. Haley, in Washington for her second day of meetings with national leaders, asked two of a dozen questions the Republican-dominated governors asked Obama in the closed-door lunch session that lasted almost an hour. In addition to their exchange about health care, Obama rejected Haley's request that he reconsider his decision to freeze development of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada to receive nuclear waste from the Savannah River Site and sites in other states. Haley, who sat next to Vice President Joe Biden at the lunch, said afterward that she'd been impressed by Obama's willingness to field questions from governors who'd won office by attacking his policies. "I appreciated his openness and his willingness to spend time with us and to really listen to what our concerns were and to address our concerns," Haley told McClatchy. "It was respectful, it was a strong line of communication, and I was doing my job to protect the people of South Carolina." Haley's prominence at the high-level meeting and her confronting Obama over the signature legislative achievement of his White House tenure provide more evidence of her status as a rising star who is being eagerly promoted by GOP powerbrokers. White House aides were sent a detailed transcript of Haley's account of her exchanges with Obama. They didn't dispute it. In the most dramatic moment, Haley asked Obama to repeal the landmark health insurance bill he signed into law in March after Congress passed it with only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. "I said the people of South Carolina and the small businesses of South Carolina cannot afford the mandated health care law they had passed," Haley recalled after the meeting. "I told him that our economy is already in a tough spot, and our budget cannot sustain the mandate." When Obama ruled out repeal, Haley tried a different tack. "I asked him if the state of South Carolina gave solutions, so we're not just saying no, would he allow us to opt out or allow any other state to opt out should they choose," Haley said. "He said that he would consider an opt-out provision if it contained three clauses." Obama's conditions, Haley said, were that states would have to run exchange programs enabling uninsured residents to choose among different health plans; would have to ban coverage exclusions for treatment of pre-existing illness; and would have to create pools for large groups of individuals to get discounted coverage. Haley said afterward that she would start working on Obama's tentative proposals. "I think right now what's best for me is to go back to South Carolina, look at all three of these issues and then make a decision," Haley said. "I want to start to research on what it would take in order for us to do something to meet his provisions. "The goal is to make sure that we are giving choices to the people of our states and not mandating them." Haley's exchange with Obama on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump was less complicated. "The taxpayers of South Carolina have paid $1.2 billion to [develop a plan] to send our nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain," she said. "I asked him if he would consider honoring the federal commitment and allow waste to go to Yucca Mountain. His answer was no. "He went on to the fact that they feel like they had safety concerns. He was pretty adamant that was not an option that was on the table." Haley then made a direct demand. "Then give us our money back," she told Obama. "He said that he would have [Energy] Secretary Chu call me." ▼

BREAKING NEWS: VIRGINIA FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN OBAMACARE!

By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press – 24 mins ago RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014. He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement. Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit. The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.

Dem Congressman Fumes: 'F**k the President,' All Three Networks Ignore

By Scott Whitlock | December 10, 2010 | 12:33 Thursday's network newscasts and Friday's morning shows all ignored the report that an unidentified Democratic House member muttered, "F**k the President" during a closed door meeting on a compromise over taxes. Yet, many journalists professed outrage when Congressman Joe Wilson yelled "You lie" at President Obama in 2009. ABC's The Note website on Thursday afternoon explained, "An unidentified Democratic lawmaker let slip his frustration at President Obama’s proposed tax compromise, apparently muttering "f**k the president," during a heated debate this morning." Yet, when GMA reporter Jon Karl covered the story on Friday, he reported more sanitized details of conflict: "...Yesterday, you had the House Democrats actually chanting, 'no, we can't' at a private meeting." On CBS's Early Show, news reader Jeff Glor followed a similar track, allowing, "And during the meeting, some Democrats chanted 'Just say no.' They insist on changes to scale back tax breaks for the rich." (This line was also quoted on Thursday's CBS Evening News.) Over on NBC's Today, Kelly O'Donnell described House Democrats simply as "defiant." She added that opposition on the left to the deal was, "a liberal rebellion against the White House over the tax cut compromise." The only possible hint of an expletive used against the President came when O'Donnell referenced a visit by Joe Biden to Capitol Hill. According to O'Donnell, this "only stirred up emotions." On Thursday's Nightly News she deemed the conflict a "family feud." In contrast, on September 14, 2009, five days after Congressman Wilson's outburst in front of Congress and Obama, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer derided the Republican as "just one ugly sign of the mindless meanness that has settled over our politics." On the September 15 Sunday Morning, commentator Nancy Giles condemned Wilson: "That’s the voice of Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, not some drunk at open mic night, calling the President a liar." Obviously there's a difference between an unidentified representative and a nationally televised embarrassing moment, but what if this mystery representative had been a Republican? — Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/12/10/dem-congressman-fumes-fk-president-all-three-networks-ignore#ixzz17kGnBjXb

North Point's iBand

Christmas Food Court Flash Mob, Hallelujah Chorus - Must See!

It’s Official – The FCC Will Vote to Take Over the Internet in December

It’s Official &#8211; The FCC Will Vote to Take Over the Internet in December

AL GORE: A SELF PROFESSED LIAR!

