Union

Obama The Tyrant Races To Have The United Nations Security Council Pass The Traitorous Terrorist Treaty Before Congress Votes It Down — Congress and President Betray The United States Constitution –Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties — Never Again Fasicism — Videos

Posted on July 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Ammunition, Articles, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, British History, Bunker Busters, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Diasters, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Drones, Economics, Education, Ethic Cleansing, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, media, Middle East, Missiles, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Police, Politics, Press, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Resources, Securities and Exchange Commission, Security, Speech, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 457: April 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Story 1: Obama The Tyrant Races To Have The United Nations Security Council Pass The Traitorous Terrorist Treaty Before Congress Votes It Down — Congress and President Betray The United States Constitution — Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties — Never Again Fasicism — Videos

Incredible! New George S Patton speech! Iran & modern warfare

The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?

George Pataki: Iran deal is bad for civilized world

White House, Democrats divided over Iran nuclear deal

KEY POINTS OF HISTORIC IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

Bolton: Nuke Deal ‘Paves the Way’ for Iran to Get Nuclear Weapons

Mitch McConnell Fox News Sunday. McConnell On Iran Deal, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump

July 14, 2015 Fiorina on nuclear deal with Iran: Bad behavior pays

Trump reacts to Obama’s Iran deal presser, El Chapo’s escape

Key Republican Senator Corker Angry Over Iran Nuclear Deal

Blackburn: Iran Nuclear Deal is Bad for the United States

Levin: ‘U.S. Senate Just Capitulated To Obama,’ And Rewrote The Constitution’s Treaty Provision

Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties

Discusses Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act on FOX News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor”

“TREATY” – The Word Congress Won’t Use

Judge Napolitano : Obama pushes World Government by signing U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (Sep 26, 2013)

Obama Bringing Iran Deal to UN, Bypassing Congress

The Four Tops Walk Away Renee

Four Tops – It’s The Same Old Song (1966)

UN ENDORSES IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL WITH 6 WORLD POWERS

The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers and authorized a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions that have hurt Iran’s economy.

But the measure also provides a mechanism for U.N. sanctions to “snap back” in place if Iran fails to meet its obligations.

Both U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power and Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo called the agreement an important achievement for diplomacy, the Iranian promising to be “resolute in fulfilling its obligations” and the American pledging to be vigilant in ensuring they are carried out.

The resolution had been agreed to by the five veto-wielding council members, who along with Germany negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. It was co-sponsored by all 15 members of the Security Council. The European Union’s foreign ministers endorsed the agreement later Monday in Brussels and pledged to implement it.

Under the agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy and medical isotopes, but the United States and its Western allies believe Tehran’s real goal is to build atomic weapons. U.S. President Barack Obama has stressed that all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon are cut off for the duration of the agreement and Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of uranium.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said “the world is now a safer place in the knowledge that Iran cannot now build a nuclear bomb.” But Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor told reporters immediately after the vote that the Security Council had “awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world,” calling it “a very sad day” not only for Israel but the entire world.

The document specifies that seven resolutions related to U.N. sanctions will be terminated when Iran has completed a series of major steps to curb its nuclear program and the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that “all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities.”

All provisions of the U.N. resolution will terminate in 10 years, including the “snap back” provision on sanctions.

But last week the six major powers – the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – and the European Union sent a letter, seen by The Associated Press, informing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that they have agreed to extend the snap back mechanism for an additional five years. They asked Ban to send the letter to the Security Council.

Obama told reporters the vote will send a strong message of international support for the agreement as the best way to ensure “that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.” He faces strong opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress and expressed hope that members will pay attention to the vote.

Power, the U.S. ambassador, said the nuclear deal doesn’t change the United States’ “profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region.”

She urged Iran to release three “unjustly imprisoned” Americans and to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who vanished in Iran in 2007.

The message that diplomacy can work ran through many speeches from council members.

Iran’s Khoshroo stressed that only if commitments are fully honored “can diplomacy prevail over conflict and war in a world that is replete with violence, suffering and oppression.”

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the agreement “clearly demonstrates that where there’s a political will based on realism and respect for legitimate mutual interests of the international community, the most complex tasks can be resolved.”

“Today, the Security Council has confirmed the inalienable right of Iran to develop its peaceful nuclear program, including to enrich uranium, while ensuring the comprehensive control by the IAEA,” Churkin said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_IRAN_NUCLEAR_DEAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-20-12-04-13

 

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Full text of the clause

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

One of three types of international accord

In the United States, the term “treaty” is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause [2] empowers the President to make or enter into treaties with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of theSenate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….[4]

A further distinction embodied in U.S. law is between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws.[1][5] These various distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of accords under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.[1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President.[1] For example, a treaty may prohibit states from imposing capital punishment on foreign nationals, but a congressional-executive agreement or sole-executive agreement cannot.

In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism.[6] At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties.[7] If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.[8]

Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties.[1] Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.

Repeal

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[9] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

In Goldwater v. Carter,[10] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter‘s unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that “The issue at hand … was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition.” In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, “The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts”. Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[11]

Scope of presidential powers

Presidents have regarded the Article II treaty process as necessary where an international accord would bind a future president. For example, Theodore Roosevelt explained:

The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done.[12]

A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.[1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).

In 1972, Congress passed legislation requiring the president to notify Congress of any executive agreements that are formed.[13]

Although the nondelegation doctrine prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch, Congress has allowed the executive to act as Congress’s “agent” in trade negotiations, such as by setting tariffs, and, in the case of Trade Promotion Authority, by solely authoring the implementing legislation for trade agreements. The constitutionality of this delegation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark (1892).

See also

Further reading

Warren F. Kimball, Alliances, Coalitions, and Ententes – The American alliance system: an unamerican tradition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atT1erLYbOE

 

HAMILTON’S WARNING AGAINST OBAMA AND THE IRAN DEAL – FEDERALIST NO. 75

“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” Thus did Alexander Hamilton warn the American people, in Federalist No. 75, against allowing the president to make treaties alone.

Hamilton, while a supporter of executive power, nevertheless argued for the Senate’s treaty role, because “it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years’ duration.”

It would be unsafe, he said, because even the most virtuous individuals, with the best of intentions, would fall prey to the temptations that negotiations with foreign powers would certainly provide.

How much more so does his advice apply to a president of lesser virtue, such as Barack Obama, who intends to decrease the power of the United States as a matter of ideological conviction, and who seeks narcissistic satisfaction in the attention a deal with Iran would temporarily provide!

Hamilton also anticipated the greed allegedly displayed by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, whose perambulations around the globe in service of the president’s dubious foreign policy agenda coincided with generous donations from foreign governments to her family’s personal foundation.

“An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth,” Hamilton warns, prescribing the review powers of the Senate as the remedy.

And lest apologists for Obama argue that the nuclear deal with Iran is not actually a “treaty,” but merely an “executive agreement,” Hamilton leaves no doubt as to the scope of arrangements to which the Senate’s review power applies.

“The power of making treaties,” he says, concerns “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith” (original emphasis).

Congress should heed Hamilton’s warning before it is too late.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/28/alexander-hamiltons-warning-against-obama-and-the-iran-deal/

 

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.

Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-state’s executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.” In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined:

The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.

Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”

The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest. An episode just a year before the start of the Convention had highlighted the problem. The United States desired a trade treaty with Spain, and sought free access to the Mississippi River through Spanish-controlled New Orleans. Spain offered favorable trade terms, but only if the United States would give up its demands on the Mississippi. The Northern states, which would have benefited most from the trade treaty and cared little about New Orleans, had a majority, but not a supermajority, in the Continental Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation.

At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power.

The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.

Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?

While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.

A second question is how the President and Senate should interact in their joint exercise of the treaty power. Many Framers apparently thought that the President would oversee the actual conduct of diplomacy, but that the Senate would be involved from the outset as a sort of executive council advising the President. This was likely a reason that the Framers thought the smaller Senate was more suited than the House to play a key role in treaty-making. In the first effort at treaty-making under the Constitution, President George Washington attempted to operate in just this fashion. He went to the Senate in person to discuss a proposed treaty before he began negotiations. What is less clear, however, is whether the Constitution actually requires this process, or whether it is only what the Framers assumed would happen. The Senate, of course, is constitutionally authorized to offer “advice” to the President at any stage of the treaty-making process, but the President is not directed (in so many words) as to when advice must be solicited. As we shall see, this uncertainty has led, in modern practice, to a very different procedure than some Framers envisioned. It seems clear, however, that the Framers expected that the Senate’s “advice and consent” would be a close review and not a mere formality, as they thought of it as an important check upon presidential power.

A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the President as part of the President’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his Cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral.

A second view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the President and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers).

The third view is that the Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications.

Finally, there is a question of the limits of the treaty power. A treaty presumably cannot alter the constitutional structure of government, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements—and so apparently treaties—are subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights just as ordinary laws are. Reid v. Covert (1957). InGeofroy v. Riggs (1890), the Supreme Court also declared that the treaty power extends only to topics that are “properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.” However, at least in the modern world, one would think that few topics are so local that they could not, under some circumstances, be reached as part of the foreign-affairs interests of the nation. Some have argued that treaties are limited by the federalism interests of the states. The Supreme Court rejected a version of that argument in State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), holding that the subject matter of treaties is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress. The revival of interest in federalism limits on Congress in such areas as state sovereign immunity, see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), and the Tenth Amendment, see Printz v. United States (1997), raises the question whether these limits also apply to the treaty power, but the Court has not yet taken up these matters.

