Article 6 Section 1
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Delmarva Sign
This picture was taken on Delmarva. I doctored it up a little to protect the identity of the business that posted it. They are not ashamed of it but it is not my place to put their name out there.
Hate Crime Prevention Act 2009
Here goes our buddy Congressman Castle again off on a liberal tangent. It is when he does things like this that I hope he resigns his house seat and runs for Bidens seat, and loses. Castle has a very "Specteress" voting record. You never really know where he is going to come down. The GOP in Delaware is just so happy to have a "Republican" as out lone congressman because the state is so ridiculously blue they allow him to do as he pleases without any resistance. Personally I would rather have an admitted Democrat in that seat so we could run a strong conservative against him.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 has just passed its first test to becoming law. The Act has added sexual orientation to it's protection. Meaning it could be understood to place pastors in violation of the law and arrested if they preach or teach the Bible on Romans 1 or other related texts. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is one of the sponsors of this bill. Has anyone heard anything different on this Congressional Bill and Castle's support?
Family Research Counsel
http://www.frc.org/
Hate Crimes legislation in the House
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. The act, H.R. 1913, would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses. Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to others. All people deserve to be protected from crime, and equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. In a hearing on this legislation last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes based on what they teach and preach, which is certainly a violation of free speech and an example of unfair treatment under the law.
See the bill HERE
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 has just passed its first test to becoming law. The Act has added sexual orientation to it's protection. Meaning it could be understood to place pastors in violation of the law and arrested if they preach or teach the Bible on Romans 1 or other related texts. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is one of the sponsors of this bill. Has anyone heard anything different on this Congressional Bill and Castle's support?
Family Research Counsel
http://www.frc.org/
Hate Crimes legislation in the House
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. The act, H.R. 1913, would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes. It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses. Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to others. All people deserve to be protected from crime, and equal protection under the law means equal protection for ALL. In a hearing on this legislation last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that under the legislation pastors could be arrested for hate crimes based on what they teach and preach, which is certainly a violation of free speech and an example of unfair treatment under the law.
See the bill HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-29-2009
Article 5 Section 1
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Marines Reaction To Two Different Presidents
This is utterly amazing. I knew how the service men and women felt about Bush and assumed they were much less "friendly" to Obama but this is staggering.
Specter Admits Hes A Liberal
Well not exactly but he has decided to run as a Democrat in the upcoming primary. I personally am happy to see him go. This is the coward thing to do but wish he would have done it long ago. No matter what party he decides to associate with he is going to loose.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
The switch puts Democrats within one vote of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats currently hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Democrats will reach the magical number of 60 if Al Franken, who has been entangled in a protracted court battle with incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, is seated in Minnesota.
Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey, head of the conservative Club for Growth, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 GOP primary.
Reaction from Republicans was swift and harsh.
"I regret his decision," Sen. John McCain said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said some Republicans are happy about this, but he isn't.
"Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said in a statement. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News that Specter's decision puts a lot of red state Democrats, who campaigned on conservative credentials, under a lot of pressure to step up.
"They may be the only thing that can stop this radical liberal agenda," he said. "The big loser could be the red state Democrats."
Graham added, "Everyone switches parties when you know you're going to lose."
Good riddance you liberal piece of garbage. The great people of Pennsylvania will vote your sorry self out and the American people will be better for it.
Republican voters had sent him to the Senate five times. But faced with the prospect of a strong challenge from conservative Pat Toomey in the GOP primary and the state trending Democratic, Specter jumped ship.
The switch puts Democrats within one vote of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats currently hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Democrats will reach the magical number of 60 if Al Franken, who has been entangled in a protracted court battle with incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, is seated in Minnesota.
Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey, head of the conservative Club for Growth, who almost defeated Specter in a 2004 GOP primary.
Reaction from Republicans was swift and harsh.
"I regret his decision," Sen. John McCain said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said some Republicans are happy about this, but he isn't.
"Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said in a statement. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News that Specter's decision puts a lot of red state Democrats, who campaigned on conservative credentials, under a lot of pressure to step up.
"They may be the only thing that can stop this radical liberal agenda," he said. "The big loser could be the red state Democrats."
Graham added, "Everyone switches parties when you know you're going to lose."
Good riddance you liberal piece of garbage. The great people of Pennsylvania will vote your sorry self out and the American people will be better for it.
White House Apologizes For NYC Scare
Once again this arrogant administration has done something stupid. Yesterday the plane that bares the call sign "Air Force One" when the president is on board did a low fly over, with an F-16 in trail, of New York City.
The White House said they often update photos of Air Force One over national landmarks. They also said the FAA was notified.
"I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. A junior aide in the mayors office was informed of the flyover the night before but was told to keep it quiet by the FAA.
The stunt caused panic among many residents and workers. Buildings were evacuated and people were seen running down the street screaming. Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.
The administration should be ashamed of themselves. This is one of the most insensitive things an administration could do. The residents of NYC that were present during the events of 9-11 have reason to be furious and scared.
SHAMEFUL!
The White House said they often update photos of Air Force One over national landmarks. They also said the FAA was notified.
"I'm annoyed -- furious is a better word -- that I wasn't told," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference. A junior aide in the mayors office was informed of the flyover the night before but was told to keep it quiet by the FAA.
The stunt caused panic among many residents and workers. Buildings were evacuated and people were seen running down the street screaming. Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations. "Oh God, it was mayhem in here, just mayhem," says Rubin Shimon, manager of Styling Haircutters, a barbershop near Ground Zero. Many people took shelter in the shop to call loved ones on their cellphones.
The administration should be ashamed of themselves. This is one of the most insensitive things an administration could do. The residents of NYC that were present during the events of 9-11 have reason to be furious and scared.
SHAMEFUL!
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-28-2009
Article 4 Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Second Amendment Supporters
I was browsing the web this morning and ran across the document below. It just goes to show not all republicans are interested in preserving your second amendment rights.
Click HERE for the document.
Click HERE for the document.
Trophy Rock Fish Season
I know this is supposed to be a political blog but this time of the year I spend a lot of time on the water fishing for trophy rock fish. The season has been open for a week and after many hours spent on the water catching nothing I finally was able to land a couple of trophy's.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-27-2009
Article 4 Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obama Is Not Playing Nice?
There are not really people that are surprised this president, the most radical liberal ever to be elected, would not honor his promise of bipartisanship is there? The Republicans that have voted with the Democrats since this radical took office should be voted out of office as soon as their current term expires.
Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
"As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards," he said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."
He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.
But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a "Truth Commission" to investigate the interrogation policies -- an option that several congressional Democrats support.
But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn't embrace the idea.
Obama also addressed the "reconciliation" procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as "a last resort" on health care reform legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that "reconciliation" would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.
But some Republican leaders haven't given up on achieving bipartisanship.
House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.
"We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things," the letter read. "Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works."
Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.
"Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington," they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. "However the next 100 days can be different."
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Mark your calendar: April 21, 2009. That's when the Era of Bipartisanship died.
That's what some Republicans suggested after President Obama opened the possibility of a congressional investigation and prosecution of Justice Department lawyers who authorized "enhanced" interrogation techniques on terror suspects during the Bush administration.
If the coffin needs a final nail, it will come if Democrats decide to fast-track Obama's legislative priorities through a budget maneuver known as "reconciliation."
Democrats in the House and Senate agreed Friday on a budget framework that would protect Obama's health care plan from a Republican filibuster using the tactic.
Republicans and some Democrats oppose reconciliation because it would prevent a long debate on what they consider complex issues.
Bipartisanship was already on life support after Republicans largely opposed the president's economic policies, and it took a turn for the worse on Tuesday when Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted.
Those methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last week, included tactics such as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
Obama acknowledged the complexities involved with prosecuting Bush officials.
"As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards," he said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."
He suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 Commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.
But at a closed-door bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders Thursday, Obama reportedly resisted pressure from Democrats to probe Bush officials. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Obama she wants a "Truth Commission" to investigate the interrogation policies -- an option that several congressional Democrats support.
But Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., apparently didn't embrace the idea.
Obama also addressed the "reconciliation" procedure at the meeting, saying it may be used as "a last resort" on health care reform legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the president that "reconciliation" would cause serious problems and hamper bipartisan cooperation, GOP aides told FOX News.
But some Republican leaders haven't given up on achieving bipartisanship.
House GOP leaders wrote Obama a letter dated April 22, detailing the policy proposals they wish to work with him on, including tax cuts for businesses and families and tax breaks for homeowners and potential homebuyers.
"We believe that if Washington can put aside petty politics and unite for the good of the American people, we can accomplish great things," the letter read. "Unfortunately, there has been a sad lack of bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship has been a major detriment to your stated desire to change the way that Washington works."
Republicans blamed Democrats for the lack of bipartisanship.
"Democratic leaders in Congress have so far ignored your call for a new era of bipartisanship in Washington," they wrote, claiming Democrats have not engaged in dialogue with them on legislation. "However the next 100 days can be different."
FOX News' Carl Cameron and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Pelosi Is A LIAR!
Pelosi is a liar! I don't typically start a story with such harsh allegations but this creature is will say anything to get reelected and get the heat off her back. She knew of the interrogation techniques and anyone who does not believe she does is an idiot. I hope the citizens of her district wake up and vote this crazy ding bat out of office. I hope whoever runs against her plasters the television and newspapers with the story of her husband and American Samoa. She is a crook right along with Feinstein.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.
The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.
"I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.
Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies -- but it's still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.
Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.
Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: "We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us."
The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers' ability to challenge what they are being told -- in this case, about interrogation tactics.
But that doesn't mean they can't ask critical questions.
Pelosi indicated Thursday she's being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.
"It's very interesting that people are talking so freely," Pelosi said.
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other "enhanced" interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.
But in a story published in the Washington Post in December 2007, two officials were quoted saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time.
The clash of accounts has stirred Republican claims that Democrats have selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs.
"I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods, and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," House Minority Leader John Boehner said Thursday.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is seeking a detailed list of all lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics. Republicans are drawing attention to the briefings to challenge Democrats who now say they are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the harsh interrogation techniques.
Pelosi is among those lawmakers who want an independent commission established to probe the evolution of the policies -- but it's still unclear what she knew early on in the Bush administration.
Asked about the briefings on Thursday, Pelosi said: "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."
But she also did not explicitly say that waterboarding was not part of the conversation. She indicated instead that any discussion they may have had was hypothetical.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would," she said.
