Archive for the ‘America's National Sovereignty is at Risk’ Category

First Posted: 11-19-09 08:13 PM   |   Updated: 11-19-09 08:44 PM

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed’s opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

The amendment expressly blocks Congress from interfering with the independence of monetary policy decision-making, but opponents of the measure said that the political pressure would inevitably follow.

A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable. On Tuesday, however, the Huffington Post reported that, on a close reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions.

Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a “political cross section of prominent economists” backing a measure like Watt’s. HuffPost reported, however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren’t a “political cross section.” Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed — and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.

The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as “unserious.” The Washington Post editorial board, true to the script, called Paul’s measure “an unserious answer to a serious question.”

And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of “wingnuts” are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order.

Step Two is for a “serious” compromise to be offered. In this case, it was Watt’s amendment. But by the time the vote was called Thursday afternoon, committee members had seen through his measure, recognizing that it was not a compromise effort to bring real transparency to the Fed but an attempt to further shut the the doors.

“The Watt amendment will fully obliterate everything 1207″ — Paul’s measure — “is intended to do,” said Paul during Thursday’s debate.

For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt’s, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.

Paul’s opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed.

As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt’s amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul’s.

To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt’s amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide.

The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983.

Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. “Perception is very important in monetary policy,” said Frank.

He urged a no vote, yet 15 Democrats bucked him, voting with Paul. Key to winning Democratic support was a letter posted early Thursday from labor leaders and progressive economists. The letter, organized by the liberal blog FireDogLake.com, called for a rejection of the Watt substitute and support for Paul.

Grayson was able to show Democratic colleagues that the liberal base was behind them.

“Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy,” a victorious Grayson said afterwards.

Watch:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html

Audit the Federal Reserve: HR 1207 and S 604

On Thursday, November 19, 2009, after several hours of heated debate, the Paul-Grayson “Audit the Fed” amendment passed 43-26 in the House Financial Services Committee. The amendment calls for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve and replaces the opposing “placebo” amendment proposed by Mel Watt.

The Paul-Grayson initiative is an amendment to Barney Frank’s HR 3996, also known as the “Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009″. The Committee was going to vote on that bill on November 19, but Barney Frank surprisingly postponed the vote until after the Thanksgiving recess.

Ron Paul sent out the following press release shortly after the amendment passed:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) is pleased to announce that his and Congressman Grayson’s amendment based on HR 1207 has passed in the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-26 and will be included in major banking reform legislation.

The Paul/Grayson amendment:

• Removes the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed
• Allows audit of every item on the Fed’s balance sheet, all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, etc.
• Retains limited audit exemption on unreleased transcripts and minutes
• Sets 180-day time lag before details of Fed’s market actions may be released
• States that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO

“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability,” stated Congressman Paul.

How they voted (HR 1207 co-sponsors in bold):

Why Audit The Federal Reserve?

Ron Paul’s legislation is aimed at pulling back the curtain from a secretive and unaccountable Federal Reserve. Congress and the American people have minimal, if any, oversight over trillions of dollars that the Fed controls.

With recent bailouts and spending decisions shining a spotlight on the actions of the Federal Reserve, more and more pressure is bearing down on Congress to take action and demand accountability and transparency.

Auditing the Fed is only the first step towards exposing this antiquated insider-run creature to the powerful forces of free-market competition. Once there are viable alternatives to the monopolistic fiat dollar, the Federal Reserve will have to become honest and transparent if it wants to remain in business.

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
U.N. plans for a new ‘government’ are scary.
By JANET ALBRECHTSEN
OCTOBER 28, 2009, 7:05 P.M. ET

We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven’t heard about it, that’s because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational “government” on a scale the world has never before seen.

The “scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention” that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a “government.” The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an “adaptation debt” to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that “by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].”

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for “a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.” Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as “alternatives” and “options” that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn’t even called the draft “treaty.” Instead, it’s labelled a “Note by the Secretariat.”

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said “this is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a ‘government.’ But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.” He added: “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do.”

Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever.” Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let’s hope he is right. And thank you, America.

Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

It’s no secret that Chicago, Illinois is not gun friendly. Chicago has been on the cutting edge of gun control. They’ve given us an assault weapons ban, mandatory gun registration and the most anti-gun President of all time, Barack Obama. It should come as no surprise that Chicago politicians think they’re above the law. While Chicago has some of the most anti-gun laws in America, politicians in Chicago have placed their own safety over the safety of the citizens who elected them. While ordinary citizens are forbidden from owning guns for self defense, Chicago elected officials had themselves classified as law enforcement officers so that they could carry handguns for self defense.

From the Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman:

Armed pols: An unfortunate Chicago tradition

Last week, the body of Chicago school board president Michael Scott was found in the Chicago River with a single bullet wound in his head. The big story was that this powerful, well-connected public official had, according to the Cook County medical examiner, committed suicide. The less-noticed story was that he did it with an illegal weapon.

After all, handgun ownership is not allowed in Chicago, which has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Scott killed himself with a .380-caliber sidearm.