Turning to modern practice, the Framers’ vision of treaty-making has in some ways prevailed and in some ways been altered. First, it is not true—and has not been true since George Washington’s administration—that the Senate serves as an executive council to advise the President in all stages of treaty-making. Rather, the usual modern course is that the President negotiates and signs treaties independently and then presents the proposed treaty to the Senate for its approval or disapproval. Washington himself found personal consultation with the Senate to be so awkward and unproductive that he abandoned it, and subsequent Presidents have followed his example.

Moreover, the Senate frequently approves treaties with conditions and has done so since the Washington administration. If the President makes clear to foreign nations that his signature on a treaty is only a preliminary commitment subject to serious Senate scrutiny, and if the Senate takes seriously its constitutional role of reviewing treaties (rather than merely deferring to the President), the check that the Framers sought to create remains in place. By going beyond a simple “up-or-down” vote, the Senate retains some of its power of “advice”: the Senate not only disapproves the treaty proposed by the President but suggests how the President might craft a better treaty. As a practical matter, there is often much consultation between the executive and members of the Senate before treaties are crafted and signed. Thus modern practice captures the essence of the Framers’ vision that the Senate would have some form of a participatory role in treaty-making.

A more substantial departure from the Framers’ vision may arise from the practice of “executive agreements.” According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments.

Where the President acts pursuant to a prior treaty, there seems little tension with the Framers’ vision, as Senate approval has, in effect, been secured in advance. Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). On the other hand, arguments for “complete interchangeability”—that is, claims that anything that can be done by treaty can be done by congressional–executive agreement—seem counter to the Framers’ intent. The Framers carefully considered the supermajority rule for treaties and adopted it in response to specific threats to the Union; finding a complete alternative to the Treaty Clause would in effect eliminate the supermajority rule and make important international agreements easier to adopt than the Framers wished.

The third type of executive agreement is one adopted by the President without explicit approval of either the Senate or the Congress as a whole. The Supreme Court and modern practice embrace the idea that the President may under some circumstances make these so-called sole executive agreements. United States v. Belmont (1937); United States v. Pink (1942). But the scope of this independent presidential power remains a serious question. The Pink and Belmont cases involved agreements relating to the recognition of a foreign government, a power closely tied to the President’s textual power to receive ambassadors (Article II, Section 3). The courts have consistently permitted the President to settle foreign claims by sole executive agreement, but at the same time have emphasized that the Congress has acquiesced in the practice. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981);American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003). Beyond this, the modern limits of the President’s ability to act independently in making international agreements have not been explored. With respect to treaty termination, modern practice allows the President to terminate treaties on his own. In recent times, President James Earl Carter terminated the U.S.–Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1977, and President George W. Bush terminated the ABM Treaty with Russia in 2001. The Senate objected sharply to President Carter’s actions, but the Supreme Court rebuffed the Senate in Goldwater v. Carter (1979). President Bush’s action was criticized in some academic quarters but received general acquiescence. In light of the consensus early in Washington’s administration, it is probably fair to say that presidential termination does not obviously depart from the original understanding, inasmuch as the Framers were much more concerned about checks upon entering into treaties than they were about checks upon terminating them.

Profile photo of Michael D. Ramsey
Michael D. Ramsey
Professor of Law
University of San Diego School of Law

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-508

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.–The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History Lectures–Videos

Posted on July 14, 2012. Filed under: American History, Baseball, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, High School, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Railroads, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Ships, Sports, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 1 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 1, “Themes and Lessons from Colonial America” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 2 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 

Lecture 2, “The Constitution: Four Disputed Clauses” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 3 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 3, “The Principles of ’98” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 4 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 Lecture 4, “Lysander Spooner and Other Antebellum Radicalism” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 5 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 

Lecture 5, “Secession and the American Experience” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 6 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 

Lecture 6, “Secession and War” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 7 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 7, “Reconstruction” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 8, “Myths and Facts About Big Business” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 9 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 9, “World War I” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 10 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 

Lecture 10, “The 1920s – Domestic and International” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 11 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 11, “Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 12 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 

Lecture 12, “The Economics of the New Deal and World War II” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 13 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 13, “The History of Foreign Aid Programs” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 14 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 14, “Civil Rights and the Supreme Court” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 15 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Lecture 15, “Welfare Programs and the Great Society” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

John McMannus–Bill Buckley: Pied Piper of the Establishment–Videos

Posted on May 11, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Union, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda

Constitution Si, Amnesty No

A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

William F. Buckley Jr. and the John Birch Society — ­ A Book Review

“…As in the old conservatism, McManus cites a number of sources and lists a number of distinguished conservative personalities that parted ways with Buckley after they became dissatisfied with his “reshaping” of the conservative movement. Among them are the writers Medford Evans (now deceased) and his son M. Stanton Evans, the late free-market economist Murray Rothbard, and journalists Ralph de Toledano and Don Feder of The Boston Herald.

But why did Buckley want to destroy the John Birch Society? McManus provides answers and relates his own personal journey from being a Buckleyite to his eventual membership in the John Birch Society and becoming a follower of its magnanimous founder, Robert Welch. (1)

As to Buckley’s motives, McManus cites the appraisal of Retired Army General Thomas A. Lane, a staunch conservative and also once a former Buckley ally:

“William F. Buckley, Jr., learned about the obstacles which confront every attempt to illuminate the liberal shadows. He made his peace with the liberal powers by launching an attack on the John Birch Society, bracketed with ‘McCarthyism’ as the bogeymen of the liberals. He created a cleavage between Republican highbrows and Democratic commoners, which effectively destroyed all prospect of concerted conservative political action. He was rewarded with liberal acceptance as the spokesman of ‘conservatism.’ ”

Regarding the damage Buckley inflicted upon the conservative movement, McManus provides an exhaustive list, from which I will cite only the following:

1. Provide “conservative” cover for the give-away of the Panama Canal to communist dictator Omar Torrijos in a deal which included $400 million for the Panamanian government.

2. Provide “conservative” cover to sundry CFR internationalists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), Henry Kissinger (CFR) and, notably, President Richard Nixon (CFR), who shocked genuine conservatives with his 1971 admission on ABC-TV: “I am now a Keynesian in economics” (followed by the imposition of wage and price controls, the severance of the last tie of paper money to precious metals and other socialist policies in the U.S.).

3. Provide a rationalization for the savage downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007 by a Soviet fighter in which 269 people were killed, including the chairman of the John Birch Society, U.S. Representative Dr. Larry McDonald. Buckley wrote: “The only thing we know for absolute sure that has come out of this is that never again will a Korean airliner carelessly overfly Russian territory. And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the point the Soviet Union sought to make. It has made it.”

4. Provide “conservative” cover for continued U.S. aid to the USSR during the Cold War, aid that prolonged the collapse of Soviet communism. As a result, “Faced with peril from a U.S.-fed Soviet monster following World War II, the American people were persuaded to accept increased taxation, burgeoning federal controls, foreign entanglements, and steady contravention of the Constitution,” writes McManus.

5. Provide “conservative” cover for the U.S. to remain in the U.N. “In the immediate aftermath of the UN General Assembly’s vote to expel Nationalist China (Taiwan) and admit Communist China, Buckley advised that ‘the United Nations has its uses, and the United States would be mistaken recklessly to withdraw from it.’ ” Instead, Buckley recommended that the U.S. refrain from casting votes in the U.N. General Assembly!

This book should be read by all Americans who value freedom, particularly those who have wondered, as I have, why ­ despite repeated turnover of Democrat and Republican administrations ­ no matter which political party wins, we continue our steady march toward less personal freedom, more government and more foreign entanglements ­ and thus more conflicts abroad. …”

http://www.haciendapub.com/articles/william-f-buckley-jr-and-john-birch-society-%C2%AD-book-review

‘Bill Buckley: Pied Piper of the Establishment’

Review by Marcus Epstein

“…Fifty years ago, conservatism meant opposition to big government in all its manifestations and a belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Today, most people associate it with preserving the legacy of Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hubert Humphrey, while supporting American cultural, economic, and political hegemony across the globe. What conservativism means today is at odds for what it used to stand for. What is the reason? John Birch Society president, John F. McManus, puts the blame squarely on William F. Buckley in his excellent new book, William F. Buckley Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment.

McManus tells the story of a talented and intelligent man born into privilege. His father, James Buckley, was an exemplar of the Old Right – a staunch opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal and drive towards war. Buckley followed in his father’s footsteps and was outspoken in his politics, but somewhere he went astray. …”

“…He explains how Buckley then became one of the biggest apologists for the establishment in all its manifestations. Whenever it seemed that the conservative grassroots were ready to turn on the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, the United Nations, The Trilateral Commission, Richard Nixon, or the Rockerfellers, Bill Buckley always managed to defend the hated institutions. In addition to quelling the masses, it allows the establishment to say “Even Bill Buckley believes…” to make any critic of them seem like extremists. The book also explains how Buckley invited the neocons into the conservative movement and helped propel them to its leadership. It also details several leftist positions that Buckley has taken in recent years such as support for legalized abortion, a Martin Luther King Holiday, and special privileges for homosexuals. Looking at Buckley’s legacy, McManus writes,

Buckley is now in the twilight of his life. He has done most of the damage he could ever hope to do. Yet the counterfeit conservatism he has minted is now being circulated by others, including William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, and George W. Bush. The stakes in the struggle haven’t changed, even though many of the participants have. Many years ago, in his Commonweal article, Buckley recommended “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores… and the attendant centralization of power in Washington” as the means to fight Communism during the Cold War. Today’s neoconservatives are calling for police state powers at home and a coalition of nations under the UN in order to win the war against terrorism. As the French say: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”

While this book does an excellent job of exposing Bill Buckley for the fraud that he is, it fails to fully explain the Right’s transformation. McManus puts a great deal of emphasis on Buckley’s famous Commonweal article from 1952. But while libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov condemned it as socialist and statist as soon as the article came out, by McManus’ own account, Robert Welch didn’t say a single critical word about Buckley until National Review turned its guns on the John Birch Society. Why is this? Perhaps it is because Welch overestimated the Soviet threat, and underestimated the importance of an isolationist foreign policy. While the John Birch Society and Robert Welch had reservations about America’s entry foreign wars, they usually gave the same National Review line about how to finish the job.