Pelosi indicated the briefings could have been incomplete, saying: "We only know what they choose to tell us, and the manner and timing which they tell us."
The Post article noted that strict rules during the secret briefings prohibit lawmakers from taking notes or consulting with legal experts, hindering the lawmakers' ability to challenge what they are being told -- in this case, about interrogation tactics.
But that doesn't mean they can't ask critical questions.
Pelosi indicated Thursday she's being hamstrung from fully addressing the briefing, and publicly questioning the tactics described in it, because it was secret.
"It's very interesting that people are talking so freely," Pelosi said.
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-24-2009
Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Napolitano Is A Joke And A Clown
This lady is an idiot. Once again I will say if she were a Republican she would have been out of a job when the report was released. As if that were not enough she decided to blame our neighbors to the north for the 9-11 attacks. It is time for this lady to go back to New Mexico and lets get a competent person to fill the job.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down.
The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing "extremists," and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans -- but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas.
"I don't know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she's caused," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. "I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let's move on."
Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor.
"Mr. President, fire that woman," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano's comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. "To go on television and say your apology to be, 'I'm sorry you were offended by this report,' that's no apology."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano's resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing.
Napolitano on Thursday acknowledged the criticism and reiterated that the extremist report was "not well written" and should not have been released in that form. She said she would meet with the leadership of the American Legion on Friday over the reference to returning war veterans.
But she rebuffed those who say an apology is not enough.
"That's what they're going to get," Napolitano said.
She also corrected her statements on Canada, admitting that she falsely suggested Sept. 11 terrorists crossed over from Canada. "I knew the minute it came out of my mouth it was wrong," she said.
Napolitano first clarified her comments in a written statement that said: "I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States. There are other instances, however, when suspected terrorists have attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States."
Her explanation was not so clear during the interview Monday with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that sparked the new controversy.
The secretary was asked to elaborate on comments about giving the Mexican and Canadian borders equal treatment, even though Canada is not experiencing a violent drug war.
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Napolitano was asked if she was referring to the Sept. 11 hijackers. She said: "Not just those but others as well."
This angered some Canadian officials, who called such claims an unfortunate "misconception" in media interviews.
The Canadian newspaper The National Post unleashed on Napolitano. One column called the interview a "train wreck." Another questioned how Napolitano could view the Canadian border as a "security threat on par" with Mexico's.
"Ms. Napolitano's brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we're dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can't differentiate between a secure border linking the world's largest trading partners and one that's a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what's been described as an 'invasion' of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north," the column said.
Such criticism sprung in part from a speech Napolitano delivered last month at the Brookings Institution, in which she said "we shouldn't go light on one (border) and heavy on the other."
"If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," she said. "This is one NAFTA, it's one area, it's one continent and there should be some parity there."
She said she intends to "visit myself" the Canadian border this spring or summer.
House Minority Leader John Boehner briefly addressed the criticism over Napolitano on Thursday.
"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," he said.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down.
The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing "extremists," and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans -- but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas.
"I don't know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she's caused," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. "I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let's move on."
Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor.
"Mr. President, fire that woman," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano's comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. "To go on television and say your apology to be, 'I'm sorry you were offended by this report,' that's no apology."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano's resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing.
Napolitano on Thursday acknowledged the criticism and reiterated that the extremist report was "not well written" and should not have been released in that form. She said she would meet with the leadership of the American Legion on Friday over the reference to returning war veterans.
But she rebuffed those who say an apology is not enough.
"That's what they're going to get," Napolitano said.
She also corrected her statements on Canada, admitting that she falsely suggested Sept. 11 terrorists crossed over from Canada. "I knew the minute it came out of my mouth it was wrong," she said.
Napolitano first clarified her comments in a written statement that said: "I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States. There are other instances, however, when suspected terrorists have attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States."
Her explanation was not so clear during the interview Monday with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that sparked the new controversy.
The secretary was asked to elaborate on comments about giving the Mexican and Canadian borders equal treatment, even though Canada is not experiencing a violent drug war.
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Napolitano was asked if she was referring to the Sept. 11 hijackers. She said: "Not just those but others as well."
This angered some Canadian officials, who called such claims an unfortunate "misconception" in media interviews.
The Canadian newspaper The National Post unleashed on Napolitano. One column called the interview a "train wreck." Another questioned how Napolitano could view the Canadian border as a "security threat on par" with Mexico's.
"Ms. Napolitano's brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we're dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can't differentiate between a secure border linking the world's largest trading partners and one that's a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what's been described as an 'invasion' of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north," the column said.
Such criticism sprung in part from a speech Napolitano delivered last month at the Brookings Institution, in which she said "we shouldn't go light on one (border) and heavy on the other."
"If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," she said. "This is one NAFTA, it's one area, it's one continent and there should be some parity there."
She said she intends to "visit myself" the Canadian border this spring or summer.
House Minority Leader John Boehner briefly addressed the criticism over Napolitano on Thursday.
"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," he said.
FOX News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Congressional Dems Knew of "Torture"
Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago.
FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.
The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.
The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.
Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.
Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.
He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."
"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.
Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door to prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.
"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."
It's unclear how detailed the briefings with lawmakers on the interrogation programs were.
Pelosi said Thursday that at the briefing she attended, she was not told that waterboarding "or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods" were being used.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative council ... opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time," she said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.
A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Thursday that he will not throw his support behind any independent commission to look into Bush-era interrogation policy until the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review late this year.
"I think that's really the direction that I'm going to follow closely. I think the intelligence committee is a bipartisan committee. They will make a public report..And then I think it's appropriate to start talking about what we do with that information. But until we get that information, I think we would all be better off just relaxing, understanding how difficult this is," Reid said. "I think that we must get the information. It's spotty now, and I think that a few months waiting to determine the right way to go about this is certainly not going to hurt us."
While some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.
Reid offered few details Thursday on the nature of the briefings with lawmakers, and said he doesn't remember specifically when he was briefed.
"Of course there were briefings on different subjects," he said. "I'm not going to get into all of this ... It's pretty clear that any time I had concerns, I raised them."
FOX News' Jim Angle and Trish Turner and FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.
FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.
The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.
The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.
Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.
Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has personally requested from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair an unclassified list of names of all members of Congress who attended those briefings, complete with dates and locations.
He told FOXNews.com the list will probably show many members were briefed "early and often."
"The purpose of this, of course, is to underscore the fact that people in Congress knew or were aware of the program, its details, and they approved of this program and authorized its funding," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.
Republicans have criticized President Obama for opening the door to prosecuting Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," which authorized harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding. But they've also raised the point that if Democrats pursue charges against the lawyers, they'd be shielding others involved in the interrogation program.
"They can't blame the politicians in Congress who approved these tactics in 2002 because these are their friends," Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mail. "So they're placing the blame on Bush administration officials, political appointees."
It's unclear how detailed the briefings with lawmakers on the interrogation programs were.
Pelosi said Thursday that at the briefing she attended, she was not told that waterboarding "or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods" were being used.
"What they did tell us is that they had some legislative council ... opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time," she said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he would follow the law with regard to the interrogation program.
A number of Democrats have defended the call for probes. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has been pushing for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Thursday that he will not throw his support behind any independent commission to look into Bush-era interrogation policy until the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review late this year.
"I think that's really the direction that I'm going to follow closely. I think the intelligence committee is a bipartisan committee. They will make a public report..And then I think it's appropriate to start talking about what we do with that information. But until we get that information, I think we would all be better off just relaxing, understanding how difficult this is," Reid said. "I think that we must get the information. It's spotty now, and I think that a few months waiting to determine the right way to go about this is certainly not going to hurt us."
While some aides back the idea of an independent, 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate, FOX News has learned that Obama opposes the idea.
Reid offered few details Thursday on the nature of the briefings with lawmakers, and said he doesn't remember specifically when he was briefed.
"Of course there were briefings on different subjects," he said. "I'm not going to get into all of this ... It's pretty clear that any time I had concerns, I raised them."
FOX News' Jim Angle and Trish Turner and FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.
Condoleezza Rice Ok'd Waterboarding
Not only did Sec Rice OK these techniques, the congress including Pelosi knew of these techniques and even questioned if they were harsh enough. We are headed down a slippery slop here folks. These are tactics of countries like Russia. Never before in US history have an administration threatened to drag the previous administration and their legal council into hearings.
Be warned President Obama and Eric Holder, you will not be in power forever. Some day sooner than later the Republicans will be back in power and turn about is fair play.
As national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved the CIA's request to subject high-ranking Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, the earliest known decision by a Bush administration official to OK use of the simulated drowning technique.
Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.
The new timeline shows that Rice played a greater role than she admitted last fall in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The narrative also shows that dissenting legal views about the severe interrogation methods were brushed aside repeatedly.
The Intelligence Committee's timeline comes a day after the Senate Armed Services Committee released an exhaustive report detailing direct links between the CIA's harsh interrogation program and abuses of prisoners at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Both revelations follow President Barack Obama's release of internal Bush administration legal memos that justified the use of severe methods by the CIA, a move that kicked up a firestorm from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum.
According to the new narrative, which compiles legal advice provided by the Bush administration to the CIA, Rice personally conveyed the administration's approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah, a so-called high-value detainee, to then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002.
Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed and asked for the attorney general to conduct a legal review. She said she did not recall details. Rice omitted her direct role in approving the program in her written statement to the committee.
A spokesman for Rice declined comment when reached Wednesday.
Days after Rice gave Tenet the nod, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret Aug. 1 memo. Zubaydah underwent waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002.
In the years that followed, according to the narrative issued Wednesday, there were numerous internal legal reviews of the program, suggesting government attorneys raised concerns that the harsh methods, particularly waterboarding, might violate federal laws against torture and the U.S. Constitution.
But Bush administration lawyers continued to validate the program. The CIA voluntarily dropped the use of waterboarding, which has a long history as a torture tactic, from its arsenal of techniques after 2005.
According to the two Senate reports, CIA lawyers first presented the plan to waterboard Zubaydah to White House lawyers in April 2002, a few weeks after he was taken into custody in 2002 in a Pakistani safe house.
Tenet wrote in his memoir that CIA officers themselves originated the idea.
In May 2002, Rice, along with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales met at the White House with the CIA to discuss the use of waterboarding.
