Progressive American Liberal

Arizona Governor Brewer and Obama in Tense Exchange [VIDEO]

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:40:40 PST

Haraz N. Ghanbari / AP

The Huffington Post Paige Lavender

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer traded words with President Obama after she greeted him at a Phoenix airport Wednesday.

Brewer and Obama "spoke intensely for a few minutes" after he landed at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, according to a White House pool report. At one point, the GOP governor shook her finger at the president.

"He was a little disturbed about my book," Brewer told a reporter after the incident, referring to her political memoir, "Scorpions for Breakfast." In the book, Brewer depicted Obama as "patronizing" during an earlier meeting.

"I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president," Brewer said. "The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So."

Brewer said Obama told her "that he didn't feel I had treated him cordially."

"I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn't get my sentence finished," Brewer said. "Anyway, we're glad he's here. I'll regroup."

The last time Obama met with Brewer was June 2010, when the Arizona governor visited the Oval Office for a private, 30-minute encounter the White House called a "good meeting." At the time, Brewer said the meeting was "very cordial," but in her book she said Obama had been "condescending." Source: The Hufffington Post

Ken Aden’s Campaign Manager Comes Home To Find Cat Killed; “LIBERAL” Written On Its Corpse

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:50:06 PST

The following was posted on Blue Arkansas Blog:

January 23rd, 2012
By ARDem

This post includes a graphic picture. It is included here not for shock value, but to show just how heinous some people can be.

Last night, I got the most chilling phone call I have ever received. It was Jake Burris, Ken Aden’s campaign manager. Last night, Jake and his four kids had come back to their Russellville home. As they were getting out of the car, one of his children discovered their family cat dead on the front porch. One side of the animal’s head had been bashed in and an eyeball was hanging out of its socket. But there was something even more horrifying to be found on the corpse.

Written across the animal’s fur in black marker was the word “LIBERAL“.

This is terrorism. There’s no other word for it. A police report has been filed. Jake said the kids seem to be handling it okay. The one that discovered the cat was too young to be able to read and Jake had quickly gotten the others into the house before they saw it. Pope County is an insanely conservative area and the Aden campaign has been shaking things up even there and it looks like another right wing sociopath with a taste for violence has come crawling out of the woodwork in response. I asked Aden for a comment on the record:

“This is sickening. To kill a child’s pet…I’m at a loss for words…I’ve seen the best and the worst of humanity, but this is something else.”

Both Ken and Jake though made it clear that they weren’t going to back down on the campaign trail, both agreeing that caving to this kind of behavior would only make things worse.

“I’ve got a gun and I know how to use it.”, Jake said. “If I have to protect my kids I’ll do it without hesitation.”

This happened the same night that Gabby Giffords, the survivor of a heinous act of violence, announced she was resigning from Congress. To think of something happening here like what happened in Arizona, the possibility of that happening to Ken or to someone on his campaign team, is frightening beyond belief. This is how serial killers start off after all, torturing and killing animals. Someone who would do this to a cat is not to far from doing it to a person.

There’s no doubting this was political. There’s no doubting it’s another hideous example of right wing terrorism. Personally I would hope that leaders on the right-Steve Womack, the Arkansas Republican Party, etc.-would step up and condemn this as strongly as possible. I would also hope that Steve Womack’s father, owner of a local radio station, would stop giving out the names, phone numbers, and addresses of members of the Aden team or anyone else for that matter on his radio program when ranting about Aden. The elder Womack has done that several times and Aden’s former press secretary got a death threat in the mail soon after her name was mentioned on the program. Clearly there is someone out there that doesn’t need anymore of that kind of information, much less inspiration to act on their hatred. I also hope that the Aden campaign will do whatever they can to up the security at some of their events, for the time being at least. Aden has said he’s going to put out a press release on the matter soon, and we’ll be following this and any developments related to it closely.

That said, our thoughts and prayers are with the Burris family. Jake Burris is a great guy, and he and his kids shouldn’t have to be dealing with this.

Update: I have been trying to update the blog on this for awhile now but the insane amount of traffic this is getting had crashed the site. This is now national news and it’s getting picked up seemingly everywhere. Our analytics on this today are off the charts, dwarfing every story that came before it in a big way. This is huge stuff, but part of me is a little miffed that the press couldn’t pay half as much attention to the good stuff Ken has done-the toy drive for foster kids, the resume building workshop, the stellar campaign in general. But what’s the saying? If it bleeds it leads? Anyway, Womack’s campaign manager Beau Walker put out a strong statement on this today, to their credit and Aden put out a press release dealing with the facts of the matter and stuck up for Womack and his campaign against the finger pointing. Both statements follow:

KEN ADEN NEWS RELEASE

RUSSELLVILLE—On the heels of a weekend of positive news coverage for the campaign of Democratic Congressional candidate Ken Aden, Aden’s campaign manager returned home to find his family pet slaughtered, with the word “liberal” painted on the animal’s corpse.
The Russellville Police Department is investigating, and a report will be made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Monday morning.

Jacob Burris, who has served as Aden’s campaign manager since late October, arrived home with his family Sunday evening, and his four children discovered the gruesome scene as they exited the family vehicle to enter their home.

The family pet, an adult, mixed-breed Siamese cat, had one side of its head bashed in to the point the cat’s eyeball was barely hanging from its socket. The perpetrators scrawled “liberal” across the cat’s body and left it on the doorstep of Burris’ house.

“To kill a child’s pet is just unconscionable,” Aden said Monday morning. “As a former combat soldier, I’ve seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity. Whoever did this is definitely part of the worst of humanity,” he said.

“It is one thing to engage in civil political discourse, and for Republicans and Democrats to disagree with each other, which is an expected part of the political process. Taking it to this level is beyond unacceptable,” Aden said.

While the campaign between Aden and incumbent Congressman Steve Womack has heated up in recent months, Aden said they did not believe the Womack campaign to be responsible. “Although we have certainly disagreed and engaged in a great deal of civil discourse, I do not believe in any way that Congressman Womack or his campaign had anything to do with this incident,” Aden said. He noted that, before Christmas, KRUM Radio, a station owned by Womack’s father, actually promoted a toy drive held by Aden’s campaign for children in the Third District. “We suspect this is the action of a rogue individual or group of individuals who are the type of folks that stoop to the lowest common denominator instead of engaging in civil political discourse,” Aden said. “It is unfortunate this has occurred, and we will await the results of the police and federal investigations,” Aden said.

WOMACK CAMPAIGN STATEMENT

The thought of brutalizing any animal to make a political statement, no matter what that statement is, is beyond any standard of decency,” he told The Huffington Post. “The person or people, if there was more than one, who are responsible — they definitely need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There should be no tolerance in our political discussion here in this nation for this kind of behavior.”

Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:45:22 PST

Published on Monday, April 11, 2011 by TruthDig.com
by Chris Hedges

Photo illustration
by PZS based on an image by
Lin Pernille Photography

A nation that destroys its systems of education, degrades its public information, guts its public libraries and turns its airwaves into vehicles for cheap, mindless amusement becomes deaf, dumb and blind. It prizes test scores above critical thinking and literacy. It celebrates rote vocational training and the singular, amoral skill of making money. It churns out stunted human products, lacking the capacity and vocabulary to challenge the assumptions and structures of the corporate state. It funnels them into a caste system of drones and systems managers. It transforms a democratic state into a feudal system of corporate masters and serfs.
Teachers, their unions under attack, are becoming as replaceable as minimum-wage employees at Burger King. We spurn real teachers—those with the capacity to inspire children to think, those who help the young discover their gifts and potential—and replace them with instructors who teach to narrow, standardized tests. These instructors obey. They teach children to obey. And that is the point. The No Child Left Behind program, modeled on the “Texas Miracle,” is a fraud. It worked no better than our deregulated financial system. But when you shut out debate these dead ideas are self-perpetuating. READ MORE

Pass the Return to Prudent Banking Act and Restore Glass-Steagall

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:28:07 PST

Why This Is Important

H.R. 1489: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011 Sponsor: Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]

This bill will: " ... repeal certain provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and revive the separation between commercial banking and the securities business, in the manner provided in the Banking Act of 1933, the so-called "Glass-Steagall Act", and for other purposes."

This bill is currently in the House Committee on Financial Services. We must urge committee members to bring this bill to the floor for a vote well before the elections in November. It would be beneficial if this became a campaign issue as it might stand a better chance of making it out of committee and eventually passing.

This petition targets committee members as well as the President and your representatives in the House and the Senate. They will receive an email from you as soon as you sign. You may edit the letter according to your needs.

There are a number of co-sponsors for this bill, (scroll down to see them). One of which is Rep. Dennis Kucinich, most of us trust his judgment on such matters.

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. READ FULL TEXT

4/12/2011--Introduced.
Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) to prohibit an insured depository institution from being an affiliate of any broker or dealer, investment adviser, investment company, or any other person or entity engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities. Prohibits officers, directors and employees of securities firms from simultaneous service on the boards of depository institutions, except in specified circumstances. Requires any such individual serving as an officer, director, employee, or other institution-affiliated party of any insured depository institution to terminate such service as soon as practicable after enactment of this Act. Requires an insured depository institution to wind-down in an orderly manner and terminate any affiliation prohibited by this Act. Amends the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall Act) to expand its prohibition against the transaction of banking activities by securities firms. Declares that Congress ratifies the interpretation by the Supreme Court of specified statutory language in the case of Investment Company Institute v. Camp ( ICI vs. Camp) regarding permissible activities of banks and securities firms. Declares that the reasoning of the Court in that case shall continue to apply to the limitations placed upon security affiliations under the FDIA as enacted by this Act. Prohibits a federal banking agency or federal court from issuing an interpretation regarding such security affiliations that is narrower than that of Court in ICI vs. Camp. Makes technical and conforming changes to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Revised Statutes of the United States, and specified federal law. Requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, or another appropriate federal banking agency to report to Congress a detailed description of the basis for its decision each time it makes a determination or grants an extension concerning an affiliation between insured depository institutions and investment banks or securities firms.

Also sign the petitions at:

CO-SPONSORS
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Del. Donna Christensen [D, VI-0]
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8]
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0]
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6]
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8]
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1]
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5]
Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11]
Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10]
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D, FL-17]
Rep. Hansen Clarke [D, MI-13]
Rep. David Cicilline [D, RI-1]

United to Remedy Citizens United Court Ruling

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:59:36 PST

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC has focused America's attention on the dangerous influence of corporate power in our democracy and the urgency of taking all necessary measures to undo that influence, including amending the Constitution.

Generations of Americans have amended the Constitution over the years to ensure that "We the People" means all the people, not just the privileged few. The Citizens United case, which opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending to influence elections at all levels of government, has brought home the importance of amending the Constitution to ensure that "We the People" does not mean we the corporations.

We believe that America works best when our government is of, by and for the people. Although we have differences in scope and tactics, all of us are united in the understanding that the Court's decision in Citizens United must be remedied by amending the Constitution in order to restore the democratic promise of America. Please visit UNITED FOR THE PEOPLE

Protest Citizens United on its January Anniversary

Take Action Now

Resolutions

Each of our organizations has put together recommended language for resolutions in support of a constitutional amendment that can be acted on at the local and state levels. We offer a sampling below. A list of local, state and federal resolutions passed or introduced is available here.

Sample resolutions

Free Speech for People
Move to Amend (for City Councils and Organizations)
Move to Amend (for ballot initiatives)
People For the American Way
Common Cause
Public Citizen

People For the American Way	Public Citizen	Free Speech For People	Move to Amend
Common Cause	Center For Media and Democracy	Progressive Democrats of America	Alliance For Democracy
Democracy Unlimited	Liberty Tree	Program on Corporations Law & Democracy	Communications Workers of America
The Other 98%	MoveOn.org	350.org	A New Way Forward
African American Ministers in Action	Backbone Campaign	California Church Impact	Campaign for America's Future
Campus Progress	Center for Corporate Policy	Center for Environmental Health	Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Center for Science in the Public Interest	Code Pink	Coffee Party USA	Consumer Action
Consumer Watchdog	Corporate Accountability International	Demos	Earthworks
Friends of the Earth	Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)	Global Community Monitor	Grassroots Recycling Network
Greenpeace	Hip Hop Caucus	IATP	Indiana Alliance for Democracy
Institute for Policy Studies Global Economy Project	Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns	National Women's Health Network	Oil Change International
OMB Watch	Pesticide Action Network North America	Rainforest Action Network	Rebuild the Dream
RootsAction	Sacramento for Democracy	Story of Stuff	Sum of Us
The New Bottom Line	United Republic	U.S. PIRG	VPIRG
We the People Campaign	Wisconsin Wave, A project of the Liberty Tree Foundation	Wolf-PAC	Working Families Party

Please visit UNITED FOR THE PEOPLE

Ron Paul Would Give States the Rights to Your Womb

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:18:27 PST

The following is from Women's Health Policy Report:

GOP Candidate Paul Decries Government Intrusion, Yet Supports Abortion Restrictions, Opinion Piece States
January 12, 2012 — GOP presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul's recent comments supporting state-mandated ultrasounds contradict his condemnations of government intrusion into people's lives, journalists Lori Stahl and Mary Curtis write in the Washington Post's "She the People."
While campaigning in South Carolina on Tuesday, Paul was asked about a recent appeals court rulingupholding a Texas law that requires women seeking abortion care to undergo an ultrasound, listen to a description of the fetus and be given the option to hear the fetal heartbeat. Paul said the ultrasound requirement "should always have been a Texas state position," adding, "Like Roe v. Wade should never have been heard in the Supreme Court."
Stahl and Curtis write, "Paul, who opposes abortion rights, has consistently railed against intrusive big government when it comes to other issues, especially health care reform." They add, "But it's hard to imagine anything more literally invasive than a required sonogram." They point out that most sonograms will be done by vaginal probe, which is the only method that produces a usable image early in pregnancy. Although the Texas law permits women to sign a waiver choosing to not view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat, they still must undergo the ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the image.
Stahl and Curtis note that the Texas Medical Association last year released a statement criticizing the law, saying it "not only sets a dangerous precedent of legislation prescribing the details of the practice of medicine, but it also clearly mandates that physicians practice in a manner inconsistent with medical ethics" (Stahl/Curtis, "She the People," Washington Post, 1/11).

