Government Corruption and Treason

Pelosi Says New Tax is 'on the Table'

October 6, 2009

The Hill - A new value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table" to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

Pelosi, appearing on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show" asserted that "it's fair to look at" the VAT as part of an overhaul of the nation's tax code.

"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.

The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.

Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.

"They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.

"Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that's one part of it," the Speaker added. "But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a value- added tax as well."

Pelosi said that any new taxes would come after the Congress finishes the healthcare debate consuming most lawmakers' time, and that it may come as part of a larger overhaul to the tax code.

The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.

Has President Obama, the Constitutional Lawyer, Committed Open Treason?

October 28, 2009

Infowars - “Has President Obama, the Constitutional Lawyer, Committed Open Treason?”

When the president of the United States, Barack H. Obama accepted rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council, he committed high treason… not only a direct violation of article 1 section 9 clause 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America, which states emphatically:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

But this act by the President also has violated the 13th article of amendment that was duly ratified by March of 1819, but with secrecy and by active subterfuge, it was replaced by Lincoln’s 14th amendment right after the Civil War. This duly ratified original 13th amendment states the following:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” http://www.amendment-13.org/

Article 1 section 9 describes what shall not be allowed, but, it puts forth no punishment for such actions on the part of an elected government official… the original 13th amendment however, which was proposed in 1810… and some would say was a large part of the reason for the War of 1812, not only states that an elected government official cannot accept this kind of gratuity or office, but also states, if so done, the official would lose all possibility of office present and future, as well as citizenship, and if the circumstances are grave enough could be tried for treason and ultimately hung.

In either case, I do not recall there having been a bill, resolution or memorial, put forth by Congress, granting this president its permission for accepting the position of chairman of the Security Council of the United Nations… Without this permission and open discussion about it, prior to the granting of the permission… President Barack H. Obama is in violation of article 1 section 9 clause 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America… at the very least.

The creation of the United Nations at the Presidio in San Francisco in 1945, was done by treaty power. It is not part of the United States in any way other than by treaty in the form of an international “Peace” treaty. The Constitution states that treaties are considered part of Constitutional law when they are enacted by an act of Congress and signed by the president.

They are not etched in stone however, and as with all treaties, as was addressed in 1803 by the Supreme Court in the landmark Marbury vs Madison, which states that a law (by law I mean act of Congress, and no treaty can become law without an Act of Congress), cannot void the Constitution. The Constitution however can void any law including treaties, if that law is repugnant to the Constitution.

When Obama took the position of Chairman of the UN Security Council… he violated Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8 by accepting leadership in an organization that is clearly at odds with the Constitution for the United States of America.

The instant the United Nations starts amending the Constitution by treaty power is the day that the United Nations should be carved off of the East Coast and floated out past the continental shelf and sunk in 2 miles of water, for good.

For further discussion and information, go here: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=141900.msg856314#msg856314

Sen. Al Franken Stands Up to Support KBR Rape Victim and Others Like Her

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

October 8, 2009

Crooks and Liars - Rookie Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) passed an amendment to a defense bill this week that would withhold government contracts from organizations like KBR if they restrict employees from taking rape and sexual assault cases to court...

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water or a bed, and “warned that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday:

Franken said: The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.”

Franken responded: “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”

In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux.

“He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”

Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her deep appreciation.

“It means the world to me,” she said of the amendment’s passage. “It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it.”

Tea Partiers Turn On GOP Leadership

October 11, 2009

POLITICO - While the energy of the anti-tax and anti-Big Government tea party movement may yet haunt Democrats in 2010, the first order of business appears to be remaking the Republican Party.

Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents.

“We will be a headache for anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States … isn’t to be protected,” said Dick Armey, chairman of the anti-tax and limited government advocacy group FreedomWorks, which helped plan and promote the tea parties, town hall protests and the September ‘Taxpayer March’ in Washington. “If you can’t take it seriously, we will look for places of other employment for you.”

“We’re not a partisan organization, and I think many Republicans are disappointed we are not,” added Armey, a former GOP congressman.

In Florida, where the national party has signaled its preference for centrist Gov. Charlie Crist in the GOP Senate primary, tea party activists are lining up behind former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in reaction to Crist’s public backing for President Barack Obama’s stimulus package.

“We were very disappointed with Gov. Charlie Crist when he supported the stimulus, the bailout, and he appeared publicly with President Obama,” said Everett Wilkinson, a South Florida-based organizer for Tea Party Patriots. “The opposition comes from Crist’s support for the largest spending plan ever and the environmental policies he’s pushing on the American people.”

Rubio has already made appearances at Florida tea parties, and protesters have been seen waving signs declaring, “Anybody but Charlie Crist.” He also has Armey’s endorsement, and Armey headlined a Dallas fundraiser for him several weeks ago.

Wilkinson said that the tax status of his Florida-based group limits what it can do to assist Rubio in the August 2010 primary. But he said the organization would launch an aggressive get-out-the-vote operation and issue a report card grading each candidate appearing on the ballot.

Tea party activists are also lining up behind challengers to GOP establishment-backed Senate candidates in Colorado and Connecticut. In California, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina — like Crist, another National Republican Senatorial Committee-favored Senate contender — is the target of tea party animus in her primary against conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

“My impression is that the support among tea partyers for DeVore is high,” said Mark Meckler, a California-based organizer for Tea Party Patriots. “I hear nothing but praise for the guy.”