The Armed Services Committee report says that six months earlier, in December 2001, the Pentagon's legal office already had made inquiries about the use of mock interrogation and detention tactics to a U.S. military training unit that schools armed forces personnel in how to endure harsh treatment. A former intelligence official said Wednesday the CIA officers also based their proposed harsh interrogations on the mock interrogation methods used by the unit.
He declined to be identified because the CIA had not authorized the disclosure of the information.
In July 2002, responding to a follow-up from the Pentagon general counsel's office, officials at the training unit, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, detailed their methods for the Pentagon. The list included waterboarding.
But the training unit warned that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also cautioned about the reliability of information gleaned from the severe methods and warned that the public and political backlash could be "intolerable."
"A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo.
Less than a week later, the Justice Department issued two legal opinions that sanctioned the CIA's harsh interrogation program. The memos appeared to draw deeply on the survival school data provided to the Pentagon to show that the CIA's methods would not cross the line into torture.
The opinion concluded that the harsh interrogation methods would be acceptable for use on terror detainees because the same techniques did not cause severe physical or mental pain to U.S. military students who were tested in the government's carefully controlled training program.
Several people from the survival program objected to the use of their mock interrogations in battlefield settings. In an October 2002 e-mail, a senior Army psychologist told personnel at Guantanamo Bay that the methods were inherently dangerous and students were sometimes injured, even in a controlled setting.
"The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he said.
Nevertheless, for the next two years, the CIA and military officials received interrogation training and direct interrogation support from JPRA trainers.
Last week, the Obama administration's top intelligence official, Dennis Blair, privately told intelligence employees that "high value information" was obtained through the harsh interrogation techniques. However, on Tuesday, in a written statement, Blair said, "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Be warned President Obama and Eric Holder, you will not be in power forever. Some day sooner than later the Republicans will be back in power and turn about is fair play.
As national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved the CIA's request to subject high-ranking Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, the earliest known decision by a Bush administration official to OK use of the simulated drowning technique.
Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.
The new timeline shows that Rice played a greater role than she admitted last fall in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The narrative also shows that dissenting legal views about the severe interrogation methods were brushed aside repeatedly.
The Intelligence Committee's timeline comes a day after the Senate Armed Services Committee released an exhaustive report detailing direct links between the CIA's harsh interrogation program and abuses of prisoners at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Both revelations follow President Barack Obama's release of internal Bush administration legal memos that justified the use of severe methods by the CIA, a move that kicked up a firestorm from opposing sides of the ideological spectrum.
According to the new narrative, which compiles legal advice provided by the Bush administration to the CIA, Rice personally conveyed the administration's approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah, a so-called high-value detainee, to then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002.
Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed and asked for the attorney general to conduct a legal review. She said she did not recall details. Rice omitted her direct role in approving the program in her written statement to the committee.
A spokesman for Rice declined comment when reached Wednesday.
Days after Rice gave Tenet the nod, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret Aug. 1 memo. Zubaydah underwent waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002.
In the years that followed, according to the narrative issued Wednesday, there were numerous internal legal reviews of the program, suggesting government attorneys raised concerns that the harsh methods, particularly waterboarding, might violate federal laws against torture and the U.S. Constitution.
But Bush administration lawyers continued to validate the program. The CIA voluntarily dropped the use of waterboarding, which has a long history as a torture tactic, from its arsenal of techniques after 2005.
According to the two Senate reports, CIA lawyers first presented the plan to waterboard Zubaydah to White House lawyers in April 2002, a few weeks after he was taken into custody in 2002 in a Pakistani safe house.
Tenet wrote in his memoir that CIA officers themselves originated the idea.
In May 2002, Rice, along with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales met at the White House with the CIA to discuss the use of waterboarding.
The Armed Services Committee report says that six months earlier, in December 2001, the Pentagon's legal office already had made inquiries about the use of mock interrogation and detention tactics to a U.S. military training unit that schools armed forces personnel in how to endure harsh treatment. A former intelligence official said Wednesday the CIA officers also based their proposed harsh interrogations on the mock interrogation methods used by the unit.
He declined to be identified because the CIA had not authorized the disclosure of the information.
In July 2002, responding to a follow-up from the Pentagon general counsel's office, officials at the training unit, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, detailed their methods for the Pentagon. The list included waterboarding.
But the training unit warned that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also cautioned about the reliability of information gleaned from the severe methods and warned that the public and political backlash could be "intolerable."
"A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo.
Less than a week later, the Justice Department issued two legal opinions that sanctioned the CIA's harsh interrogation program. The memos appeared to draw deeply on the survival school data provided to the Pentagon to show that the CIA's methods would not cross the line into torture.
The opinion concluded that the harsh interrogation methods would be acceptable for use on terror detainees because the same techniques did not cause severe physical or mental pain to U.S. military students who were tested in the government's carefully controlled training program.
Several people from the survival program objected to the use of their mock interrogations in battlefield settings. In an October 2002 e-mail, a senior Army psychologist told personnel at Guantanamo Bay that the methods were inherently dangerous and students were sometimes injured, even in a controlled setting.
"The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he said.
Nevertheless, for the next two years, the CIA and military officials received interrogation training and direct interrogation support from JPRA trainers.
Last week, the Obama administration's top intelligence official, Dennis Blair, privately told intelligence employees that "high value information" was obtained through the harsh interrogation techniques. However, on Tuesday, in a written statement, Blair said, "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Cruel Summer?
I have a solution for this, FIRE THE UNION!
DETROIT — Thousands of GM workers could learn as early as Thursday that they will be idle for up to nine weeks this summer as the automaker's plants stop making all but its most popular cars and trucks.
The move is a result of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, but some analysts and dealers fear the plant closings could further scare car buyers already made nervous by talk of a GM bankruptcy.
General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks, three people briefed on the plan said Wednesday. The exact dates of the closures are not known, but the people said they will occur around the normal two-week shutdown in July when changes are made from one model year to the next. None of the people wanted to be identified because workers have not yet been told of the shutdowns.
GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment other than to say the company notifies employees before making any production cuts public. But UAW officials will likely raise questions about the move during meetings they have scheduled at several factories Thursday and Friday with plant managers and GM human resource officials to discuss production changes.
Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages.
One of the people briefed on the plan said details are still being worked out. Some of the closings could be staggered between mid-May and the end of July, but the exact number of plants to be idled has not yet been determined. Another person said a few plants that make more popular models could remain open for part of the shutdown period, but at reduced assembly line speeds.
But the shutdown could be catastrophic to many auto parts suppliers that already are near bankruptcy due to previous production cuts. During the shutdown, suppliers couldn't ship parts to GM and would lose critical revenue.
"It's one of those things we've been dreading for a long time," said Jim Gillette, director of financial services at auto-industry consultant CSM Worldwide in Grand Rapids. "It's as bad as its ever been."
He said that many suppliers are making employee cuts or forcing workers to take furloughs to reduce operating expenditures.
GM is living on $13.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to cut its debt, reduce labor costs and take other restructuring steps. If it doesn't meet the deadline, the company's CEO has said it will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
The Treasury Department declined to comment on any effect the plant shutdowns might have on GM's restructuring plans.
Separately Wednesday, GM announced that it may miss a $1 billion bond payment also due June 1 if its debt-for-equity exchange is still in progress by then. GM also could go into bankruptcy protection, which could make the company miss the payment as well.
The company plans to make the exchange offer soon to bondholders, perhaps as early as next week. GM has $28 billion in unsecured bond debt and is under government pressure to reduce that to solidify its balance sheet.
GM's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, and GM had a 123-day supply of cars and trucks at the end of March, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. That's down from 162 days worth in January.
But as of March 31, the automaker had a more than six-month supply of several models including the Pontiac G5 compact and Chevrolet Silverado hybrid pickup truck. The lengthy shutdown likely means that GM doesn't see its sales rebounding anytime soon, said Tom Libby, an independent Detroit-area auto industry analyst.
"They must be forecasting a sales level that is low enough between now and the summer that they see their inventories building," he said late Wednesday. "It's sort of an ominous comment on what they see for the industry."
Libby also suggested that the company's sales may be declining because customers are concerned about the automaker possibly filing for bankruptcy protection.
GM CEO Fritz Henderson has said the company would prefer to restructure outside of court, but it is preparing for a prearranged bankruptcy as well as one in which good assets would be separated from underperforming ones.
"Just using the word bankruptcy, their (market) share is down a lot just because of this talk," Libby said. "They may be counting on a further decline."
The plant closures add to the onslaught of bad news coming out of GM, said John Clark, president of Avenue Chevrolet, a dealership in Batavia, Ill., near Chicago.
"Henderson making statements about bankruptcy sure doesn't help his cause, and all of the sudden we have this," he said. "I've been getting calls from customers about warranties. I can't see this as a positive move."
The government has said it would guarantee GM and Chrysler warranties as the companies restructure.
Libby did say GM should be applauded for not building too many vehicles and then having to spend big on rebates and other incentives to move them, something the Detroit Three have been guilty of in the past.
Other GM dealers said a shutdown of up to nine weeks is jarring, but not unexpected given the sales slump.
"Nine weeks seems like an awful long time, but the way business is, not an awful lot of cars are being sold anyway," said George Tasker, fleet manager at Martin Chevrolet in Torrance, Calif.
Tasker said the move wouldn't affect business, as dealers would "get together and trade more easily" to find the exact car a customer wanted.
Nearly all automakers with U.S. factories have closed plants or cut production to deal with the auto sales slump. Earlier this year, GM temporarily closed 20 factories across North America due to weak sales, some for the entire month of January. Chrysler LLC, also subsisting on government loans, closed all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month in January to counter the auto sales downturn.
Ford Motor Co. also shut down 10 North American assembly plants for an extra week in January, and both Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. have cut production.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
DETROIT — Thousands of GM workers could learn as early as Thursday that they will be idle for up to nine weeks this summer as the automaker's plants stop making all but its most popular cars and trucks.
The move is a result of slumping sales and growing inventories of unsold vehicles, but some analysts and dealers fear the plant closings could further scare car buyers already made nervous by talk of a GM bankruptcy.
General Motors Corp. is planning to temporarily close most of its U.S. factories for up to nine weeks, three people briefed on the plan said Wednesday. The exact dates of the closures are not known, but the people said they will occur around the normal two-week shutdown in July when changes are made from one model year to the next. None of the people wanted to be identified because workers have not yet been told of the shutdowns.