Get Involved With Move To Amend

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:01:39 PST

As we head into the most expensive election in the history of the world, now is the time to get involved. While corporations are pouring millions of dollars into the Presidential campaign, volunteers across the country are pouring countless hours into the movement to demand real democracy in the United States and counter the corporate takeover of our government.

They may have the money, but if we all put our shoulders to the wheel, we have the people!

Here are some of the ways to join the Move(ment) to Amend:

100 cities (and counting) are holding rallies to participate in Occupy the Courts - a one-day protest at federal courthouses across the United States - including the US Supreme Court. Please watch and then share our video call to action and join an Occupy the Courts action near you on Friday, January 20, 2012.

Move to Amend's goal is to have 50 Towns and Cities with our resolution on the ballot in November 2012. Our City Council resolutions are already sweeping the nation - Los Angeles (CA), Albany (NY), Duluth (MN), New York City (NY), Chapel Hill (NC), Pueblo (CO) (and more!) but to take this movement to the next level we need millions of people to take a stand against Corporate Constitutional Rights in 2012, and the way to do that is to place this issue right in front of the American people as they head to the polls to cast their ballot for President.
➤➤ Join us tonight (Tuesday) at 4pm Pacific (5pm Mountain/6pm Central/7pm Eastern) for a webinar on how how to get a Move to Amend resolution on your local ballot. Click the link to register or learn more.
Move to Amend and several partner organizations were featured on the Dylan Ratigan show yesterday to highlight organizing house parties that are taking place across the country. Join friends and neighbors in your community who are getting organized to take action.
Move to Amend is the only national organization working on this issue that invites direct participation by the grassroots through local chapters. Click here to see if there is a local Move to Amend Affiliate in your community or to learn about how to get one started if not.

We need you now. 2012 will be a pivotal year in the fight to determine if our government will be of the people, by the people, for the people -- or if it will be of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. Don't sit this one out.

Please join us!
Ben Manski, David Cobb, George Friday, Jerome Scott, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Laura Bonham, Lisa Graves, and Nancy Price
Move to Amend Executive Committee

Corporate Personhood Worse, Ending It Easier, Than You Think

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:12:36 PST

Corporate Personhood Worse, Ending It Easier, Than You Think

By davidswanson SOURCE

Don't take it from me. Take it from the book being published today that will mainstream the movement to end corporate personhood: "Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do, And What You Can Do About It," by Jeff Clements with foreword by Bill Moyers.

Clements traces the development of the legal doctrine of corporate personhood back long before the Supreme Court'sCitizens United decision two years ago this month, in particular to President Richard Nixon's appointment of Lewis Powell to the Supreme Court in 1972. Led by Powell's radical new conception of corporate rights, Clements shows, the court began striking down laws that protected living breathing persons' rights in areas including the environment, tobacco, public health, food, drugs, financial regulation, and elections. READ MORE

The 99 Percent Act from the Congressional Progressive Caucus

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:36:16 PST

1 INFOGRAPHIC,
5 MILLION JOBS

The 99% Act is the best bill we’ve seen in Washington in a long time. But it can be hard to remember the details or explain them to friends and family. This infographic spells out exactly how the 99% Act will help turn our economy around.

If you think bills like this in Congress are a good thing, please share this infographic on your Facebook wall, Twitter account, and e-mail it to your friends!

See PDF From Fire Dog Lake Below:

Voting for Ron Paul Would be Harmful to Humanity and the Earth

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:19:18 PST

Click for Larger Image

Because of the controversy that this graphic is creating I'm in the process of gathering links to prove that this information is a true representation of Ron Paul's ideals. Please be patient as this is a work in progress.

_____________________________________________

Eliminate the EPA

Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington. SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

In fact, abolishing the EPA altogether would do much to improve our country's economy. SOURCE

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?
You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections. SOURCE

When asked about pollution and the environment, Congressman Paul stated that pollution was based handled through enforcement of property rights as no one is allowed to pollute another man's property. SOURCE

Eliminate Public Schools

Q: It was mentioned you were in favor of getting rid of the Department of Education. Is this true, and if so, how do you feel this would benefit the country?
Ron Paul: I do believe in eliminating the Department of Education.
First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.
Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.
Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats. The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in come cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people. SOURCE

*Note - Part of the purpose of the Dept. of Education is to give money to the states to help fund public education

The Department distributes financial aid to eligible applicants throughout the nation for early childhood, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education programs. Federal programs benefit all students, and special programs exist to serve individuals with disabilities, those who live in poverty, American Indians, immigrants and those with limited English proficiency. Federal funds for education are distributed using three methods: a set formula, competition and financial need determination. READ MORE

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.13 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2010-2011, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 89.2 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 10.8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise. READ MORE

The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. SOURCE

Privatize Education

The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals! Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. SOURCE

We want to go in the direction of privatizing all schools - Ron Paul SOURCE

Allow Drilling on Protected Land

Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936 SOURCE

Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home. SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

Deregulate the Market and Banking

Appearing on C-SPAN‘s Newsmakers (interviewed for a second time by the Journal’s Sudeep Reddy), Paul responded to recent comments by incoming House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R. Ala.,) on bank regulation. “I don’t think we need regulators. We need law and order. We need people to fulfill their contracts,” Paul said.
The congressman said that the market should play the main role in regulation. “The market is a great regulator, and we’ve lost understanding and confidence that the market is probably a much stricter regulator,” he said.
Separately, Paul, author of “End the Fed,” said of his new role overseeing the central bank: “I will continue to do exactly what I have been doing” but with a “better platform.”
You can see the full interview on C-SPAN on Sunday at 10 am or 6 pm EST, or you can watch it online now here. SOURCE

Ron Paul states two ways of regulating the market that really aren't regulations at all 1) The consumer 2) Fraud Laws (has that stopped the Banksters before? Have many of them been prosecuted yet?

Paul Westcott: Congressman Ron Paul, you spoke recently before the House Financial Services Committee during the mark up of what’s being called the Investor Protection Act of 2009. Really, you know, you were explaining the difference between regulation and bureaucracy. Can you explain that for our audience?
Ron Paul: Well, my complaint is that if you argue for the free market, that you don’t care about regulations and that everything is chaotic and that’s not true. There are two ways you regulate the market. If you do it by the free market, you’re regulated by the consumers, their choices and if they choose to bankrupt the company, the company has to go bankrupt, so you have bankruptcies. You have laws against fraud. You have laws against theft and there’s a regulation, but instead we sort of protect some of those things and we bail out the people who make bad decisions. SOURCE

Deregulate Industry Including Big Oil

In October of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the need for a free market for gasoline: "Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics. In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it. Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much. Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas. The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages. By contrast, the Reagan administration’s immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember. What can Congress do to provide Americans with some relief at the pump? First it can suspend federal gas taxes, which would save consumers nearly 20 cents per gallon. In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate." - Ron Paul SOURCE

No federal regulations for car safety, medicines, even air traffic control:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: "Does this include things like making cars safe, making medicine safe, air traffic control controlling the jets above our heads?"
PAUL: "I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. … On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations ... [W]ho ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don't take good care of us ... [D]o we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not ..." (NBC-Politico debate in September) SOURCE

Allow Discrimination

Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42. SOURCE

This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual. SOURCE

Eliminate the Minimum Wage

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that poor Americans would “absolutely” be better off if the minimum wage was eliminated.
“Do you advocate getting rid of the minimum wage, would that create more jobs?” Politico’s John Harris asked Paul during Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.
“Absolutely,” Paul declared. “It would help the poor people who need jobs. Minimum wage is a mandate. We’re against mandates so why should we have it? It would be very beneficial.”
“Mandates, that what the whole society is about, what we do all the time. That’s what government is about: mandate, mandate, mandate. We talk so much about the Obama mandate which is so imporant, but what about Medicare? Isn’t that a mandate? Everything we do is mandate. So, this is why you have to look at this, the cause of liberty. We don’t need the government running our lives.” SOURCE
Watch this video from MSNBC’s Republican Presidential Debate, broadcast Sept. 7, 2011.