At the same time, McManus fails to detail how far Buckley and National Review have strayed from their original views since the early 60s. Other than a few differences over conspiracy theories and strategy, the John Birch Society and National Review pretty much saw eye to eye forty years ago. Today they have absolutely nothing in common. Buckley’s membership in the Skull and Bones Club can’t totally account for the change. Perhaps the problem all goes down to foreign policy. Buckley saw the Soviet Union as a great threat that had to be countered by the United States military. To do this he was willing to align himself with liberal anticommunists, but not with conservative non-interventionists. By trying to please these liberal anticommunists, who had much more power and prestige than he, he eventually ended mimicking them.

Despite these few flaws, this book is still a great expose of the establishment’s favorite conservative and essential reading for any person interested in the history of the conservative movement.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein5.html

 

Stiff Right Jab: Pied Piper for the Establishment

Steve Farrell

 

“…According to McManus, neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican Party and incrementally remade it in the image of the socialist new world order, with the chief architect of that damning remake being none other than William F. Buckley Jr., the so-called “savior of conservatism,” the founder of National Review.

Mr. Buckley promised in that magazine’s premier issue to stand “athwart at history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one [was] inclined to do so” – and at times, McManus admits, Buckley delivered.

Trouble is, Buckley and NR’s standing athwart at history, taken as a whole, was and is laden with provisos, compromises, incremental abandonment and, importantly, a nebulous, transmutable definition of just what conservatism was – a definition Buckley once described as “a dance along a precipice.”

McManus has another vision of what conservatism ought to be:

  • a movement which ought to stand fast by an inspired constitution; 
  • a movement which ought to uphold the Judeo-Christian ethic as a necessary appendage to successful self government; 
  • a movement which ought to prefer principle over party, U.S. sovereignty over permanent entangling alliances; 
  • and a movement which ought to have the guts to call a conspirator a conspirator, a traitor a traitor, a mass murderer a mass murderer.

The neo-conservatives fall woefully short of this standard. Take the neo-conservative mantra on how it is U.S. foreign policy consistently aids and abets communist and socialist movements across the globe, even as we seem to oppose such movements.

The Buckley patented answer, complains McManus (a former Buckley fan): “stupidity and innocent miscalculations.” Likewise, the Buckley explanation as to the march of communism across the globe, McManus notes: “It’s not a conspiracy.”

Buckley, though few see it, takes Marx’s explanation that communism arises here and there as a spontaneous movement among the left-behind poor, and he promotes it.

McManus, the president of the John Birch Society, an organization that Buckley abhors, will have nothing to do with such naïve conclusions. Former Secretary of Agriculture (under Eisenhower) and American patriot Ezra Taft Benson sums up McManus’ take:

“Communism is not a political party, nor a military organization, nor an ideological crusade, nor a rebirth of Russian imperialist ambition, though it comprises and uses all of these. Communism, in its unmistakable reality, is wholly a conspiracy. …”

This is vital. The problem with refusing to call evil “evil” is that while we stick our heads in the sand, communism and its sister isms continue to pop up and prosper (even after the “Fall”) because the West continues to “naïvely” finance, counsel and shape so-called democratic movements of the poor across the globe – in ways which nearly always put the wrong guys in power. …”

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/21/02850.shtml

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Memo To Gingrich: 33 Million Americans Looking For Full Time Jobs–Deport All Illegal Aliens–It Is The Law–Video

Posted on November 26, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Union, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , |

Voices of The American People On Illegal Immigration

Roy Beck

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2

The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration

Mark Krikorian

Mark Krikorian – Immigration and the Democratic Vote

(Mark Krikorian – Introduction) Panel: Can Conservatism Survive Mass Immigration?

(Discussion Part I) Panel: The Illusionary Allure of Immigration Grand Bargains

Immigration with Mark Krikorian

Mark Krikorian explains why mass immigration is fundamentally incompatible with a modern society.

Support a Moratorium on All Immigration, Legal and Illegal

Alan Keyes

Ambassador Alan Keyes on Stopping Illegal Immigration

Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration

Jack Hunter

SA@TAC – Liberty, Limits and Illegal Immigration

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh on Illegal Immigration

Drinking With Bob

We Need Scientists NOT Landscapers… 2010

Illegal Immigration Perks…2010

What if they Stole Your Springsteen Seats… 2009

 

I Wanna be an Illegal Immigrant…  2009

Illegal Immigrants Sue Citizen and Win…2009

Illegal Immigrant problem solved… 2007

Illegal Immigrants licensed to drive…2007

Illegal Immigrants!!! … 2006 

The American people simply want the illegal aliens to go home and the immigration laws enforced.

Let all the illegal aliens deport themselves.

Illegal aliens should have no jobs, no education, no medical care, no welfare and no transportation home paid for by the American people.

Deport all illegal aliens immediately, just like Mexico.

The American people will not support Gingrich and Perry, closet progressive Republicans, that are soft on illegal immigration.

The American people want the immigration laws enforced–deportation is required by law.

The political establishments of both parties still do not get it and neither does Newt Gingrich.

Enforce the immigration laws.

With 33 million American looking for a full-time job, we do not want to hear any candidate talking about a guest worker program.

Give me a break.

At least 10 million unskilled and inexperienced American citizens do not have jobs because both political parties allowed illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America to enter the country by not enforcing the immigration laws.

The American people keep telling the political ruling class in Washington to enforce the immigration laws and deport illegal aliens.

Both the Democratic and Republican party establishment refuses to listen to the will of the American people.

Both Gingrich and Perry are not be getting my vote because they are “soft” on immigration law enforcement.

I will not listen to or vote for any politician, Democratic or Republican, that will not enforce immigration laws or wants to change the law so that those who came here illegally can stay.

Newt, you lost my vote in 2008 when you did not run.

Newt will not get my vote in 2012 and neither will Romney nor Perry.

The American people want illegal immgration stopped and those here illegally to be deported–enforce the immigration laws.

The American people oppose any form of amnesty whether it be called a pathway to citizenship or a pathway to legality.

The American people support limited and controlled legal immigration where the number of legal immigrants each year is tied to the unemployment rate.

For example, when the unemployment rate is at or above 8% the number of legal immigrants should be limited to 200,000.

When the unemployment rate is at or below 2% the number of legal immigrants should be to 500,000 or less.

Vote and support Ron Paul.

Gingrich: Pay Taxes, Go to Church, Get Amnesty

Newt Gingrich Flunks Immigration 101

Bachmann: Gingrich’s Immigration Stance ‘Most Liberal’ in GOP Race

Bachmann and Romney rip Gingrich on immigration

Michele Bachmann Points Out Newt Gingrich Is A Huge Flip Flopper

Newt Gingrich Pushes Amnesty Plan at CNN GOP Debate

Newt Gingrich – NOT Conservative on Illegal Immigration

Newt Gingrich Immigration Surprise May Cost Him in Iowa:

Ginrich on Immigration

Newt Gingrich Addresses Illegal Immigration and Amnesty

Gingrich Outlines Vision for Immigration Reform

Background Articles and Videos

How Obama is Transforming America Through Immigration

by Mark Krikorian

“…In this penetrating Broadside, Mark Krikorian lays out the details of Obama’s open-borders approach to immigration and its political consequences. Krikorian, one of the leading critics of current immigration policy, examines the Administration’s record of weakening enforcement and describes how legislation crafted by the president’s supporters in Congress would ensure new waves of illegal immigration. Krikorian also explains how continued high levels of immigration, regardless of legal status, would progressively move the United States in the direction of more government and less liberty.”

http://www.cis.org/Books/Obama-Transforming-America

Newt Gingrich EXPOSED!

Border Security and Illegal Immigration – Newt Gingrich

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Immigration

America Held Hostage: President Obama Holds The Security of American People Hostage For Amnesty of Illegal Aliens a.k.a Comprehensive Immigration Reform–Impeach and Convict President Obama For Betraying Oath Of Office

What Is Commander-In-Chief Obama’s Battle Plan For Stopping and Reversing The Invasion Of The United State of America By 30 Million Illegal Aliens–Unconditional Surrender!

Open Your Eyes To The Consequences Of Open Borders In Just One State–Join The Second American Revolution

Your Papers Please–Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic and Republican Senators Proposed National ID Card–Vote These Bums Out Of Office–Time For Operation Wetback II

Cheap Tomatoes, Cheap Labor, Criminal Aliens, Corrupt Polticians, Costing Trillions–Cradle To Grave Progressive Radical Socialism!

Obama Aids and Abets Illegal Immigration and High American Citizen Unemployment By Attacking Arizona State Law!

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

US Immigration Videos

Borderline Chaos: Immigration Out of Control–Videos

The Hyphenated American and The Hyphen

The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens

President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President!

The Issue of The United States 2008 Presidential Election–Criminal Alien Removal (CAR) and A Border Security Fence (BSF)

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Alan Keyes on Immigration

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

A Great and Brilliant Speech By A Young Ron Paul Supporter To Occupy Wall Street Collectivists–Videos

Posted on October 17, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Dirty Bomb, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Rifles, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

Occupy Wall Street Protestor on Federal Reserve

Help this video go viral by watching it on YouTube and passing it along to family and friends.