GM spokesman Chris Lee would not comment other than to say the company notifies employees before making any production cuts public. But UAW officials will likely raise questions about the move during meetings they have scheduled at several factories Thursday and Friday with plant managers and GM human resource officials to discuss production changes.
Thousands of workers could be laid off but would still get most of their pay because their United Auto Workers union contract requires the company to make up much of the difference between state unemployment benefits and their wages.
One of the people briefed on the plan said details are still being worked out. Some of the closings could be staggered between mid-May and the end of July, but the exact number of plants to be idled has not yet been determined. Another person said a few plants that make more popular models could remain open for part of the shutdown period, but at reduced assembly line speeds.
But the shutdown could be catastrophic to many auto parts suppliers that already are near bankruptcy due to previous production cuts. During the shutdown, suppliers couldn't ship parts to GM and would lose critical revenue.
"It's one of those things we've been dreading for a long time," said Jim Gillette, director of financial services at auto-industry consultant CSM Worldwide in Grand Rapids. "It's as bad as its ever been."
He said that many suppliers are making employee cuts or forcing workers to take furloughs to reduce operating expenditures.
GM is living on $13.4 billion in government loans and faces a June 1 deadline to cut its debt, reduce labor costs and take other restructuring steps. If it doesn't meet the deadline, the company's CEO has said it will enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
The Treasury Department declined to comment on any effect the plant shutdowns might have on GM's restructuring plans.
Separately Wednesday, GM announced that it may miss a $1 billion bond payment also due June 1 if its debt-for-equity exchange is still in progress by then. GM also could go into bankruptcy protection, which could make the company miss the payment as well.
The company plans to make the exchange offer soon to bondholders, perhaps as early as next week. GM has $28 billion in unsecured bond debt and is under government pressure to reduce that to solidify its balance sheet.
GM's sales were down 49 percent in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, and GM had a 123-day supply of cars and trucks at the end of March, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. That's down from 162 days worth in January.
But as of March 31, the automaker had a more than six-month supply of several models including the Pontiac G5 compact and Chevrolet Silverado hybrid pickup truck. The lengthy shutdown likely means that GM doesn't see its sales rebounding anytime soon, said Tom Libby, an independent Detroit-area auto industry analyst.
"They must be forecasting a sales level that is low enough between now and the summer that they see their inventories building," he said late Wednesday. "It's sort of an ominous comment on what they see for the industry."
Libby also suggested that the company's sales may be declining because customers are concerned about the automaker possibly filing for bankruptcy protection.
GM CEO Fritz Henderson has said the company would prefer to restructure outside of court, but it is preparing for a prearranged bankruptcy as well as one in which good assets would be separated from underperforming ones.
"Just using the word bankruptcy, their (market) share is down a lot just because of this talk," Libby said. "They may be counting on a further decline."
The plant closures add to the onslaught of bad news coming out of GM, said John Clark, president of Avenue Chevrolet, a dealership in Batavia, Ill., near Chicago.
"Henderson making statements about bankruptcy sure doesn't help his cause, and all of the sudden we have this," he said. "I've been getting calls from customers about warranties. I can't see this as a positive move."
The government has said it would guarantee GM and Chrysler warranties as the companies restructure.
Libby did say GM should be applauded for not building too many vehicles and then having to spend big on rebates and other incentives to move them, something the Detroit Three have been guilty of in the past.
Other GM dealers said a shutdown of up to nine weeks is jarring, but not unexpected given the sales slump.
"Nine weeks seems like an awful long time, but the way business is, not an awful lot of cars are being sold anyway," said George Tasker, fleet manager at Martin Chevrolet in Torrance, Calif.
Tasker said the move wouldn't affect business, as dealers would "get together and trade more easily" to find the exact car a customer wanted.
Nearly all automakers with U.S. factories have closed plants or cut production to deal with the auto sales slump. Earlier this year, GM temporarily closed 20 factories across North America due to weak sales, some for the entire month of January. Chrysler LLC, also subsisting on government loans, closed all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month in January to counter the auto sales downturn.
Ford Motor Co. also shut down 10 North American assembly plants for an extra week in January, and both Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. have cut production.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-23-2009
Article 3 Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Lettter To Senators Carper and Kaufman
I wrote this letter yesterday and sent it to both Senator Carper and Kaufman. I am not expecting a positive response but it is important they know their constituents are unhappy with the unethical business that often takes place in both houses of congress.
Senator Carper,
While you and I may not always see eye to eye on political issues I think I can stand tall and say you are a principled person and would not tolerate unethical activities by a fellow senator. That said I am looking to see you stand up to Sen. Feinstein and demand she resign immediately.
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money (yes that is my money) to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Her intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual. Sen. Feinstein is not a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
On Oct. 30 Sen. Feinstein offered to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
These are serious allegations and must be dealt with quickly and decisively. It is unacceptable for a sitting Senator or intervene in matters that will benefit her personally.
Senator Carper as your constituent I demand you begin debate that will force Senator Feinstein to resign from the Senate immediately
Senator Carper,
While you and I may not always see eye to eye on political issues I think I can stand tall and say you are a principled person and would not tolerate unethical activities by a fellow senator. That said I am looking to see you stand up to Sen. Feinstein and demand she resign immediately.
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money (yes that is my money) to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Her intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual. Sen. Feinstein is not a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
On Oct. 30 Sen. Feinstein offered to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
These are serious allegations and must be dealt with quickly and decisively. It is unacceptable for a sitting Senator or intervene in matters that will benefit her personally.
Senator Carper as your constituent I demand you begin debate that will force Senator Feinstein to resign from the Senate immediately
Obama The Fool?
HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Tuesday that President Barack Obama "misinterpreted" his brother Raul's sentiments toward the United States and bristled at any suggestion Cuba should free political prisoners or reduce official fees on money sent to the island from the U.S.
Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations last week, when he said Cuban leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.
Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances from the U.S. as a sign of good will.
That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government Web site that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."
The former president appeared to be throwing a dose of cold water on growing expectations for improved bilateral relations — suggesting Obama had no right to dare suggest that Cuba make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing "everything" with U.S. authorities.
"Affirming that the president of Cuba is ready to discuss any topic with the president of the United States expresses that he's not afraid to broach any subject," Fidel Castro wrote of his 77-year-old brother, who succeeded him as president 14 months ago.
"It's a sign of bravery and confidence in the principles of the revolution," he said, referring to the rebel uprising that toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought the Castros to power on New Year's Day 1959.
"Nobody should assume that he was talking about pardoning those sentenced in March 2003 and sending all of them to the United States, if the country were willing to liberate the five Cuban anti-terrorist heroes," Castro wrote.
He was referring to 75 leading political opposition leaders who were rounded up and imprisoned six years ago. Some 54 of them remain behind bars, though Raul Castro suggested last year that Cuba would be willing to liberate some political prisoners if U.S. authorities would free five imprisoned Cuban spies.
Story continues HERE
Raul Castro touched off a whirlwind of speculation that the U.S. and Cuba could be headed toward a thaw in nearly a half-century of chilly relations last week, when he said Cuban leaders would be willing to sit down with their U.S. counterparts and discuss "everything," including human rights, freedom of the press and expression, and political prisoners on the island.
Obama responded at the Summit of the Americas by saying Washington seeks a new beginning with Cuba, but he also said Sunday that Cuba should release some political prisoners and reduce official taxes on remittances from the U.S. as a sign of good will.
That appeared to enrage Fidel Castro, 82, who wrote in an essay posted on a government Web site that Obama "without a doubt misinterpreted Raul's declarations."
The former president appeared to be throwing a dose of cold water on growing expectations for improved bilateral relations — suggesting Obama had no right to dare suggest that Cuba make even small concessions. He also seemed to suggest too much was being made of Raul's comments about discussing "everything" with U.S. authorities.
"Affirming that the president of Cuba is ready to discuss any topic with the president of the United States expresses that he's not afraid to broach any subject," Fidel Castro wrote of his 77-year-old brother, who succeeded him as president 14 months ago.
"It's a sign of bravery and confidence in the principles of the revolution," he said, referring to the rebel uprising that toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought the Castros to power on New Year's Day 1959.
"Nobody should assume that he was talking about pardoning those sentenced in March 2003 and sending all of them to the United States, if the country were willing to liberate the five Cuban anti-terrorist heroes," Castro wrote.
He was referring to 75 leading political opposition leaders who were rounded up and imprisoned six years ago. Some 54 of them remain behind bars, though Raul Castro suggested last year that Cuba would be willing to liberate some political prisoners if U.S. authorities would free five imprisoned Cuban spies.
Story continues HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-22-2009
Article 3 Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Another Crooked Democrat
If this story were about a Republican he or she would be forced out of the Senate TODAY! No questions asked. Just the appearance of a conflict of interest would be enough to for every single Democrat to throw a fit.
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.
Story HERE
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.
Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.
Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.
Story HERE
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-21-2009
Article 2 Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Mr. Jefferson
This video was put together by a good friend to me and a great conservative. Mike Church really gets it.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-20-2009
Article 2 Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Miss America
This is a shameful story. It is common knowledge that not everyone believes in gay marriage. It is ok to be pro gay marriage but if you oppose it how dare you. Where is the right to choose? It is take away from those of us who believe in traditional family values. Miss California should be given an award for living in that liberal cesspool and still having the courage to say how she really feels. If she had said she was pro gay marriage she would have been hailed as a hero by the left and may have won the pageant.
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage.
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Co-director Shanna Moakler told FOXNews.com that she fully supported Lewis' statement.
But Prejean told FOXNews.com that she has "no regrets" and is "happy" with the answer she gave.
Story continues HERE
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage.
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Co-director Shanna Moakler told FOXNews.com that she fully supported Lewis' statement.
But Prejean told FOXNews.com that she has "no regrets" and is "happy" with the answer she gave.
Story continues HERE
Friday, April 17, 2009
Giving Credit Where It's Due
Even though I do not like him I have to give him the credit that is due, Obama is a pirate killing machine!
Welcome To The Big League
Now that Dear Leader has to make some real decisions he must now know how Bush felt when the left wing kooks were bashing him over "secret prisons" and Guantanamo Bay. These people have now turned on Dear Leader and will attack him for doing his job and keeping us safe.
President Obama signed three executive orders in January that signaled his intent to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, fulfilling a campaign promise popular with liberals and central to his electoral victory.
But three months into the detainee review, Obama finds himself the unexpected target of fresh criticism from liberals over his handling of what they consider the new Guantanamo Bay: the military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
The secretive site is home to 660 detainees, 95 percent of whom were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The rest were mostly captured in North Africa and the Middle East.
