Fox News says: Obama criminalizes dissent. WATCH

URGENT! OBAMA Signs Anti-Protest Bill - FREE SPEECH & Protest will get you JAIL TIME!

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you.

Certain rights, like thought and privacy and travel, can be exercised on their own. You don't need the government to cooperate with you; you just need to be left alone. Other rights, like those intended to influence the political process, require that the government not resist your exercise of them. Remember the old one-liner from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Here's the contemporary version of that: If you can criticize the government, but it refuses to hear you, does your exercise of the freedom of speech have any value?

When the framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, they lived in a society in which anyone could walk up to George Washington or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on a public street and say directly to them whatever one wished. They never dreamed of a regal-like force of armed agents keeping public officials away from the public, as we have today. And they never imagined that it could be a felony for anyone to congregate in public within earshot or eyesight of certain government officials. And yet, today in America, it is.

Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.

Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a "restricted" area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well.

Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to useful speech; and unheard political speech is politically useless. The same may be said of the rights to associate and to petition. If peaceful public assembly and public expression of political demands on the government can be restricted to places where government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have been neutered.

Political speech is in the highest category of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the president in the Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process.

tags: free speech news 2012 bill obama protest hr347 arrest charges secret service felony year in jail 1st amendment president congress no zones ban right to we the people judge andrew napolitano fox 829speedy human rights alex jones infowars protection civil liberty vote ron paul

MF Global Looted Customer Accounts

MF Global Looted Customer Accounts

November 25th, 2011 

 

By Stephen Lendman

Wall Street's business model is grand theft. Jon Corzine was MF Global's CEO. Earlier he headed Goldman Sachs, America's premiere racketeering organization.

He also was one of legions of corrupt politicians as US senator and New Jersey governor. His extreme, longstanding criminality warrants putting him in prison for life. No restitution can reverse his harm. It's true also for many others like him.

Before its collapse, MF Global (MFG) faced a run on its holdings. On October 31, it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

On November 19, Reuters said the firm "moved hundreds of millions of dollars in customer money from its US brokerage unit to Bank of New York Mellon Corp. in August, just months before filing for bankruptcy...."

In other words, MFG lawlessly looted customer accounts. It used client money for its own purposes to speculate, as well as cover debt obligations and losses. At issue is grand theft.

In fact, it's one of the most brazen acts in memory in a business notorious for outrageous criminality. What ever's gotten away with incentivizes Wall Street crooks to steal more. Why not! At most, they're slap on the wrist punishments mock rule of law justice.

On November 19 on the Kaiser Report, Barry Ritholtz commented on the big lie, hyper-leveraged banks, the MFG scandal, and congressional political whores, saying:

People responsible for creating these problems shift blame to others. Facts say otherwise. Wall Street speculators take big risks. They use hyper-leverage that's only effective when it works.

"Their models were wildly optimistic. Banking is supposed to be very boring." Decisions are supposed to be made about who's credit worthy and who isn't. Instead, reckless speculation replaced investing and sound lending policies.

Wall Street's ideology is bankrupt, "and it's causing global damage to the economy. For investment banks, the five biggest houses got waivers on leverage rules."

SEC collaborators rigged the system for them. These banks also "happen to be the five biggest donors to Congress," or among the largest. Over time, successful lobbying removed everything affecting profits, no matter the risk. The SEC, Fed, FDIC and CME rigged the system for them.

Brazen fraud became standard practice. Criminals deserving prison keep stealing. The dirty game involves grabbing "whatever the hell you want and run for the hills. No one will prosecute you."

"MF Global is another order of magnitude. If anyone is going to jail over this whole period, it has to be" their top officials. Don't bet on it, especially a power broker like Corzine.

He's directly responsible for stealing $1.2 billion in client funds. He looted them brazenly. According to Bloomberg:

"Examiners from CME Group Inc., the world's largest futures exchange, found unexplained wire transfers" and $1.2 billion missing "during the weekend the failing broker was talking with possible buyers, a person briefed on the matter said."

Multiple investigations began, including by Justice Department lawyers. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) were responsible for overseeing MFG. They knew what went on but did nothing.

Huffington Post writer Daniel Dicker said the Koch Brothers were tipped off in time to get out safely. Others weren't as lucky.

MFG is America's eighth largest bankruptcy, the first major one the Eurozone crisis caused. Expect more ahead.

Practices cratering economies in 2008 continue. Nations teeter on bankruptcy. Corzine bet heavily that Spanish and Italian debt wouldn't collapse.

Using 40 to 1 leverage, he bet massively the wrong way. His second quarter $190 million loss drove investors away. Those remaining lost everything. Corzine and top executives pocketed millions.

In 1999, he was worth an estimated $400 million when he left Goldman Sachs. Perhaps its double that now, including funds looted from MFG. We may know more later on.

From 1994 - 1994, Corzine headed Goldman Sachs during the time banking became deregulated. Carter began it late in his tenure. Reagan did much more. Clinton completed unfinished business. James Petras calls the 1990s "the golden age of pillage," the decade of anything goes.

It persists in the new millennium because political Washington and regulators look the other way, profiting handsomely by doing it. Everyone feathers nests belonging to others. Self-sustaining corruption continues. Only little people and unknowing investors get scammed. Power brokers make out like bandits.

After losing his 2009 gubernatorial reelection bid, government regulators welcomed Corzine back on Wall Street. New York Fed president William Dudley (a fellow Goldman alumnus) made MFG a "primary dealer." Despite its size and a former trading scandal $10 million fine, it became one of a handful of firms marketing US Treasuries.

At the behest of Corzine and other power brokers, CFTC head Gary Gensler suspended implementation of new rules imposing limits on broker-dealer use of client funds, especially for foreign sovereign debt. In other words, they were freed to commit grand theft. MFG took full advantage.

Wall Street Journal Money & Investing editor Francesco Guerrera wrote about "Three Lessons From the Collapse." He quoted University of San Diego Professor Frank Partnoy, saying:

MFG's "failure illustrates how much financial markets are about trust and confidence. Once you lose those, you are done."