Thanks.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who Is Behind And Funding Occupy Wall Street–The Radical Left: Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, Worker’s World Party,Working Families Party (front for ACORN), New York Communities For Change, Adbusters, George Soros and Barack Obama–Video

Posted on October 16, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Crime, Culture, Drug Cartels, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

~ Benjamin Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent
of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

~Thomas Jefferson

UPDATED

Occupy Wall Street TRUTH! (Message to young Protesters) 

Congratulations You Figured It Out!

Suggest You Add This Link To Your List

http://mises.org/


  How to Reject the Statist Quo | Jeffrey A. Tucker

Inside Occupy Wall Street’s Office 

Obama gets his class war

Police arrest protesters on ‘day of action’ – ‘Occupy Wall Street’

Occupy:  Soros, Piven and SEIU Working to Destroy Americas Financial System to Create Revolution

How ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Was Organized From Day One by SEIU

SEIU President Arrested At Occupy Brooklyn Bridge Protest

Occupy Wall Street Was Organized by SEIU, ACORN Front Group ‘The Working Family Party’

ANGELA DAVIS

(Communist Party Member)

Angela Davis…Occupy Oakland

Angela Davis Occupy Wall St @ Washington Sq Park Oct 30 2011 General Strike November 2

Glenn Beck: Soros connections to OWS

Glenn Beck: Occupy is SEIU world Marxist movement

Glenn Beck: Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street

GBTV: What is Occupy Wall Street going to do for the their two month anniversary

Occupy Wall Street = What Democrats, Nazis And Communists All Have In Common

OWS – ACORN Behind Occupy Wall Street Movement!

The Greatest Revolution in History has Begun! BEST OCCUPY DOCUMENTARY

Growing Anti-Semitism In The Occupy Wall Street Movement! (They’re EVIL I Tells Ya! E V I L !)

Voices from Occupy Wall Street (Nov-2011)(POLITICS IS ACTION series)

OCCUPY OAKLAND Police launch tear gas, flash bang canisters into crowd of protesters OWS Wall Street

Fox News says, OCCUPY WALL STREET are FAR-LEFT ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIALISTS

OWS: Occupy Oakland Anarchists Smash Windows and Destroy Business Property

Fox News says, OCCUPY WALL STREET are DEMONIC, BRAINLESS, LOSERS

TEA PARTY Invades OCCUPY DC- (explicit)

Occupy Wall Street Protestor on Federal Reserve

 A great and brilliant speech from a young Ron Paul supporter. Three cheers for capitalism!

My advice to classical liberals or libertarians and Ron Paul supporters is to stay clear of the Occupy Wall Street mob.

The primary organizers of Occupy Wall Street are radical left political parties and unions.

All of them are collectivists that oppose limited government and instead want to increase government dependency.

Just to name a few, they include the Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, Worker’s World Party, SEIU, and AFL-CIO.

Do not become one of the dupes.

The entire Occupy Wall Street action is a distraction from the Obama Administration’s and Democratic Party’s failed economic policies resulting in even higher unemployment rates and more people dependent upon government.

This is exactly why Obama intentionally implemented the first stimulus package and now asks for a second one relabeled the American Jobs Act.

Both Obama and Occupy Wall Street are executing the Cloward-Piven strategy to blame the high unemployment on business and not the government.

Government is the problem not the solution.

All the far left  radical parties are advocating more government in the form of socialism and communism as the solution.

Simply ignore Occupy Wall Street.

They will quickly fade into history and be soon forgotten.

Judge Napolitano: Freedom Is The Law Of The Land! ( Occupy Wall Street Protest ) ( OWS )

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Three and a Half Days

OCCUPY WALL STREET = BRAINWASHED SHEEP HIPPIES SOCIALISTS COMMUNISTS

Budding Occupy Wall Street Movement Gives Voice to Anger Over Greed, Corporations

What We Saw at the Occupy Wall Street Protest

Occupy Wall Street Organized by Acorn Front; Connection to Obama Admin & Socialist Parties

‘Occupy Wall Street’ Growing More Organized

Freedom Watch – Judge Napolitano’s Open Letter to Occupy Wall Street Oct 13, 2011

Obama SEIU’s Agenda is My Agenda

Andy Stern, SEIU President and Communist

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka Supporting Occupy Wall Street

Unions join w/ Occupy Wall St.

Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros’ Tides

Alex Jones – Webster Tarpley – George Soros Hijacking Occupy Wall Street  – part 1/2

Alex Jones – Webster Tarpley – George Soros Hijacking Occupy Wall Street  – part 2/2

Communist Jed Brandt_ We Need To Destroy The United States (Occupy Wall Street).

Communist Party Occupy Wall Street Conference Call 10/11/11

Occupy Wall Street: Communist and Marxist professor, Slavoj Zizek, galvanizes the crowd

Communist and Marxist Slavoj Zizek en Occupy Wall Street

Cornel West in Liberty Plaza Warns Protest Will Grow

Occupy Protests in LA and DC: Are Socialists, Crazies and Hate-Mongers Really the 99%?

[#OccupyWallstreet] Socialist Revolution at occupy wall street

#Occupy Wall Street Frances Fox Piven ‘We Desperately Need a Popular Uprising in the US’

Frances Fox Piven Fellow Professors Indoctrinating College Students at CUNY

Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros’ Tides, Code Pink and Michael Moore

George Soros backs anti-Wall Street protests

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 1

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 2

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 3

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 4

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 5

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 6

Background Articles and Videos

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 1

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 2

In Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, a man named Frank is mention. Frank is Frank Marshall Davis, member of the Communist Party an an early mentor of Barack Obama.

Paul Kengor (1 of 3)

Paul Kengor (2 of 3)

Paul Kengor (3 of 3)

Angela Davis interviewed by Julian Bond:  Explorations in Black Leadership Series

Angela Y. Davis

“…Angela Y. Davis (born January 26, 1944) is an American political activist, scholar, and author. Davis was most politically active during the late 1960s through the 1970s and was associated with the Communist Party USA, the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panther Party. Prisoner rights have been among her continuing interests; she is the founder of “Critical Resistance”, an organization working to abolish the “prison-industrial complex”. She is a retired professor with the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz and is the former director of the university’s Feminist Studies department.[1] Her research interests are in feminism, African American studies, critical theory, Marxism, popular music and social consciousness, and the philosophy and history of punishment and prisons.[2]

Her membership in the Communist Party led to Ronald Reagan’s request in 1969 to have her barred from teaching at any university in the State of California. She was tried and acquitted of suspected involvement in the Soledad brothers’ August 1970 abduction and murder of Judge Harold Haley in Marin County, California.

She was twice a candidate for Vice President on the Communist Party USA ticket during the 1980s. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

Working Families Party: Agendas, Activities, and Alliances

By Richard Poe
Discover The Networks
2005

Democratic Socialists of America

“…The Working Families Party (WFP) is a front group for the radical cult ACORN. It functions as a political party in New York State and Connecticut, promoting ACORN-friendly candidates. Unlike conventional political parties, WFP charges its members dues – about $60 per year – a policy characteristic of ACORN and its affiliates.

According to the party’s Web site, WFP is a coalition founded by ACORN, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Automobile Workers. However, ACORN clearly dominates the coalition. New York ACORN leader Steven Kest was the moving force in forming the party. WFP headquarters  is located at the same address as ACORN’s national office, at 88 Third Avenue in Brooklyn.

“The [Working Families Party] was created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left,” noted the Associated Press on March 28, 2000. In pursuit of this goal, WFP runs radical candidates in state and local elections. Generally, WFP candidates conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promoting bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union workers and other blue-collar voters, Republican and Democrat alike.

The Working Families Party benefits from a quirk of New York State election law, which allows parties to “cross-endorse” candidates of other parties. Thus when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she ran both on the Democratic Party ticket and on the Working Families Party ticket. Of the 3.4 million popular votes Hillary received from New Yorkers, the Working Families Party delivered 103,000. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wfpparty.html

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

  • Largest Socialist organization in the U.S.
  • Works closely with the radical Democratic Progressive Caucus

At the height of the Cold War and the Vietnam War era, the Socialist Party USA of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas split in two over the issue of whether to criticize or even denounce the Soviet Union, its allies, and Communism: One faction rejected and denounced the USSR and its allies, including Castro’s Cuba, the Sandinistas, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, and supported Poland’s Solidarity Movement, etc.  This anti-Communist faction took the name Social Democrats USA. (Many of its leaders — including Carl Gershman, who became Jeane Kirkpatrick’s counselor of embassy at the United Nations — grew more conservative and became Reagan Democrats.) The other faction, however, refused to reject Marxism, refused to criticize or denounce the Soviet Union and its allies, and continued to support their policies — including the Soviet-backed nuclear-freeze program that would have consolidated Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe. This faction, whose leading figure was Michael Harrington, in 1973 took the name Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), whose membership included many former Students for a Democratic Society activists. By 1979 DSOC had made major inroads into the Democratic Party and claimed a national membership of some 3,000 people. In 1982 DSOC merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

DSA describes itself as “the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International” and ranks as the largest socialist organization in the United States. “We are socialists,” reads the organization’s boilerplate, “because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.” “To achieve a more just society,” adds DSA, “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. … Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States.”

DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: “Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. … While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.”

DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. “Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party,” says DSA. “We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. … Maybe sometime in the future … an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.”

Until 1999, DSA hosted the website of the Progressive Caucus. Following a subsequent expose of the link between the two entities, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. But DSA and the Progressive Caucus remain intimately linked. All 58 Progressive Caucus members also belong to DSA. In addition to these members of Congress, other prominent DSA members include Noam Chomsky, Ed Asner, Gloria Steinem, and Cornel West, who serves as the organization’s honorary Chair.