In an editorial this week, The New York Times claimed Bagram is "the next Guantanamo" and accused the Obama administration of recycling "extravagant claims of executive power."
That's because the Obama White House has sided with the Bush administration in its belief that the Bagram detainees, who are in a war zone, have no right to a court review despite a ruling last year by the Supreme Court granting Guantanamo detainees those rights.
The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
But a federal judge rejected that argument earlier this month, ruling that Bagram detainees can challenge their detention. U.S. District Judge John Bates said they should have access to the courts to prevent the United States from being able to "move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."
The Justice Department is appealing the ruling and said that an interagency task force is working to finish a report by July that outlines the legal options for handling terror suspects in the future.
Surprisingly, Obama finds himself on the opposite side of liberals in the debate over detainee rights.
"If the U.S. is going to close Guantanamo as President Obama has promised, it would be relatively meaningless if new Guantanamos like Bagram are allowed to continue to operate in the future," said Jonathan Hafetz, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees. "It'd be like putting a band-aid on a much deeper wound and problem."
But conservatives believe the war on terror will be reduced to a criminal matter if the ACLU and others get their way.
"What do you do when 500 terrorists who were just shooting at you all of a sudden raise their white flag and say, 'I surrender, I want my lawyer. I want my three hots (meals) and a cot and I want my green card to America,'" said Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Story can be found HERE.
President Obama signed three executive orders in January that signaled his intent to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, fulfilling a campaign promise popular with liberals and central to his electoral victory.
But three months into the detainee review, Obama finds himself the unexpected target of fresh criticism from liberals over his handling of what they consider the new Guantanamo Bay: the military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
The secretive site is home to 660 detainees, 95 percent of whom were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The rest were mostly captured in North Africa and the Middle East.
In an editorial this week, The New York Times claimed Bagram is "the next Guantanamo" and accused the Obama administration of recycling "extravagant claims of executive power."
That's because the Obama White House has sided with the Bush administration in its belief that the Bagram detainees, who are in a war zone, have no right to a court review despite a ruling last year by the Supreme Court granting Guantanamo detainees those rights.
The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
But a federal judge rejected that argument earlier this month, ruling that Bagram detainees can challenge their detention. U.S. District Judge John Bates said they should have access to the courts to prevent the United States from being able to "move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."
The Justice Department is appealing the ruling and said that an interagency task force is working to finish a report by July that outlines the legal options for handling terror suspects in the future.
Surprisingly, Obama finds himself on the opposite side of liberals in the debate over detainee rights.
"If the U.S. is going to close Guantanamo as President Obama has promised, it would be relatively meaningless if new Guantanamos like Bagram are allowed to continue to operate in the future," said Jonathan Hafetz, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees. "It'd be like putting a band-aid on a much deeper wound and problem."
But conservatives believe the war on terror will be reduced to a criminal matter if the ACLU and others get their way.
"What do you do when 500 terrorists who were just shooting at you all of a sudden raise their white flag and say, 'I surrender, I want my lawyer. I want my three hots (meals) and a cot and I want my green card to America,'" said Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Story can be found HERE.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-17-2009
Article 2 Section 1.1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Holder Finally Pulled His Head Out
of a tea bag! Oh wait that is only funny when Rachel "Meaty Fingers" Maddow makes jokes about tea bagging.
Someone must have finally gotten to Holder and informed him prosecution of Bush Admin officials that under order from Bush water boarded prisoners was a very bad idea. This is like the kooks on the left that wanted to impeach Bush because Clinton purger himself and got his dumb self impeached. If Bush administration people were prosecuted the next Republican administration would prosecute Obama admin people for something they did. It would be a very slippery slope that could lead to nothing good.
WASHINGTON -- Seeking to move beyond what he calls a "a dark and painful chapter in our history," President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.
The government also released four memos long held secret by the Bush administration in which its lawyers approved in extensive and often graphic detail the tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects, the fullest and now complete government accounting of the techniques. The rough tactics range from waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- to using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls.
Even as they exposed new details of the interrogation program, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, offered the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.
Obama said in his statement and a separate letter sent directly to CIA employees that the nation must protect their identity "as vigilantly as they protect our security."
"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history," the president said. "But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
Holder told the CIA that the government would provide free legal representation to CIA employees in any legal proceeding or congressional investigation related to the program and would repay any financial judgment.
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.
As current CIA Director Leon Panetta put it in a message to employees: "CIA responded, as duty requires."
The CIA has acknowledged using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, on three high-level terror detainees in 2002 and 2003, with the permission of the White House and the Justice Department. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding has not been used since, but some human rights groups have urged Obama to hold CIA employees accountable for what they, and many Obama officials, say was torture.
Stacy Sullivan of Human Rights Watch said Obama is "dead wrong" to say that nothing would be gained by examining the past for criminal acts.
"Prosecuting violations of the law is not about laying blame for the past, it's about ensuring that those crimes don't happen again," she said.
The memos produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 and 2005 were released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In addition to detailing individual techniques, one memo also specifically authorized a method for combining multiple methods, a practice human rights advocates argue crosses the line into torture even if any individual methods does not.
The methods authorized in them include keeping detainees naked for long periods, keeping them in a painful standing position for long periods, and depriving them of solid food. Other tactics included using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, and beating and kicking the detainee. Sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family were also used.
Interrogators were told not to allow a prisoner's body temperature or caloric intake to fall below a certain level, because either could cause permanent damage, said senior administration officials. They discussed the memos on condition of anonymity to more fully describe the president's decision-making process.
The Obama administration last month released nine legal memos. It probably will release more as the lawsuit proceeds, the officials said.
The ACLU suit has sought to use the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the treatment of prisoners -- even though the Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions and the Obama administration has gone further to actively dismantle much of President George W. Bush's anti-terror program.
Obama has ordered the CIA's secret overseas prisons known as "black sites" closed and ended so-called "extraordinary renditions" of terrorism suspects if there is any reason to believe the third country would torture them. He has also restricted CIA questioners to only those interrogation methods and protocols approved for use by the U.S. military until a complete review of the program is conducted.
Also Thursday, Holder formally revoked every legal opinion or memo issued during Bush's presidency that justified interrogation programs.
The documents have been the subject of a long, fierce debate in and outside government over how much officials should say.
The Bush administration held the view that the president had the authority to claim broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts in order to keep Americans safe. Obama and Holder, among others, have said that the use of such unchecked powers has actually made Americans less safe, by increasing anti-U.S. sentiment, endangering American troops when captured and handing terrorists a recruiting tool.
"Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure," Obama said in his statement.
Even so, the officials described the president's process of deciding how much to release in response to the suit as very difficult. Over four weeks, there were intense debates involving the president, Cabinet members, lower-level officials and even former administration officials.
Obama was concerned that releasing the information could endanger ongoing operations, American personnel or U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services. CIA officials, in particular, needed reassuring, the officials said.
But in the end, the view of the Justice Department prevailed, that the FOIA law required the release and that the government would likely be forced to do so by the court if it didn't do so itself, the officials said.
In his statement, Obama said he was reassured about the potential national security implications by the fact that much of the information contained had already been widely publicized -- including some of it by Bush himself -- and by the fact that the program itself no longer exists.
He said "exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release" and does not change his determination to keep other intelligence operations secret and information about them classified.
But, said Obama, "Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States."
Those assurances are not likely to inoculate Obama against criticism from conservatives. Last month, Vice President Dick Cheney said, for instance, that Obama's decisions to revoke Bush-era terrorist detainee policies will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Someone must have finally gotten to Holder and informed him prosecution of Bush Admin officials that under order from Bush water boarded prisoners was a very bad idea. This is like the kooks on the left that wanted to impeach Bush because Clinton purger himself and got his dumb self impeached. If Bush administration people were prosecuted the next Republican administration would prosecute Obama admin people for something they did. It would be a very slippery slope that could lead to nothing good.
WASHINGTON -- Seeking to move beyond what he calls a "a dark and painful chapter in our history," President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.
The government also released four memos long held secret by the Bush administration in which its lawyers approved in extensive and often graphic detail the tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects, the fullest and now complete government accounting of the techniques. The rough tactics range from waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- to using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls.
Even as they exposed new details of the interrogation program, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, offered the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.
Obama said in his statement and a separate letter sent directly to CIA employees that the nation must protect their identity "as vigilantly as they protect our security."
"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history," the president said. "But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
Holder told the CIA that the government would provide free legal representation to CIA employees in any legal proceeding or congressional investigation related to the program and would repay any financial judgment.
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.
As current CIA Director Leon Panetta put it in a message to employees: "CIA responded, as duty requires."
The CIA has acknowledged using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, on three high-level terror detainees in 2002 and 2003, with the permission of the White House and the Justice Department. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding has not been used since, but some human rights groups have urged Obama to hold CIA employees accountable for what they, and many Obama officials, say was torture.
Stacy Sullivan of Human Rights Watch said Obama is "dead wrong" to say that nothing would be gained by examining the past for criminal acts.
"Prosecuting violations of the law is not about laying blame for the past, it's about ensuring that those crimes don't happen again," she said.
The memos produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 and 2005 were released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In addition to detailing individual techniques, one memo also specifically authorized a method for combining multiple methods, a practice human rights advocates argue crosses the line into torture even if any individual methods does not.
The methods authorized in them include keeping detainees naked for long periods, keeping them in a painful standing position for long periods, and depriving them of solid food. Other tactics included using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, and beating and kicking the detainee. Sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family were also used.
Interrogators were told not to allow a prisoner's body temperature or caloric intake to fall below a certain level, because either could cause permanent damage, said senior administration officials. They discussed the memos on condition of anonymity to more fully describe the president's decision-making process.
The Obama administration last month released nine legal memos. It probably will release more as the lawsuit proceeds, the officials said.
The ACLU suit has sought to use the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the treatment of prisoners -- even though the Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions and the Obama administration has gone further to actively dismantle much of President George W. Bush's anti-terror program.
Obama has ordered the CIA's secret overseas prisons known as "black sites" closed and ended so-called "extraordinary renditions" of terrorism suspects if there is any reason to believe the third country would torture them. He has also restricted CIA questioners to only those interrogation methods and protocols approved for use by the U.S. military until a complete review of the program is conducted.
Also Thursday, Holder formally revoked every legal opinion or memo issued during Bush's presidency that justified interrogation programs.