Tea party organizers say their resistance to Republican Party-backed primary candidates has much to do with what they perceive as the GOP’s stubborn insistence on embracing candidates who don’t abide by a small government, anti-tax conservative philosophy.

“It’s an outgrowth of the frustration people have had with the Republican Party,” said Andrew Moylan, director of governmental affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, another group that has played a large role in organizing the tea party movement. “I think a lot of people have been angry at Republicans for betraying our trust.”

“I think the GOP establishment has ignored their constituents and the feelings of their constituents for years,” added Meckler.

It’s an unusual predicament for the Republican Party, since the conservative-oriented issues that animate Tea Party activists once seemed destined to make the movement a valuable auxiliary to the Republican Party.

While there’s little evidence of tea party activist support for Democratic candidates, the specific notion of electing a GOP majority hasn’t ranked high on their agenda either.

At the recent “Defending the American Dream Summit,” a conservative event held in Arlington, Va., a breakout session featuring tea party organizers saw panelists peppered with questions ranging from how to start up political action committees and 501(c)(3) organizations to whether it was necessary to hire lawyers.

“Nothing is going to change unless we can get politicians elected who can implement fiscally conservative policies,” Teri Adams of the Philadelphia-based Independence Hall Tea Party Association, which will be launching a political arm, told those in attendance.

In a handful of states, tea party activists have zeroed in on House Republican incumbents and have launched primary challenges in protest of their past support for the controversial Wall Street bank bailout.

One of those activists, Canyon Clowdus, an Army veteran who is taking on third-term conservative Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), has blasted the incumbent for making “a horrible mistake” in voting for Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“He has put a financial burden on my four children that will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars each,” Clowdus says of Conaway on his campaign website.

“I think it was a bad, bad political decision,” Armey said of the 34 Senate Republicans and 91 House Republicans who voted for the TARP bailout, “and if you talk to grass-roots activists, it has become a political test for them.”

Moylan agreed that TARP is “really kind of the flash point that started all of this.”

“People are paying attention and are willing to hold these people accountable,” he said.

For some, supporting insurgent campaigns or waging primary bids just isn’t a strong enough signal to send to a Republican Party that has abandoned core conservative policies.

Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged tea party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties.

“Grass-roots activists need to start infiltrating the party,” said Erickson. “The only way to start getting [the establishment] back is to start pounding them with every fist we have.”

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

October 9, 2009

In The Fallout - This morning, Americans were greeted with a shocking example of real-life Orwellian doublethink. We found out that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Here is a list of President Barack Obama’s deeds in the pursuit of peace on Earth:

• Issued an order to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, but has not approved any plans to actually do so.


• Oversaw a reduction in actual US troops in Iraq, only to replace them with private mercenaries.


• Expanded the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan by increasing the number of air attacks in its border regions.


• Increased the number of US troops in Afghanistan by tens of thousands, with many more on the way.


• Established a US military presence on Colombian military bases.


• Refused to lend even the most superficial support to the political opposition in Iran, even as the regime there publicly executed dissidents.


• Stood idly by as police and National Guard troops engaged in one of the most vicious crackdowns against free-speech in recent memory while attending the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, PA.


• Has spoken glowingly (particularly during his campaign) of China, and refused to criticize its government’s ever-lengthening list of human rights abuses.


• Continues to allow Blackwater (now Xe) to be awarded defense contracts, even in light of reports of child prostitution rings being run out of its facilities in Iraq.

…and the list will continue to grow.

Recently his administration has begun beating the drums of war with Iran, not in defense of its oppressed citizens of course, but because of claims that the country is developing weapons of mass destruction–claims that stand in direct contrast to information provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency and even internal US intelligence reports. While there are legitimate reasons to engage in some kind of action against the current Iranian regime–WMD’s are the least of them. Clearly this President isn’t interested in aligning himself with free citizens of a truly liberated Iran, he prefers liberation of the Bush/Cheney variety–more commonly known as starving them with sanctions and then blowing the hell out of them.

What’s that you say? That sounds more like a list of deeds done in opposition to peace than a list of achievements that merit an award like the Nobel Peace Prize?

If that’s what you were thinking then congratulations, you, unlike so many other millions of people, are capable of actual independent thought! Anyone who isn’t completely drugged out of their mind, or pays attention to anything in the world around them, can clearly see that President Barack Obama has not done a single thing to promote peace anywhere in the world.

We free thinking people must ask, with all of this information–why was Mr. Obama given this prestigious award?

There is no easy answer to this question. The most likely explanation is rooted in Mr. Obama’s commitment to globalization and the United Nations. He believes very strongly that the UN is the key to global order, and has acted to bring the United States in line with UN doctrine. Sadly, that doctrine calls for substantial weakening in national sovereignty. It requires the acceptance of rules put in place not by our own elected representatives, but by unelected representatives of foreign powers–many of which are inherently corrupt.

True adherence to UN mandates can only lead to global governance by unelected individuals who have little to no respect for the US Constitution or the rights enumerated within it.

The Nobel Committee commented that the prize was awarded to Mr. Obama because he changed the climate of international relations through his commitment to diplomacy. Apparently these individuals view a commitment to diplomacy as a commitment to global governance–which Mr. Obama is quite clearly comfortable with, as he’s demonstrated by being the first sitting US President to actually chair the UN Security Council.

If this is a commitment to peace, then the Orwellian nightmare feared by so many is finally coming to pass. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery to unelected UN bureaucrats, and Ignorance is most definitely Strength.