We don't need a minimum wage, we need a maximum wage, that's what the market would do. - Ron Paul SOURCE

Destroy Unions and Workers Rights

He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720 SOURCE

Freedom of association is one of the foundations of a free society. The Founders clearly understood this, which is why they sought to protect this God-given right in the First Amendment.

While Ron Paul supports the right of every American to join a private sector union if they wish, he believes, like most Americans, that forcing workers to pay union dues just to get or keep a job is wrong.

Unfortunately, over 75 years ago, the right to decide freely whether or not to join a labor union was taken away from American workers by Congress.

As a result, national union bosses rake in $8 billion every year from workers who are forced to pay dues to a labor union just to provide for themselves and their families.

Then, to add insult to injury, Big Labor uses this forced-dues money to bankroll the campaigns of tax-and-spend, big government politicians all across the country like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama!

That’s why Ron Paul has been a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act in Congress.

Passage of a National Right to Work law would end forced union dues by repealing compulsory-dues provisions in federal labor law.

In addition to his support for a National Right to Work law, he also voted to defeat Big Labor’s “Card Check” scheme.

This bill would have eliminated secret ballot elections for union organizers – allowing union bosses to intimidate workers into signing themselves over to union boss control.

And he voted against the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

This legislation was designed to put all American police and firefighters under the union bosses’ control – just the first step toward forcing all state and local public employees under Big Labor’s thumb.

Ron Paul’s exceptional record on Right to Work issues earned him the prestigious Everett Dirksen Award from the National Right to Work Committee.

And he’s been proud to receive the support of the National Right to Work Committee in each and every one of his Congressional elections over the years.

As President, he will continue to lead the fight to free Americans from the shackles of compulsory unionism by working to pass a National Right to Work law. SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

“Union power, gained by legislation, even without physical violence, is still violence. The laborer gains legal force over the employer. Economically, in the long run, labor loses… If only it were so easy to help the working class.” - Ron Paul SOURCE

Destroy Women's, Gay & Civil Rights

Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392 SOURCE

Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42. SOURCE

Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.” SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

We the People Act. H.R. 539, 2009-01-14, originally H.R. 3893, 2004-03-04. Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law. Makes federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts,[58] and forbids federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments. SOURCE

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007. H.R. 2597, 2007-06-06, originally H.R. 776, 2005-02-10. For the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception". Removes federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negates Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent.[63] Such a law returns to each state the power to decide whether or not abortion should be allowed, banned, or regulated. SOURCE

Marriage Protection Act of 2007. H.R. 724, 2007-01-30, originally H.R. 3313, 2003-10-16 (cosponsor). To limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act. Explicitly permits states to continue making a public-policy exception when deciding the status of same-sex relationships independently of the decisions of other states, as states have in fact been permitted to do in the case of incestuous marriages.[69] SOURCE

Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009. H.R. 1233, 2009-02-26, originally H.R. 1548, 2003-04-01. To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. SOURCE

Abolish all Gun Laws

One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096,H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892. SOURCE

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007. H.R. 1096, 2007-02-15, originally H.R. 2721, 1997-10-23. Defends law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2007. H.R. 1897, 2007-04-17. Prohibits firearm regulation within the National Park System. Based on 2006 legislation by Senator George Allen.

Citizens Protection Act of 2007. H.R. 2424, 2007-05-22. Repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as amended. SOURCE

As a congressman, Ron Paul has never once voted for any piece of legislation that would infringe on gun owners’ rights or weaken the Second Amendment.
The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not only essential to a free society, but it is the guardian of every other right.
During his time in Congress, Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans by:

Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”

Authoring legislation to end U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”

Writing a bill that would allow pilots and specially trained law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers and help prevent future 9/11-style attacks.

With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms. SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

Promote Less Taxes for the Top 1%

As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.

Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), should also be immediately repealed.

While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax. SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

Property tax: H.R. 4293, 2007-12-05, originally H.R. 5860, 2006-07-20. Creates income tax deduction for real property taxes.
Abolition of income tax: H.J.Res. 23, 2007-02-07. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. Repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, income tax, estate tax, and gift tax, and limits the government only to Constitutionally authorized enterprises. Paul had proposed similar legislation in 1999-2000 and in 2001.[2] SOURCE

Promote Creationism Over Evolution

This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president. SOURCE

Eliminate All Public Safety Nets

Speaking to MSNBC host Cenk Uygur, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul said if he were elected President of the United States he would try to transition the country off of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. SOURCE Watch below:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:
WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that. SOURCE

As Chris Wallace tries to explain, Paul’s crankish view of the Constitution cannot be squared with the document’s text. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States,” which is exactly what Social Security does. Nor is this reading of the Constitution’s unambiguous words limited to “extreme liberals.” Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently told a gathering of Members of Congress that “It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically.”
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Paul’s fellow House Republicans disagree with his bizarre view that Medicare and other government-funded insurance programs violate the Constitution. 207 Republicans voted in support of President George W. Bush’s proposal to create a federal prescription drug insurance program under Medicare, including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett, and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program, even that slow repeal of Medicare cannot be squared with Paul’s apparent view that it violates the Constitution to allow Medicare to continue one minute longer.
Like so many other Republicans, Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses. The Constitution’s words actually mean something, and Ron Paul is not free to ignore them.
Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), recently said that giving people a right to healthcare is the equivalent of “slavery.” SOURCE

Let Markets Care for the Disabled: "The ADA should have never been passed," Paul says. The treatment of the handicapped should be determined by the free market. SOURCE

Protect the Privacy of Sexual Predators

Voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government. SOURCE

The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007 (H.R. 3791) is a U.S. House bill stating that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi Internet connection to the public, who "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" in relation to illegal visual media such as "child pornography" transferred over that connection, must register a report of their knowledge to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.[1] The act references US Code sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, 2260, and 1466A in defining its scope. Anyone failing to report their knowledge faces fines of up to $300,000.[2] It was written by Nick Lampson [1] and introduced in the House of Representatives on October 10, 2007. It was approved (409-2-20) on December 5, 2007, with only Republicans Ron Paul and Paul Broun voting against.[3] Some commentators criticized it as overly broad,[1] but Lampson's spokesman dismissed these interpretations, saying that the act was not intended to cover Americans who had wireless routers at home, but only to target their internet service providers.[4] SOURCE