The documents have been the subject of a long, fierce debate in and outside government over how much officials should say.
The Bush administration held the view that the president had the authority to claim broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts in order to keep Americans safe. Obama and Holder, among others, have said that the use of such unchecked powers has actually made Americans less safe, by increasing anti-U.S. sentiment, endangering American troops when captured and handing terrorists a recruiting tool.
"Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure," Obama said in his statement.
Even so, the officials described the president's process of deciding how much to release in response to the suit as very difficult. Over four weeks, there were intense debates involving the president, Cabinet members, lower-level officials and even former administration officials.
Obama was concerned that releasing the information could endanger ongoing operations, American personnel or U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services. CIA officials, in particular, needed reassuring, the officials said.
But in the end, the view of the Justice Department prevailed, that the FOIA law required the release and that the government would likely be forced to do so by the court if it didn't do so itself, the officials said.
In his statement, Obama said he was reassured about the potential national security implications by the fact that much of the information contained had already been widely publicized -- including some of it by Bush himself -- and by the fact that the program itself no longer exists.
He said "exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release" and does not change his determination to keep other intelligence operations secret and information about them classified.
But, said Obama, "Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States."
Those assurances are not likely to inoculate Obama against criticism from conservatives. Last month, Vice President Dick Cheney said, for instance, that Obama's decisions to revoke Bush-era terrorist detainee policies will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."
Story courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Former CIA Chief Blast Obama Administration
WASHINGTON -- Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says the Obama administration is endangering the country by releasing Justice Department memos that detail the CIA's interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration.
Hayden tells The Associated Press the release will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.
The Obama administration outlawed the techniques but has a task force reviewing the military's interrogation methods to determine if they are sufficient for CIA use.
Hayden says he worries the revelations will also deter other governments from cooperating with the United States because it shows the U.S. "can't keep anything secret."
Story HERE on www.foxnews.com
Hayden tells The Associated Press the release will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.
The Obama administration outlawed the techniques but has a task force reviewing the military's interrogation methods to determine if they are sufficient for CIA use.
Hayden says he worries the revelations will also deter other governments from cooperating with the United States because it shows the U.S. "can't keep anything secret."
Story HERE on www.foxnews.com
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-16-2009
Article 1 Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it\'s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it\'s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Only In Nazifornia
I mean California!
California, always seeking to be a trendsetter on environmental policy, is weighing a proposal to charge 25 cents for every paper or plastic bag distributed at grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores. The money raised would go into a state fund used to clean up trash and prevent litter related to what the bill calls “single-use” bags.
The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, says 25 cents a bag is high enough to have a real impact on consumer behavior. The fee would be waived for some low-income Californians.
The idea, of course, is to encourage people to bring their own reusable bags to the supermarket. Brownley argues that a similar program in Ireland has been a success, reducing plastic bag litter by more than 90 percent.
The bill’s other aim is to help the state offset the $25 million a year it spends to clean up plastic bag waste. Municipalities spend $300 million, Brownley says.
Chuck DeVore, a Republican assemblyman from Orange County, said the idea is “just one of a sorry series of tax increases that the Democrats are trying to foist on the working people of California.”
DeVore said the bag charge would add $2 to $3 to the bill every time a family goes to the store. And if that family brings along reusable bags, that can be a health hazard.
“If you buy some chicken or some meat, unless you figure a way to wash those bags every time, you will have salmonella in those natural fibers,” DeVore said.
Currently, retailers in California are required to set up in-store recycling programs for used bags. Brownley, however, says preliminary results show there has only been a negligible increase in bag recycling since that law went into effect.
But how realistic is it to push through a bill during a recession that will effectively make consumers pay more at the grocery store? Would such a law prompt you to break out those reusable bags once and for all?
DeVore says he expects the bill to pass the Assembly and land on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk.
Original story on Reuters.
California, always seeking to be a trendsetter on environmental policy, is weighing a proposal to charge 25 cents for every paper or plastic bag distributed at grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores. The money raised would go into a state fund used to clean up trash and prevent litter related to what the bill calls “single-use” bags.
The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, says 25 cents a bag is high enough to have a real impact on consumer behavior. The fee would be waived for some low-income Californians.
The idea, of course, is to encourage people to bring their own reusable bags to the supermarket. Brownley argues that a similar program in Ireland has been a success, reducing plastic bag litter by more than 90 percent.
The bill’s other aim is to help the state offset the $25 million a year it spends to clean up plastic bag waste. Municipalities spend $300 million, Brownley says.
Chuck DeVore, a Republican assemblyman from Orange County, said the idea is “just one of a sorry series of tax increases that the Democrats are trying to foist on the working people of California.”
DeVore said the bag charge would add $2 to $3 to the bill every time a family goes to the store. And if that family brings along reusable bags, that can be a health hazard.
“If you buy some chicken or some meat, unless you figure a way to wash those bags every time, you will have salmonella in those natural fibers,” DeVore said.
Currently, retailers in California are required to set up in-store recycling programs for used bags. Brownley, however, says preliminary results show there has only been a negligible increase in bag recycling since that law went into effect.
But how realistic is it to push through a bill during a recession that will effectively make consumers pay more at the grocery store? Would such a law prompt you to break out those reusable bags once and for all?
DeVore says he expects the bill to pass the Assembly and land on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk.
Original story on Reuters.
Tax Day Tea Party Update 2
Word is spreading that the Secret Service has pulled the permit for the Lafayette Park protest and the Treasury Building is wrapped in yellow tape to keep us off the steps.
If the Bush Administration had done this type of thing to a left wing group of protesters they would have cried on CNN and PMSNBC for weeks to come. We however shall not be deterred, we will peacefully show our opposition to this government.
If the Bush Administration had done this type of thing to a left wing group of protesters they would have cried on CNN and PMSNBC for weeks to come. We however shall not be deterred, we will peacefully show our opposition to this government.
Tax Day Tea Party
Today is the day, the day when hundreds of thousands of people will organize peacefully to tell our government we have had enough of the ever rising taxes they continue to levee on us.
I am attending the Washington DC tea party. As I type this post I am sitting in the studio live with Mike Church and the famous Mike Church Band. We can be heard on Sirius Patriot 144, live from 9am to 12 noon. After the show we will be heading over to the Treasury Building then off to Lafayette Park. Mike Church is going to be giving a speech at the Treasury Building around 1pm.
Even if you can not get to Washington DC make every attempt to get to your local tea party. Tell this bloated government, not the Bush government or the Obama government, OUR GOVERNMENT you are tired of their tax and spend ways. They are not drunken sailors even though they have been acting as such for many years.
I am attending the Washington DC tea party. As I type this post I am sitting in the studio live with Mike Church and the famous Mike Church Band. We can be heard on Sirius Patriot 144, live from 9am to 12 noon. After the show we will be heading over to the Treasury Building then off to Lafayette Park. Mike Church is going to be giving a speech at the Treasury Building around 1pm.
Even if you can not get to Washington DC make every attempt to get to your local tea party. Tell this bloated government, not the Bush government or the Obama government, OUR GOVERNMENT you are tired of their tax and spend ways. They are not drunken sailors even though they have been acting as such for many years.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-15-2009
This post is especially important today, the day our fine government forces us to pay an ever rising unconstitutional tax.
Article 1 Section 2.2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article 1 Section 2.2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Right Wing Nut Cases?
I find it very humorous that the clowns on the left ran around screaming that Bush was violating their civil rights but I never heard of anything like this from the Bush administration.
The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement agencies that recent news is helping "right-wing extremist groups" recruit new members and could lead to violence, and warns about the possible recruitment and radicalization of returning veterans.
The report, issued last week, is part of an ongoing review of extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
The latest assessment by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis found no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president. The office called them "unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment."
"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.
"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.," it continues.
The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities." It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups ... The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement," the report says.
The assessment notes that right-wing recruitment grew in the 1990s but subsided after increased scrutiny by the government following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings.
It does state that in 2009 "threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups ... have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
"Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," reads a key finding in the assessment.
DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the April 7 assessment is one in an ongoing series published by DHS "to facilitate a greater understanding of radicalization in the United States."
"DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues," Kuban said.
But some critics have said the DHS is equating conservative views to right-wing terrorism, but a DHS official countered that earlier this year, the department issued a mirror intelligence assessment of left-wing extremist groups.
"This is the job of DHS, to assess what is happening in this country, with regard to homegrown terrorism, and determine whether it's an actual threat or not, and that's what these assessments do. This is nothing unusual. These assessments are done all the time. This is about awareness," the official told FOX News on Monday.
FOX News has obtained a copy of the assessment, dated Jan. 26 and titled "Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade." It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.
"The perception that cyberattacks are non-violent aligns well with ideological beliefs, strategic objectives and tactics of many left-wing extremists," the earlier report reads. "The increasing reliance of commercial business and other enterprises on cyber technologies, including interconnected networks and remote access, creates new and expanding vulnerabilities that technically savvy left-wing extremists will exploit."
The report specifically mentions "eco-terrorist" Earth Liberation Front, which has been accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.
"Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of humans, animals and the environment even as they attack businesses and associated operations," the report reads. " Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism and cyber attacks, all of which extremists regard as non-violent, to bombings and arson."
The assessment says it "focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities."
The assessment report on right-wing extremists can be found here.
The assessment report on left-wing extremists can be found here.
The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement agencies that recent news is helping "right-wing extremist groups" recruit new members and could lead to violence, and warns about the possible recruitment and radicalization of returning veterans.
The report, issued last week, is part of an ongoing review of extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
The latest assessment by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis found no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president. The office called them "unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment."
"Right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning," the assessment reads.
"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when right-wing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.," it continues.
The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities." It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups ... The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement," the report says.
The assessment notes that right-wing recruitment grew in the 1990s but subsided after increased scrutiny by the government following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings.
It does state that in 2009 "threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups ... have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
"Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn-including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit-could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," reads a key finding in the assessment.
DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said the April 7 assessment is one in an ongoing series published by DHS "to facilitate a greater understanding of radicalization in the United States."
"DHS has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging issues," Kuban said.
But some critics have said the DHS is equating conservative views to right-wing terrorism, but a DHS official countered that earlier this year, the department issued a mirror intelligence assessment of left-wing extremist groups.