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) It has been established beyond any doubt that Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite, and now he has finally admitted it! In a stunning revelation this past weekend, Al Gore admitted that he only supported the "not good policy" of tax breaks for corn-based ethanol to assist his eventual run for president. The question is this: WHERE IS THE MEDIA? If a Republican, especially a conservative Republican, had admitted to such, they would be the front page news for a month, the lead story in every single newscast nationwide for a week, followed by extensive stories following up for another month after the initial 'flood the zone' week. But since it's a radical "progressive" Democrat, the MSM (AKA Fringe Media) refuses to discuss the admission of dishonesty and political calculation. Many of the world's poorest have paid the price in the form of higher food prices, for this disgusting breach of trust. And let's not even get into the massive cost to our children, grandchildren, and generations even further in the future. Al Gore should be investigated and censured by Congress the moment they're sworn in...but I doubt any Congressman will have the guts to do the right thing. Here's the story from NewsBusters; kudos to them for their excellent coverage of this breaking news story! Al Gore Says He Supported 'Not Good' Ethanol Policies To Help His P...By Noel Sheppard | November 22, 2010 | 09:05 Nobel laureate Al Gore said this weekend that tax breaks for corn-based ethanol are "not good policy" and that he only supported these subsidies in order to assist his eventual run for president. Reuters Africa reported Monday the former Vice President made these comments while speaking to a green energy conference in Athens. "It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first generation ethanol," said Gore. According to the International Energy Industry, such subsidies totaled $7.7 billion last year. Yet Gore now thinks this was a mistake. "The energy conversion ratios are at best very small. It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going," he said. Readers are reminded that Gore was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate mandating the use of ethanol in 1994. So why did the man media view as one of the world's foremost environmentalists support such a program? "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president." What a saint. So more than ten years ago, Gore supported an expensive, "not good policy" because he thought it would help him get elected president. Yet media don't believe he'd misrepresent the threat of manmade global warming in order to become extremely rich. The bigger question is whether or not this matter will get any attention here in America, or if the Gore-loving media will choose to ignore this stunning revelation. -------- Will Media Remember Gore's 1994 Tie-breaking Vote Mandating Ethanol?By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2008 | 17:57 As the international disaster of ethanol begins taking its toll on the planet -- and, maybe more important, as press outlet after press outlet finally begins recognizing it -- will media remember that Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate requiring this oxygenate be added to gasoline? After all, regardless of recent reports blaming ethanol for world hunger problems, rising food costs, and increased greenhouse gases, it seems highly unlikely green media will want to tie any of these problems to Nobel Laureate Gore. Yet, as inconveniently reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994 (no link available, emphasis added throughout): In a move that enraged midwestern senators, Louisiana Democratic Sen. Bennett Johnston tried Wednesday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. The Senate narrowly killed the measure, voting to table it by a margin of 51 to 50. With the vote tied, Vice President Al Gore had to come in and cast the deciding vote. [...] "This is really a gigantic flim flam to the American public," Johnston said. [...] Under the Clean Air Act, the nation's nine smoggiest cities must begin reducing auto emissions by using a cleaner-burning fuel known as reformulated gasoline in January. Reformulated gasoline contains more oxygen than regular fuel. Until the EPA announced its decision last month, oil refiners had a choice of boosting oxygen in reformulated gasoline with either ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a petroleum derivative. MTBE is made from natural gas. The nation's major oil companies have natural gas facilities, many of which are overseas. [...] During the four-hour debate, opponents of the ethanol mandate said the measure contains hidden costs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the policy would cost the government $249 million during the next five years. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has predicted the ethanol rule would drain $545 million from the national highway trust fund each year. "It's highway robbery," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "It's nothing less." Besides Gore, take a look at who else was DEAD wrong on this issue: [Democratic Illinois Sen. Paul] Simon added that the ethanol mandate would not increase costs for consumers. "The price of corn flakes isn't going to go up by one penny," he said. "Don't think you're helping consumers by voting for the amendment by my friend from Louisiana." I beg to differ, Senator. As my colleague Paul Detrick reported on April 4 (emphasis added): You're going to need a few extra bucks to pay for those corn flakes every morning. CNN's senior business correspondent Ali Velshi let viewers in on an underreported fact about rising commodities prices: the government mandate for ethanol production is making corn and other agricultural products more expensive-making inflation a top priority for Americans. "Several years ago, we made some decisions about how corn is going to be used to make ethanol, which is added to our gasoline," said Velshi on "American Morning" April 4. "A number of people think that that was meant to reduce our dependency on crude oil. What is does is it takes what is fundamentally a food source and makes it into a gasoline source. That's caused corn to go up." He went on to explain that in the recent food commodities surge, which includes products like wheat, soybeans and rice, corn has gone up to $6 a bushel-making everything from animal feed to cereal more expensive. Nice call, Sen. Simon! For those interested, here's how the New York Times reported the news (emphasis added): With a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market. The Senate voted 51-50 to table an amendment that would have denied financing to the agency to carry out a rule guaranteeing renewable fuels a 15 percent share of the lucrative fuel oxygenate market in 1995. That share rises to 30 percent in following years. Under the Clean Air Act, oxygenates, which make fuel burn more cleanly, are to be added to gasoline in the nation's smoggiest areas. Tabling the amendment, offered by Democratic Senators Bennett J. Johnston of Louisiana and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, in effect kills it and clears the way for E.P.A. to carry out its program. All, in the end, thanks to Nobel Laureate Al Gore. Of course, as the ethanol crisis widens, I'm sure media will be reminding the electorate of this pivotal vote fourteen years ago...not!