DSA was a Cosponsoring Organization of the April 25, 2004 “March for Women’s Lives” held in Washington, D.C., a rally that drew more than a million demonstrators advocating for the right to unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

DSA was also a signatory to a petition of self-described “civil society” organizations that opposed globalization and “any effort to expand the powers of the World Trade Organization (WTO) through a new comprehensive round of trade liberalization.”

DSA endorsed Pay Equity Now! – a petition jointly issued in 2000 by the National Organization for Women, the Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women, and the International Wages for Housework Campaign – to “expose and oppose U.S. opposition to pay equity” for women. The petition charged that: “the U.S. government opposes pay equity – equal pay for work of equal value – in national policy and international agreements”; “women are often segregated in caring and service work for low pay, much like the housework they are expected to do for no pay at home”; and “underpaying women is a massive subsidy to employers that is both sexist and racist.”

In the wake of 9/11, DSA characterized the terror attacks as acts of retaliation for American-perpetrated global injustices. “We live in a world,” said DSA, “organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world’s population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure.”

Strongly opposed to the U.S. War on Terror and America’s post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.

DSA publishes a quarterly journal titled Democratic Left, which discusses issues of concern to the organization and its constituents. The Founding Editor of this publication was Michael Harrington. DSA has also created a youth association called Young Democratic Socialists.

Annual fees for membership in DSA range from $15 to $60 per year. DSA raises additional funds via sales made through its online Book Shop, which features dozens of titles by leftist authors, among whom are Michael Harrington, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Todd Gitlin, Stanley Aronowitz, Howard Zinn, Eric Foner, Tom Hayden, Manning Marable, Michael Eric Dyson, and Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward.

As of March 2010, some of DSA’s most notable honorary chairs included Barbara Ehrenreich, Dolores Huerta, Frances Fox Piven (co-creator of the Cloward-Piven Strategy), Eliseo Medina (executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union), Gloria Steinem, and Cornel West.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk0cQwX6B-I&feature=related

George Soros

“…George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. A New York  hedge fund manager, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at  about $13  billion (as of 2009). His company, Soros  Fund Management, controls at  least another $25  billion
in investor assets. Since 1979, Soros’s foundation network — whose  flagship is the Open  Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed more than $5 billion to  a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent  with those of Soros. With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI  alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these  various groups. Following  is a sampling of the major agendas advanced by groups that Soros and  OSI support financially. Listed under each category heading are a few
OSI donees fitting that description. …”

“…The Open Society Institute is not the only vehicle by which George  Soros works to reshape America’s political landscape. Indeed, Soros  was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow  Democratic Party,” or “Shadow  Party,” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of  labor unions, non-profit activist groups, and think  tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are  engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities  include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising,  opposition research, and media manipulation.

The Shadow Party  was conceived  and organized principally by George  Soros, Hillary  Clinton and Harold  McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic  Party left. Other key players included:

  • Morton  H. Halperin: Director of Soros’ Open  Society Institute
  • John  Podesta: Democrat strategist and former chief of staff for Bill  Clinton
  • Jeremy Rosner: Democrat strategist  and pollster, ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Bill Clinton
  • Robert Boorstin: Democrat  strategist and pollster, ex-national security speechwriter for Bill  Clinton
  • Carl  Pope: Co-founder of America  Coming Together, Democrat strategist, and Sierra  Club Executive Director
  • Steve  Rosenthal: Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, and  former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor Secretary  Robert  Reich
  • Peter  Lewis: Major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur
  • Rob Glaser: Major Democrat donor  and Silicon Valley pioneer
  • Ellen  Malcolm: Co-founder and President of America Coming  Together, and founder of EMILY’s  List
  • Rob McKay: Major Democrat donor,  Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President
  • Lewis and Dorothy Cullman: Major Democrat donors

To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes  undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left’s
traditional alliance of the “oppressed” and  “disenfranchised.” By the time Ickes was done, he had  created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a  seventh called MoveOn.org.
Together, these seven groups constituted the administrative core of  the newly formed Shadow Party:

  • America  Coming Together
  • America  Votes
  • Center  for American Progress
  • Joint  Victory Campaign 2004
  • Media  Fund
  • MoveOn.org
  • Thunder  Road Group

These organizations, along with the many leftist groups with which  they collaborate, have played a major role in helping Soros
advance his political and social agendas.

According  to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the 2006 book  The Shadow Party:

“The Shadow Party is the real power driving the  Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to  transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The  leader of these radicals is … George Soros. He has essentially  privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal  control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he  exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of  millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to  the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions  at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money  to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros  set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or  mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we  would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as  shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns,  and so forth.  However, it performs these functions under the  private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party  derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money.  By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make
or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund  him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more  than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its  operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli  Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party.  We bought it,  we own it…'”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

SEIU Stephen Lerner’s Plan to Sabotage American Economy and Stock Market and To Destroy Capitalism–Videos

Collectivists vs. Individualists: Occupy Wall Street Compared To Tea Party–Videos

Glenn Beck Is Back–Warning–Danger–The Marxist Roots of Occupy Wall Street–Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialists & SEIU–Executing The Cloward Piven Strategy–Videos

Public Sector Unions vs. The America People: Replacing The American Dream With The Socialist Union Nightmare–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Who is Gary Johnson?–Ron Paul’s Vice President Running Mate–Videos

Posted on September 24, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Technology, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , |

Gary Johnson On Why CNN Banned Him From Republican Debates

Gov. Gary Johnson Responds To Every Question Asked In CNN Debate He Was Excluded From

Who is Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?

Gary Johnson Part 1

Gary Johnson Part 2

Gary Johnson The New Ron Paul! pt.1

Gary Johnson The New Ron Paul! pt.2

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson In-Studio: Our America Initiative – Alex Jones Tv 1/3

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson In-Studio: Our America Initiative – Alex Jones Tv 2/3

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson In-Studio: Our America Initiative – Alex Jones Tv 3/3

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama The Tyrant Gun Grabber Uses ATF To Secretly Order Retailers To Spy On Their Customers!–Law Was Not Passed–Videos

Posted on August 1, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Federal Government, government, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Rifles, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Union, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

 

Obama Launches Gun Grab

 

ATF Attempts to Make Firearms Retailers Spy on Their Customers

 

 

ATF Requiring Multiple Sales Reporting of Long Guns; Firearms Industry to File Suit

“…The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for America’s firearms industry – announced today that it will file a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the Gun Control Act to compel 8,500 federally licensed firearms retailers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report the sale of two or more semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 caliber and capable of accepting a detachable magazine that are purchased following an FBI background check by the same individual within five consecutive business days.

At the time Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns it could have required it for the sale of long guns, but it did not. ATF is clearly exceeding its lawful authority under the Gun Control Act. Current ATF Acting Director Ken Melson himself has previously questioned ATF’s legal authority to impose this new requirement.

“While we encourage all retailers, not just those along the southwest border, to continue to cooperate with ATF and report any suspicious activity, this is the proverbial ’slippery slope,’ “ said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “If ATF can require this record keeping and reporting requirement of law-abiding retailers in these four states simply by sending a letter demanding the information, than there is no record or report ATF can not require of any licensee, anywhere in the country for as long as ATF wants. They simply need to send a letter demanding it,” said Keane.

Operation Fast and Furious confirms what ATF has always maintained, that retailers are a vital source of information for law enforcement in combating illegal firearm trafficking. These retailers routinely report questionable transactions to authorities, including ATF. Throughout the Fast and Furious congressional investigation, it was suggested that federally licensed retailers were the original source of information that gave rise to the operation and retailers allowed ATF special agents to stand behind the counter of their shops so that they were better able to observe the transactions.

Even if ATF had the legal authority to require sales reporting for long guns, it is an ill-considered policy that will actually make it more difficult for retailers to cooperate with ATF. Illegal firearms traffickers will simply alter their schemes to avoid and evade the reporting requirement. For example, traffickers could simply recruit more “straw purchasers” and have them illegally purchase firearms from multiple licensees, or simply move their illegal trafficking activities to other states where the reporting requirement does not exist. …”

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/nssf-to-file-suit-atf-southwest-gun-dealers-multiple-rifles_3184-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

 

Exclusive: ATF Intimidates Gun Owners With Home Visits

 

Federal agency attempts to make firearms retailers spy on their customers under new illegal directive

Paul Joseph Watson & Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
Friday, July 29, 2011

“…As the Justice Department announced earlier this month, “All gun shops in four Southwest border states (Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico) will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.”

The ATF letter also orders gun dealers to report to the feds sales of “two or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols or revolvers totaling two or more.”

The letter, which was subsequently sent out to gun dealers and has since entered the public domain, orders firearms retailers to “Submit to ATF reports of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, you sell to an unlicensed person or otherwise dispose of two or more semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber).” The directive takes effect from August 14, 2011.

However, what the federal agency isn’t keen to make public is how its agents are using these reports to make threatening home visits to firearms owners, while ordering gun store owners to become de facto informants by telling them to spy on their customers.

According to several gun dealers in Austin as well as one of our own staff members, the ATF is visiting people’s homes, demanding to be allowed inside without a warrant, and implying that gun owners could be terrorists for purchasing two or more firearms at a time.

Illustrating how lawless this is, a central Texas gun dealer who provided Alex Jones with the ATF letter, contacted Daniel Jones, the head of the ATF in Austin two weeks before receiving the letter to ask about news reports that President Obama was going to order the investigation of citizens that bought two or more rifles. Agent Jones told him “no that law is not going to pass, and we can’t enforce something that isn’t law so don’t worry about it.” Of course, the law didn’t pass but the ATF later enforced it anyway.