Give No Amnesty or Immigrant Rights

Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42. SOURCE

If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem. SOURCE (Ron Paul's Website)

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?
Ron Paul: Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line. SOURCE

Value Property Owners Over All Others

"Entitlements are not rights," Paul flatly stated. "Rights mean you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor."
Earlier on here, there was a little discussion about gay rights. I, in a way, don't like to use those terms: gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right: It's a right to your liberty. - Ron Paul SOURCE

“I believe that property rights should be protected,” Paul stated. “Your right to be on tv is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. so right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property.” - Ron Paul SOURCE

MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law. SOURCE

When asked about pollution and the environment, Congressman Paul stated that pollution was based handled through enforcement of property rights as no one is allowed to pollute another man's property. SOURCE

Against the Americans with Disabilities Act: "It's the responsibility of the business people, it's private property and if they mistreat people who are handicapped, don’t go. Boycott them. … No, the ADA should never have been passed. … it’s an intrusion into private property rights." - Ron Paul [see video below starting at 3:20]

Education isn't a right. Medical care is not a right. These are things that you have to earn.

Eliminate U.S. and Foreign Disaster Aid

On Friday, Paul, R.-Texas, told NBC that there was nothing "magic" about the FEMA, which had been preparing to spend $800 million from its relief fund to assist communities in the wake of Hurricane Irene.
"We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said during a stop in New Hampshire.
Following an interview with FEMA Director Craig Fugate, the Texas congressman took to "Fox News Sunday" to reiterate his distaste for the agency, but acknowledged that it would take time to get rid of it. SOURCE

BLITZER: On the whole issue of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, do you want to see that agency ended?
PAUL: Well, if you want to live in a free society, if you want to pay attention to the constitution, why not? I think it’s bad economics. I think it’s bad morality. And it’s bad constitutional law. Why should people like myself, who had, not too long ago, a house on the Gulf Coast and it’s – it’s expensive there and it’s risky and it’s dangerous. Why should somebody from the central part of the United States rebuild my house? Why shouldn’t I have to buy my own insurance and protect about the potential dangers? I mean it’s – it’s a moral hazard to say that government is always going to take care of us when we do dumb things. I’m trying to get people to not to dumb things. Besides, it’s not authorized in the constitution.
BLITZER: And if there’s a disaster, like flooding or – or an earthquake or Hurricane Katrina, what’s wrong with asking fellow Americans to help their – their – their fellow citizens?
PAUL: Nothing. And I think Americans are very, very generous and they have traditionally. The big problem is Americans are getting poor and they’re not able to voluntarily come to the rescue. But to coerce people, to ask them to help, that is fine and dandy. But when you bankrupt our country and nobody has a job and then they say, well, FEMA needs to bail out everybody, then all we’re doing is compounding our problems. SOURCE

Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, has gone beyond that view to argue that the federal government’s role in disaster preparation and relief should be cut substantially. Mr. Paul said he saw little value in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, saying the federal approach has given birth to an intrusive bureaucracy and supplants what should be an area for private insurance.
“The bleeding heart will say, well, we have to take care of them,” Mr. Paul said on “Fox News Sunday,” calling FEMA “a gross distortion of insurance” and saying that workers for the agency “hinder the local people, and they hinder volunteers from going in.” SOURCE

Ron Paul: The Feds Should Have No Role In Disaster Relief SOURCE

But it's also a foreign policy platform built largely on broad ideas. And when the conversation turns to specific policies, it's tough to see how he sustains the appeal he has with either progressives or the Christian right. Ending the war in Afghanistan and drawing down U.S. bases abroad is one thing; opposing government-sponsored Tsunami relief or AIDS prevention programs is another.
The Paul campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this piece. But a look through the archives of columns that he wrote for the website run by his one-time chief of staff Lew Rockwell underscores the extent to which he applied skepticism with government and budget frugality to international crises.
Two weeks after Southeast Asia was devastated by a tsunami in 2004, Paul wrote a column imploring the Bush administration to not send taxpayer money for relief. It wasn't that he was unsympathetic to the victims (he urged Americans to make their own donations). He thought private charities and nonprofit groups were better equipped to handle the job.
"The Asian tsunami is the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes, and we should all do everything we can to help. Investigate the charities and private groups involved, and send what you can," he wrote. "But let's get governments and the United Nations out of the way, please."
Paul made similar pitches with respect to foreign aid and earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti and Japan. And even when the disaster wasn't immediate in nature, he was hesitant to get the government involved. On July 12, 2005, he wrote the following about President Bush's efforts to help the contentment of Africa with AIDS prevention."The president is promising money we don't have to solve a problem we didn't cause. Americans have the freedom to do everything in their power to alleviate African suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in impoverished nations," he wrote.
"But government-to-government foreign aid doesn't work, and it never has," he continued. "We should stop kidding ourselves and ignore the emotionalist pleas of rock stars. Suffering in Africa cannot be helped by delusional, feel-good government policies." SOURCE

_____________________________________________

In addition to the above, please see the following links from Crooks and Liars

Cutting Mercury Pollution, Saving Lives, Creating Jobs

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:31:30 PST

From Think Progress:
By Rebecca Leber on Dec 21, 2011

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced today [12/21/11] an important new rule that finally sets limits on mercury, arsenic, and other toxins released into our air. For 21 years, coal-fired power plants were allowed to unleash unlimited mercury and other toxic pollution, poisoning the air. Today’s rule requires power plants to update their pollution-control technology to keep 90 percent of mercury produced by burning coal from being released.

BIG WIN FOR CLEAN AIR: The Obama administration’s move to limit mercury pollution together with recently proposed fuel economy standards mark major steps toward cleaning our environment. CAP Distinguished Senior Fellow and former EPA administrator Carol Browner said the safeguards today “are preventative medicine—they will annually forestall thousands of premature deaths, hospitalizations, and respiratory ailments.” The EPA’s mercury rule is urgently needed, Pennsylvania Republican and Democrat state representatives wrote in an op-ed. “Any delays or weakening attacks on the Clean Air Act are simply bad for all of us, but especially for our kids.” Yet some utilities and the coal industry want at least four years before reducing this public health menace. But before the ink is even dry on the new mercury safeguards, House Republicans already plan to attack the Clean Air Act’s “problem areas” in the new year with legislation to follow, according to Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY). READ MORE

Oil Barons Threaten Obama About the Keystone XL Pipeline Decision

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:34:10 PST

Jack Gerard - the head of the American Petroleum Institute - which is the nation's largest lobbying organization for oil and gas corporations - told President Obama, "I think it would be a huge mistake on the part of the president of the United States to deny the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline...Clearly, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest. A determination to decide anything less than that I believe will have huge political consequences." Do what the oil barons say - build the damn pipeline - or suffer "huge political consequences." The sad part is - in today's post Citizens United world - we have to take these threats seriously.

