Mask-wearing protestors in D.C. can now be arrested

"V" at G20 in Toronto

Freeman Klopott
Washington Examiner

Wearing a mask while protesting outside a residence without telling D.C. police first could now get you arrested.

The D.C. Council has unanimously passed a strongly worded bill to deal with an animal rights group that has been known to wear masks and appear unannounced outside District residents' homes shouting things like "You should die." Residents have been complaining to their council members that they felt "terrorized." Critics of the bill say it's too broad and limits First Amendment rights.


"They scared some people so much that they feel like prisoners in their own homes," said Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh, who sponsored the Residential Tranquility Act of 2010.

Police can be called, Cheh said, but they don't always have the legal grounds to arrest the protesters.

The animal rights group in question, Defending Animal Rights Today and Tomorrow is the local offshoot of Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty. The international group was set up in 1996 to organize protests against Huntington Life Sciences, a European company that provides animals for corporate science experiments.

According to the group's Web site, they recently protested outside the Dupont Circle home of a Goldman Sachs executive, who the group claims is connected to HLS. It's unclear how, and DARTT didn't respond to requests for comment for this story. Pictures show the protesters wearing masks, and white trench coats with a bloodlike substance on them.

Read Full Article

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Blue UFO Filmed Near D.C. (VIDEO)

Roby Chavez
FoxDC

CENTREVILLE, Va. - Some people in Centreville are talking about a bright blue light spotted moving in the sky Wednesday night. But no one seems to have an explanation for this unidentified flying object.

It was in the night sky just above Lee Highway when shoppers looked up and saw something weird in Centreville and it was all of it caught on camera.

“All of a sudden, it would stop and go back like this,” said Bryan Fains, using his finger to point out the direction of the blue light in the sky. “At one point, it stopped and went up and up.

Read Full Article

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

In throes of recession, D.C. stands apart

Federal spending insulates region

Patrice Hill -- The Washington Times

Throughout the recession, one major city stood out as an oasis for jobs and growth: Washington, D.C.

Supported by a gusher of federal borrowing and spending, the District of Columbia was the nation's only metropolitan area that never stopped growing. It stood as a beacon for the nation's millions of job hunters, from recent college graduates seeking careers in civil service to well-heeled lawyers cashing in on a bonanza of work stemming from health care and financial reform.

Being the center of government, Washington is used to being insulated from national economic trends. But the disconnect became particularly pronounced during the Great Recession — thanks to the federal government's own expansionary response.

A $700 billion bank bailout and $814 billion economic stimulus bill helped push the federal deficit to unprecedented levels of more than $1.3 trillion in the past two years, and a disproportionate share of that tidal wave of money washed up right back in Washington.

But the spectacle of Washington's free spending while virtually every other region has had to cut back — increasing prosperity in the capital in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression — has engendered public resentment and a pronounced anti-Washington sentiment that is now playing out in the midterm election cycle.

While the nation's work force took a body blow, losing 8.3 million jobs — 5.5 percent of the jobs available before the recession — Washington suffered no more than a surface wound. It reported a loss of about 35,000 jobs, or 1.1 percent of the jobs available — mostly in real estate and construction businesses hurt by the housing collapse.

"We are one of the lucky ones," said Alice Rivlin, a former Federal Reserve governor and director of Greater Washington research at the Brookings Institution. The only other cities that fared as well during the recession, she said, generally were centers of military activity or smaller state capitals, such as Austin, Texas — which also benefited from government spending.

"D.C. seems to have managed to grow right through the recession, although its growth rate did slow and unemployment doubled," said George Mason University's Stephen Fuller, a longtime researcher of the local economy. "D.C. and the entire metro area were substantially cushioned from the full effects of the recession."

Ms. Rivlin said that "the nature of our economy protects us," noting that with the exception of mortgage finance, Washington lacks the concentration of manufacturing and financial companies in other cities hit hard by the recession.

"The federal government is the engine that drives this economy, directly or indirectly, accounting for at least a third of economic activity," she said. "In response to the economic crisis, not to mention two wars, federal activity is actually expanding."