This is all based on a directive from the federal government that is completely outside of the law and unconstitutional. The law that would have required gun dealers in border states to report sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to the ATF was “stripped entirely from the text of the regulation” when it came up for a vote in Congress on April 15, but as part of the Obama administration’s dictatorial zeal to accomplish its agenda outside of the law, the program is going ahead anyway.

The federal government is enforcing a law that was never passed. …”

http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-atf-intimidates-gun-owners-with-home-visits/

obama launches gun grab

“…The ATF’s intimidation campaign directed against firearms dealers and gun owners is all unfolding while the organization simultaneously comes under scrutiny for the infamous Operation Fast and Furious, a BATF program that. “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.” Some of the weapons were later used to kill US Border Patrol agents like Brian Terry.

After being caught sending weapons to Mexican criminals that were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol agents, police and citizens, the ATF is now treating American citizens like criminals simply for exercising their second amendment rights, all under the guise of a regulation that was rejected by Congress and never became law.

The Obama administration and the ATF claim that the Fast and Furious program was part of a sting operation to catch leading Mexican drug runners, and yet it’s admitted that the government stopped tracking the firearms as soon as they reached the border, defeating the entire object of the mission, unless the mission was about pushing through gun control in the US and had nothing to do with the drug war.

As the evidence clearly indicates, Operation Fast and Furious was likely a plot on behalf of the administration to discredit the second amendment. While the feds were selling guns to Mexican drug gangs, Obama was simultaneously blaming drug violence on the flow of guns from border states to Mexico.

The ATF’s efforts to intimidate both gun sellers and purchasers also arrives months after President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration was working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment.

During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley. …”

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/9935321/

Related Posts On Pronk Palasades

Obama’s Gungate: Update On Operation Fast and Furious–Videos

Obama’s Gungate: Operation Fast and Furious–Arming Mexican Drug Cartels and Criminals–Killing American and Mexican Citizens–A Pretext For The Ultimate Aim of Disarming The American People and Repealing the Second Amendment–Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, BATFE, ICE and DEA Coverup and Stonewalling–Call For Special Prosecutor–President Obama and Attorney General Holder Should Be Impeached For Obstruction of Justice–Videos–Updated

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America–Videos

The History of Gun Control –Videos

Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution–The Individual’s Right To Keep and Bear Arms–Gun Registration, Bans and Gun Confiscation–Videos

War On Drugs–War On American People and Their Right To Own Guns–Videos

The M16 Assault Rifle–Videos

Fn Five-Seven Pistol–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos

Posted on April 11, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Economics, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Union, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12,  2011

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7,  2011

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7,  2011

The FairTax: It’s Time

 

EAT THE RICH!


 

Reagan on Balanced Budget

 

Shelby Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution

 

Mark Udall Co-sponsors the Balanced Budget Amendment

 

Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.”

 

3/09/11: Sen. Rand Paul on balancing the budget

 

Sen Paul and DeMint at CR Rally

 

Mike Pence at Continuing Revolution Rally

 

Advice to Tea Partiers

 

Debt Ceiling Balanced Budget

 

New Tea Party Senator will push for balance budget amendment

 

Today’s Fight is Not the Main Event

 

Details on the Balanced Budget Amendment

 Requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress each February.
 Requires Congress to appropriate a balanced budget annually.
 Caps annual spending at 20% of the economy.
 Requires any tax increase be subject to 2/3 House and Senate approval.
 All above limitations can be waived by 2/3 majority or by simple majority in times of War or if Congress deems a military conflict to be an imminent risk to national security.
 There have been at least 15 attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
 In 1997, passage of the amendment failed by 1 vote

 

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on “Glenn Beck” with Judge Napolitano 03/07/11

 

Fox News Reports on Hatch-Cornyn Balanced Budget Amendment 1-26-11


Hatch Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment

 

Inhofe: We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment Now More Than Ever

 

Inhofe Blasts Obama Budget and Federal Spending

 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 31, 2011

TABLE I -- SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
                                              Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
                                              By the Public         Holdings
Marketable:
  Bills.......................................        1,694,692                     3,809                1,698,501
  Notes.......................................        5,843,938                     3,933                5,847,871
  Bonds.......................................          931,474                     3,815                  935,289
  Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities.....          640,714                       125                  640,840
  Federal Financing Bank  1  .................                0                    10,239                   10,239
Total Marketable  a...........................        9,110,819                    21,921 2              9,132,740
Nonmarketable:
  Domestic Series.............................           29,995                         0                   29,995
  Foreign Series..............................            3,786                         0                    3,786
  State and Local Government Series...........          181,922                         0                  181,922
  United States Savings Securities............          186,864                         0                  186,864
  Government Account Series...................          136,956                 4,596,057                4,733,014
  Hope Bonds 19...............................                0                       493                      493
  Other.......................................            1,301                         0                    1,301
Total Nonmarketable  b........................          540,824                 4,596,550                5,137,374
Total Public Debt Outstanding ................        9,651,643                 4,618,471               14,270,115
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
                                              Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
                                                 By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
  Public Debt Outstanding.....................        9,651,643                 4,618,471               14,270,115
  Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
    Other Debt Not Subject to Limit...........              488                         0                      488
    Unamortized Discount  3...................           20,388                    20,657                   41,046
    Federal Financing Bank  1     ............                0                    10,239                   10,239
    Hope Bonds 19.............................                0                       493                      493
  Total Public Debt Subject to Limit..........        9,630,767                 4,587,082               14,217,849
  Other Debt Subject to Limit:
    Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies  4                13                         0                       13
  Total Public Debt Subject to Limit .........        9,630,780                 4,587,082               14,217,862
  Statutory Debt Limit  5.....................................................................          14,294,000
  Balance of Statutory Debt Limit.............................................................              76,138
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
www.TreasuryDirect.gov

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds032011.prn
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Truth And Consequences About Undeclared Wars–Real Strange Bedfellows–Obama Allies U.S. with Libyan Rebels Including Islamic Jihadists, Moslem Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda!–Give Peace A Chance–AC-130 Gunship–A-10 Warthogs– Videos

Posted on March 28, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Taxes, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 21: March 29, 2011  

 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-21



Listen To Pronk  Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15



Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in
extending our commercial relations to have as little political
connection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of
any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of
European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is our
true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of
the foreign world.”

~President George Washington

 

“As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.”

~George Orwell

 

UPDATE April 1, 2011

Obamas Secret Order – Covert Action To Assist Armed Insurrection

 

Lew Rockwell: US enjoys sending Tomahawks, killing

 

US Military Dictatorship as the Economy Goes Off a Cliff

 

The Plain Truth on Undeclared Wars

 

Ron Paul on Freedom Watch: Obama Believes In One World Government , Not National Sovereignty

 

Fighting moves to Libya’s center, NATO accused of taking sides

 

Give Peace A Chance

 

AC-130 Gunships

 

 

AC130 Gunship In Operation Iraqi Freedom

 

 

A-10 “Warthogs from hell”

 

A-10 Gun Run

 

USAF OA-10 Forward Air Controller-Airborne (FAC-A) Demo

 

 

Gen. Wesley Clark – 3rd Interview today – Libya

Jeremy Clarkson in an F15E – Briefing and Flight

 

The Precautionary Principle Who Benefits?

 

 

Obama: The cost of not acting in Libya

President Barack Obama’s Speech on Libya (March 28, 2011)

 

Owning Up: Obama measures US interests in Libya

 

Palin on Obama Speech Libya Action

 

Ron Paul : We Blow Up Countries And Then Rebuild Them!

 

 

 

Retired Air Force General Wesley Clark reveals the 2001 long range strategic five year plan of the United States  political and military establishement to take down the leaders of seven Islamic middle eastern countries  nation with regime change:

 

1. Iraq

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

2. Syria

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html

3. Lebanon

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html

4. Libya

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html

5. Somalia

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

6. Sudan

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html

7. Iran

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

Wesley Clark exposes plan to attack Iraq after 9-11-01

 

War Plan, Seven Countries In Five Years

 

END WAR: British Propaganda (BBC) Prods US For Military Action In Libya; Inserts Rwanda Genocide

 

Libya: Show Me the Money

 

US Marches to War w/Libya?

 

Glenn Beck-03/28/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-03/28/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-03/28/11-C

 

Ron Paul “This Is NOT A War Against Al Qaeda! If Anything It Gives Incentive For Al Qaeda To Grow!”

 

“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. “

~President George Washtington

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

~George Orwell

 

War (What Is It Good For?)

 

Background Articles and Videos

Wesley Clark

Wesley Kanne Clark, Sr., KBE (born December 23, 1944) is a retired general of the United States Army. Graduating as valedictorian of his class at West Point, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master’s degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000.

Clark joined the 2004 race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination as a candidate on September 17, 2003, but withdrew from the primary race on February 11, 2004, after winning the Oklahoma state primary, endorsing and campaigning for the eventual Democratic nominee, John Kerry. Clark currently leads a political action committee—”WesPAC”—which was formed after the 2004 primaries,[1][2] and used it to support numerous Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 midterm elections.[3] Clark was considered a potential candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but, on September 15, 2007, endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton.[4] After Clinton dropped out of the Presidential race, Clark endorsed the then-presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.[5] Clark currently serves as the co-chairman of Growth Energy, an ethanol lobbying group[6][7] and on the board of directors of BNK Petroleum.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:General_Wesley_Clark_official_photograph,_edited.jpg

Lockheed AC-130

“…The Lockheed AC-130 gunship is a heavily-armed ground-attack aircraft. The basic airframe is manufactured by Lockheed, and Boeing is responsible for the conversion into a gunship and for aircraft support.[1] It is a variant of the C-130 Hercules transport plane. The AC-130A Gunship II superseded the AC-47 Gunship I during the Vietnam War.