"This is the job of DHS, to assess what is happening in this country, with regard to homegrown terrorism, and determine whether it's an actual threat or not, and that's what these assessments do. This is nothing unusual. These assessments are done all the time. This is about awareness," the official told FOX News on Monday.
FOX News has obtained a copy of the assessment, dated Jan. 26 and titled "Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade." It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.
"The perception that cyberattacks are non-violent aligns well with ideological beliefs, strategic objectives and tactics of many left-wing extremists," the earlier report reads. "The increasing reliance of commercial business and other enterprises on cyber technologies, including interconnected networks and remote access, creates new and expanding vulnerabilities that technically savvy left-wing extremists will exploit."
The report specifically mentions "eco-terrorist" Earth Liberation Front, which has been accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.
"Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of humans, animals and the environment even as they attack businesses and associated operations," the report reads. " Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism and cyber attacks, all of which extremists regard as non-violent, to bombings and arson."
The assessment says it "focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities."
The assessment report on right-wing extremists can be found here.
The assessment report on left-wing extremists can be found here.
Another Victim of Chavez The Great
Where is the left when things like this happen? All we heard during the Bush administration is that Bush was a walking human rights violation. They praise Chavez and other cruel dictators.
MARACAIBO, Venezuela — The mayor of Venezuela's second largest city is missing, apparently the latest casualty of a crackdown on opposition by President Hugo Chavez that observers are calling outright persecution.
Manuel Rosales ran against Chavez for president in 2006 and lost, but last year he was elected mayor of the port city of Maracaibo, home to over 3 million people.
After Chavez vowed on national TV to throw Rosales in jail, the government filed corruption charges against the 56-year-old mayor. Two weeks ago, Rosales dropped out of sight. Supporters say he is hiding — from an enemy who now has the power to crush all opposition.
Rosales isn't alone in fearing retribution. Antonio Ledezma, another Chavez opponent, was elected mayor of Caracas in 2008 but is being barred from his office by his own police force, which attacked him when he tried to enter.
"It is hard to understand — a mayor can't get into his own office," Ledezma said. "The people there have guns. They have a license for guns, a license for crime."
Political analysts once used the word "authoritarian" to describe Hugo Chavez. Now they have begun to use the word "dictator" after what's happened to Ledezma and others.
"What's going on is persecution," said Susan Purcell, director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami. "[Y]ou have a political system where people don't have rights, the government controls all the means of communication ... and (Chavez) just doesn't want anybody to come up and challenge him. This is the usual behavior of dictators."
The crackdown began after Chavez won the battle to remove presidential term limits, amending the nation's constitution in a February referendum. The political opposition has learned to fear imprisonment, but some fear violence as well.
"I have already been victim of three murder attempts," said Leopoldo Lopez, mayor of Chacao, now a part of the capital of Caracas. "And two years ago was the last murder attempt and a fellow worker, Carlos Mendoza, was killed — he died in my arms."
While the mayor of Maracaibo hides, his wife, a mother of 10 children, is speaking out.
"It is something like out of a movie. I have to go to secret places to talk to my husband," Eveling Trejo de Rosales told FOX News. "Tanks drive by our house. What do I tell my 3-year-old child, who cries at night and wants to know where his father is?"
It is not clear where Rosales is. The Chavez government says he has gone to Panama or the United States. Supporters say he remains inside Maracaibo, where technically he is still mayor, although even his supporters have difficulty explaining how a mayor in hiding can run a major city.
"The mayor was just here recently. Honestly. He signed some decrees," an aide told FOX News. "Right now I'm the acting mayor, but he is the real mayor. I am simply implementing his decisions."
Chavez is not popular in all parts of the country. FOX News witnessed residents of Maracaibo setting his effigy on fire — but the governors and mayors who oppose the Venezuelan president are fast losing their powers, and sometimes their liberty.
The president's former defense minister, Gen. Raul Baduel, was arrested at gunpoint by government intelligence agents last week, charged with corruption and thrown in jail awaiting trial.
The next opponent could be what's left of the media. Chavez urged this week that sanctions be imposed on the one television station that still criticizes the president.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
MARACAIBO, Venezuela — The mayor of Venezuela's second largest city is missing, apparently the latest casualty of a crackdown on opposition by President Hugo Chavez that observers are calling outright persecution.
Manuel Rosales ran against Chavez for president in 2006 and lost, but last year he was elected mayor of the port city of Maracaibo, home to over 3 million people.
After Chavez vowed on national TV to throw Rosales in jail, the government filed corruption charges against the 56-year-old mayor. Two weeks ago, Rosales dropped out of sight. Supporters say he is hiding — from an enemy who now has the power to crush all opposition.
Rosales isn't alone in fearing retribution. Antonio Ledezma, another Chavez opponent, was elected mayor of Caracas in 2008 but is being barred from his office by his own police force, which attacked him when he tried to enter.
"It is hard to understand — a mayor can't get into his own office," Ledezma said. "The people there have guns. They have a license for guns, a license for crime."
Political analysts once used the word "authoritarian" to describe Hugo Chavez. Now they have begun to use the word "dictator" after what's happened to Ledezma and others.
"What's going on is persecution," said Susan Purcell, director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami. "[Y]ou have a political system where people don't have rights, the government controls all the means of communication ... and (Chavez) just doesn't want anybody to come up and challenge him. This is the usual behavior of dictators."
The crackdown began after Chavez won the battle to remove presidential term limits, amending the nation's constitution in a February referendum. The political opposition has learned to fear imprisonment, but some fear violence as well.
"I have already been victim of three murder attempts," said Leopoldo Lopez, mayor of Chacao, now a part of the capital of Caracas. "And two years ago was the last murder attempt and a fellow worker, Carlos Mendoza, was killed — he died in my arms."
While the mayor of Maracaibo hides, his wife, a mother of 10 children, is speaking out.
"It is something like out of a movie. I have to go to secret places to talk to my husband," Eveling Trejo de Rosales told FOX News. "Tanks drive by our house. What do I tell my 3-year-old child, who cries at night and wants to know where his father is?"
It is not clear where Rosales is. The Chavez government says he has gone to Panama or the United States. Supporters say he remains inside Maracaibo, where technically he is still mayor, although even his supporters have difficulty explaining how a mayor in hiding can run a major city.
"The mayor was just here recently. Honestly. He signed some decrees," an aide told FOX News. "Right now I'm the acting mayor, but he is the real mayor. I am simply implementing his decisions."
Chavez is not popular in all parts of the country. FOX News witnessed residents of Maracaibo setting his effigy on fire — but the governors and mayors who oppose the Venezuelan president are fast losing their powers, and sometimes their liberty.
The president's former defense minister, Gen. Raul Baduel, was arrested at gunpoint by government intelligence agents last week, charged with corruption and thrown in jail awaiting trial.
The next opponent could be what's left of the media. Chavez urged this week that sanctions be imposed on the one television station that still criticizes the president.
Courtesy of www.foxnews.com
Media Malpractice
If you have not drank the kool-aide or you drank it and you threw it back up this is a site you should check out. John Ziegler does something that is over due, he points out the hypocrisy in the media. He brings to light the lies told by the Obama press corp. He points out that there is a difference in Tina Faye and the brilliant Sarah Palin.
Go HERE to see the website for Media Malpractice.
Go HERE to see the website for Media Malpractice.
Paid Obama Troublemakers At It Again
What would a party be without party poopers?
As anti-tax protesters organize tea parties across the country on April 15, rumors are swirling that a backlash is brewing.
Some believe ACORN, which has been under scrutiny for accusations of voter fraud, is preparing to crash some of the tea parties. But ACORN says it is only helping to organize dozens of rallies on the same day in support of President Obama's first budget.
"This is the first we've heard of these so-called 'tea parties.' And, frankly, a bunch of small get-togethers by fringe conservative activists dedicated to simply saying 'no' is of little interest to us," said ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring.
He did not say where the pro-Obama rallies would take place, leaving open the possibility that they may clash with some tea parties.
Tea party organizers, meanwhile, say they're not worried at all about possible disruption.
"If ACORN wants to send some of their paid, pretend activists to show up, that's fine," John O'Hara, who is holding a tea party in Chicago, told FOX News. "They don't have a message that resonates with the American people or resonates with this broad coalition that's upset with the spending that's going on in Washington."
"We don't take them seriously," said Mark Mekler, who is organizing a tea party in Sacramento. "We expect people to attempt to infiltrate, we expect people to attempt to disturb what we're doing.
"But the reality is this is a very broad-based grassroots movement," he told FOX News. "There is no leader at the top. There is no individual event that they can disturb that would cause us a problem nationwide."
Taxdayteaparty.com, which is helping to organize the protests, said more than 250 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies on April 15. Some believe ACORN will try to make the tea parties look like fringe group efforts at best, and racist undertakings at worst.
Mekler said he is not concerned with how outsiders may try to portray their efforts.
"The people who are involved understand they're not racist, they're not fringe, they're not even partisan," he said.
"I mean, these are events where we have across-the-board Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, libertarians. The people who are going to be there know what's going on. We're not worried about these folks polluting the event."
ACORN said if there are protesters, it won't be from its ranks.
"The idea that ACORN is out to disrupt these meet-ups of fringe activists is yet another conservative fantasy," Kettenring said.
"At this point, it would not surprise us to wake up tomorrow and see conservative media fingering ACORN's 500,000 member families as the principle cause of global climate change," he said in a written statement.
Go HERE for the original story on www.foxnews.com
As anti-tax protesters organize tea parties across the country on April 15, rumors are swirling that a backlash is brewing.
Some believe ACORN, which has been under scrutiny for accusations of voter fraud, is preparing to crash some of the tea parties. But ACORN says it is only helping to organize dozens of rallies on the same day in support of President Obama's first budget.
"This is the first we've heard of these so-called 'tea parties.' And, frankly, a bunch of small get-togethers by fringe conservative activists dedicated to simply saying 'no' is of little interest to us," said ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring.
He did not say where the pro-Obama rallies would take place, leaving open the possibility that they may clash with some tea parties.
Tea party organizers, meanwhile, say they're not worried at all about possible disruption.
"If ACORN wants to send some of their paid, pretend activists to show up, that's fine," John O'Hara, who is holding a tea party in Chicago, told FOX News. "They don't have a message that resonates with the American people or resonates with this broad coalition that's upset with the spending that's going on in Washington."
"We don't take them seriously," said Mark Mekler, who is organizing a tea party in Sacramento. "We expect people to attempt to infiltrate, we expect people to attempt to disturb what we're doing.