Guerrera's three lessons include:

* closing accounting loopholes and strengthening oversight;
* establishing lead regulators for nonbank financial firms; and
* writing new rules for "nonsystemic" firms as well as "too big to fail" ones.

Dodd-Frank financial reform left a broken system in place. The entire law needs rewriting. Better still, scrap it and start over. Stiff regulations with teeth are needed, including mandatory prosecution of crooks, especially those highest up to let others know invulnerability days are over.

When culpable CEO heads roll, it'll be a good start. However, game-changer differences won't happen until all high level Wall Street swindlers wear numbered striped suits.

Trends forecaster Gerald Celente lost $100,000 in an MF Global gold futures account. He told Russia

Today:

"I really got burned. I got a call," saying "I needed to have a margin call. (W)hat are you talking about," he asked? "I've got a ton of money in my account. They responded, oh no you don't. That money's with a trustee now."

His advice for everyone holding gold ETFs is cash out because "they are going to steal all our money." Angry about MF Global's theft, he called Corzine a "cheap SOB." He's that and much more.

"How come he's not in Jail," railed Celente. It's "because he's one of the white shoe boys from the Goldman Sachs crowd." He added that "the merger of state and corporate power" brought "fascism" to America.

The entire system's too corrupted to fix. Only tearing it down and starting over can work. It's high time the process started. Hopefully, OWS protests began it.

Rumor has it that JPMorgan Chase and perhaps other Wall Street banks are involved. Judge Martin Glenn is handling MFG's bankruptcy. HL Camp, Proprietor of HL Camp Futures, wrote him as follows:

"Our firm is a registered introducing broker with the CFTC. I have written to you previously on behalf of our customers."

"Here is a comment this morning from one of our former customers in Europe," saying:

"I will never do business in the United States of America again."

According to Camp, "(t)he system is to protect futures accounts is broken. And the whole world knows it."

"What started as a failure of one FCM (Futures Commission Merchant) that quickly gave a black eye to the CFTC and especially the CME has now made our United States of America a very bad joke to commodity futures traders all over the world."

"The problem this morning is not just excess margin equity."

"The problem this morning is the reputation of the United States of America."

"Thank you very much for your time and for listening."

Forbes staff writer Robert Lenzner said traders and clients didn't know about MFG's unscrupulousness.

He said a CFTC loophole lets firms speculate with segregated client accounts. Few know it without carefully reading contract fine print or getting sound legal advice.

Lenzner's lesson one is CFTC Rule 1.29 must be scraped. It lets futures commission merchants gamble with client funds.

Lesson two is knowing personal funds aren't safe in futures metals, energy, precious metals, or agricultural futures accounts.

Lesson three is resolving which regulator oversees firms like MFG - the CFTC or CME. One should have primary responsibility and be held accountable for fraud.

Lenzner added that Justice Department attorneys are determining whether federal crimes occurred. He expects a lengthy process because MFG's books "are in a state of chaos," deliberately no doubt.

Whether anyone ends up indicted isn't sure. At most perhaps, expect lower level patsies hung out to dry to let crime bosses like Corzine stay free to steal more. It's how it always works.

-###-

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Signs Point to a Coordinated National Program to Try and Unoccupy Wall Street and Other Cities

Police State Tactics: Signs Point to a Coordinated National Program to Try and Unoccupy Wall Street and Other Cities

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/900

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 18:27 — Anonymous

by: 

Dave Lindorff

The ugly hand of the federal government is becoming increasingly suspected behind what appears to be a nationwide attempt to repress and evict the Occupation Movement.
Across the country in recent days, ultimatums have been issues to groups occupying Portland, OR, Chicago, IL, San Francisco, Dallas, TX, Atlanta, GA, and most recently New York, NY, where the Occupation Movement began on September 17. The two most recent eviction efforts, in Oakland and New York, have been the worst.
The police attacks have had a lot in common. They have been “justified” based upon trumped up pre-textural claims that the occupiers are creating a health hazard, or a fire hazard, or a crime problem, generally on little or no evidence, or there has been a digging up of obscure and constitutionally questionable statutes, for example laws outlawing the homeless. Then the police come in, usually in dead of night, dressed in riot gear and heavily armed with mace weapons, batons, plastic cuffs and tear gas, or even assault rifles in some cases and so-called flash-bang stun grenades--all weapons to be used against peaceful demonstrators.
So violent has been the response that some returned veterans have condemned the police for using weapons and tactics that are not even permitted by occupying troops in war-torn countries.
“We definitely feel, especially in a movement like this that has arisen so quickly in a number of cities, that there will be a coordinated national effort to try and shut it down,” says Heidi Bogosian, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild, which has been playing a key role providing legal services to the new movement.
“We see the scapegoating of these movements, the attacks at night, and in general tactics designed to terrorize and to scare protesters away. I can’t see this as anything other than centrally coordinated.”
One indication of that coordination may have been a conference call among 18 city mayors which was confirmed by Oakland Mayor Jean Quan in a radio interview on San Francisco station KALW. Dan Siegel, an Oakland attorney who worked as an advisor to Quan, but who resigned in disgust after Oakland police and law enforcement personnel from a number of surrounding jurisdictions brutally drove occupiers there out of their park using tear gas, supposedly non-lethal ammunition (bean bags and rubber bullets) and flash-bang grenades in a night-time raid in the early hours of November 14, says that phone conference call took place, significantly, while Quan was in Washington, DC.
Remember this image: it's the national police state on the march
Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 25, Quan authorized the first brutal police assault on Occupy Oakland. It led, among other things, to the critical wounding of Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran who was among the protesters, and was hit in the forehead by a police tear gas cannister fired at close range.
Who organized that critical conference call? Was it Quan or one of the other mayors, or was it someone in the federal government? Siegel says he doesn’t know, and Quan isn’t saying.
But both Siegel and Boghosian say they strongly suspect federal involvement in the planning of the recent spate of police violence against occupiers. Says Siegel, “It’s only logical to assume that the ‘Fusion Centers’ are involved, especially after the Oakland occupiers shut down the port in Oakland.”
Some 72 Fusion Centers, located around the US and funded by the US at a cost of half a billion dollars, are a post 9-11creation of the new Homeland Security Department. Bringing the FBI together with local law enforcement departments, they both collect and share domestic intelligence, and can serve as command centers to direct local law enforcement in helping implement national law enforcement goals. There are also many Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which directly link the FBI with urban police departments.
Says Boghosian, “What we are seeing here is the Miami model, with various levels of law enforcement, local, state and federal, all at work. It would be shocking if federal law enforcement were not seeing this occupy movement now as a national security threat.”
Mara Veheyden-Hilliard, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild’s National Mass Defense Committee, based in Washington, agrees. “These crackdowns on the occupation movement certainly appear to be part of a national strategy to crush them,” she says. “We haven’t yet found overt evidence of federal involvement, but the fact that in rapid succession local authorities have taken action raises the specter of coordination.”
She adds, “There is absolutely no legal justification for the involvement of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in this movement. These demonstrations are not terrorist activities, and police should not be treating them as such, yet all over the country the police are treating the protesters as if they are criminals. The similarity of the response everywhere to the movement makes it appear that there is a coordinated strategy.”
Meanwhile, Siegel, now back in private practice, says that since the riots that followed the killing of Oscar Grant by a BART transit cop, who shot Grant fatally in the head after he had been arrested, subdued and handcuffed for a turnstile jumping violation, federal law enforcement officials have been observed actively involved in police activities in the Oakland area.
Some Oakland residents have reported seeing federal vehicles and possibly also National Guard equipment during the police actions against occupation demonstrators, too, though National Guardsmen can only be legally activated by a governor, and California Gov. Jerry Brown, a former mayor of Oakland, has not publicly issued any such order.
Rick Ellis, a journalist with the Minneapolis office of the news outlet Examiner.com, is reporting that an unidentified US Justice Department official has confirmed what Boghosian, Siegel and Veheyden-Hilliard say they suspect is the case: that each of the recent brutal police evictions and attacks on occupation groups “was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.”
Ellis writes, “According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.”
According to an AP story published early Wednesday, mayors and city leaders in as many as 40 cities were communicating about coordinating an attack on the occupy movement. Again, this hardly seems like it was on their own initiative.
Given how things have played out, it certainly looks like the suspicions were correct, and that Ellis’s source is telling the truth.
President Obama has a lot to answer for. So do the mayors who have been overseeing the repressive operations locally.