Read Full Article

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

The Government Has An Appetite For Your Blood

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 4, 2010

Photo: blakespot

The government has discovered a new way to obtain Americans’ blood in pursuit of an effort to surreptitiously build a huge national DNA database, by taking blood samples for HIV testing when drivers renew their license at the DMV.

“Starting Tuesday, getting tested for HIV in the District will be as easy as renewing a driver’s license,” reports the Washington Post.

“In what District officials say is the first effort of its kind in the nation, the city will partner with a nonprofit group to offer free HIV testing at the Department of Motor of Vehicles office in Penn Branch in Southeast Washington. Participants will receive up to $15 to help defray their DMV costs.”

The new program is of course voluntary, but as Alex Jones exposed over a decade ago, the eventual plan, under a 1993 executive order signed by Bill Clinton, is to institute mandatory blood and urine testing at the DMV.

Police in Texas and Idaho are already forcibly jabbing needles into people’s arms and taking their blood at DUI checkpoints, even if they are merely “suspected” of being drunk.

Despite being littered with internal checkpoints that are now starting to pop up all over America, not even the Nazis or the Soviets sank to the depth of having their goons forcibly stick needles into people’s arms to take their blood.

The practice of cops drawing blood at the side of the road has been in place in some areas since 1995 but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that the program is ultimately intended to be introduced nationwide.

Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers, described how the process would unfold.

“Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.”

Of course, once Americans are trained to accept authority figures jabbing them with needles against their will on a whim, programs for mandatory mass vaccination will be all the more easier to implement.

As we covered earlier this year, the government is harvesting samples of DNA from every newborn child in the country, storing them in monolithic bio banks and providing them to outside researchers and other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, all without the consent or knowledge of parents.

In April 2008, President Bush signed into law a bill which formerly announced the process that the federal government has been engaged in for years, screening the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months of birth.

Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”

The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the internet and is updated at least quarterly”.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests, both by the government and by researchers chosen to handle the DNA samples and the information that goes with them.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Allowing the government to illegally obtain and store Americans’ blood is a total invasion of privacy and completely unconstitutional. Every effort should be made by citizens to resist this tyranny and prevent the bloodsucking state from building their national DNA database.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

How Corporations Own the U.S. Congress

Shamus Cooke
Global Research

With the November elections quickly approaching, the majority of Americans will be thinking one thing: "Who cares?” This apathy isn't due to ignorance, as some accuse. Rather, working people's disinterest in the two party system implies intelligence: millions of people understand that both the Democrats and Republicans will not represent their interests in Congress. 

This begs the question: Whom does the two party system work for? The answer was recently given by the mainstream The New York Times, who gave the nation an insiders peek on how corporations "lobby" (buy) congressmen. The article explains how giant corporations — from Wall-mart to weapons manufacturers — are planning on shifting their hiring practices for lobbyists, from Democratic to Republican ex-congressmen in preparation for the Republicans gaining seats in the upcoming November elections:

"Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans — particularly current and former House staff members — has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1million for private sector [corporate lobbyist] positions." (September 9, 2010)


Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign Presidents and Kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations.

Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporation that is now hiring them, meaning, that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work.

The same New York Times article revealed that the pay for 13,000 lobbyists [!] currently bribing Congress is a combined $3.5 billion.  It was also explained how some lobbying firms keep an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans on hand, so they can be prepared for any eventuality in the elections.

This phenomenon is more than a little un-democratic: when millions of people vote for a candidate, the outcomes are quickly manipulated and controlled before the election even happens.

Interestingly, the corporate-directed Wall Street Journal wrote a similar article in 2008, as the Democrats had begun to dominate politics in Washington:

"Washington's $3 billion lobbying industry has begun shedding Republican staffers [politicians], snapping up Democratic operatives [politicians] and entire firms, a shift that started even before Tuesday's ballots were counted and Democrat Barack Obama captured the presidency." (November 5, 2008)

Read Full Article

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"! Print this page

Even America's liberal elites concede that Obama's Presidency is crumbling

By Nile Gardiner
Telegraph

The US Capitol building in Washington DC (Photo: EPA)

Democrats in Congress are no longer asking themselves whether this is going to be a bad election year for them and their party. They are asking whether it is going to be a disaster. The GOP pushed deep into Democratic-held territory over the summer, to the point where the party is well within range of picking up the 39 seats it would need to take control of the House. Overall, as many as 80 House seats could be at risk, and fewer than a dozen of these are held by Republicans.

Political handicappers now say it is conceivable that the Republicans could also win the 10 seats they need to take back the Senate. Not since 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit.

Is this a piece from National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal or Fox News.com, all major conservative news outlets in the United States? No. It’s a direct quote from yesterday’s Washington Post, usually viewed by conservatives as a flagship of the liberal establishment inside the Beltway. The fact The Post is reporting that not only could Republicans sweep the House of Representatives this November, but may even take the Senate as well, is a reflection of just how far the mainstream, overwhelmingly left-of-centre US media has moved in the last month towards acknowledging the scale of the crisis facing the White House.

To its credit, The Washington Post has generally been ahead of the curve compared to its main competitors such as The New York Times in reporting President Obama’s travails, but its striking front page coverage of the “Democrats’ plight” and talk of a possible GOP Senate win (regarded as fantasy just a fortnight ago) was a bold step for a publication that is probably read in every office of the Obama administration.

The Post also ran another headline yesterday on its front page – “Republicans making gains ahead of midterm elections” – which would undoubtedly have sent a shudder through the White House. It carried a new poll commissioned jointly with ABC News, which showed public faith in Barack Obama’s leadership has fallen to an all-time low, with just 46 percent approval. The Washington Post-ABC News survey revealed high levels of public unease with President Obama’s handling of the economy, with 57 percent of Americans disapproving, and 58 percent critical of his handling of the deficit.

For most of the year, America’s political and media elites, including the Obama team itself, have touted the notion of an economic recovery (which never materialised), significantly underestimated the rise of the Tea Party movement, and questioned the notion that conservatism was sweeping America. It is only now hitting home just how close Washington is to experiencing a political revolution in November that will fundamentally change the political landscape on Capitol Hill, with huge implications for the Obama presidency. What was once a perspective confined largely to Fox News, online conservative news sites, or talk radio is now gaining ground in the liberal US print media as well – historic change is coming to America, though not quite the version promised by Barack Obama.

Read Full Article

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

How to amend the Constitution

By Emma Dumain

How hard is it to amend the Constitution? Imagine last year's health care battle, multiplied by 50.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently said he would like to see the repeal of the 14th Amendment, which allows children born in the United States to automatically become citizens even if their parents are not legal residents.

The suggestion has caused quite an uproar among immigration activists, pundits and other lawmakers, but if history is any guide, nothing is likely to come of it.

Amendments must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and then approved by three-fourths of all 50 state legislatures. (The president has no formal role.) In addition, Congress can put a deadline on a proposed amendment, so if it is not approved within, say, seven years, the proposal is dead.

That's been the fate of a handful of amendments lucky enough to make it that far in the process. Dozens of others are introduced each year without even getting through one chamber of Congress.

Over the past half-century, amendments which have passed have been ones for which there was an unusual amount of agreement or a perfect political storm.

This week, Congress.org took a look at the stories behind some of the many efforts to amend the Constitution: with success, with near-success, and with failure.

Successful amendments

Amendment Lowering the Voting Age to 18

As the increasingly unpopular Vietnam war raged on, fewer numbers of eligible men were enlisting for service. The draft was put in place and thousands of young men who were barely out of high school were forced into the army.

But the 18-year-olds being sent overseas to fight and possibly die for their country could not even vote for the lawmakers sending them there because the voting age at that point was 21.

"Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," became the slogan used by those who favored lowering the voting age in the late 1960s.

Ultimately, in 1971, Congress passed the resolution establishing the creation of the 26th Amendment, which guarantees any American citizen the right to vote who is at least 18 years of age. The states ratified it in the shortest time ever.

The constitutional amendment was, in addition, also intended to override a 1970 Supreme Court decision that ruled that states could set their own age limits for local elections.

Read Full Article

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up!  You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

WDM8DHNKP36G

Reality Economics

Truman Show

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Lew Rockwell

As a culture, we like our reality on television, but seem to oppose it in economics.

For more than two years now, and even longer depending on your dating scheme, the federal government has waged war on the reality of the incredible Fed-fueled bubble that developed in housing with spillover effects on the rest of economic life.

That bubble had to explode to restore some sanity to the economic environment. There is no getting around that. The policies were all about trying to paper over what we did not want to deal with as facts. But the facts won't go away.

Do we have to make a television show to get Washington to see it?

The FDIC has admitted that some 829 banks remain at risk of failure. That's one in ten. Only 118 have failed this year but many more should have and would have absent Fed intervention. Meanwhile, there are no new banks started in the U.S. in the last quarter – the first time in 38 years that this has been true. As for the actual soundness of the banks, it's anyone's guess. How much bad debt they are carrying, with both lenders and borrowers agreeing to look the other way, is something that no one wants to know.

Read Full Article

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Populist versus Corporatist or Liberal versus Conservative? You Decide

"I don't see the dividing line as liberal versus conservative. It's populist versus corporatist. If we're not standing up to the most powerful interests, where is the Democratic Party?"

by Mark Daniels

Global Political Awakening

In a recent interview with Mother Jones' Washington Bureau Chief, David Corn, Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Virginia) battles GOP cash, voter fatigue, and his own party's elites.

Perriello, freshman Democrat, tells his constituents that America needs to "make things," and "the elites" in Washington don't get this. 

He also says that he doesn't "see the dividing line as liberal versus conservative.  It's populist versus corporatist."  What exactly does Perriello mean when he speaks an "obvious truth"; identifying the fact that the "false dichotomy": of the left/right paradigm  is no longer pertinent in the political arena?  He sound more like a Libertarian than a Democrat!

What does he mean and does he represent a "true" shift in thinking which will translate into a change in policies?  I am rather doubtful!  I think many Democrats and Republicans are realizing that "WE THE PEOPLE" are no longer buying what they are selling. As a result, they are attempting to high jack the true "reform movements" popping up across America.  

However, I do believe that he deserves a close examination before rendering  a final verdict.  Perriello's website boasts the following message concerning Treasury Secretary Geithner, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, and President Obama.

At several of his recent town hall meetings, Rep. Tom Perriello has restated his belief that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner needs to be replaced. Video of the comments, which was filmed several days prior to House Minority Leader John Boehner's criticism of Sec. Geithner, has been circulating online. In response to inquiries regarding his position on Sec. Geithner, Rep. Perriello released the following statement today 

 “Though he has changed the rhetoric, Treasury Secretary Geithner has too often championed President Bush’s economic priorities of bailing out Wall Street, ignoring construction and manufacturing, and going easy on Chinese currency manipulation and dumping practices. This approach, which has gained consensus among elites in both parties, is based on the flawed logic that subsidizing speculators to the hilt will eventually spread a few dollars to everyone else. The financial sector is vital to the economy, but Geithner and the Republicans need to wake up to the fact that Americans are hurting for jobs on Main Street. Like many Perot-style Democrats in Congress, I have been fighting to rebuild America’s competitive advantage, support small business and community banks, and crack down on China. The change many of us fought for in 2008 runs a lot deeper than changing the name plate on the door from Paulson to Geithner. I hope that President Obama will find the Arne Duncan of economic development, a visionary with 'on the ground' experience creating jobs. We need someone who understands the need to start building, making and growing things in America again.