"But the reality is this is a very broad-based grassroots movement," he told FOX News. "There is no leader at the top. There is no individual event that they can disturb that would cause us a problem nationwide."
Taxdayteaparty.com, which is helping to organize the protests, said more than 250 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies on April 15. Some believe ACORN will try to make the tea parties look like fringe group efforts at best, and racist undertakings at worst.
Mekler said he is not concerned with how outsiders may try to portray their efforts.
"The people who are involved understand they're not racist, they're not fringe, they're not even partisan," he said.
"I mean, these are events where we have across-the-board Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, libertarians. The people who are going to be there know what's going on. We're not worried about these folks polluting the event."
ACORN said if there are protesters, it won't be from its ranks.
"The idea that ACORN is out to disrupt these meet-ups of fringe activists is yet another conservative fantasy," Kettenring said.
"At this point, it would not surprise us to wake up tomorrow and see conservative media fingering ACORN's 500,000 member families as the principle cause of global climate change," he said in a written statement.
Go HERE for the original story on www.foxnews.com
Texas Stands Up To Dear Leader
Governor Rick Perry has announced he will support and back HCR-50.
Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.
This is the first step in succession people. Texas will set the precedence and other states will follow suite.
Go HERE for the bill on the Texas Legislator website.
Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.
This is the first step in succession people. Texas will set the precedence and other states will follow suite.
Go HERE for the bill on the Texas Legislator website.
Constitution Reading Of The Day 4-14-2009
Article 1 Section 2.1
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Monday, April 13, 2009
More On The Pirate Story
The Somali pirate group responsible for hijacking the Maersk Alabama have vowed revenge for the beautifully placed shots by our fine boys in blue. I say to them "bring it". There are plenty of SEAL's that would love the opportunity to put a bullet in your sorry heads.
People of Somalia, heed my warning, use your local powers to oust the pirates and the terrorist that think attacking our ships and firing mortars at our congressmen. You do not want the United States to unleash hell and furry on your home.
President Obama and U.S. lawmakers on Monday praised the weekend operation of U.S. Navy SEALS responsible for the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, who was taken hostage when his freighter ship, the Maersk Alabama, was hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia last week.
"I am very proud of the efforts of the U.S. military and the many other departments and agencies that worked tirelessly to resolve this situation," Obama said at the Department of Transportation.
"I share our nation's admiration for Captain Phillips' courage and leadership and selfless concern for his crew and I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of (piracy) in that region, and to achieve that goal we're going have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks and we have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise, we have to ensure those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable."
"Captain Phillips' rescue in particular demonstrates the Navy SEALS' extraordinary capability to conduct complex and sensitive operations," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
"As long as safe havens exist along the Somali coast, we should expect this criminal piracy to continue. The international community must come together, take a good look at our options and seriously consider what can be done to eliminate the threat. We cannot allow the criminals who threaten the safety of the seas to remain unchallenged," Skelton said.'
With the immediate threat to the Maersk crew over, a Department of Defense official told FOX News that contingency planning is now under way on a variety of possible military operations and it would not be unreasonable to assume action against pirate camps might be one of those operations.
"We never talk about future possible operations and we're not going to start now," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.
Neither the official who spoke to FOX News nor Whitman would outright deny that planning is under way, however several Pentagon officials appear wary of getting into a military engagement in Somalia at this time.
Whiteman said such the successful end to the standoff could discourage future attacks but some members of the shipping industry worry that "if they were armed it could cause escalation."
"If the last couple of days have taught us anything, it reinforces the fact that this is a complicated and serious international problem that needs to be addressed broadly. ... This is not a problem that can be solved entirely from the sea. And this is not a problem that can be entirely solved through military means," he said.
While the Navy is being credited with a successful rescue, others have blamed the growth in piracy in part on the U.S. government. The U.S. African Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday urging them to shepherd action through NATO, the European Union and the African Union to demand that ships entering Somalia and East African waters "be held accountable for truthful registration, declaration of exports, and payment of applicable taxes."
"The explosion of piracy and illegal activity off of the coast of Somalia in recent years began with the U.S. supported overthrow of the Somali government by Ethiopia," USACC President Martin Mohammad wrote. "The previous government provided Somalia with rule of law and a functional society. Since it was overthrown, Somalia's new central government has struggled to maintain the rule of law and the economic infrastructure has severely broken down, leaving the people of Somalia in dire conditions. It has also left the Somali coast unprotected."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., offered his praised of the military but also said that piracy had long been neglected by the Bush administration.
"I am elated by the safe rescue of Captain Richard Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama and I thank and congratulate the Navy SEALS and others whose remarkable efforts resulted in a successful end to this troubling situation," Feingold said. "While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater and more dangerous problem. For years, Somalia's growing instability was neglected by the Bush administration and the international community. The new administration must not make the same mistake."
Mohammad said Clinton and Obama should push efforts to work with the international community in coordination with the people of Somalia to address the illegal entry of international vessels into Somali waters as much as curbing piracy.
The pirates who boarded the Maersk last Wednesday were quickly overthrown by the crew of the U.S.-flagged merchant ship. However, Phillips was captured and held in a lifeboat during the revolt. He tried to escape once but was recaptured by his four captives.
As the seas got rough on Sunday, the lifeboat, which was out of fuel, agreed to be towed by the USS Bainbridge, a Navy ship that was monitoring the situation.
By that time, the youngest of the pirates, identified as not older than 16, had boarded the larger vessel and surrendered. When Navy SEALS heard gunshots coming from the lifeboat, they were able to get clear views of the pirates and took three direct kill shots to each of the pirates' heads.
A diplomatic source told FOX News that the U.S. government is now weighing three options when it comes to handling the young pirate.
The Navy could either bring him to the U.S. to face federal charges there, hand him over to Kenyan authorities for prosecution. The U.S. and Kenya have a memo of understanding regarding the prosecution of pirates.
Another option is to repatriate him to Somali authorities. The northeast region of Puntland, which has a semblance of authority in the otherwise largely ungoverned country, has taken pirates in the past.
Story can be found HERE
People of Somalia, heed my warning, use your local powers to oust the pirates and the terrorist that think attacking our ships and firing mortars at our congressmen. You do not want the United States to unleash hell and furry on your home.
President Obama and U.S. lawmakers on Monday praised the weekend operation of U.S. Navy SEALS responsible for the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, who was taken hostage when his freighter ship, the Maersk Alabama, was hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia last week.
"I am very proud of the efforts of the U.S. military and the many other departments and agencies that worked tirelessly to resolve this situation," Obama said at the Department of Transportation.
"I share our nation's admiration for Captain Phillips' courage and leadership and selfless concern for his crew and I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of (piracy) in that region, and to achieve that goal we're going have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks and we have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise, we have to ensure those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable."
"Captain Phillips' rescue in particular demonstrates the Navy SEALS' extraordinary capability to conduct complex and sensitive operations," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
"As long as safe havens exist along the Somali coast, we should expect this criminal piracy to continue. The international community must come together, take a good look at our options and seriously consider what can be done to eliminate the threat. We cannot allow the criminals who threaten the safety of the seas to remain unchallenged," Skelton said.'
With the immediate threat to the Maersk crew over, a Department of Defense official told FOX News that contingency planning is now under way on a variety of possible military operations and it would not be unreasonable to assume action against pirate camps might be one of those operations.
"We never talk about future possible operations and we're not going to start now," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.
Neither the official who spoke to FOX News nor Whitman would outright deny that planning is under way, however several Pentagon officials appear wary of getting into a military engagement in Somalia at this time.
Whiteman said such the successful end to the standoff could discourage future attacks but some members of the shipping industry worry that "if they were armed it could cause escalation."
"If the last couple of days have taught us anything, it reinforces the fact that this is a complicated and serious international problem that needs to be addressed broadly. ... This is not a problem that can be solved entirely from the sea. And this is not a problem that can be entirely solved through military means," he said.
While the Navy is being credited with a successful rescue, others have blamed the growth in piracy in part on the U.S. government. The U.S. African Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday urging them to shepherd action through NATO, the European Union and the African Union to demand that ships entering Somalia and East African waters "be held accountable for truthful registration, declaration of exports, and payment of applicable taxes."
"The explosion of piracy and illegal activity off of the coast of Somalia in recent years began with the U.S. supported overthrow of the Somali government by Ethiopia," USACC President Martin Mohammad wrote. "The previous government provided Somalia with rule of law and a functional society. Since it was overthrown, Somalia's new central government has struggled to maintain the rule of law and the economic infrastructure has severely broken down, leaving the people of Somalia in dire conditions. It has also left the Somali coast unprotected."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., offered his praised of the military but also said that piracy had long been neglected by the Bush administration.
"I am elated by the safe rescue of Captain Richard Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama and I thank and congratulate the Navy SEALS and others whose remarkable efforts resulted in a successful end to this troubling situation," Feingold said. "While the episode involving the crew of the Maersk Alabama had a happy ending, piracy off the coast of Somalia will assuredly continue since it is a symptom of the state collapse in Somalia, which presents a much greater and more dangerous problem. For years, Somalia's growing instability was neglected by the Bush administration and the international community. The new administration must not make the same mistake."
Mohammad said Clinton and Obama should push efforts to work with the international community in coordination with the people of Somalia to address the illegal entry of international vessels into Somali waters as much as curbing piracy.
The pirates who boarded the Maersk last Wednesday were quickly overthrown by the crew of the U.S.-flagged merchant ship. However, Phillips was captured and held in a lifeboat during the revolt. He tried to escape once but was recaptured by his four captives.
As the seas got rough on Sunday, the lifeboat, which was out of fuel, agreed to be towed by the USS Bainbridge, a Navy ship that was monitoring the situation.
By that time, the youngest of the pirates, identified as not older than 16, had boarded the larger vessel and surrendered. When Navy SEALS heard gunshots coming from the lifeboat, they were able to get clear views of the pirates and took three direct kill shots to each of the pirates' heads.
A diplomatic source told FOX News that the U.S. government is now weighing three options when it comes to handling the young pirate.
The Navy could either bring him to the U.S. to face federal charges there, hand him over to Kenyan authorities for prosecution. The U.S. and Kenya have a memo of understanding regarding the prosecution of pirates.
Another option is to repatriate him to Somali authorities. The northeast region of Puntland, which has a semblance of authority in the otherwise largely ungoverned country, has taken pirates in the past.
Story can be found HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)