Sign Petitions Against the Pipeline
Sign Petitions Against Corporate Personhood

Obama Plans Change in Immigration Rule on Waivers

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:09:27 PST

By AMY TAXIN, Associated Press

Source

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration wants to more quickly reunite Americans with their illegal immigrant spouses and children in a move long sought by advocates but panned by Republicans as a way to push unpopular policies around Congress.

Currently, many illegal immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the federal government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

On Friday, the Obama administration proposed changing the rule to let children and spouses ask the government to decide on the waiver request before they head to their home country to seek a visa to return here legally.

The illegal immigrants would still have to go abroad to finish the visa process, but getting a provisional waiver approved in advance would reduce the time they are out of the country from months to days or weeks, said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The purpose is "to minimize the extent to which bureaucratic delays separate Americans from their families for long periods of time," Mayorkas told reporters.

It currently takes about six months for the government to issue a waiver, Mayorkas said.

The waiver shift is the latest move by President Barack Obama to make changes to immigration policy without congressional action. Congressional Republicans repeatedly have criticized the administration for policy changes they describe as providing "backdoor amnesty" to illegal immigrants.

Source

The proposal also comes as Obama gears up for a re-election contest in which the support of Hispanic voters could prove a determining factor in a number of states. The administration hopes to change the rule later this year after taking public comments.

Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas on Friday accused the president of putting the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of those of Americans.

"It seems President Obama plays by his own rules to push unpopular policies on the American people," the House Judiciary Committee chair said in a statement.

Immigrants who do not have criminal records and who have only violated immigration laws can win a waiver if they can prove their absence would cause an extreme hardship for their American spouse or parent. The government received about 23,000 hardship applications in 2011 and more than 70 percent were approved.

About 75 percent of the applications were filed by Mexicans, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Immigrant advocates have long complained about the current system, which can split up families for months or years. And since there's no guarantee a person will win a waiver to return, many immigrant families refuse to take the risk of going abroad to apply for one.

Laura Barajas, a 42-year-old stay-at-home mom in Orange County, California, is due to travel to Ciudad Juarez in two weeks to try to get her papers. She and her U.S. citizen husband are trying to stay positive, but she is afraid to leave him and their two young children behind.

"I don't want to be separated for a long time from my children," said Barajas, who came to the U.S. illegally to find work, then met her future husband and stayed. "I'm not going to risk taking them to a place that I don't even know after 18 years."

Pro-immigration activists and lawyers embraced the change, saying it would keep families together and encourage more people now in the United States illegally to emerge from the shadows and apply for visas. Some said it could even save lives.

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado recalled the case of Tania Nava Palacios, who went to Ciudad Juarez — a hotbed for drug-fueled violence — with her American husband and son in pursuit of a waiver. Drug cartel members killed her husband last year, his office said in a statement.

Kelly Alfaro, of Washington state, said her husband, Guillermo, waited in Mexico for eight months last year after he had his visa interview in Ciudad Juarez.

"I was terrified for his safety because I know how dangerous it is there and I had no way of knowing how long he would have to stay in Mexico," she said.

Democratic lawmakers welcomed the Obama administration's move to change the immigration system by rulemaking after efforts at a legislative overhaul failed.

"Has it taken a while? Yes. Is it happening? Yes," said Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, who has encouraged such changes. "Am I looking forward to telling people to vote for him? Absolutely."

Immigration has become a difficult issue for Obama ahead of the November election. As a presidential candidate, he pledged to change what many consider to be a broken immigration system.

To that end, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced plans last year to review some 300,000 pending deportation cases in an effort to target criminal illegal immigrants, repeat immigration law violators and those who pose a national security or public safety threat.

Napolitano said the DHS would delay indefinitely the cases of many illegal immigrants who have no criminal record and those who have been arrested for only minor traffic violations or other misdemeanors. A pilot program is under way to begin reviewing the case.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton also issued a memo in June outlining how immigration authorities could use discretion in deciding which illegal immigrants to arrest and put into deportation proceedings.

Congressional Republicans have decried the policy changes, arguing that the Obama administration is circumventing Congress.

Several attempts at an immigration law overhaul have failed in recent years, including the so-called DREAM Act, which would have allowed for some young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to earn legal status if they went to college or joined the military.

Taxin reported from Santa Ana, California. Associated Press writers Elliot Spagat in San Diego and Alicia Caldwell in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

New federal rules on immigrant-family separations
San Francisco Chronicle
Obama Administration Will Ease Path To Legality For Some Immigrants
NPR (blog)
Admin. Plans Change in Immigration Rule
TIME

One Nation Indivisible With Liberty and Justice for All

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 05:57:52 PST

Image Source

Almost everyone wants Liberty, but there is a difference between who people want it 'for'. Btw... did you know that the original 'Pledge of Allegiance' was written by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy? This is what it said:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

According to Wikipedia: "Christian socialism is a socialist ideology that regards capitalism as a faith or ideology to be rooted in the mortal sin of avarice and claim it is a form of mammon worship. Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be associated with greed that they associate with capitalism."

I wonder how many Christian Socialists we have in this country today? My guess is that their numbers have dwindled. I know that the 'Pledge of Allegiance' is not the Constitution so it has no power, but it is interesting to dissect it anyway. I think the original version was the best version.

We are "one nation indivisible", someone needs to tell the conservatives, especially Ron Paul, that if you give so much power to each individual state we would end up with, "one nation divided and fragmented".

The next part says, "liberty and justice for all". This is where we really get into some differences between ideologies. Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Greens and Socialists would probably have it just as Bellamy wrote, "for all". Conservatives, particularly Republicans, but also most Libertarians (and some odd and assorted groups such as the Militias), put much more emphasis and importance on individual liberty. Ron Paul is an interesting one to look at, he puts most of the importance on the rights of 'property owners'. Using the ideology of Republicans it might say, 'liberty and justice for me'. Using the ideology of another type of Libertarian, like Ron Paul, it might say, 'liberty and justice for property owners'. If Ayn Rand had weighed in, it might say, 'liberty and justice for the strong'.

I for one, being on the left, am very happy that it says, "liberty and justice for ALL". Also, I like that we are one nation, indivisible, because I would hate the idea of each state being able to decide such things as whether or not a black person can eat in a restaurant or if women and minorities are allowed to vote. Or - if same sex marriages should be allowed ... oh wait, that is happening on a state level now, hmmm, time to fix that one.

Petitions Against Corporate Personhood

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:19:34 PST

SOURCE

With the 'Occupy' movement spreading from coast to coast now, it's a great time to sign and spread around petitions that have been in cirulation since the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling, as well as some of the new ones that have just come out. If you know of any other petitions that I don't have listed, please post the link below this and I will add it.

If you have already signed all of them, please try to share them in at least 3 different places, if everyone does this it will make a huge difference.

If you have others to add please leave the link for us in the comment section below. Thanks!

To understand the power of corporations in

our democracy, please see the animated video:

Petition for the companion House bill:

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

Tell Obama to say NO to the Keystone XL Pipeline

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:56:18 PST

Photo Source

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Say "NO" to the Keystone XL Pipeline

We strongly encourage President Obama to do the right thing and say "NO" to the Keystone XL Pipeline and big oil interests. As voters we are watching this issue closely and his decision on this matters very much.

