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!