The gunship’s sole user is the United States Air Force, which uses AC-130H Spectre and AC-130U Spooky variants.[2] The AC-130H “Spectre” is powered by four Allison T56-A-15 turboprops and is armed with two 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannons, one Bofors 40mm autocannon, and one 105 mm M102 cannon. The upgraded AC-130U “Spooky” has a single 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer in place of the Spectre’s twin 20 mm cannons, as well as an improved fire control system and increased capacity for ammunition. It has a standard crew of twelve or thirteen airmen, including five officers (two pilots, a navigator, an electronic warfare officer, and a fire control officer) and enlisted personnel (flight engineer, sensor operators, aerial gunners, and a loadmaster).

The US Air Force uses the AC-130 gunships for close air support, air interdiction, air missions, bombing raid, and force protection. Close air support roles include supporting ground troops, escorting convoys, and flying urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against planned targets and targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include defending air bases and other facilities. AC-130U Spooky gunships are stationed at Hurlburt Field in Northwest Florida and the AC-130H models are stationed at Cannon AFB, New Mexico. The gunship squadrons are part of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), a component of United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM). …”

“…he United States used gunships during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (2001– ), and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq (2003–2010). In 2007 U.S. Special Operations forces used the AC-130 in attacks on suspected al-Qaeda militants in Somalia.[24][25]

There are eight AC-130H and seventeen AC-130U aircraft in active-duty service as of July 2010.[2]

In March 2011 the US Air Force deployed two AC-130s to take part in Operation Odyssey Dawn, the military intervention in Libya.[26]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

 

A-10 Thunderbolt II

“…The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is an American single-seat, twin-engine, straight-wing jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic in the early 1970s. The A-10 was designed for a United States Air Force requirement to provide close air support (CAS) for ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets with a limited air interdiction capability. It is the first U.S. Air Force aircraft designed exclusively for close air support.[3]

The A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 Avenger, a heavy automatic cannon which forms the aircraft’s primary armament. The aircraft’s hull incorporates over 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of armor and was designed with survivability as a priority, with protective measures in place which enable the aircraft to continue flying even after taking significant damage.

The A-10’s official name comes from the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt of World War II, a fighter that was particularly effective at close air support. The A-10 is more commonly known by its nickname “Warthog” or simply “Hog”.[4] As a secondary mission, it provides airborne forward air control, guiding other aircraft against ground targets. A-10s used primarily in this role are designated OA-10.[5] The A-10 is expected to be replaced in 2028 or later. …”

“…Afghanistan and Iraq Wars

During the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, A-10s did not take part in the initial stages. For the campaign against Taliban and Al Qaeda, A-10 squadrons were deployed to Pakistan and Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, beginning in March 2002. These A-10s participated in Operation Anaconda. Afterwards, A-10s remained in-country, fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants.[77]

Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 20 March 2003. Sixty OA-10/A-10 aircraft took part in early combat there.[78] United States Air Forces Central issued Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers, a declassified report about the aerial campaign in the conflict on 30 April 2003. During that initial invasion of Iraq, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 85% in the war and fired 311,597 rounds of 30 mm ammunition. A single A-10 was shot down near Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi fire late in the campaign. The A-10 also flew 32 missions in which the aircraft dropped propaganda leaflets over Iraq.[79]

The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in the third quarter of 2007 with the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland Air National Guard. The jets include the Precision Engagement Upgrade.[80] The A-10C’s digital avionics and communications systems have greatly reduced the time to acquire a close air support target and attack it.[81]

On 25 March 2010, an A-10 conducted the first flight of an aircraft with all engines powered by a biofuel blend. The flight, performed at Eglin Air Force Base, used a 1:1 blend of JP-8 and Camelina-based fuel.[82]

Libya

In March 2011, six A-10s were deployed as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the coalition intervention in Libya. They participated in attacks on Libyan ground forces there. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

F-15E Strike Eagle

“…The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15E Strike Eagle is an American all-weather multirole fighter. The F-15E was designed in the 1980s for long-range, high speed interdiction without relying on escort or electronic warfare aircraft. It is a major derivative of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter. United States Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles can be distinguished from other U.S. Eagle variants by darker camouflage and conformal fuel tanks mounted along the engine intakes.

The Strike Eagle has been deployed in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force, carrying out deep strikes against high-value targets, combat air patrols, and providing close air support for coalition troops. It has also seen action in later conflicts and has been exported to several countries. …”

“…Operation Odyssey Dawn

Following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011, 10 USAF F-15E fighters, and a variety of other US aircraft were deployed to enforce the Libyan no-fly zone as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. On 21 March 2011, an F-15E Strike Eagle 91-304 crashed in Libya, near Bengazi.[48] Both crew members parachuted into territory held by resistance elements of the Libyan population and were sheltered by the resistance until they were rescued by a Marine Corps CSAR mission. An equipment malfunction is the reason stated for the crash.[49][50][51] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle

Forward air control

“…Forward air control is the provision of guidance to Close Air Support (CAS)[1] aircraft intended to ensure that their attack hits the intended target and does not injure friendly troops. This task is carried out by a forward air controller (FAC).[2] For NATO forces the qualifications and experience required to be a FAC are set out in a NATO Standard (STANAG). FACs may form part of a Fire Support Team or Tactical Air Control Party, they may be ground based, airborne FACs in fixed wing aircraft (FAC-A) or in helicopters (ABFAC).[3] Since 2003 the United States Armed Forces have used the term joint terminal attack controller (JTAC) for some of their ground based FACs,[4][5] and this term was used for Vietnamese Forward Air Controllers and was not used in reference to any US Air Force Forward Air Controllers. [6]

A primary function of a Forward Air Controller is ensuring the safety of friendly troops. Enemy targets in the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) are often close to friendly forces and therefore friendly forces are at risk of friendly fire through proximity during air attack. The danger is twofold: the bombing pilot cannot identify the target clearly, and is not aware of the locations of friendly forces. Camouflage, constantly changing situation and the fog of war all increase the risk. Air interdiction the term used for air attacks conducted at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required, thus it by definition does not involve the participation of a FAC.[7] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_air_control

 

This entry is the total oil exported in barrels per day (bbl/day), including both crude oil and oil products

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html?countryName=Libya&countryCode=ly&regionCode=af&rank=16

Rank
country (bbl/day) Date of Information
1 Saudi Arabia
8,728,000
2007 est.
2 Russia
5,430,000
2009
3 United Arab Emirates
2,700,000
2007 est.
4 Iran
2,400,000
2010 est.
5 Kuwait
2,349,000
2007 est.
6 Nigeria
2,327,000
2007 est.
7 European Union
2,196,000
2008 est.
8 Venezuela
2,182,000
2007 est.
9 Norway
2,150,000
2009 est.
10 Canada
2,001,000
2008 est.
11 Iraq
1,910,000
2009 est.
12 Algeria
1,891,000
2007 est.
13 United States
1,704,000
2008 est.
14 Netherlands
1,660,000
2008 est.
15 Libya
1,542,000
2007 est.
16 Angola
1,407,000
2007 est.
17 United Kingdom
1,393,000
2008 est.
18 Singapore
1,374,000
2007 est.
19 Kazakhstan
1,345,000
2009 est.
20 Mexico
1,225,000
2009 est.

 

This entry is the total natural gas exported in cubic meters (cu m).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2183rank.html?countryName=Libya&countryCode=ly&regionCode=af&rank=20

Rank
country (cu m) Date of Information
1 Russia
179,100,000,000
2009
2 Norway
98,850,000,000
2009 est.
3 Canada
94,670,000,000
2009 est.
4 Algeria
59,670,000,000
2008 est.
5 Qatar
56,780,000,000
2008 est.
6 Netherlands
55,590,000,000
2009 est.
7 Indonesia
33,500,000,000
2008 est.
8 Malaysia
31,030,000,000
2008 est.
9 United States
30,350,000,000
2009 est.
10 Australia
22,300,000,000
2009 est.
11 Nigeria
20,550,000,000
2008 est.
12 Kazakhstan
17,660,000,000
2008 est.
13 Trinidad and Tobago
17,360,000,000
2008 est.
14 Uzbekistan
15,000,000,000
2008 est.
15 Turkmenistan
14,000,000,000
2009 est.
16 Germany
12,640,000,000
2009 est.
17 United Kingdom
12,170,000,000
2009 est.
18 Bolivia
11,590,000,000
2010 est.
19 Oman
10,890,000,000
2008 est.
20 Libya
10,400,000,000
2008 est.