Please be patient, the page takes a long time to load

25,000 SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 02, 2012 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000

(More Petitions Below)

The Keystone XL pipeline will carry toxic tar sands oil 1,700 miles from Alberta, Canada through the middle of the US heartland on its way to the Gulf. The pipeline would cross the massive Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water in 8 US states, and irrigation for millions of acres of farmland that supply the nation’s food.

We can not allow the foreign corporation TransCanada to jeopardize America's drinking water in the name of profits for private industry. The pipeline would keep our country addicted to this unsustainable and highly polluting fossil fuel even longer. Text Source

_________________________________

In the House, Republican leaders are trying to force approval of the Keystone XL by attaching it to a bill extending unemployment benefits and the payroll-tax cut — a bill they know President Obama urgently wants to sign.

And they’re not stopping there. They’re looking to load up this fast-moving economic bill with other pro-polluter provisions that would otherwise stand little chance of passing both houses on their own.

Tell your members of Congress to reject these cynical attempts to fast track the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and other anti-environmental measures by attaching them to last-minute spending legislation.

In response to the public outcry you and I helped galvanize, the Obama Administration has already started a new review of the Keystone XL’s true environmental costs.

Any thorough review will unmask the Keystone XL as a boon to Big Oil and a disaster-in-the-making for the rest of us. The pipeline would drive more destruction of the Boreal forest, turbo-charge global warming, threaten water supplies in the heartland, raise gas prices and lock America into the dirtiest oil on the planet for decades to come.

And that’s exactly why the oil giants want this project railroaded through Congress before that review is completed. Please help stop them! Text Source

Other Action:

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

Credo

Care2

The NeoConning of the 99 Percent AKA The Spoiler Effect

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:57:32 PST

Unfortunately, some of the 99%ers and Occupiers don't realize yet that the Neoconservatives might be trying to play them. The Spoiler Effect worked so well in 2000 with Gore, Nader and Bush, perhaps the 'old guard' is attempting to deliberately orchestrate it in 2012.

The spoiler effect describes the effect a minor party candidate with little chance of winning has in a close election, when that candidate's presence in the election draws votes from a major candidate similar to them, thereby causing a candidate dissimilar to them to win the election. The minor candidate causing this effect is often referred to as a spoiler.

Most of you have noticed the numbers and determination of the 'Paulbots' on the web right now. They frequent forums, youtube, blogs, chats, fb pages and other such discussion groups to promote Ron Paul as the Liberty Hero, here to save the day. Most Progressive know that Ron Paul is not for a Progressive agenda at all. However, there are some that look only at a few issues and can easily be persuaded to jump ship. The issues that appeal most to Progressives are Paul's anti-war, anti-Fed and pro-marijuana stances. Over the past couple of weeks he has also gained support from many who are unhappy with Obama for signing the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA, due to the controversial unlimited detention issue.

I'm NOT at all saying that the Paulbots are NeoCons in disguise, I'm saying that they are great tools for others to utilize in an effort to split the vote. Interestingly, it's been said that Ron Paul doesn't really want to be president, maybe he is running deliberately as a spoiler candidate. Who knows, but whether deliberate or accidental, I'm sure the NeoCons are very happy with the Progressives that are moving towards Ron Paul and away from Barack Obama. There has been talk that Paul would not rule out running as an Independent should he not get the GOP nomination.

The Progressives that have decided not to vote for President Obama again are not only switching to Ron Paul, there are some that have decided to support Independent or Green Party candidates instead. The neo-cons don't care who you give your vote to, as long as it's not to Obama.

Currently there is a written opinion circulating online that helps to explain the latest strategy as it applies to NDAA. I believe it first appeared on Reddit but I'm not absolutely sure about that. It was posted by Mauve_Cubedweller. I am going to repost it in it's entirety because I feel that it is so important to read and contemplate.

TL;DR The President's opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don't seem to realize they've been tricked into being angry at the wrong person. He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why. You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant 'fuck you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base. Observe:

Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.

Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.

Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)

Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.

Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.

Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this.

After reading this I realized that I wasn't exactly sure who drafted the changes in the NDAA so I decided to do some exploration. The first page I stumbled onto was a real eye opener. It's an article by Jason Easley and Sarah Jones entilted, "How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA". I highly recommend reading the entire piece to understand the importance of the conning that is going on. Here are two videos and information from the Politicususa article.

An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.
The YouTube video claimed to be proof that Obama is going to sign a citizen imprisonment law:

However, in the first 30 minutes of the debate Sen. Levin stated that the NDAA provisions do not apply to US citizens:

Hours prior to the YouTube proof video Sen. Levin stated on the Senate floor that the Obama administration requested that the provision be changed so that it does not apply to American citizens, but he explained the provision wasn’t changed because it already didn’t apply to American citizens:

“The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas. There is a good reason for that. But even here, the difference is relatively modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes all lawful residents of the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or who arrive as tourists or on some other short-term basis, and that is a small remaining category, but an important one, because it includes the terrorists who clandestinely arrive in the United States with the objective of attacking military or other targets here.”

People need to stop believing everything they read from certain pundits and every claim made in a two minute video.
You might be wondering why the video was edited to lead you to believe that he did. That’s a great question.

You might also be asking yourself if the same people who were so willing to believe the author of the bill, Carl Levin, will be as willing to believe Levin’s full statement, in which he clearly says that the President did not want this language.

Had Obama not objected to the language, we would be stuck with the original bill since 83 senators voted yes on the original bill which also passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously.

People should be asking themselves about the agenda behind not holding the authors of the bill and indeed the Senate accountable for the language in this bill, as it is the same Senate who refused to fund Obama’s executive order to close Gitmo. We note their attempt to run an end-game around Obama’s push for civilian courts and their attempt to slide in permanent changes to restrictions regarding Gitmo. The President objected to those permanent changes.

One would think that anyone who cared about the issue of closing Gitmo would be up in arms at the Senators’ attempt to use a funding bill to get around Obama’s attempts to get around their refusal to fund the closure of Gitmo. Continue Reading

Adam Serwer writes on Mother Jones, in an article titled, "The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?":

A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill.

His article states some of the misinformation that is circulating and links to some of the media outlets that are responsible.

It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US.
So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay."

When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.

The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

As I've written before, this is cop-out language. It allows people who think the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks gives the president the authority to detain US citizens without charge or trial to say that, but it also allows people who can read the Constitution of the United States to argue something else. That's why Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed legislation to make it clear that indefinite detention authority does not apply to US citizens arrested in the US—which at the very least, should force Congress to go on record about who exactly is opposed to detention without trial at the whim of the executive branch.

Graham and his colleagues have made no secret of the fact that they believe the president should (and does) have the ability to detain American terrorism suspects captured in the US indefinitely, and they may even have enough votes in Congress to make it happen some day. At that point, the only defense for Americans will be the Constitution and a Supreme Court willing to read what it says. Continue Reading

Adam Serwer ends with this disclaimer:

In case it's not clear, I still think the president should veto the bill. What it does is bad enough. It just doesn't do what a lot of people are saying it does.

I'm not saying that there is some big NeoCon secret conspiracy, in fact it's not a secret and it's just politics at play. But check sources for information, compare them to the other sources and go directly to the original source when possible. The 'powers that be' want the White House back and their ammunition of choice is usually trickery.