“For these same reasons, I was surprised when Minority Leader John Boehner called for Sec. Geithner’s resignation, since he has voted for and supported the Secretary’s policies, including the TARP bailout of Wall Street, preventing any accountability for unconscionable bonuses, and echoing the giant sucking sound of American jobs going overseas through bad trade deals that sell out the American worker. In fact, the only major way in which Mr. Boehner has broken with Sec. Geithner is the on the Recovery Act, which economists credit with creating nearly 3 million jobs. In my brief time in Washington, I have seen John Boehner stand in the way of every major proposal that could have proud Americans working today, particularly during this vital summer building season.

“In the first two years of this Administration, bold action by Congress kept our economy from falling off a cliff, but that is not nearly bold enough for the times we face. We have made a down payment on America’s competitiveness through investments in science and innovation, by making college more affordable, and by getting America back into the game on the jobs of the future, including new energy, high-tech, and advanced manufacturing. But we cannot rest and we should not be satisfied until Americans are back to work building, making and growing things here again. For this, we must do better than the Geithners and Boehners who have given up on America’s workers. America can and will outcompete the world, but that leadership will not come from those who think we just need to get back to 2006, when the middle class was already struggling and almost all growth was in the speculation sector. President Obama spent years in a part of Chicago whose steel industry was devastated by trade deals and policies that put multi-national corporate CEOs ahead of middle-class and working-class Americans. We’ve seen innovative thinking out of many members of the President’s cabinet, notably on energy, agriculture and education, and we need that boldness in the area that is everyone’s top priority right now – the economy.”

In reading his statement, I noticed that he criticizes President Obama for allowing the "devastation of Chicago's steel industry by trade deals and policies that put multi-national corporate CEOs ahead of middle class and working-class Americans". 






Is this just more of the same rhetoric and false promises we've been hearing from Democrats and Republicans for decades or can we expect some real "change we can believe in" following the November elections?  I encourage Virginia voters to take a close look at Perriello before going to the polls in November.  I would also encourage all Americans to take a closer look at their own candidates to see if they will stand up to the Political and Global Elites!


It is time to Wake Up!  You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!
FREE trial - Get out of Debt with DebtGoal Huge Coupon Savings!

$15 off orders of $40 or more at Botanic Choice. Free Shipping on $50 or more. Coupon Code BC15. Expires 9/30/2010

The 10 Banks That Recieved The Biggest Bailouts…

By EILEEN AJ CONNELLY

(Huffington Post)

Disclosure reports show that the banks that got the most government help in late 2008 and early 2009 also invested the most to influence members of Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and a long list of federal agencies as new rules were enacted governing Wall Street and the nation’s financial system.

“I’m not shocked that they spent that much money because I saw them every day,” said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at U.S. Public Interest Research Group, who said more than 2,000 lobbyists worked on the financial reform bill.

The sweeping law signed by President Barack Obama in July topped 2,300 pages, and outlined broad rules for issues ranging from derivatives trading to the fees merchants are charged for processing credit and debit card transactions. It also covered the creation of a consumer financial protection bureau. Banks are continuing efforts to try to shape many of the new rules that are still being finalized.

The $16.32 million spent in the first half of 2010 was 26 percent higher than the combined $12.94 million they spent in the first half of 2009.

In prior years, the spending crept up at a much slower pace: 2009’s total was about 2 percent higher than the nearly $12.7 million spent in the first half of 2008. And that was only 3.7 percent above the $12.25 million spent in the first half of 2007.

Leading the pack this year was JPMorgan Chase & Co., which spent $1.52 million on lobbying in the second quarter, on top of $1.51 million in the first quarter of 2010, for a total of $3.03 million, according to disclosure reports filed with the House of Representatives clerk’s office.

Citigroup Inc., the largest bank recipient of government funds during the crisis in late 2008 and early 2009, was second. The New York-based bank spend $1.47 million on lobbyists in the second quarter, after spending $1.31 million in the first quarter for a total of $2.78 million.

And Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was third, with $1.58 million spent in the second quarter, on top of $1.19 million in the first quarter of 2010.

All three banks declined to comment on their lobbying spending, which went toward hiring advocates to discuss the legislation with lawmakers and regulators. Lobbying figures do not include any campaign contributions that banks or their employees might also have made.

Mierzwinski said the big win for consumers was the financial protection bureau, which banks tried to remove from the law. The financial industry was in a weakened position during the debate, however, because of public anger over the economy’s collapse and publicity over issues like Wall Street bonuses. Nevertheless, banks were rewarded for their efforts, he said. “They did manage to make changes.”

Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. both also spent more than $2 million in the first half of the year. Spending far less were PNC Bank, US Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp. and Regions Financial Corp. The American Bankers Association, the main trade group for the industry, also lobbied heavily, spending $4.2 million in the first half of 2010.

Consumer advocacy groups had their own lobbyists working the Capitol’s halls during the finance reform debate as well, but their spending was dwarfed by the banks – a total of $792,000 in the first half of the year for four of the top organizations. The Center for Responsible Lending topped the list, with $335,000 spent in the first six months of the year. U.S. PIRG tallied $227,000. The Consumers Union listed $150,000 and The Consumer Federation of America spent $80,000.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the heavy spending in part reflects the number of people needed to discuss issues with 535 members of Congress. One sentence in a law regulating the financial markets can have a big impact on a company’s profit, she noted, and the industry made sure they had experts on hand to discuss every aspect with lawmakers.

“We’re talking billions,” Sloan said. “So the lobbying money is the most effective money you’ll spend.”

“It’s not that I don’t think that many would have preferred a different outcome,” she added. “But I doubt that any of those banks didn’t think it was worth it to have those lobbyists.”

Original Source

FREE trial - Get out of Debt with DebtGoal Huge Coupon Savings! 

$15 off orders of $40 or more at Botanic Choice. Free Shipping on $50 or more. Coupon Code BC15. Expires 9/30/2010

Senator Lincoln Selling Earmarks and Globalization for Re-Election Bid

by Mark Daniels
Global Political Awakening

Danny Johnston / AP

In this photo taken Aug. 18, 2010, U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., is interviewed at her campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Ark. Ignoring Republican complaints about wasteful federal spending, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is reminding voters _ in dollars _ of what's she's done for Arkansas during nearly 12 years in Washington. Defending projects typically derided as pork is a tricky stance for a vulnerable incumbent, but Lincoln has turned her re-election fight into an argument for pet projects
Senator Lincoln held one of her now infamous "teletown hall" meetings last night, in which I participated (listened to her go on about how much money she has delivered to Arkansas special interest groups).. I've been trying to to gain a seat at the table with Senator Lincoln for some time now; therefore I wasn't surprised when she "didn't have time to get to me" during last nights' conference (She screens the questions before the voters are allowed speaking privileges).

I planned to ask her about why she has failed, along with 99% of Congress, to provide leadership in combating Washington corruption, especially the "Federal Reserve" system's criminal activities and the myriad of global threats, including the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change falsifying scientific data in order to sell the "global warming" hoax to the American people (Read Related Articles), Tax-Exempt Foundations, such as Rockefelller, Gates, Ford, Council on Foreign Relations, etc funding covert operations to destroy America's national sovereignty in favor of a global scientific dictatorship, and the Wall Street banksters getting away with the economic rape of the American people.

Of course, when I was asked by her "screener" what I wanted to ask the Senator, I simply told her that I wanted to ask about the effects of Globalization on our country.  Although time is limited, do not screen the questions if you truly want to hear from the voters.

Senator Lincoln seems to think Arkansas votes are easily "bought" with millions of dollars in earmarks during a time in history in which we are facing  tremendous economic uncertainty coupled with global threats from some very rich and powerful people.

FREE trial - Get out of Debt with DebtGoal Huge Coupon Savings! 

Concerning Earmarks

Associated Press writer, Andrew DeMillo reports:

Little Rock, AR-Ignoring Republican complaints about wasteful federal spending, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is reminding voters — in dollars — of what's she's done for Arkansas during nearly 16 years in Washington.

Nearly every day, her campaign and Senate offices trumpet money that she's helped secure for her home state — from $13,811 for the Hope Police Department to buy a new cruiser to a $102 million stimulus-funded grant for the state to pay for broadband Internet.

Defending projects typically derided as pork is a tricky stance for a vulnerable incumbent, but Lincoln has turned her re-election fight into an argument for pet projects — calling them the "great equalizer" for small, rural states like Arkansas.

"I'm going to fight hard for my state because, let me tell you, these dollars are going to go somewhere else if we don't get them," Lincoln told The Associated Press.

It's a return to the basics for Lincoln, who is trailing in most polls. She's faced anger from both the right and the left, with liberal activists trying unsuccessfully earlier this year to throw her out of office in the Democratic primary.

Her opponent, Republican Congressman John Boozman, also brought millions of dollars in projects to his Arkansas district before signing on to a House GOP moratorium on earmarks. Lincoln says he's sacrificing the state's interests for politics.

Lincoln co-sponsored 91 earmarks in the 2010 budget totaling nearly $115 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Boozman sponsored or co-sponsored 31 earmarks totaling more than $30 million the same year.

$15 off orders of $40 or more at Botanic Choice. Free Shipping on $50 or more. Coupon Code BC15. Expires 9/30/2010

It is time to Wake Up!  You too, can join the Global Political Awakening!

3 Reps Under Further Investigation Over Alleged Bribery Tied To Financial Reform Votes

LARRY MARGASAK | 08/31/10 06:18 PM | 


WASHINGTON — House investigators have recommended that three lawmakers be further investigated to determine whether political contributions were improperly linked to votes on the huge financial overhaul bill.

The independent House Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the member-run House ethics committee pursue potential rules violations by Republicans John Campbell of California and Tom Price of Georgia and Democrat Joseph Crowley of New York.

The ethics office recommended no further investigation of five other lawmakers in the same probe: Democratic Reps. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and Mel Watt of North Carolina, and Republicans Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Chris Lee of New York, and Frank Lucas of Oklahoma.

All offices of the lawmakers had received letters from the OCE by Tuesday and made the conclusions public.

President Barack Obama signed the financial overhaul bill into law July 21. It aims to restrain Wall Street excesses with the most sweeping overhaul of financial rules since the Great Depression, clamping down on lending practices and expanding consumer protections to address failures that precipitated the 2008 meltdown that knocked the economy to its knees.

The Democrats – Crowley, Pomeroy and Watt – voted for the final bill. The Republicans – Campbell, Price, Hensarling, Lee and Lucas – voted against it.

Campbell said he was "perplexed by OCE's decision, as they have presented no evidence that would suggest wrongdoing."

Campbell added that he "always complied with the letter and the spirit of the law. To suggest otherwise is unfounded and untrue. In addition, my voting record and opposition to a culture of taxpayer-funded bailouts has been and always will be unshakable."

Price said it was "truly a mystery" that his case was referred for further investigation.

FREE trial - Get out of Debt with DebtGoal Huge Coupon Savings!

"There being no evidence of any wrongdoing or any inconsistency in my policy position, one can only guess as to the motive behind their decision or even why they chose to initiate a review in the first place," he said. "My constant allegiance to a transparent and conscious divide between my official duties as a member of Congress and my actions as a candidate is without question."

Crowley's office said in a statement that he "has always complied with the letter and spirit of all rules regarding fundraising and standards of conduct."

All three lawmakers referred for further investigation had fundraisers last December, around the time of crucial House votes.

Price had two fundraisers, including a breakfast on Dec. 2 and a luncheon Dec. 10 billed as a financial services event. A special guest was Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee.

Crowley had a cocktail reception Dec. 10.

Campbell had fundraisers Dec. 8 and Dec. 9.

Campbell and Price consistently opposed the regulation legislation. Crowley, after attending his fundraiser, returned to the House and voted against Democratic amendments aimed at toughening some financial regulations.

In each case he joined more than 100 Democrats, including fellow New Yorkers, to vote against the proposed changes.

___

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

 $15 off orders of $40 or more at Botanic Choice. Free Shipping on $50 or more. Coupon Code BC15. Expires 9/30/2010