Norquist’s group won’t remove names of House members disavowing tax pledge - The Hill's On The Money

Norquist’s group won’t remove names of House members disavowing tax pledge - The Hill's On The Money

Norquist’s group won’t remove names of House members disavowing tax pledge

By Russell Berman and Bernie Becker - 11/09/11 04:21 PM ET

Grover Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, says it will not remove the names of House members who have disavowed its pledge to oppose tax increases.
Several Republican lawmakers and one Democrat have told The Hill they no longer feel bound to uphold Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which many of them signed more than a decade ago.
But Norquist is not letting them off the hook, insisting that all candidates were told at the time they signed the pledge that it bound them for the duration of their time in office, and not simply for a single term, as some lawmakers have contended. He said that candidates are sent the pledge and an accompanying question-and-answer sheet, which states that pledge-signers do not have to affirm the pledge when they seek reelection and that they “are bound for the duration of their tenure in the office to which they are elected.”

“A politician who says he or she did not know that the Taxpayer Protection Pledge was a commitment to voters for the duration of his/her time in office is not telling the truth,” Norquist said Wednesday.
Reps. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio), Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) are all listed on ATR’s website as signers of the pledge but told The Hill they considered the promise good for one term and accused the anti-tax group of deceptively suggesting they were signers “in the 112th Congress.” Andrews, who signed the pledge in 1992, is asking that his name be removed from the list. Several other House Republicans listed as signers also indicated they did not currently feel bound by the pledge.
Asked if ATR would remove those lawmakers, spokesman John Kartch said: “Any congressman who wants to tell his constituents that he lied his way into office is free to do so at any time. They were elected and re-elected promising their voters they would never raise taxes. ATR cannot change the facts or history.”

RELATED ARTICLES

• House GOP lawmakers want out of pledge

Earlier Wednesday, Norquist took Andrews to task on Twitter, writing in a pair of posts that “the tax pledge is promise [sic] to oppose tax hikes as long as one is in Congress. Not, until you change your mind. … but you know this because it was written down in Questions and Answers attached to pledge you signed.”

The centrist group No Labels on Wednesday applauded the GOP lawmakers who renounced the pledge. “No Labels commends lawmakers with the courage to cut ties to hyper-partisan interest groups and focus

On Wall Street’s Private Police in NYPD Uniforms

Posted: 10 Oct 2011 09:47 PM PDT Naked Capitalism

We reported a bit more than a week ago on how JP Morgan had given a troublingly large donation of $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. As we recounted, that foundation was established in 1971, which was when the city was sliding into its fiscal crisis, as a way for companies and individuals to bolster the NYPD’s budget. And even though in theory contributions go into a general coffer, one has to suspect in practice that big donors will get more attention from the cops. Even though this donation was the biggest the police foundation had ever received, it was still peanuts relative to the total NYPD budget. Nevertheless, as Richard Kline pointed out, the gesture was significant:

To me, the telltale with the JippyMo ‘donation’ is that it was _publicly_ announced. Jamie the Demon and his top heads want the public to know that the banksters LIKE the police, as opposed to those daft, sloppy, protestors.

The bankster/Kochster assault on unions was excruciatingly badly timed. It aims directly at public service unions. At their pensions. At their staffing levels. At their equipment. One of the most cogent remarks coming out of the intitial Wisconsin action (before the org-heads diverted it into failing to elect more Democrats) came from the police there, to the effect that lower staffing levels threatened _their_ safety. The local police were markedly sympathetic to the capitol building occupation in Madison. Some of this has clearly been whispered in the ear of the financial oligarchs by their paid consultants to the effect that alienating the police is not in the interests of the 1%. I don’t think that the sum of money is especially relevant or substantial. What matters is that it is a public demonstration that the banksters _like_ the police, with the implication that they will be prepared to drop a little more loose change on them if they’ll clap the rabble into Rikers like good fellows.

And it turns out that big financial service firms have also been buying protection via the NYPD. Literally.

Pam Martens in Counterpunch (hat tip reader 1sk) describes a program which allows private firms to pay the city to put a cop on the street to police for them. I am not making this up. Oh, and the white shirted cops that seem to be more aggressive in going after protestors (most notably, the one that infamously maced a group of women?) The assumption has been that they are supervisors. Martens suggests they are in the employ of businesses:

If you’re a Wall Street behemoth, there are endless opportunities to privatize profits and socialize losses beyond collecting trillions of dollars in bailouts from taxpayers. One of the ingenious methods that has remained below the public’s radar was started by the Rudy Giuliani administration in New York City in 1998. It’s called the Paid Detail Unit and it allows the New York Stock Exchange and Wall Street corporations, including those repeatedly charged with crimes, to order up a flank of New York’s finest with the ease of dialing the deli for a pastrami on rye.
The corporations pay an average of $37 an hour (no medical, no pension benefit, no overtime pay) for a member of the NYPD, with gun, handcuffs and the ability to arrest. The officer is indemnified by the taxpayer, not the corporation.
New York City gets a 10 percent administrative fee on top of the $37 per hour paid to the police. The City’s 2011 budget called for $1,184,000 in Paid Detail fees, meaning private corporations were paying wages of $11.8 million to police participating in the Paid Detail Unit. The program has more than doubled in revenue to the city since 2002.
The taxpayer has paid for the training of the rent-a-cop, his uniform and gun, and will pick up the legal tab for lawsuits stemming from the police personnel following illegal instructions from its corporate master. Lawsuits have already sprung up from the program.

If you assume a policeman works 48 weeks a year, that equates to 166 private goons masquerading as law enforcement. And remember, the corporate sponsors don’t pay for any benefits. The rule of thumb I’m used to is 25% to 30% of cash comp. And that’s before, as Marten stresses, training and litigation costs.

Lehman failed and owed the NYPD for 21 Paid Detail policemen. Goldman, the New York Stock Exchange, and the World Financial Center have all used Paid Detail. Martens points out that the New York Stock Exchange used its force to act under its direction (rather than the city’s):

On September 8, 2004, Robert Britz, then President and Co-Chief Operating Officer of the New York Stock Exchange, testified as follows to the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services:

“…we have implemented new hiring standards requiring former law enforcement or military backgrounds for the security staff…We have established a 24-hour NYPD Paid Detail monitoring the perimeter of the data centers…We have implemented traffic control and vehicle screening at the checkpoints. We have installed fixed protective planters and movable vehicle barriers.”

Military backgrounds; paid NYPD 24-7; checkpoints; vehicle barriers?..In his testimony, the NYSE executive Britz states that “we” did this or that while describing functions that clearly belong to the City of New York.

Martens also describes how the suit over the arrest of 700 OWS protestors on Brooklyn Bridge 30 members of the NYPD and 10 “law enforcement officers not employed by the NYPD”. 

I found this report to be very troubling. Even though I’ve written how the US is moving towards becoming a Mussolini-style corpocracy, we are further down that path than I realized. 

Sing along against FASCISM !!

Shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather
Whiplash girlchild in the dark
Comes in bells, your servant, don't forsake him
Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart
Downy sins of streetlight fancies
Chase the costumes she shall wear
Ermine furs adorn the imperious
Severin, Severin awaits you there
I am tired, I am weary
I could sleep for a thousand years
A thousand dreams that would awake me
Different colors made of tears
Kiss the boot of shiny, shiny leather
Shiny leather in the dark
Tongue of thongs, the belt that does await you
Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart
Severin, Severin, speak so slightly
Severin, down on your bended knee
Taste the whip, in love not given lightly
Taste the whip, now plead for me
I am tired, I am weary
I could sleep for a thousand years
A thousand dreams that would awake me
Different colors made of tears
Shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather
Whiplash girlchild in the dark
Severin, your servant comes in bells, please don't forsake him
Strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart

Do not kiss the shiny boots of fascists, folks !!

#Make.it.go.VIRAL Dossier: Fiat Money VIDEO

http://www.prudentinvestor.com/2011/09/silent-economic-world-war-aka-fiat-mone.html

Toni Straka is an intelligent, moral man.  He is just a fantastic financial journalisto, of long standing.

If he says something is worthwhile, I PAY ATTENTION.

"Readers are urged to spend 2:44 minutes watching this video and help this go viral. It condenses everything the current unsustainable monetary system is all about. Fiat money is the silent economic war on the world." 
- Toni Straka

ECB economist QUITS. Watch out, Mde Merkel !

If someone is new here and following along - my POINT is that IF the Euro folds, it buys time for the US dollar.  Short term that might be cool, BUT in the long run it allows the gamblers on Wall Street and in the gubbermint even MORE time to continue the military keynesianISM.  NOT good.  How can the world trade w/o a definitive currency to do so?  The sharks know this and are gambling short on money markets, too.  They seem to be playing straight in the commodities markets.

Who even has the software to keep track of the mess being made?  Why not try Goldmanh Sachs as the major institution trying to get a real fix on it ..

This development means Merkel is going to be finding herself w/o business backing and short on hvote for her two-tier (hahahaha) Eurozone proposal .. (as if it wasn't already). 

Jürgen Stark's Resignation Is Setback for Merkel

By Peter Müller, Christoph Pauly and Christian Reiermann

REUTERS

THE ECB's chief economist Jürgen Stark resigned on Friday.

The chief economist of the European Central Bank, Jürgen Stark, resigned on Friday, apparently over his opposition to the ECB's bond-buying program. The loss is embarrassing for Chancellor Angela Merkel, coming just months after the resignation of Axel Weber as Bundesbank president.

In its official announcement, the ECB cited "personal reasons" for the step. For a top central banker, however, personal reasons are always professional reasons as well. It was known that Stark had long questioned the policy of the ECB and its president, Jean-Claude Trichet, involving the purchase of large quantities of the government bonds of ailing euro-zone countries. He had trouble hiding his aversion to the Frenchman's approach. According to a friend, Stark made his decision to resign in early August, when the majority of the ECB governing council voted for the purchase of Italian and Spanish government bonds.

Shortly after his resignation as chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB) on Friday, Jürgen Stark carried on as if nothing had happened, taking a group of visitors on a tour of the Eurotower in Frankfurt.

Trichet and his staff were dismayed when Stark announced internally that he intended to resign. They urged him to at least stay on until the ECB council meeting last Thursday. But then Trichet used the press conference following the meeting for a theatrical tirade against the inflexible Germans.

Undermining the Euro's Stability

Stark already voted against the first bond purchase program in the spring of 2010, and he also voted against the ECB's recent purchases a few weeks ago. Stark feared that the measure would undermine the stability of the euro. Worst yet, he felt that the central bank is giving up its independence and placing itself at the behest of politicians. This runs counter to the tradition of Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, which Stark internalized during his tenure as its vice-president.

For the same reasons, Axel Weber resigned as president of the Bundesbank and chose not to succeed Trichet as head of the ECB. Stark's resignation is bad news for the current Bundesbank president, Jens Weidmann, who is also opposed to the bond purchases, and who is now losing an ally in the struggle over monetary policy. For German central bankers, monetary policy traditionally involves using all means possible to fight the risks of inflation. Printing money to buy up bonds is clearly not part of that approach.

The loss is embarrassing for German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, both members of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). It is the second time that they are being abandoned by a well-known monetary policy expert because he can no longer support the approach to saving the euro that Merkel's administration has shaped.

In addition, the German governing coalition isn't exactly overflowing with talented individuals who can readily be sent to Frankfurt. This has forced Merkel and Schäuble to nominate a member of the opposition center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), Jörg Asmussen, to succeed Stark. Asmussen is a state secretary in the Finance Ministry who was appointed under the previous "grand coalition" government of the CDU and SPD.

Controversial Choice

The choice will trigger outrage and relief in equal measure within the ranks of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group; outrage, because yet another key post is going to a member of the SPD, and relief, because they are glad to be rid of him in Berlin.

The move hasn't made people happy. "Putting an SPD man in the most important appointment Germany can make in the international financial world is at least as wrong as making a member of the SPD a state secretary in the CDU-led Finance Ministry," says Georg Nüsslein, an economic policy spokesman for the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), the CDU's Bavarian sister party. The leadership of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the conservatives' junior coalition partner, agreed to Asmussen's nomination, however.

It is debatable whether Asmussen will be any more amenable to the ECB's bond-buying policy than his predecessor was. He too finds the purchases fundamentally dubious, but feels that they are justifiable in the current situation.

Although the search for a replacement went smoothly, there is a catch for Germany: Asmussen can only serve out the remaining three years of Stark's eight-year term, and the ECB statutes prohibit him from running for another term after that.

Asmussen's promotion also complicates personnel problems at the Finance Ministry. Schäuble has been having trouble filling vacant positions for months. For example, he is still searching for someone to head his policy department and someone else to run the financial markets department.

At least he managed to quickly come up with a replacement for Asmussen as state secretary: the current head of the European department, Thomas Steffen. But now Schäuble has three department-head positions to fill.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Berlin Lays Groundwork for a Two-Speed Europe

Oh!  Oh!

Divide and Rescue

Berlin Lays Groundwork for a Two-Speed Europe

Getty Images

Chancellor Angela Merkel has always rejected a two-track Europe. But with the euro crisis persisting, Berlin is now considering far-reaching new powers for the Euro Group -- to the detriment of the European Commission. Could it work? 

By SPIEGEL Staff

 

Herman Van Rompuy tends to be overlooked whenever European heads of state and government meet for their summits. The Belgian politician, president of the European Council, is an inconspicuous man with a receding hairline and metal-rimmed glasses, someone who doesn't seek the limelight, and who enjoys writing haikus about nature in his free time. He is one of the most powerful politicians in Europe, but he is almost unknown in most EU countries, including Germany.

Van Rompuy has been traveling a lot lately. His current schedule includes meetings with Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. On Monday, Van Rompuy meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, where he can look forward to a particularly pleasant conversation. Merkel wants to propose giving the European Council president even more power. The chancellor is planning her next political policy reversal . Until very recently, she has insisted that she was firmly opposed to creating divisions within Europe. But under the pressure of the euro crisis , Merkel has recently been thinking about abandoning the concept of a unified EU -- and assigning a key role to Van Rompuy in the process.
The EU has always been careful to ensure that all members acted in unison, whether it involved moving forward or standing still. But in times in which the common currency threatens to break apart, the 17 nations of the euro zone need a common economic and financial policy. Otherwise, as the crisis has demonstrated, the euro cannot function.
A New Power Center?
Today, it is primarily Great Britain that is preventing the EU from growing closer together. Merkel, though, has had enough -- and is now planning a two-speed Europe. It would mean tightly interlocking the countries of the euro zone, possibly by means of a separate treaty that would apply in parallel to the EU Treaty of Lisbon. This was the concept German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble proposed last week to the leadership of his party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merkel sees Van Rompuy, who already chairs the council of the 27 EU leaders, as the head of the new power center.
In addition to the club of 27 nations that primarily manages the common domestic market as it has done until now, Merkel envisions a tight alliance of the 17 euro-zone members -- one which would unify their fiscal, budgetary and social policies. This would create a two-class club, raising questions like: What happens to the European Commission? Will it still be responsible for economic matters in the euro zone, or will there be a new organization? The same questions apply to the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Would all of these institutions have to be duplicated, meaning even more bureaucracy, effort and expense?
There are no answers yet to these questions, and there is already plenty of skepticism. The European Commission is just as opposed to Merkel's plans as most members of the European Parliament and many smaller EU countries are. They also have some within Merkel's own ranks raising their eyebrows. "We will not rescue the euro by creating more and more committees and instruments," says Horst Seehofer, the chairman of the CDU's Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU).
That is precisely what Merkel has in mind. She can draw on a concept known as "Core Europe," which was developed in the 1990s by the then-chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, a certain Wolfgang Schäuble, who now serves under Merkel as finance minister. Both have established various measures to rescue the euro in recent months, some for the EU as a whole and others exclusively for the 17 euro-zone member states.
Taking Things a Step Further
Although the heads of state and government have formally strengthened the Stability Pact for all EU countries, only those countries that have introduced the euro face the threat of harsh penalties. They, in particular, should commit to decreasing their government debt and strict conditions should govern the process. "No one cares whether Great Britain or Poland violate the 3 percent ceiling for the deficit," says a German government official.
A similar situation applies to the so-called Euro-Plus Pact. In it, the countries of the monetary union pledge to increase their competitiveness and fix weaknesses in their social systems, by raising the retirement age, for example. Every country that wants to participate can do so. Poland, for example, has joined the agreement. However, it cannot participate in the decision-making process. The rules were developed within the group of 17.
Labor Minister Ursula von der Leyen is interested in taking things a step further. She would like to see greater integration of social policy in the euro zone countries as well and envisions a Euro Group of labor ministers based on the finance minister model.
But it doesn't stop there. Merkel and Schäuble are seeking further steps toward integration in tax policy. At a meeting of the CDU/CSU parliamentary leadership last week, Schäuble said that because of resistance from countries like Great Britain, it is taking too long to agree on a financial-transaction tax applicable throughout the entire EU. Because of the delay, he said, he could imagine initially launching the project in the euro zone.
Giving Up Sovereignty
The scope of a joint corporate tax proposed by Merkel and Sarkozy at their meeting in mid-August is also likely to be expanded beyond the two largest member states. "This is much more broadly conceived," says a source within the German government. The two leaders envision a largely uniform tax for corporations within the euro zone.
All of these ideas amount to the euro countries gradually giving up parts of their national sovereignty. It wasn't until the crisis came along that a willingness to move in this direction began to emerge. Ironically, it is the countries most deeply affected by the crisis that serve as a model for this new approach. Greece, Ireland and Portugal have already overcome some obstacles when it comes to relinquishing sovereignty. Now the countries whose government finances are still healthy will be expected to give up some of their independence as well.

New bodies are to be formed to expedite the integration of the Euro Group. Germany and France want to make themselves more independent of the existing structures in the EU and no longer be solely dependent on the resources of the European Commission. As a first step, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), headed by the German economist Klaus Regling , is to develop its own analysis division. The division would monitor the financial markets and make proposals on how the EFSF can avert crises. Only the member states of the euro zone are involved in the EFSF. The Lisbon Treaty, the basis for the EU, has nothing to do with the institution.
The monetary union already had its own bodies that make decisions more or less independently of the European Commission. The important decisions have already been made for some time within the Euro Group, the group of finance ministers from the member states of the monetary union. They meet once a month, or more often, if necessary.

Part 2: A New Shadow Government for the EU

But that isn't enough for Merkel and Sarkozy. They want the 17 leaders of the euro zone countries to convene for a summit twice a year, with Van Rompuy serving as its permanent chairman.
The Belgian would also receive a bureaucratic structure for his new responsibilities, giving the Euro Group its own secretariat. According to initial ideas, the new agency would be appended to an existing European Council secretariat, so that the separation doesn't seem too obvious.
The group of finance ministers of the euro zone, which prepares the groundwork prior to meetings of heads of state and government, may also be strengthened. An idea being considered is to provide it with a full-time chairman, who would serve as a contact for Van Rompuy. Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker has taken care of the duties until now. The new chairman would be a former finance minister, making him more acceptable to a group of his peers.
While that is still in the planning stages, it has already been resolved that the working group of finance state secretaries will have a full-time chairman with his own team of employees. The body, with the cumbersome title Eurogroup Working Group, does the detail-oriented heavy lifting ahead of finance minister meetings.
In short, a kind of shadow government is currently taking shape in Brussels. But officials in Berlin have begun considering ideas which go even further. Merkel, for example, is thinking about introducing a right to file complaints before the European Court of Justice against euro-zone member states that violate the Stability Pact. Such a move would require an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty.
Integrating Economic Policies
At present, such ideas are still in the development stage -- and it isn't even clear whether the chancellor will be able to prevail with her ideas for a core Europe. Based on experiences to date, it seems highly doubtful that the EU member states can even agree on taking a significant step toward integrating their economic policies.
"Everyone agrees that stronger coordination of economic policy is a good idea," says Polish Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski. But, he adds, as soon as steps in this direction become more concrete, individual states begin to block the initiative. "I have never met a finance minister from another country who has asked me what he can do to help, in terms of economic policy," Rostowski scoffs.
And evidence of a lack of willingness to coordinate is not hard to find. A so-called European Semester, for example, was introduced at the beginning of the year with great fanfare. Although it gives the Commission the right to monitor national budgets to gain more control over the debtor nations, the Commission cannot do more than issue recommendations. If countries do not comply with austerity requirements, as is currently the case with Italy, the Commission has no leverage to correct national fiscal policy.
The self-proclaimed boosters of enhanced integration also hesitate when they are the ones being asked to give up competencies. Sarkozy, for instance, is still blocking an agreement with the European Commission and the European Parliament on reforming the Stability Pact. Germany and France support the so-called intergovernmental method, which involves agreements being made among the member states. This prevents the European Commission and the European Parliament from having too much of a say. But small countries, in particular, fear that they cannot protect their interests against the large countries without the help of the Commission. The concern is that the large countries will end up dominating the smaller countries. "You can push experiments involving greater cooperation at the intergovernmental level, but in the end this policy should become part of the EU agreements," says Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders.
'A Few Idiots'
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso is also alarmed. In a "speech on the state of the union" last year, he warned against a division of Europe. He intends to read the member states the riot act before the European Parliament in Strasbourg at the end of the month. Last Thursday, Barroso tested the mood at a lunch with a few members. He argued that because of the principle of unanimity, the intergovernmental method would allow "a few idiots" in one country to "blackmail" the EU.
In addition, the consequences of the decisions are always perceived with some delay. In the most recent example, the German government wants to provide more guarantees for the expanded bailout fund than the current €211 billion. Unnoticed by the public, it is adopting a passage from the current guidelines, under which the fund can be increased by 20 percent if necessary. In an emergency, this could mean that Germany would be responsible for more than €250 billion.
The German-French ideas are also virtually unenforceable among the 17 euro zone members. Many of those countries suffering from bloated deficits are first calling for the introduction of joint euro bonds before they are prepared to relinquish more sovereignty. But that is precisely what Merkel and Sarkozy have rejected until now. "It's a chicken-and-egg problem," says Belgian Finance Minister Reynders. "Some want a fiscal union first, while others want a transfer union."
There is also resistance to Merkel's plans from within her own coalition. CSU Chairman Seehofer, for example, is strictly opposed to relinquishing "national sovereign rights to a European economic and fiscal union." "We don't want a European super-state," he adds.
The Right Approach
The business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP), Merkel's junior coalition partner in Berlin, is also uninterested in the chancellor's plans for a more integrated Europe. It is opposed to both euro bonds and outfitting Europe with additional competencies.
In short, Merkel's two-speed concept is not just creating a rift within Europe, but within German politics, as well. The CDU, SPD and Greens are calling for tighter political integration of the continent, while the CSU and the FDP are generally opposed to the idea.
This Monday, the chancellor is receiving support from a completely unexpected quarter. In recent months, the billionaire Nicolas Berggruen has assembled a "Council for the Future of Europe" under the auspices of his institute. In addition to former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, it includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe González and former European Commission President Jacques Delors.
The council supports more instead of less of Europe. It advocates the EU expanding its bailout funds, tighter integration and the transfer of more national competencies to Brussels, not just in financial and economic matters. It also proposes a European tax that Brussels would be empowered to levy for the EU in the future, as well as a program for growth and employment in Europe and an overhaul of all labor markets and social welfare systems in the member states. It would be a vast and far-reaching reform.
It's no surprise that council member Schröder almost wholeheartedly supports his successor's plan for more European integration. "Germany and France issued a strong signal with the plan for a European economic government," the former chancellor said in an interview with SPIEGEL. "That's the right approach."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

ALEC on the National Scene: Dennis Kaiser

http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=ALEC-on-the-National-Scene-by-Dennis-Kaiser-110904-42.html&c=a


September 4, 2011
ALEC on the National Scene
By Dennis Kaiser

Although the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was formed way back in the 70's by right-wingers in order to organize state legislatures, it has gained in power even on the federal level as they have backed many of its "alumni' in gaining seats within our national government.
Briefly, ALEC is the Koch-backed (and others) organization which has been instrumental in bringing the "Tea Party" uprising we have recently experienced.   In fact, that uprising has been amongst us for three decades, however not until recently, and the Citizens' United decision of the Supreme Court, they have become more vocal, both, in words and in financial areas.
ALEC, with its corporate members, has been writing legislation that it then gives to its legislative members, presently over 2000, who present it to their respective state legislatures under their own name to be voted on to become law. Being these are drawn up by corporate attorneys it is little wonder they enhance the corporate power while diminishing the power of the people, thus it is quite anti-Democracy and gives a primary reason we have not had a single piece of legislation that has favored the people over corporations in the past three decades.
While initially ALEC targeted the individual states, but through the years has been able to get members elected on the national scene.
At present we have 5 members of the U.S. Senate and 79 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have been members of ALEC.
Is it any wonder we have the laws being presented in the respective chambers of Congress that are corporate favored? Wonder no longer as to why laws that are being passed favor corporations. Targeted by ALEC are such things as privatized schools (I prefer the term "profitized" over privatized as that term more accurately states what it is), no social safety net, profitized prisons, in general everything taxpayer dollars have built and paid for turned over to profiteers.
In fighting against the ALEC agenda people must get more involved in determining who they elect to defend them. In studying what ALEC stands for and what they have done in these past three decades it is safe to say they are not for the average citizen, therefore a vote for anyone connected with this subversive organization is not good for the future of our nation. While most of the members refer to themselves as "Republican' it is not there are no "Democrats' who are members.   Also, there are those who have not had official membership with ALEC, but have been "bought' by them and will toward carrying out their agenda as repayment.
Below is a listing of present members of Congress who make up the 60-member Tea Party Caucus. Three members who received Tea Party backing are Ron Johnson (WI), Pat Toomey (PA), and Marco Rubio (FL) declined to join this caucus, but will be "forced' to adhere to the agenda as they have already been "bought' in order to get elected:
60-Member Tea Party Caucus

• Sandy Adams , Florida
• Robert Aderholt , Alabama
• Todd Akin , Missouri
• Rodney Alexander , Louisiana (ALEC Alum)
• Michele Bachmann , Minnesota, Chair
• Roscoe Bartlett , Maryland
• Joe Barton , Texas
• Gus Bilirakis , Florida
• Rob Bishop , Utah
• Diane Black , Tennessee
• Michael C. Burgess , Texas
• Paul Broun , Georgia
• Dan Burton , Indiana (ALEC Alum)
• John Carter , Texas
• Bill Cassidy , Louisiana
• Howard Coble , North Carolina
• Mike Coffman , Colorado
• Chip Cravaack , Minnesota
• Ander Crenshaw , Florida
• John Culberson , Texas (ALEC Alum)
• Jeff Duncan , South Carolina
• Blake Farenthold , Texas
• Stephen Fincher , Tennessee
• John Fleming , Louisiana
• Trent Franks , Arizona
• Phil Gingrey , Georgia (ALEC Alum)
• Louie Gohmert , Texas
• Vicky Hartzler , Missouri
• Wally Herger , California
• Tim Huelskamp , Kansas
• Lynn Jenkins , Kansas
• Steve King , Iowa (ALEC Alum)
• Doug Lamborn , Colorado (ALEC Alum)
• Jeff Landry , Louisiana
• Blaine Luetkemeyer , Missouri
• Kenny Marchant , Texas (ALEC Alum)
• Tom McClintock , California
• David McKinley , West Virginia
• Gary Miller , California
• Mick Mulvaney , South Carolina
• Randy Neugebauer , Texas
• Rich Nugent , Florida
• Steve Pearce , New Mexico (ALEC Alum)
• Mike Pence , Indiana
• Ted Poe , Texas
• Tom Price , Georgia (ALEC Alum)
• Denny Rehberg , Montana
• Phil Roe , Tennessee
• Dennis Ross , Florida
• Ed Royce , California (ALEC Alum)
• Steve Scalise , Louisiana
• Tim Scott , South Carolina
• Pete Sessions , Texas
• Adrian Smith , Nebraska (ALEC Alum)
• Lamar Smith , Texas
• Cliff Stearns , Florida
• Tim Walberg , Michigan (ALEC Alum)
• Joe Walsh , Illinois (ALEC Alum)
• Allen West , Florida
• Lynn Westmoreland , Georgia
• Joe Wilson , South Carolina (ALEC Alum)

Below is a listing of those present members who are ALEC Alums.   After knowing from whence they have come it makes it obvious why they appear to be nothing more than corporate lackeys:

U.S. Senate

 Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO)
 Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
 Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
 Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)


U.S. House of Representatives

 Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
 Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
 Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
 Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
 Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA)
 Rep. John Linder (R-GA)
 Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
 Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
 Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
 Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK)
 Rep. Ken Marchant (R-TX)
 Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
 Rep. John McHugh (R-NY)
 Rep. F.A. Boyd (D-FL)
 Rep. Cathy McMorris (R-WA)
 Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)
 Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
 Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
 Rep. John Mica (R-FL)
 Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
 Rep. Jefferson Miller (R-FL)
 Rep. David Camp (R-MI)
 Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
 Rep. John Campbell (R-CA)
 Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
 Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
 Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
 Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)
 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
 Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
 Rep. John Peterson (R-PA)
 Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
 Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA)
 Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)
 Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA)
 Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
 Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV)
 Rep. David Davis (R-TN)
 Rep. Thomas Price (R-GA)
 Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)
 Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL)
 Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
 Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
 Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
 Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY)
 Rep. Thelma Drake (R-VA)
 Rep. Michael J. Rogers (R-AL)
 Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK)
 Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
 Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
 Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
 Rep. John Randy Forbes (R-VA)
 Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
 Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA)
 Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
 Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
 Rep. James Gerlach (R-PA)
 Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID)
 Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
 Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE)
 Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)
 Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK)
 Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)
 Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
 Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
 Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH)
 Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
 Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
 Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)
 Rep. Gerald Weller (R-IL)
 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
 Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
 Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
 Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
 Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA)
 Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
 Rep. John Kuhl (R-NY)


Use this in order to be more watchful as to what these, and others in Congress are attempting to do in order to determine whether they are in your best interest, or in the interests of their corporate financiers. We must make our vote more important   than the corporate dollars.




Author's Bio: Dennis Kaiser is an author and consultant focusing on individual rights. As a US citizen Dennis is deeply concerned over how our nation has fallen from being productive and full of hope to one where that hope is being stripped from the majority as more and more "freedoms' are being taken along with economic burdens weighing more heavily on their shoulders. Visit his website at http://NotSeeAmerica.com to stay up on what is being done to steal your nation from you.

DO IT NOW DOSSIER: Boycott Marriot hotel, reporters attacked @ALEC

The hotel managers email is Gil.zanchi@marriott.com. Send him and email with your outrage.




Marriot Hotel phone number: 1-504-581-1000 (Be nice to the workers!)
I told them I would avoid giving business to hotels in the Marriot chain so long as they behave that way and allow that sort thing to occur. The woman answering the phone didn't even know about it. Marriot should publicly apologize.


You can call the PR weeny that ordered the beat down:
Raegan Weber
Senior Director, Public Affairs.
202-742-8536

VIDEO: Security Guards At American Legislative Exchange Council Conference Physically Attack ThinkProgress Reporters

By Lee Fang and Scott Keyes on Aug 5, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Scott Keyes' thumb after being attacked by security guards at the American Legislative Exchange Council conference

Yesterday, at a conference in New Orleans, two ThinkProgress reporters were attacked by security guards for no apparent reason. Reporters Scott Keyes and Lee Fang were at the Marriott Hotel for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting, an event that brings together state lawmakers with corporate lobbyists to draft “model” legislation.

While we stood by the second floor lobby of the conference hotel, security guards surrounded us, demanding that we leave. As we were leaving, they approached us, violently pushed us and twisted our arms. A guard approached Fang from behind, tackling him and later bending his arm to take his camera. Keyes, faced similar treatment: two security guards roughed him up on the escalator, taking his video camera, and cutting Keyes’ hand as he attempted to leave the premises. As Keyes asked why he was being forced to leave, he was shoved from the back.

Asked why they were being so belligerent, the security guards said they were acting on instructions from ALEC. At certain points during the incident, they were able to turn on their video cameras and record it:

Although ThinkProgress has attended ALEC conferences in the past as credentialed media (we broke the story about BlueCross BlueShield lobbyists writing ALEC’s anti-health reform legislation in 2009), we were denied credentials this time.

ALEC calls itself an open organization that exists simply to advance “principles ofJeffersonian democracy.” Facing recent scrutiny by the media, one prominent ALEC member told the Daily Iowan that there’s “nothing sinister, there’s nothing secretive about [ALEC].” However, the incident yesterday underscores the suspicion that the organization is a secret conduit for corporate lobbyists to literally write legislation for state lawmakers without having their fingerprints on the bill. To maintain this secrecy, ALEC appears more than willing to kick out media and close their doors to the public.

Earlier in the day, when Fang and Keyes were sitting in the first floor lobby, they witnessed ALEC public affairs official Raegan Weber point to them while speaking to the hotel security. However, contacted by ThinkProgress over phone after the incident yesterday, Weber denied telling the security to go after us, and said she would get back to us with a statement concerning what happened. Nearly a day later, we have not heard back from her.