Obama's Statement for the National Defense Authorization Act #NDAA

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 05:00:05 PST

From The Raw Story:

The president’s opponents in Congress, including some Democrats, attached the indefinite detention provision to force the administration to either accept a much heavier load of terrorism suspects, many who would be heading to the Guantanamo Bay military prison, or veto the bill and stand accused of opposing funds for the troops. READ MORE

Read the Indefinite Detention Bill

Three Myths by Glenn Greenwald

Below is the statement that President Obama included with the NDAA:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

25 Best Occupy Photos Of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:08:43 PST

by dan cox at Anondora

I am only posting a few of my favorites out of the 25, to see the additional photos CLICK HERE.

The Definition of a Progressive: Are You a Progressive?

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:53:16 PST

You Might Be a Progressive If...
By Michael Schwalbe
Common Dreams, May 30, 2008
Straight to the Source

In the propaganda wars that surround elections, political labels often become detached from reality. The leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, has been called a "leftist" by Republican flacks and a "progressive" by some of his supporters. Others see Obama as a moderate Democrat only slightly less friendly to corporate capital and to the military-industrial complex than the Republican John McCain. It would be no surprise, then, if many people were wondering, Just who is a progressive?

No one, of course, has the authority to decide who is a progressive and who isn't. Yet if the label "progressive" has meaning at all, it is only because of some shared criteria we have in mind when we use it. So it might be worthwhile to put these criteria on the table, not to draw boundaries and hand out membership badges, but to spark a conversation about the common ground of ideas and values on which progressives stand, and to underscore the point that the center is not the left.

So who is a progressive? You might be one if ...

You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service.
You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights.
You think U.S. military spending is an obscene waste of resources, and that the only freedom this spending protects is the freedom of economic elites to exploit working people all around the planet.
You think U.S. troops should be brought home not only from Afghanistan and Iraq, but from all 130 countries in which the U.S. has military bases.
You think political leaders who engage in "preemptive war" and invasions should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and judged against the standards of international law established at Nuremberg after World War Two.
You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.
You think that electoral reform should include instant run-off voting, publicly-financed elections, easy ballot access for all parties, and proportional representation.
You think that electoral democracy is not enough, and that democracy must also be participatory and extend to workplaces.
You think that strengthening the rights of all workers to unionize and bargain collectively is a useful step toward full economic democracy.
You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.
You think that a class system which forces some people to do dirty, dangerous, boring work all the time, while others get to do clean, safe, interesting work all the time, can never deliver social justice.
You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.
You think that the legal doctrine granting corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons is absurd and must be overturned.
You think it's wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy.
You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed.
You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century.
You believe in celebrating diversity, while also recognizing that having women and people of color proportionately represented among the class of oppressors is not the goal we should be aiming for.
You think that the state has no right to kill, and that putting people to death to show that killing is wrong will always be a self-defeating policy.
You think that anyone who desires the reins of power that come with high political office should, by reason of that desire, be seen as unfit for the job.
You think that instead of more leaders, we need fewer followers.
You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.
You are open to considering how the privileges you enjoy because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and/or physical ability might come at the expense of others.
You believe that voting every few years is a weak form of political participation, and that achieving social justice requires concerted effort before, during, and after elections.
You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth more than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life.
You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic.

No doubt some readers will say this list is incomplete. It is. Many policy issues of importance to progressives go unmentioned. Others might say that the list leans too far to the left, or not far enough. It could also be said that some items are vague (what does it mean to say that human rights ought always to trump property rights?). These are all useful responses. If we hope to work together to transform the social world, we need to know what we agree on, what we don't agree on, and what needs further hashing-out.

In the end, however, it's not labels and identities and criteria for bestowing them that really matter. Political terms have consequences, but only because of how we use them. Which suggests another item for the list. You might be a progressive if you think that it's important to take seriously the meaning of political identities, but that what really matters is living out those identities in ways that help to create more peace, justice, and equality.

Michael Schwalbe is a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. He is the author of: Rigging the Game: How Inequality Is Reproduced in Everyday Life (Oxford, 2008). He can be reached atMLSchwalbe@nc.rr.com.

Jesse LaGreca On The Ed Show

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:56:28 PST

Jesse LaGreca, Wall Street Occupier and activist, talks with Ed Schultz.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Other videos of Jesse LaGreca

Interviewed by Fox News

Protests on Wall Street: People's Rights Over Corporation's Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Jenni Siri) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:01:08 PST

The Biggest Thing Happening Right Now That Your Local News Probably Isn't Telling You

They’re making a stand for people’s rights over corporations’,

and the local New York news station says that this isn’t just a liberal thing:

Here’s a glimpse into what protesters are thinking:

From MoveOn.Org: Found on BrucesReed’s, OurNeedToAwaken’s, and LizMartinez98′s YouTube channels. Originally submitted by Sara T.

Michael Moore Tells it Like it is - Again

noreply@blogger.com (Jann Swanson) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 06:21:17 PST

The film maker spoke at Bunker Hill Community College in Charlestown, Massachusetts, a hardscrabble town that is a mere five minute walk from Boston's Beacon Hill - and a lifetime away. He tells the story of what preceded his speech and his reaction to it. We need a thousand more Michael Moores.
Read More

GOP Insider Spills the Beans

noreply@blogger.com (Jann Swanson) — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:11:36 PDT

This is a must- read for Progressives and a should-read- but-they-probably-won't for the other team. Mike Lofgren loyally served the GOP on Capitol Hill for 28 years. But no longer. Here is what he is saying about his party - and it confirms much of what we have been saying about it for the last eleven years.

Progressive American Liberal

Arizona Governor Brewer and Obama in Tense Exchange [VIDEO]

Ken Aden’s Campaign Manager Comes Home To Find Cat Killed; “LIBERAL” Written On Its Corpse

Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

Pass the Return to Prudent Banking Act and Restore Glass-Steagall

United to Remedy Citizens United Court Ruling

Resolutions

Sample resolutions

Ron Paul Would Give States the Rights to Your Womb

Get Involved With Move To Amend

Corporate Personhood Worse, Ending It Easier, Than You Think

The 99 Percent Act from the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Voting for Ron Paul Would be Harmful to Humanity and the Earth

Cutting Mercury Pollution, Saving Lives, Creating Jobs

Oil Barons Threaten Obama About the Keystone XL Pipeline Decision

Obama Plans Change in Immigration Rule on Waivers

Related articles

One Nation Indivisible With Liberty and Justice for All

Petitions Against Corporate Personhood

Tell Obama to say NO to the Keystone XL Pipeline

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Say "NO" to the Keystone XL Pipeline

The NeoConning of the 99 Percent AKA The Spoiler Effect

Obama's Statement for the National Defense Authorization Act #NDAA

25 Best Occupy Photos Of 2011

by dan cox at Anondora

The Definition of a Progressive: Are You a Progressive?

Jesse LaGreca On The Ed Show

Protests on Wall Street: People's Rights Over Corporation's Rights

Michael Moore Tells it Like it is - Again

GOP Insider Spills the Beans