Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Having failed in two violent coup attempts that were thwarted, the U.S., UK, and Israel, acting in convert with Venezuelan oligarchs have succeeded in inflicting enough misery that the Opposition has won a controlling majority in the Venezuelan legislature. The Bolivarian Revolution lives on at least for now in the executive and justice branches of government. A presidential impeachment process is about to begin without any impeachable offense being alleged. The U.S. has been pushing very hard diplomatically and via stiff economic sanctions to secure the release of principles in the previous violent coup attempts. A bill declaring amnesty for them was found unconstitutional by the Venezuelan high court. (I haven't checked but I suspect Venezuela's constitution  resembles that of the U.S. in placing the pardon power strictly in the hands of the Executive.) Watch out, Venezuela, if Hillary becomes the U.S. PreZ. 

The times they are a changin'.

Mistake by Trump, bowing to opposition pressure. Now they'll be after him for more changes in appointees.

Politically, Trump may have to appoint Abrams. If so, Trump should make sure that Abrams has neither staff nor authority. A closet for an office should suffice.

International Passports could be held in lew of back taxes if Senate Bill 1813, the deliciously named "Moving Ahead for Progressives" Act, gets through the House. excerpt: A bill authored by a Southland lawmaker that could potentially allow the federal government to prevent any Americans who owe back taxes from traveling outside the U.S. is one step closer to becoming law. Senate Bill 1813 was introduced back in November by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Los Angeles) to "reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes". After clearing the Senate on a 74 - 22 vote on March 14, SB 1813 is now headed for a vote in the House of Representatives, where it's expected to encounter stiffer opposition among the GOP majority. In addition to authorizing appropriations for federal transportation and infrastructure programs, the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act" or "MAP-21″ includes a provision that would allow for the "revocation or denial" of a passport for anyone with "certain unpaid taxes" or "tax delinquencies". Section 40304 of the legislation states that any individual who owes more than $50,000 to the Internal Revenue Service may be subject to "action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport". The bill does allow for exceptions in the event of emergency or humanitarian situations or limited return travel to the U.S., or in cases when any tax debt is currently being repaid in a "timely manner" or when collection efforts have been suspended. However, there does not appear to be any specific language requiring a taxpayer to be charged with tax evasion or any other crime in order to have their passport revoked or limited - only that a notice of lien or levy has been filed by the IRS.

I needed some background regarding the founding documents and their position on individual property rights.  Google came back with this gem!   The basic argument i'm pursuing is that socialism is unconstitutional because it's based on the selective seizure and redistribution of wealth.  Meaning, not all citizens are equal before the law.  The complaints lodged against King George in the Declaration of Independence are very much about the colonist not having the same rights of Englishmen as those whom the King favors. excerpt: the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. "Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject . . . ."1 The "common sense of the subject" expressed in the Declaration of Independence was that a national civil government must be based upon the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that all men are equally endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In Jefferson's day, the common sense of the subject was that the pursuit of happiness included the unalienable right of the individual to acquire, possess, protect and dispose of property. Because the purpose of civil governments was to secure unalienable rights, violations of one's unalienable right of property were subject to civil sanction. Today, however, the common sense of the subject is quite the opposite. The modern idea is that civil government properly possesses all power over all subjects of property. Any rights that may exist are derived from the civil government. Any rights to property that a person has may be regulated, limited or revoked by the civil government in order to satisfy the "public interest." Some have advocated that there are no such things as rights, but merely social duties. There is a clear distinction betwee

Nice summary of the TB2 Roberts Obamacare/Tax supremecist court ruling.  Author Richard Salsman concludes that we now have a Totalitarian government under the rule of men; not the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law the Founding Fathers left us.   excerpt: Once again American conservatives have struck a lethal blow against freedom, rights and capitalism. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling today, condoning every sordid feature of the 2700-page, rights-violating "ObamaCare" law, ensures that America will move still farther and faster down the path to full, socialized medicine, a path first paved in the 1960s, with Medicare and Medicaid. The lawless ruling was made possible by the vote of Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush. With today's ruling the U.S. government can do virtually anything it wishes to its citizens - liberty and rights be damned, without limit. Officially in America we now have a totally arbitrary and limitless government. That is, we have a "total government." In short, we've got totalitarian government. As to how much further liberty we may lose in our lifetimes, it'll depend only on how arbitrary and vicious reigning rulers choose to be, or not. There's no real Rule of Law any more, only the Rule of Men - and these are mostly ignorant, reckless men.

"No one doubts that the coming election will be the most important referendum on the size and nature of government in a generation. But another issue is nearly as important and has gotten far less attention: our crumbling commitment to the rule of law. The notion that we are governed by rules that are transparent and enacted through the legislative process-not by the whims of our leaders-is at the heart of that commitment. If legislators exceed their authority under the Constitution, or if otherwise legitimate laws are misused, courts must step in to prevent or remedy the potential harm. During the 2008 financial crisis, the government repeatedly violated these principles. When regulators bailed out Bear Stearns by engineering its sale to J.P. Morgan Chase, they flagrantly disregarded basic corporate law by "locking up" the transaction so that no other bidder could intervene. When the government bailed out AIG six months later, the Federal Reserve funded the bailout by invoking extraordinary loan powers for what was clearly an acquisition rather than a loan. (The government acquired nearly 80% of AIG's stock.) Two months later, the Treasury Department used money from the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program fund to bail out the car companies. This was dubious. Under the statute, the funds were to be used for financial institutions. But the real violation came a few months later, when the government used a sham bankruptcy sale to transfer Chrysler to Fiat while almost certainly stiffing Chrysler's senior creditors. According to two leading legal scholars, Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule, rule-of-law violations are inevitable during a crisis. The executive branch takes all necessary steps, even if that means violating the law, until the crisis has passed. The argument is powerful, and its advocates are correct that presidents and other executive-branch officials often push the envelope during a crisis. Yet pushing the envelope isn't the same thing as f

Constitutional legal scholar Jonathan Turley examines the unconstitutional changes the Federal government has instituted since 911.  Chilling stuff.  Here is the short list: .. Assassination of US Citizens .. Arbitrary Justice .. Warrantless Searches .. Secret evidence .. Secret courts .. War crimes (violations of the Nuremberg principles of International Law) .. Immunity from judicial review ..Continual (and warrantless) monitoring of citizens .. Extraordinary renditions Turley asks how can we continue to consider America the land of the free when the Federal government continues to compromise our freedoms on a scale only seen in despotic military tyrannies?  Like China, Cuba and Pakistan?   I've been following the post and comments of the Bay Area Patriot group, a local Tea Party offshoot.  It's incredible how so many members continue to be swept up in 911 mania, demanding more military actions in more places.  As if the ten years of war in Afghansitan and Iraq have left our country safe in our way of life and secure in our freedoms.  Just the opposite is happening, as Professor Turley so thoroughly details.  Yet, they cry for more war.  Then proudly claim their status as Tea Party Patriots taking action to restore America and USA Constitution.   What was Einstein's definition of insanity?  :) excerpt: The column addresses how the continued rollbacks on civil liberties in the United States conflicts with the view of the country as the land of the free.  If we are going to adopt Chinese legal principles, we should at least have the integrity to adopt one Chinese proverb: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."  We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies.  Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were.

The kettle is full aboil, according to this and other articles.

More at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/world/middleeast/rebel-infighting-expands-to-eastern-Syrian-city.html See also http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-06/243232-islamic-front-issues-strong-warning-to-isis.ashx#axzz2p9MUh4Gj The Saudis are not pleased with the situation. http://saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20140107191698 Meanwhile ISIS -- the group falling back in Syria -- has captured Fallujah in Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html  

This case is related to EFF's earlier pending case, Jewel v. NSA and has been assigned to Judge Whyte, the same judge who ruled earlier in Jewel that the State Secrets Privilege does not apply to NSA's call metadata "haystack." The plaintiffs are 22 different groups who would make strange bedfellows indeed, except in opposition to government surveillance and repression. 

Glenn Greenwald offers his take on Obama's NSA "reform" speech.

What a hoot! Hillary's Free Syrian Army defected to the jihadis after the missile strikes on Syria did not happen. Now Obama and Kerry are trying to sell the spin of "good" vs. "bad" Al Qaeda, a fact that in itself underscores that Al Qaeda are a bunch of mercenaries whose services go to the highest bidder.  

Adding to the mounting stack of evidence that it was the opposition rather than the Syrian government that wielded the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs.

The political spectrum of Left vs Right must be defined in terms of STATISM vs Individual Liberty. Liberty as understood by the Founding Fathers, and baked into the founding documents.

"There is a lot of ruin in a nation," wrote Adam Smith. His point was that it takes a long time for nations to fall, even when they're dead on their feet. And he was certainly right. America took its fatal blow in 1913, one hundred years ago; it just hasn't hit the ground yet. This is a slow process, but it's actually fast compared to the Romans. It took them several centuries to collapse . The confusing thing about our current situation is that America - and by that I mean the noble America that so many of us grew up believing was real - has long been poisoned. Its liver, kidneys, and spleen have all stopped functioning. Its heart beats slowly and irregularly. But it still stands on its feet and presents itself as alive to all those who would let their eyes fool them. And I'm not without sympathy for those who want to believe. They find themselves in a world where politics is almighty, and where their comfort, prosperity, and perhaps their survival all hang in a delicate balance. They don't want to upset anything, and questioning the bosses is a good way to get yelled at. But just because someone wants to believe doesn't make it so. We are not children and we are not powerless. We Producers should never be intimidated by those who live at our expense. So let's start looking at the facts. 1913: The Horrible Year For all the problems America had prior to 1913 (including the unnecessary and horrifying Civil War), nothing spelled the death of the nation like the horrors of 1913. Here are the key dates: February 3rd : The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, authorizing the Federal government to impose income taxes on individuals. An amendment to a tariff act in 1894 had attempted to do this, but since it was clearly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck it down. As a result - and mostly under the banner of bleeding the rich - the 16th amendment was promoted and passed. As a result, the Revenue Act of 1