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Obama Moves Right–Neocons Move Left–Meet Me In Libya To Lynch Muammar Gaddafi–Obama Wags The Dog–Videos

America Goes To War, Obama Goes On Vacation–America’s Unconstitional and Undeclared Preventive War For Libya’s Oil and Natural Gas For France, Great Britain and Italy–United (Nations) We Stand Or Fall With The Warfare and Welfare Economy and State!–Videos

F-15 Fighter Crashes Near Benghazi, Libya–Pilots Ejected and Rescued–Video

One Unconstitutional and Undeclared War Too Many: The Great Pretender, Peace Candidate And Noble Peace Prize Winner, President Barack Obama Undeclared War On Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi In Defense Of Libyian Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Rebels Linked To al-Qaeda and The BP Libyian Oil Deal Linked To Obama Campaign Contributions–A Political Payoff!–Obama Has To Go In 2012–Videos

Pattern Recognition and Connecting The Dots On The Muslim Brotherhood–Videos

Shariah, the Threat–The Team B II Report–Videos

Understanding Jihad–Videos

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Unions and Progressive Radical Socialists Plans To Bring Down Capitalism and Redistribute The Wealth In The United States–Videoes

Posted on March 23, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, Money, Private Sector, Public Sector, Strategy, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Financial Terrorism in America

Glenn Beck-03/23/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-03/23/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-03/23/11-C

 

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

“…Here are the key remarks:

Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn’t be paying anything…

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich…

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don’t want to give any details because I don’t know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  – we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

SEIU Stephen Lerner’s Plan to Sabotage American Economy and Stock Market and To Destroy Capitalism–Videos

Posted on March 22, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Taxes, Union, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0311reuss.html

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2006/03/union-membership-trends-in-us-private.html

 

UPDATED

Stephen Lerner, former SEIU memeber, plan for strike (Occupy Wall Street): FULL Uncut Version

Glenn Beck-03/22/11-A

Glenn Beck-03/22/11-B

SEIU Planned Destruction of Capitalism

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

“…Here are the key remarks:

Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn’t be paying anything…

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich…

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don’t want to give any details because I don’t know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  – we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

Revealed — The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign by a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth & Power

UNCUT TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-the-lefts-economic-terrorism-playbook-the-chase-campaign-for-a-coalition-of-unions-community-groups-lawmakers-and-students-to-take-down-us-capitalism-and-redistribute-wealth-power/

Background Articles and Videos

Explaining the Employee Free Choice Act

Wall Street’s “Bizarro World” for CEO Bonuses

SEIU on CNBC: Fire CEO Ken Lewis

(1 of 3) Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor

(2 of 3) Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor

(3 of 3) Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor

SEIU: The Early Years | beginning

SEIU Official Apparently Taped Plotting to Disrupt Wall Street, Crash Stock Market

“…An official formerly with one of the nation’s most prominent unions, SEIU, was apparently caught on tape with a plan to take down JP Morgan Chase, the stock market, and ultimately bridge the gap between the rich and poor.

The voice of what sounds like Stephen Lerner, a former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) official, was caught on tape which were published on The Blaze website. He was speaking at a Pace University forum several days ago. SEIU is the fastest-growing union in the country with 2.2 million members.

The tape, which was published on several sites including YouTube , generated a bit of buzz throughout the Internet, including message boards and on other forums.

“We need to figure out in a much more, through direct action, much more concrete way how we really are trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital, for how corporations operate,” the voice said.

He added that there are “extraordinary things” that one could do to “destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.” One of those things includes taking down the stock market to make way for the lower and middle classes in America. …”

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/seiu-official-apparently-taped-plotting-to-disrupt-wall-street-crash-stock-market-53412.html

Unions see sharp membership declines again

Union membership falls sharply; private sector union ranks at pre-WWII levels

“… The nation’s labor unions saw another steep decline in membership last year, even as the economy showed signs of recovery and job losses slowed.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that unions lost 612,000 members in 2010, dropping the unionized share of the work force to 11.9 percent from 12.3 percent in 2009. That follows a loss of 771,000 workers in 2008, continuing a steady decline from the 1950s when more than a third of workers belonged to unions.

The news comes as union officials are pressing President Barack Obama and other leaders to invest more money in infrastructure projects like repairing highways and bridges to help stimulate the economy and create new jobs. That plea is meeting stiff resistance from Republicans intent on cutting spending sharply to pare back the rising national debt.

Union membership in the private sector fell from 7.2 percent to 6.9 percent, a low point not seen since the infancy of the labor movement in the 1930s. The steepest decline was seen in the construction industry, where unemployment remains around 20 percent.

Public employment unions saw a 1.2 percent decline, mostly from job cuts among state and local government workers. Those unions could see further declines this year, as states eliminate jobs in an effort to make up multibillion-dollar budget deficits.

“In the absence of federal support for state and local governments, public sector cutbacks will continue to depress the overall union membership rate,” said Ben Zipperer, a senior research associate of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. …”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unions-see-sharp-membership-apf-2604944800.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Public Sector Unions vs. The America People: Replacing The American Dream With The Socialist Union Nightmare–Videos

Posted on March 1, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Union, Unions, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

~Letter From President Franklin D. Roosevelt

It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare…”

~George Meany, AFL-CIO

To  the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937

 

14 Trillion – U.S. National Debt reaches $14 Trillion dollars, will NEVER be repaid

 

U.S Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Economic Collapse 101 for Dummies

 

Ron Paul: I’ll Vote Against Raising the Debt Limit

 

Public Sector Unions vs. America

 

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

 

Unions Destroying American Economy. Non-Union (Right-to-Work) States better Economys

 

Glenn Beck-03/01/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-03/01/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-03/01/11-C

 

Wisconsin Gov. Walker: “We’re Broke”

Money Grubbing Thugs: Public Sector Unions Can’t Stop Devouring Taxpayer Money

 

Unions Threatened Across US

 

Wisconsin Governor Threatens To Call Out National Guard As Union-Busting Tactic

“Wisconsin Governor & Republican Lawmakers Homes Swarmed By Protesters”

 

Armand Thieblot on Public Sector Unions (1/2)

Armand Thieblot on Public Sector Unions (2/2)

Unions in America

 

The war against unions

 

Unions need to organize unemployed workers

 

The union non-union gap

 

Percentage of Workers Who Belong to Unions, 1995-2010
Membership as a Percentage of Wage and Salary Workers

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff11.cfm

 

 

Glenn Beck-02/28/11-A

 

 

Glenn Beck-02/28/11-B

 

 

Glenn Beck-02/28/11-C

 

Government Unions Gone Wild!

 

 

SEIU & Democrats, the Real Hateful Racists

 

Wisconsin Union Backers vs Tea Party Activists

 

 

Peter Schiff – Do We Need More Labor Unions?

Labor Economics

 

Does Obama Represent the Country or SEIU?

 

Barack Obama Addresses SEIU’s 2008 Convention

What life in America could be again WITHOUT the UAW and Unions! FORD PLANT CAMACARI

 

Ari Fleischer Says Obama Needs To Focus On National Debt In SOTU

 

Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Republican Response to State of the Union Address

 

Background Articles and Videos

Public Choice – Rent Seeking

 

 

Power of the Market – Labor

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [2/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

 

 

The New Face of the Union Movement: Government Employees

Published on September 1, 2010 by James Sherk

Abstract: Unions have been a familiar part of American working life for more than 70 years. Less familiar is the state of the union movement today: More union members now work for the government than for private employers. The above-market salaries and benefits that government employees receive are paid for by taxpayers. So, the union movement that began as a campaign to improve working conditions and salaries for workers in the private sector, now pushes for ever-higher taxes to increase the generous compensation that government employees enjoy. Heritage Foundation labor policy expert James Sherk details the changes in the union movement, and explains how Congress can react to this new reality.

“…The American union movement has reached a historic milestone—more union members currently work for the government than for private businesses. As a result, the union movement’s priorities have shifted. Because taxes fund government pay and benefits, unions are now pushing for tax increases across the country. The union movement that once campaigned to raise private-sector workers’ wages has transformed into a government union movement that campaigns to raise their taxes.How did this happen? Union organizing surged after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935. But because union contracts raise costs, unionized businesses generally grow more slowly than non-union firms. Market competition has caused union membership to gradually fall in the private sector since the 1950s. The new government unions created in the 1960s could safely demand inflated pay without putting their jobs at risk. Now most union members work for the government.The early trade unionists did not believe that unions had a place in government. They believed the purpose of unions was to redistribute profits from business owners to workers—and the government makes no profits. The government labor movement has become a powerful special interest lobby to raise taxes on working Americans to raise the level of compensation for government workers. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize this lobbying. Congress should prohibit federal unions from using the federal payroll system to automatically deduct union dues from government employees’ paychecks. …”

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/the-new-face-of-the-union-movement-government-employees

Union Membership (Annual) News Release

For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 21, 2011                    USDL-11-0063

Technical information:  (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  http://www.bls.gov/cps
Media contact:          (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

UNION MEMBERS — 2010

In 2010, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union–was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers be-
longing to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for
which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per-
cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population Sur-
vey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains informa-
tion on employment and unemployment among the nation’s civilian noninstitutional
population age 16 and over. For more information see the Technical Note.

Highlights from the 2010 data:

–The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2  percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
(See table 3.)

–Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate at 37.1 percent. (See table 3.)

–Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian,
or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

–Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent)
and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). (See table 5.)

Industry and Occupation of Union Members

In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1
million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public
sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private
sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers
had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in
heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.
Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and
utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1
percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related indus-
tries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent). (See table 3.)

Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.1 per-
cent) and protective service occupations (34.1 percent) had the highest unionization
rates in 2010.  Sales and related occupations (3.2 percent) and farming, fishing, and
forestry occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates. (See table 3.)

Demographic Characteristics of Union Members

The union membership rate was higher for men (12.6 percent) than for women (11.1 per-
cent) in 2010. (See table 1.) The gap between their rates has narrowed considerably
since 1983, when the rate for men was about 10 percentage points higher than the rate
for women. Between 1983 and 2010, the union membership rate for men declined by almost
half (12.1 percentage points), while the rate for women declined by 3.5 percentage
points.

In 2010, among major race and ethnicity groups, black workers were more likely to be
union members (13.4 percent) than workers who were white (11.7 percent), Asian (10.9
percent), or Hispanic (10.0 percent). Black men had the highest union membership rate
(14.8 percent), while Asian men had the lowest rate (9.4 percent).

By age, the union membership rate was highest among 55- to 64-year-old workers (15.7
percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred among those ages 16 to 24 (4.3
percent).

Union Representation

In 2010, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union. This group
includes both union members (14.7 million) and workers who report no union affiliation
but whose jobs are covered by a union contract (1.6 million). (See table 1.) Govern-
ment employees (783,000) comprised about half of the 1.6 million workers who were
covered by a union contract but were not members of a union. (See table 3.)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers