December 2011 Archives
Just like he "said" he would veto this fascist bill but did not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z3JLKw0q4kY
Edited by TippyCanoe n K8
Barr2012 A womans voice, the Freethinkers choice.
http://warisacrime.org/content/christmas-day-1914
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A
What is so important about Nicola Tesla and why are his technologies hidden from the public?
Here's the late Christopher Hitchens on the radio with Roseanne and Johnny from their KCAA radio show that they did out of Las Vegas back in 2007. His debate adversary is James Herson. It runs for awhile (about 30 minutes). If you like intelligent and spirited discussion, you should enjoy!
Cross-posted from ADAM HOLLAND http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-ron-paul-appear-on-white.htmlDid Ron Paul appear on white supremacist radio show? According to a contemporaneous blog post by a Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul appeared on the nation's most popular white supremacist radio program, The Political Cesspool.
This Is No Middle Class Tax Cut
by Alan Reynolds
This article appeared in New York Daily News on December 12, 2011.
To hear President Obama tell it, Republicans in Congress "actually said 'no' to cutting taxes for middle class families." The deal he struck a year ago was to keep the Bush tax cuts through 2012 in exchange for a one-year reduction in employee payroll taxes -- the levies that fund Social Security and Medicare -- to 4.2% from 6.2%. The year is up and the President hopes to renege on the deal. He now wants to cut the payroll tax in half -- to 3.1% -- and Congress is expected to vote on it this week, perhaps as soon as Tuesday.
Seniors take note: Does this sound like a plan to shore up Social Security? True, the President says this would be for just one more year, but that's what he said last year. Can you imagine Obama running for President by promising to put payroll taxes back up to 6.2%? If congressional Republicans step into this trap now, they will surely be chastised again next November if they dare to question yet another extension of what began as a one-year tax break.
Calling this perennial payroll tax holiday a 'middle class tax cut' is an outright hoax.
If the President and congressional Democrats have their way, this temporary tax cut would be paid for by permanent taxes on high incomes. By defining failure to raise tax rates on the rich as equivalent to cutting their taxes, Republicans are easily depicted as denying tax cuts for the middle class to protect tax cuts for the rich. This is doubly deceptive. The fact is that much higher tax rates on higher incomes have already been enacted for 2013-2014.
But there's a bigger point that's far too often ignored: Calling this perennial payroll tax holiday a "middle class tax cut" is an outright hoax.
Former Census Bureau economists at Sentier Research, John Coder and Gordon Green, estimate that more than half of this year's payroll tax cuts went to the most affluent 20%, while only 15% went to those with incomes below the median. Among the 77% of U.S. households who pay any payroll taxes, they find the top 10% got 31.3% of this so-called "middle class" tax cut while the middle 10% got 6.1%.
Alan Reynolds a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is the author of Income and Wealth(Greenwood Press 2006).
More by Alan ReynoldsThe reason the bulk of payroll taxes are paid by the top 10-20% is not just because they earn more, but because they have more full-time workers per family. For 2010, the Census Bureau counts 48.3 million workers in the top fifth, 31.6 million in the middle and 10.2 million at the bottom.
And, unlike families with higher incomes from two full-time salaries, those with lower incomes are often retired or work part-time. There were about eight times as many full-time workers in the top 20% (16.6 million) as there were in the bottom 20% (2.2 million).
The point is, the President's incessant complaint that Republicans have blocked higher income tax rates for "the rich" -- which he suggests is a major reason for our terrible fiscal situation -- is a monumental fabrication. All of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of next year, which will raise the top tax rate to 39.6% from 35% while also phasing-out deductions and personal exemptions at higher incomes.
On top of that, the Federal Health Care Act will add a 3.8% surtax on investment income, pushing the top tax rate to 23.8% on capital gains and 43.4% on dividends -- up from 15% today. And on top of that, the congressional Democrats are now proposing an extra surtax on incomes above $1 million -- ostensibly to "pay for" this one-year reduction of payroll taxes that primarily benefits the top 20%.
Add it all up, and it's a ridiculous and counterproductive shell game.
This is not the first time the President has tried to change the rules of the game. He also bushwhacked the supercommittee by giving a televised speech to a joint session of Congress proposing to add $447 billion to the deficit to fund what he called vital job creation measures, even as the committee was struggling to reduce future deficits by a mere $120 billion a year.
To put such $120 billion deficit-reduction goals in perspective, Sentier Research estimates that the President's plan to cut the Social Security tax rate in half would add $187 billion to next year's deficit. Yet Obama calls this "stepping on the gas" of the economy, as though adding more and more to the national debt is a gift to the jobless. If so, it's Greek to me.
Borrowing from Peter to lend Paul a temporary tax cut doesn't "put more money in people's pockets." It puts more IOUs in their pockets. That is, it puts Paul even deeper in debt to Peter, and therefore obligated to pay more taxes in the future to repay that loan with interest.
The best way to pay for another temporary cut in the payroll tax is to not pass it.
Buy this candy support a great cause. http://www.kingsfreelines.com/
The documentary http://www.inthelandofthefreefilm.co.uk/trailer.aspx
/
OPERATION LIBERTY BELL
© Gary Michael Coutin 2011
In 1776, delegates of the United Colonies of North America met in Philadelphia to proclaim their intention to create a nation based upon the principles that "all men were created equal." In 1787, delegations from twelve states met in the same building now called Independence Hall and instituted a "Constitution" under which some people were "three fifths of a person." The two documents are irreconciliable and repugnant to one another. If the Declaration of Independence is true, then the Electoral College is necessarily false. Did the Framers of the Constitution intend to "repeal" the Declaration of Independence? Abraham Lincoln and the entire Republican Party of his day answered the question in the negative.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature of the Constitution of 1787 unlawfully and unconstitutionally inserted into that Constitution which cannot be removed by the means set forth in that Constitution. The Electoral College was adopted as part of a structural deviation from the principles of the creation of the nation set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The deviation from the Declaration principles by the Constitution of 1787 caused the Civil War. The Civil War (and its laws, actions, and amendments) were intended to resolve all the causes of the Civil War including the Electoral College. The Electoral College came in (to the Constitution) with slavery; therefore the Electoral College must be deemed to have gone out (of the Constitution) with slavery. The Electoral College is a "relic" of slavery; the Electoral College is a mechanism of slavery. The Electoral College imposes upon America a government without the "consent of the governed."
In 1958, a political scientist from Princeton named Lucius Wilmerding so concluded after studying the Electoral College for the Government of the United States.
The law of the Electoral College violates the Constitution itself. For if the majority of the people, could by mutual agreement enter into a binding social compact, then certainly a majority of the country could by direct and popular vote choose the leader of the executive branch of government established under that Constitution.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->
If the Electoral College is "unconstitutional" then no further legislative action is required to abolish it. Since the Electoral College is "unconstitutional" a lawsuit is sufficient to challenge it. The Electoral College, in fact, is a system of laws, some of which are national laws and some are state laws. None of these laws are constitutional. Operation Liberty Bell proposes a simple legal challenge: AS BETWEEN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF 1776 AND THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, WHICH IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND?
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity said Benjamin Franklin. The principles of the Electoral College are the diametrical opposite: Slavery, Inequality, and Racism. The purpose of the Electoral College was to deny all Americans of the right to vote for their Chief Representative as required by actual representation in order to create a system of virtual representation through which African slaves (who could not legally vote) would create votes to be cast by their white slave masters to maintain and expand slavery throughout the land. The Electoral College worked in this way up to the Civil War. In fact, the Electoral College continues to deliver three fifths of the votes of African Americans against their will to the party against which they vote.
Let us make a recurrence to first principles. Let America renew its original vows. As Lincoln declared, Let us return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Let us file suit to abolish the Electoral College and proclaim Liberty throughout the Land.
The Electoral College, by Lucius Wilmerding, Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, N.J. (1958), at p. 99. Lucius Wilmerding, advocated the doctrine of "one voter-one vote" years before the Supreme Court ever adopted it.
so they can start wars, and sell weapons to both sides, launder their profits in fake "spirituality" and then get a "Get out of jail free" card when they blame their whole structure on Bankers. (anti-semitism). Note how all the so called "revolutionaries" omit this FACT from their harangues about power, and its nature and structure.
Beating the war drums for
but i am still going to run for president of the
Repost: January 20, 2011 3:27pm
forgive all student loans, offer single payer universal health care, abolish the IRS, kick out the fed and institute a new currency that rolls over when the dollar tanks. I will also stop each war immediately and invest in farming the breadbasket of the world, the good old
I will legalize marijuana and stop the war on drugs that is killing so many innocent young girls in
I will get rid of the electoral college-(the real control of the actual 1%). the problem is not the 1%, its the 1% of the 1%-about 50-150 ppl control the lives of millions of helpless children. They are largely sadistic pedophiles and degenerates of all stripes-decent people do not horde money, and trade upon human suffering and slavery. Human Beings have empathy, Program Clones and Operatives do not. We will follow the money-Barr2012
Anonymous attacking creators of indefinite detention bill
An Occupy DC protester wearing a Guy Fawkes mask stands in the middle of the intersection of 15th and K Streets in Washington, DC December 7, 2011 during a "Take Back The Capitol" rally and march. More than a thousand demonstrators converged on K Street effectively shutting the street down to local traffic (Topshots /AFP Photo / Karen Bleier)
TAGS: Military, Law, USA, Government Spending
With President Obama ready to sign away the freedoms of Americans by inking his name to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, opponents are already going after the lawmakers that made the legislation possible.
The act, abbreviated as NDAA FY2012, managed to make its way through Congress with overwhelming support in recent days, despite legislation that allows for Americans to be detained indefinitely and tortured by authorities for the mere suspicion of committing "a belligerent act." The Obama administration originally decreed that they would veto the bill, only for the White House to announce a change of heart on Wednesday this week.
With the passing of the act almost certain at this point, hackers aligned to the massive collective Anonymous are taking a stab at staking out the politicians that helped put the bill in the president's hands.
On Wednesday, Internet hacktivists gathered on the Web to find a way to take on the lawmakers, who have allowed for this detrimental legislation to make it all the way to the Oval Office desk. Upon discussion of routes to take to show their opposition to the overwhelming number of politicians who voted in favor of NDAA, Anonymous members agreed to begin with Senator Robert J Portman, a Republican lawmaker from the state of Ohio.
By Thursday morning, an Anonymous operative released personal information pertaining to the lawmaker, and revealed that not only was Sen. Portman among the politicians to vote "aye" on the legislation, but it has also been revealed that the senator had good reason to do so.
According to a OpenCongress.org, Sen. Portman received $272,853 from special interest groups that have shown support for NDAA.
"Robert J. Portman, we plan to make an example of you," writes an Anonymous operative. The hacktivist has also released personal data including the senator's home address, phone number and social networking accounts in an attempt to further an infiltration from the Internet to show the opposition to the bill that colossally impacts the constitutional rights of Americans.
According to the information posted by the operative, the nearly $300,000 in special interest monies lobbied at Portman could have helped him purchase around $1.7 million in real estate in Ohio.
The next lawmaker to receive anywhere near as much as Sen. Portman is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada and third-ranked official in Congress, who pulled in more than $100,000 less than his Ohio counterpart with $172,635.
Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago. Also contributing to the cause (and the lawmakers who voted 'yes') are Honeywell (who secured a $93 million deal with the Pentagon last May and a $24 million contract this year) and Bluewater Defense, a longtime DoD-ally that produces, among other garments, fire resistant combat uniforms.
When the military storms down your door for suspicion of "belligerent" acts, you can thank Bluewater and Senator Portman for the lovely flame-proof attire the soldiers will be donned in as they haul you off to Gitmo.
Why is the truth behind the assassination of President Kennedy the last chance of
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mort%20Sahl/Mort%20Sahl%20-%20Argo.html
Subject: URGENT: Call NOW to veto NDAA
Importance: High
Call NOW and demand that NDAA be vetoed
Phone numbers:
White House
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Congress: http://www.
Democracy Now interview TODAY with Chris Anders explains status of NDAA. It's not too late. CALL NOW.
http://www.democracynow.org/
The House is expected to vote today on a massive $662 billion defense bill that could usher in a radical expansion of indefinite detention under the U.S. government. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial. The measure would effectively extend the definition of what is considered the U.S. military's battlefield to anywhere in the world, even the United States. The White House has issued a veto threat with backing from top officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. But lawmakers are hoping several last-minute revisions will address the concerns and eliminate the veto threat, but critics warn the bill poses a major threat to basic constitutional rights. We speak to Chris Anders, the senior legislative counsel in the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office. "This is putting people in prison, potentially for the rest of their lives, based on nothing more than suspicion," Anders warns.
Top Censored Stories of 2012
Recent Comments