DON'T BE VAT STUPID

Don’t be VAT stupid By Herman Cain November 21, 2010 There’s one message from the 2010 elections that many so-called policy makers, political elites and analysts did not hear. Namely, the American people are not as uninformed and stupid as they think we are. President Obama’s Debt Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force have both floated its ideas for reducing our nation’s runaway national debt. As CNNMoney.com reports, both sets of ideas echo each other in broad strokes. And both sets of ideas could confuse and confound the leaves off a tree. These ideas are a long way from becoming law, but they are generating, as intended, much discussion about the merits of each idea. The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes. Here are three of the biggest reasons the national retail sales tax is the worst idea on the table. First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. The Commission claims their goal is to reduce the deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. The task force says its plan would save $6 trillion by 2020. It’s sort of like dueling promises that would never happen, because when has a proposed cut in Washington D.C. ever produced the intended savings over 10 years? Never! Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care deform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation “national retail and wholesale” tax. For the liberal naysayers who say that would not happen, you lose! Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, benefits have gone down and they are still on a path of insolvency. Both the Commission and the Task Force say very little about how costs would be contained, because that’s the real big bodacious problem. Even if their plans could achieve their stated goals over the next 10 years, the current administration and Congress have increased spending nearly $4 trillion in the last two years. And the only hope that it will slow down is the new change of control in the House of Representatives. Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside. A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country. The third reason the national retail sales tax on top of all the taxes we already pay is a bad idea, is that there is already proposed legislation that replaces all of the federal taxes we pay. It replaces all current revenue. It supercharges our national economic growth, and puts the power of taxation back into the hands of the people who spend their money. It’s called the Fair Tax. It’s as easy to understand as ABC! That’s the problem. It’s fair. It is simple and understandable. But the politicians and bureaucrats do not want to give people more control of their own money. That’s why even though the legislation has been introduced in every session of Congress since 1999, it has not advanced. People are not stupid. Maybe they will hear us in 2012.

WHY NORTH, SOUTH KOREA ARE SLIDING DOWN SLIPPERY SLOPE TO WAR

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) Remember the 'peace dividend' that America supposedly reaped as a reward for outlasting the Soviet Union? America, this is the indication that the second installment of our "Hope & Change" 'dividend' is on its way. Or should I say, oppressively massive "Hope & Change" Fee. The first, of course, was the massive 2009 deficit of over $4 Trillion (yes, the true deficit last year was over $4T), and the continued, ridiculous surge in spending. The second installment is increased activity by tyrannical regimes (other than the Obama Regime) since they no longer fear America. They no longer believe we'll protect those who cannot protect themselves, and the most bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrants in the world will now seek to expand their territory as they come to realize that America has a White House occupant so incredibly weak that America has been, effectively, neutered. Today is a sad day for America; the North Korean Regime wouldn't dare to engage in such an act of war if they truly feared America, as they used to, when we had strong Commanders-In-Chief. They know that not only is the Obama Regime pathetically weak, when it comes to projecting strength against the enemies of freedom, but that the Obama Regime is actively working to 'collapse the system,' and to destroy America from within. This is what happens when we allow a radical 'progressive' leftist into the White House. Remember Jimmy Carter and America's humiliation at the hands of the Iranian Islamists who held Americans hostage until we elected a strong Conservative President, and he was sworn into office, taking the reins of the United States Armed Forces? How long until they released their American hostages, once Reagan was sworn in? Was it minutes or hours? I can't remember...my memory's a little foggy, since I was a young child. Here's the story.............. South Korea Vows ‘Enormous Retaliation’ After North’s Deadly Island...Published November 23, 2010 | Associated Press SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who convened an emergency security meeting shortly after the bombardment by North Korea, said that an "indiscriminate attack on civilians can never be tolerated." "Enormous retaliation should be made to the extent that (North Korea) cannot make provocations again," he said. North Korea bombarded a South Korean island near their disputed western border Tuesday, setting buildings ablaze and killing at least two marines and injuring 16 others after warning the South to halt military drills in the area, South Korean officials said. South Korea said it returned fire and scrambled fighter jets in response, and said the "inhumane" attack on civilian areas violated the 1953 armistice halting the Korean War. The two sides technically remain at war because a peace treaty was never negotiated. The United Nations Security Council could hold an emergency meeting in the next day or two over the attack, saying "It's in the works for either today or tomorrow. We are for it and planning is ongoing," Reuters reports. The United States, which has tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, condemned the attack and called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in Washington. He said the United States is "firmly committed" to South Korea's defense, and to the "maintenance of regional peace and stability." The North's artillery struck the small South Korean-held island of Yeonpyeong, which houses military installations and a small civilian population and which has been the focus of two previous deadly battles between the Koreas. A senior military official tells Fox News "no one is interested in escalating this, but we are taking this very seriously." Two South Korean marines were killed, three were seriously wounded and 10 slightly wounded, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official said. Island residents were escaping to about 20 shelters in the island while sporadic shelling continued, the military official said. North Korea's supreme military command threatened to continue military strikes against South Korea if it violated their disputed sea border "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency. The firing came amid South Korean military drills in the area. North Korea's military had sent a message to South Korea's armed forces early Tuesday to demand that the drills stop, but the South continued them, another military official said. During the drills, South Korean marines on the island shot artillery toward southern waters, away from North Korea, the official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing military rules. South Korean military official Lee Hong-ki said the North's premeditated bombardments struck civilian areas and were "inhumane atrocities." There are about 30 small islands around the Yeonpyeong, and tension runs high in the area because of its proximity to North Korea. Yeonpyeong is known for its crab fishing. After the North's barrages, South Korea responded by firing K-9 155mm self-propelled howitzers, military officials said, but declined to say whether North Korean territory was hit. YTN TV said several houses on Yeonpyeong were on fire and that shells were still falling on the island, which is about 75 miles (120 kilometers) west of the coast. The station broadcast pictures of thick columns of black smoke rising from the island, which has a population of 1,200 to 1,300. Screams and chaotic shouts could be heard on the video. Lee Chun-ok, a 54-year-old island resident, said she was watching TV when she heard sounds of artillery and a wall and door in her home suddenly collapsed. "I though I would die," Lee said from the port city of Incheon, west of Seoul, where she evacuated. "I was really, really terrified, and I'm still terrified." Relations between the divided Koreas sank to their lowest point in years after the deadly sinking in March of a South Korean warship near the tense Korean sea border, which killed 46 sailors. Seoul blamed a North Korean torpedo, while Pyongyang has denied any responsibility. President Lee Myung-bak ordered officials to "sternly respond" to North Korea's action but also called on officials to make sure that the "situation would not escalate," according to a presidential official. He asked not to be identified, citing the issue's sensitivity. Lee was holding a security meeting in a presidential situation room, the official said. China, which is the North's economic and political benefactor while maintaining robust commercial ties with the South, called for calm. "We express our concern over the situation. The situation is to be verified," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a regularly scheduled media briefing in Beijing. He called on both Koreas without naming them "to do more to contribute to peace and stability on the peninsula." In a message to North Korea's armed forces, South Korea's military urged the North to stop provocations and warned of strong measures unless the North stopped, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official said. The countries' western maritime boundary has long been a flash point between the two Koreas. The North does not recognize the border that was unilaterally drawn by the United Nations at the close of the 1950-53 Korean War. North and South Korea have fought three bloody skirmishes near the maritime border in recent years, most recently in November 2009. That battle left one North Korean officer dead and three others wounded, according to South Korean officials. Two deadly clashes have previously erupted around Yeonpyeong. In a gunbattle in June 2002, one South Korean warship sank, killing six sailors. The North said it also suffered casualties, but didn't confirm how many. In a 1999 clash, South Korea said several sailors were wounded, and that up to 30 North Koreans died. In a sign of North Korea's anger over the South Korean drills, North Korea's state news agency said in a dispatch Monday that South Korea was readying war games with the United States for aggressive purposes against North Korea. The dispatch quoted what it said were sympathetic Swiss groups that called the drills "a criminal act of aggression for provoking another Korean war." The existence of North Korea's new uranium enrichment facility came to light over the weekend after Pyongyang showed it to a visiting American nuclear scientist, claiming that the highly sophisticated operation had 2,000 completed centrifuges. Top U.S. military officials warn that it could speed the North's ability to make and deliver viable nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, one North Korean expert believes Tuesday’s attack was nothing more than a calling card for its 26-year-old dictator in waiting. North Korean expert Zhang Liangui told the Sydney Morning Herald that the attack was a deliberate act of brinksmanship to rally the military behind Kim Jong-il’s anointed successor, Kim Jong-un. Zhang, a professor at Beijing's Central Party School, told the Herald that he doesn’t believe the attack will escalate tensions, but stressed that North Korea would do what it felt necessary to be recognized internationally as a nuclear state. The military tensions between the two Koreas also comes amid a visit to the region by U.S. special envoy on North Korea, Stephen Bosworth. He held talks with South Korean officials Monday and was also scheduled to meet officials in China. --------

FAVORITISM TOWARD THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT CONTINUES TO GROW

Poll: Tea Party support grows; USA dividedNovember 22, 2010 By Susan Page, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Just about as many Americans want Tea Party-backed members of Congress to take the lead in setting policy during the next year as choose President Obama, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% say Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year while 27% say the Tea Party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%. The results reflect the strength of the Tea Party movement as the GOP prepares to take control of the House of Representatives in January. The survey also underscores Obama's weakened standing. His overall job approval rating, at 42%, is 1 percentage point higher than his historic low in midsummer. His 35% approval rating on the economy is the lowest of his presidency. The nation's mood "guarantees that there will be gridlock," says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "The government follows public opinion and public opinion is all over the lot about who should now be running things."

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM YOUR PRESIDENT

This news broke yesterday afternoon, but I didn't see it until a short while ago. This is a Christmas gift for the Maoists and other anti-American, pro-dictatorship tyrants within the Obama Regime: The legal cover to shut down free speech on the Internet BEFORE CHRISTMAS! An FCC source confirmed yesterday that on the 22nd of December, a mere 32 days from today, they plan to meet RE: 'Net Neutrality,' which gives the Executive branch sweeping new powers to censor the Internet, shutting down entire websites because they disagree with the Obama regime. It seems that they are piling up tools for use when they take down our ability to communicate without individual phone calls. 'Net Neutrality' could set the conservative movement back 30 years, in terms of communications abilities. This MUST NOT HAPPEN! Here's The Hill's Take: -------- FCC may regulate Internet lines days before ChristmasBy Sara Jerome - 11/19/10 04:50 PM ET The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a Christmas gift in store for the phone and cable industry: it may move ahead on its controversial net-neutrality regulations three days before Christmas. An FCC source confirmed on Friday that the commission plans to push its December meeting back by a week, meaning it will fall on the 22nd of the month. That's the same meeting in which analysts say the agency may move forward on its controversial net-neutrality proposal. Though the FCC has not confirmed that it will vote on net neutrality this year, rumors are swirling that it will. The timing of the meeting is already raising eyebrows. Some see it as a way to move the matter along before the GOP assumes the majority and while Congress is not in session to criticize the effort. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of the telecom subcommittee, questioned the schedule on Friday. He said "it appears that Chairman [Julius] Genachowski is trying to slip it under the radar and hope no one notices." Industry sources also suggested that political calculus is involved with the change of date for the meeting. "While many Americans will be enjoying their eggnog on that day, I'm sure the broadband providers won't be pleased to find this piece of coal in their stockings," an industry source jibed. Republicans are already mounting a campaign to oppose the potential Internet line regulations, which would aim to rein in how cable and phone companies manage Internet traffic. Nineteen Republicans signed a letter to Genachowski on Friday urging him not to move forward with net neutrality. “Reigniting the network neutrality debate will only distract us from that work and further jeopardize investment, innovation, and jobs. We ask you not to circulate such an order,” they wrote...

HOSTILE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF INTERNET

Posted by Jared Law (912 Project) So-called "Net Neutrality" is the power to regulate the Internet. And as you can imagine, the White House would love sites like http://www.the912project.us, http://www.glennbeck.com, http://www.foxnews.com, http://www.biggovernment.com, and all other blogs, websites, etc. sympathetic to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the cause of Liberty, to simply shut up, sit down, and take it like a man, instead of daring to question with boldness, hold to the truth, and speak without fear. Here's the news this morning, but the article was written from a business analysis perspective, and it totally ignores the plight of America, of those who love the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, true American History, The Free Market, American Heritage, and Freedom itself, so brackets [ ] were added to insert what they failed to mention: MAY 6, 2010, 7:15 AM ET How the FCC Plans to Regulate Internet LinesBy Amy Schatz Worried that phone and cable company stocks could take a tumble, Federal Communications Commission officials will brief Wall Street analysts before the markets open Thursday morning to explain in greater detail how they plan to regulate Internet lines [and take control of the Internet, take the power to regulate free speech in America, especially those pesky Tea Partiers/9.12'ers]. On Wednesday afternoon, aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski began briefing other FCC officials and lawmakers about how the agency plans to make sure it can enforce net neutrality, or the requirement that Internet providers treat all legal Internet traffic equally [but don't pay attention to what the White House might deem unequal, or illegal, especially Glenn Beck and those who agree with him]. Mr. Genachowski plans to circulate a notice of inquiry to other FCC board members next week on his plans to reclassify Internet lines — both cable and phone Internet lines — as common carrier services under Title 2 of the Communications Act. In 2002, the FCC deregulated Internet lines, and this move basically reverses that decision. At the same time, he will propose a “notice of proposed forbearance,” which will essentially lay out details about all of the parts of Title 2 that the FCC won’t try to enforce on Internet providers. Mr. Genachowski wants the agency to act quickly on the notices so they can be put out for public comment, with an eye toward making the changes official this fall, FCC officials said. FCC officials say they don’t want to apply most of the provisions of Title 2 to Internet lines, including things like rate regulations and rules that would require phone and cable companies to share their Internet lines and facilities with competitors at regulated rates. “This is not your father’s Title 2,” says one FCC official familiar with the proposal, which has been dubbed “Title 2 lite” by some analysts. Although consumer advocates [and progressives who can't wait to shut down free speech opposing the White House] couldn’t be more thrilled, phone and cable companies [, not to mention Tea Partiers, 9.12'ers, limited government advocates, and other Principled Constitutionalists] aren’t exactly happy about the plan. Mr. Genachowski may not want to wade into rate regulation, but future FCCs can easily reverse forbearance decisions, raising uncertainty about how companies and investors might be able to recoup billions of dollars in investments they’ve made in Internet networks. “We would expect a profoundly negative impact on capital investment,” warned Stanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note to clients Wednesday night titled “The FCC Goes Nuclear.” “The only potential winners are the satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network, for whom incremental broadband regulation would dramatically reduce the risk of competitive foreclosure in the video business at the hands of bottleneck broadband providers,” he wrote. Other analysts noted there’s almost 100% certainty that phone and cable companies will challenge the FCC’s decision in court, and the litigation could take several years. (Although, to be fair, almost every major thing the FCC does ends up in a federal appeals court anyway.) “We believe the FCC’s attempt to reclassify broadband will create a prolonged period of regulatory uncertainty and invite protracted litigation in a way that could complicate various high-priority policy initiatives,” wrote Jeffrey Silva, a telecom analyst for Media Global Advisors in a research note. Click the link in the story title to read the story in original context. UPDATE: Republicans prepare to fight possible FCC net-neutrality push by ye...By Sara Jerome - 11/19/10 10:51 AM ET Republicans are preparing to make things very difficult for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman if he tries to push ahead on net neutrality in December. Chatter that the agency may move to create net-neutrality rules before year's end has put the GOP on high alert, crafting plans this week how it would oppose any such effort. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is preparing a letter, expected to go out Friday or Saturday, urging the FCC to back down, according to House aides. The aides say they expect the letter to hit the traditional anti-net-neutrality notes: that there is no need to rush on rules for Internet lines and that there is no clear case for regulation. They also said they expect it to extol the growth of the broadband sector. Barton, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce panel, is a candidate to lead the committee in the next Congress. Republicans are also speaking up individually to oppose the potential effort. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), who wants to lead the committee if Barton's bid fails, issued a statement on Friday panning the possibility that net neutrality could come in December. “Ramming through Internet regulations would ignore the will of a bipartisan majority of Congress and the American public," he said. "It would further impede economic growth and job creation." The political calculus that might push the FCC to move in December is that Congress would be out of session and the Republicans would not yet have the House majority to immediately fight the effort. Stearns suggested the timing is crafty. "Since the December meeting agenda will be released next week when Congress is in recess, it appears that Chairman Genachowski is trying to slip it under the radar and hope no one notices,” he said, referring to the standard set of agency procedures. FCC officials said this week they have heard rumors that net neutrality, a proposal delayed since last October, could be featured on the agency's December agenda; however, certainty and direct knowledge were scarce. Jen Howard, the spokesperson for the chairman, would neither confirm nor deny the possibility. Telecom industry analysts also began saying this week that they think the commission seems "likely" to act.

WHEN BILL MAHER SPEAKS WHO REALLY CARES?

Bill Maher appeared on Tuesday’s “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann to talk about the election. So what happens when two liberals get together to lick their wounds? Terms such as “crack baby,“ ”nut bag,“ ”incestuous,“ and ”poop” get thrown around — the first describing voters, the second Tea Party candidates, and the third the liberal media. First, the crack baby and nut bag. When Olbermann asked if Maher takes comfort in America not electing Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and other Tea Party candidates, Maher had this to say about voters in general: Well, I’m a cock-eyed optimist Keith, so of course I take a lot of comfort in that. Yes, I think America did draw a line. When the nuts started falling out of the nut bag this year, they said, “yeah, even us — the electorate of America, the crack baby that we are — is going to say enough is enough.” Later, he eased up on the electorate and focused his ire on Republicans: There are no Republicans on the moderate side. … At some point, the left moved into the center. The right moved into a mental hospital. The left is at the center of politics? If that wasn’t a jarring enough statement, he went to say that this past Congress is one of the most “successful” since LBJ, and even had time for some self reflection when he described liberal news coverage as “incestuous.” And as an added bonus, he said Keith Olbermann sticks to the facts while while Glenn Beck “is close to playing with his poop”:

MICHAEL STEELE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED

Top RNC aide quits, blasts Steele By: Jonathan Martin November 16, 2010 01:06 PM EST Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins resigned from his post Tuesday morning with a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee. In a four-page letter to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee obtained by POLITICO, Collins lays out inside details, previously only whispered, about the disorganization that plagues the party. He asserts that the RNC’s financial shortcomings limited GOP gains this year and reveals that the committee is deeply in debt entering the 2012 presidential election cycle. “In the previous two non-presidential cycles, the RNC carried over $4.8 million and $3.1 million respectively in cash reserve balances into the presidential cycles,” Collins writes, underlining his words for emphasis. “In stark contrast, we enter the 2012 presidential cycle with 100% of the RNC’s $15 million in lines of credit tapped out, and unpaid bills likely to add millions to that debt.” The short version of the RNC's 2010 troubles as described by Collins: The committee couldn’t afford to run an independent expenditure ad campaign on behalf of their candidates, didn’t fund a paid voter turnout operation for Senate and gubernatorial races, left its vaunted 72-Hour turnout program effectively unfunded, offered only a fraction of the direct-to-candidate financial contributions they made four years ago and dramatically scaled back its support of state parties. Steele has not indicated whether he will seek another term at the helm of the committee and an array of Republicans are already maneuvering to ensure that he does not win re-election in the event he runs. The depth of the party’s problems his political director reveals is likely to make it considerably more difficult for the embattled chairman if he does pursue a second term. That’s in part because Collins is not one of the committee’s persistent Steele critics but a respected operative and senior staffer inside the RNC building who was given authority over the $15 million line of credit the party took out this fall. In addition to the normal duties of his job, Collins spent much of the summer and fall quietly travelling the country and meeting with major donors in an effort to boost the party’s lackluster fundraising. It was a highly unusual task for a political director and, coupled with his primary job responsibilities, effectively made the Iowa native the operational head of the party. The letter is even more damaging because the aide doesn’t just lay out a bill of particulars about the troubled committee but specifically rebuts the pushback deployed by Steele to defend his tenure. Alluding to the chairman’s oft-cited explanation about the RNC’s financial difficulties this year, for example, Collins writes that the party’s “low cash-on-hand figures are not simply the result of early spending or transfers to state parties.” “While the RNC spent $11 million more in 2009 than in 2005 to secure important off-year victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania, that accounts for only one-quarter of the $43.6 million shortfall from the last non-presidential cycle,” he notes. “And while we did make large in-kind contributions of phones and equipment to state parties, more than 85% of that equipment was left over from 2008 – not acquired in the 2010 cycle.” Collins’ parting blast is also damning simply by virtue of the sheer volume of data the aide reveals and the degree of precision he uses to paint a picture of a dysfunctional RNC. “For the 2010 election year itself, RNC cash transfers to state parties for political purposes were just $13.1 million—less than a quarter of the $56.7 million cash transfers to state parties in 2006 for political purposes,” Collins writes. “And in 2010, the RNC went $15 million into debt to fund these programs.” He makes the case that the party’s lack of money directly resulted in missed opportunities in an otherwise stellar year for the GOP. Collins cites a study that he says found that the GOP could have won the Washington and Colorado Senate races with a better field operation and says that he’d chalk up narrow gubernatorial losses in Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont to the same lack of funds for a ground game. The veteran Republican operative also tallies 21 House contests in every corner of the country that he asserts “could have been competitive if not for lack of funds.” In some of the states where the GOP picked up House seats, Collins notes it was partly because of outside help the party got for field funding. “The [Republican Governors Association] spent $18 million on GOTV-related expenses in 18 gubernatorial states,” he writes. “$13.2 million of those dollars went directly to state parties—more than the RNC transferred to state parties for political spending in all 50 states. More than half our US House pick-ups (31 of 60) and five of our most crucial holds were won in those 18 states.” And in the case of the two missed Senate opportunities, Washington state didn’t have a governor’s race and the RGA didn’t play in the Colorado gubernatorial contest. Collins lays the party’s fundraising shortfall squarely at the feet of Steele. “In the last two non-presidential cycles of 2002 and 2006, the RNC raised $284 million and $243 million respectively,” he writes, without noting Republicans held the White House in those two campaigns. “So far this cycle, the RNC has reported raising just $170 million. Less than $18 million (10.53%) of that total came from contributions of $1,000 or more, collected from a mere 5,379 donors. This is a fraction of either the previous cycles.” Of the $170 million raised to date, Collins points out that much of it came from low-dollar donors giving online and in the mail, suggesting Steele can’t claim credit for it. “These contributions do not result from personal solicitation by the Chairman but, like other macro-political trends, are reflective of the anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid wave that drove energy and intensity to historic highs this cycle,” Collins writes. And without the major donors giving to the party, the cost of fundraising overhead soared. “Historical fundraising costs have been less that 50 cents per dollar raised: Estimates for cost-of-funds this cycle were much higher, and some estimate that they were closer to 70 cents on the dollar,” the aide writes, underlining his words. But the problem, Collins adds, wasn’t just a lack of money to state parties and candidates – it was also a lack of communication. Of the 72-Hour Program, devised by President George W. Bush’s political team, Collins recalls that the states didn’t even know that the turnout effort had been shelved until days before it was to begin this year. “States were not notified of RNC Chief of Staff Mike Leavitt’s order that no 72-hour funding would be made available to them until October 22, 2010 – just one week before the 72-hour window opened,” he writes. Collins concludes his letter to Steele and the 11 members that comprise the party’s executive committee by noting that the party must regain its financial footing heading into 2012 to help underwrite a presidential campaign, pay for a presidential convention, costs associated with redistricting and all the House, Senate and gubernatorial races that will be held. “These are huge opportunities requiring massive obligations,” he writes. “And this Committee can meet them. But to meet them, we must dig out from huge debts, be focused and disciplined about spending wisely, only spend to win elections, and adopt a laser-like focus on the hard work of reviving our major donor fundraising network.”

Big Sis Caught Lying RE: Airport Security

Posted by Jared Law on November 16, 2010 First of all, many of us simply assume the Government is lying when they attempt to allay our fears about privacy and security, since they have lied to us so many times in the past. As the saying goes, "fool me once..." So we would be foolish to believe the Government when it comes to these porno scanners and the sexual assault pat-downs. I thought the other discussion I posted, "Hope? Change? TSA Molesting Passengers Nationwide" would cover this story well enough, but the news keeps getting worse. The first of two articles below makes the case against the deception of Big Sis quite nicely; below, you'll also find an article exposing the free pass Muslims get with the security procedures! Here's the first article: -------- 11/15/10 08:06 PM Big Sis Caught Lying To American People By Americans4Truth Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano, now forever known as Big Sis – a reference to George Orwell’s 1984 – has been caught telling some big lies in an attempt to quell an enormous public backlash against the full body scanning technology and invasive pat-down procedures that have been implemented by the TSA in airports nationwide. In a blatant propaganda piece published by USA Today, Napolitano describes the scanning machines as safe and the pat-downs as “discreet”, in the face of a flood of complaints from scientists, pilots, flight attendants, privacy groups, parents, Muslim groups and everyday passengers, all rebelling against over the top security. “AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy.” Napolitano writes in an article in which every single claim she makes can be easily disproved and revealed to be outright lies. Lie: The scanners are safe “They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety.” Napolitano claims, expecting the public to simply swallow the claim that NIST and the FDA are somehow “independent” of the federal government. As for Johns Hopkins University declaring the scanners safe, tell it to Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine. Love told AFP two days ago that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”. “…we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he added.So, unless you count skin cancer as safe, Napolitano is lying to you. According to other numerous real “independent” scientists who continue to speak out over the health hazards associated with the x-ray technology, the body scanners are far from safe. Sedat, a University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences tells CNet that the machines have “mutagenic effects” and will increase the risk of cancer. Sedat previously sent a letter to the White House science Czar John P. Holdren, identifying the specific risk the machines pose to children and the elderly. The letter stated: “it appears that real independent safety data do not exist… There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.” The TSA has repeatedly stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath. The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image. The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively “unzips” DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted. The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed. Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.” “The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg. Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck. “If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research. Lie: The scanners are effective “…the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we’ve found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.” Napolitano claims in her propaganda piece. In reality, the machines would not have prevented the Christmas Day bomber from boarding Flight 253, according to their designers, and other security experts who have dismissed the devices as “useless”. The imaging machines cannot even detect explosive material, so claiming, as Napolitano does, that they are “our best defense against such threats” is misleading at best and at worst a complete lie. If the machines had detected “dangerous items” “time and again”, rest assured that the DHS and the TSA would make sure it was all over the news – such success stories have been decidedly absent from the media, unless you count “dangerous items” as baby milk, tubes of toothpaste or contact lens fluid. The idea that the machines are effective flies in the face of the viewpoint of surveillance experts who note that the scanners will do nothing to make air travel safer. Lie: The scanners cannot store/print/transmit images At first we were asked to believe that the imaging machines did not produce crisp images of naked bodies. In an effort to downplay the intrusion of privacy they really represent, the TSA routinely claimed that the images produced by the scanners are “ghostly” or “skeletal”. The passenger’s face is blurred and the image as a whole “resembles a fuzzy negative,” the TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee told the media last year, prior to the underwear bombing attempt. After months of researchers, reporters and everyday travelers outing this as a complete lie, the DHS/TSA abandoned that approach and instead claimed that, although they were detailed naked images, it’s fine and dandy because they cannot be saved or transmitted. “The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.” Napolitano claims in her latest propaganda piece. Again not true. As we have previously detailed, the images that show in detail the naked genitals of men, women and children that have passed through the scanners can be transmitted and printed.As reported by Declan McCullagh of CNET earlier this year, “The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.” The proof comes in the form of a letter (PDF), obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. EPIC says it has also obtained more than 100 images of electronically stripped individuals from the scanning devices used at federal courthouses. The disclosures come as part of a settlement of an EPIC Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Marshals Service. Brijot, the manufacturer of the body scanning equipment in question, also admits that its machine can store up to 40,000 images and records. EPIC, has filed two further lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security over the scanners, claiming that the DHS has refused to release at least 2,000 images it has stored from scanners currently in use in U.S. airports. EPIC’s lawsuit argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches, as well as the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, referencing religious laws about modesty. The group points to a further document (PDF) it has obtained from DHS showing that the machines used by the department’s TSA are not only able to record and store naked body images, but that they are mandated to do so. The TSA has admitted that this is the case, but claims that it is for training and testing purposes only, maintaining that the body scanners used at airports cannot “store, print or transmit images”. “In complying with our Freedom of Information Act request, the Marshals Service has helped the public more fully understand the capabilities of these devices,” EPIC President Marc Rotenberg said in a statement. “But the DHS continues to conceal the truth from American air travelers who could be subject to similar intrusive recorded searches in U.S. airports.” As if it was needed, further evidence also points to the fact that the images are actively being transmitted and printed in airports. Lie: Pat-downs are “discreet” In her headline, Napolitano calls the pat-down procedure offered as an alternative to the naked body scanners, or used in addition to them, as “discreet”. “Pat-downs have long been one of the many security measures used by the U.S. and countries across the world to make air travel as secure as possible.” she writes. What she does not explain is that the new pat down procedure, which now allows TSA agents to forcefully feel around breasts and genitalia, is currently conducted in full view of queuing passengers and has been described by many, including New York Times reporter Joe Sharkey, as a deliberate form of humiliation to discourage others from refusing the full body scans. The TSA also claims that the pat-downs are discreet, yet multiple accounts and reports prove otherwise. Flight attendants and pilots unions in particular have taken up issue with the pat-downs, with one union declaring “We don’t want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public… They actually make contact with the genital area.” As reported by Reuters, parents are now demanding that the procedures be changed for children, after witnesses have described their children’s genitals being touched by men and women working for the TSA. “I didn’t think it was going to be as horrible as he was describing,” one father noted after an agent told him what he was going to do to the child before conducting the full body search. “At some point the terrorists have won.” the father added. The TSA says it is currently “reviewing” the procedure for children. Perhaps it should first review it’s policy on background checking its own employees, which by all accounts is woefully inadequate. Lie: “Risk based” security procedure Napolitano calls the TSA’s system “risk-based,” another total fallacy given the fact that the primary targets of airport oppression have been women, children, the elderly, and the physically disabled, all the categories of people who characteristically would pose the least risk in terms of terrorism. The procedure is completely random, emphasizing the fact that everyone is categorized as a potential terrorist. Lie: The scanners are popular with the public “These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.” Napolitano writes. Another unsubstantiated claim, particularly given that a new Reuters poll shows that over 95% of Americans are now less likely to fly due to the crackdown in the wake of the dubious toner cartridge and underpants bombing scares. Furthermore, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act before the issue recently hit headlines again, and before the majority of airports even had the machines installed, have revealed that there were more than 600 formal complaints about the devices last year. Hardly a shining example of how popular the machines are. Lies Lies Lies Napolitano and the TSA have consistently lied to the American people about the open implementation of tyranny in our airports. They will continue to do so in an effort to make it appear that those who are revolting against their procedures are just a small minority, when in reality the the vast majority of sick and tired of being treated like slaves and having their fundamental freedoms trashed. On November 24th, ‘national opt-out day’, the world will see thousands and thousands standing up against measures that are not only set to become commonplace in airports everywhere, but are also scheduled to be implemented on our streets if we do not resist... -------- This next story makes no sense; if it weren't for Islamist Radicals, we wouldn't NEED these ridiculous security measures! CAIR: TSA CAN ONLY PAT DOWN MUSLIM WOMEN’S HEAD, NECK Posted on November 12, 2010 at 9:43pm by Meredith Jessup The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel notice to Muslim airline passengers, warning them that new regulations from the Transportation Security Administration violate certain religious rules. According to CAIR, the TSA’s new “enhanced pat down” policy should be limited to searching only around Muslim women’s head and neck if they are wearing a hijab and that Muslims objecting to the enhanced full-body scans have the right to request the pat-down procedure be done in a private place. From CAIR’s press release: Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab: * If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and “sss” is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf. * In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead. * Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down. * You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure. * Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands. In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law. “It is a violation of clear Islamic teaching that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” the ruling states. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of the faith. The Qu’ran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.” According to the Detroit Free Press, CAIR endorsed the fatwa. If any passenger refuses the full-body scan, new regulations call for new, enhanced “head to toe” pat down procedures. “Pat downs are one important tool to help TSA detect hidden and dangerous items such as explosives,” a TSA statement issued on Oct. 28 stated. “Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others.” According to the TSA’s “Head-to-Toe Screening Policies,” the agency may carry out closer inspections, depending on what a passenger is wearing. Baggy or loose clothing often draws extra scrutiny from security screeners.