Unlike most Chicagoans, Scott could have been a legal handgun owner. Because he had it before the ban was enacted, he was allowed to register and keep it. But the police department says he never did. By having it in the city, Scott was guilty of an offense that could have gotten him jail time.

Amazingly enough, he was not the first local public official to take the view that firearms restrictions are something for other, ordinary people to observe. Chicago politicians are zealously committed to gun control in law, but fairly relaxed about it in practice.

In 1994, state Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, had an unregistered handgun stolen from his home in a burglary, and he didn’t feign contrition about his disregard of the ordinance.

“I have a right to protect myself,” he declared, noting that he had been burglarized before — and forgetting that the state legislature of which he is a member allows Illinois cities to deprive their citizens of that right. Asked if he would replace the lost piece, Hendon said, “No comment.” The police were kind enough not to charge him.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, another Chicagoan, has endorsed a nationwide ban on handguns and, in 1993, organized Chicago’s first Gun Turn-in Day. But the following year, while running unsuccessfully for governor, he admitted he owned a handgun — “for protection,” he explained — and hadn’t seen fit to turn it in along with those other firearms. Lesser mortals apparently can protect themselves with forks and spoons.

Scott was shot in the abdomen while chasing a burglar in 1988, so it’s understandable that he would appreciate the value of having the means to defend himself against criminals. But that understanding didn’t extend to the needs of ordinary Chicagoans. When the city gun ban was challenged in court, the board of education that he headed filed a brief defending Chicago’s right “to prohibit classes of arms in order to prevent crime and protect public safety.”

A law banning handguns, in Scott’s view, was necessary to protect public safety. But when it came to protecting his private safety, he somehow perceived the law to be a hindrance, not a help.

Does his attitude carry the distinct tang of hypocrisy? Yes, but that’s not out of the ordinary for Chicago politicians. Under a state law dating back to 1872, mayors and aldermen are designated peace officers. And, conveniently, peace officers are permitted to not only own but carry handguns.

That makes aldermen a special class in Illinois, one of only two states with an almost complete ban on the carrying of concealed handguns. In most places, an adult with no criminal record or history of psychiatric commitment can get a concealed-carry license after taking a training class.

But here, we have a unique system. You want to be able to pack a weapon in public for your safety? Fine. All you have to do is 1) run for the City Council and 2) win.

Why the state assumes that aldermen are fit for this prerogative is a mystery. “Law-abiding” is not the very first word that comes to mind when you think of the City Council. Since 1972, 27 of its members have been convicted on charges involving malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, disfeasance and anti-feasance with mopery aforethought.

It would be hard to come up with a group of people that has proven itself less deserving of blanket trust. The most recent convict, Arenda Troutman, got four years in prison for bribery after being caught on tape attesting that “most aldermen, most politicians are ho’s.” At a 1991 neighborhood meeting that got rowdy, Ald. Dorothy Tillman reportedly pulled out her handgun and waved it pugnaciously.

In Chicago, only criminals and aldermen are armed. Forgive me for being redundant.

http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=320

Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick

James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book

On August 6, 2009 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made the following statement to the media. “As for critics of border security, whenever I hear somebody say, ‘The border’s out of control…nothing happens, there’s a flood of illegal immigrants across the border,’ I know that that’s somebody who’s just trying to gin people up.”
Janet Napolitano

Thanks to a video link pasted below, you can now decide for yourself, along with Senators DeMint and Sessions, just how secure our southern border really is.

The video you’re about to view is a composite assembled from several different images shot recently by one single camera hidden near one single trail along the 2000 mile long U.S. / Mexico border.

The camera that recorded these images was triggered by a motion-sensor buried alongside one trail in the Coronado National Wilderness in Southeast Arizona’s Huachuca Mountains.

Who are the illegal aliens walking past this particular camera? No one knows. However, it’s safe to say that at least 10% are OTM’s.

(OTM) is a strange term. What does it mean? Ninety percent of the illegal aliens who cross the U.S. Southern border each year from Mexico are Mexicans. The rest are from all parts of the world, Asia, Africa, Europe, the Mideast. Our government labels these people “Other than Mexican”.

We also know for sure that at least ten percent of all illegal aliens caught reentering our country have FBI rap sheets. This indicates that during previous “stays” in the United States, they were arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of one or more felonies. Misdemeanors (like DUI’s) do not appear on the FBI rap sheet. Border Patrol has no way to tell whether illegals with no FBI rap sheet committed crimes in their own country. HERE’S THE VIDEO LINK.

http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/privateshowing/BIPevidence1.html

This is an outrage that HAS to be addressed.

Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal AliensFriday, November 13, 2009
–Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the Obama administration will push for “immigration reform” by giving the estimated 14 million people who are in the United States illegally “fair pathway to earned legal status.”

Obama: Immigration Reform Will Allow Illegal Immigrants to Become Legal and Get Health Care Coverage
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
- President Barack Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) on Wednesday evening that illegal immigrants would not get government funded health insurance under his health care reform, but said the debate over that plan underscores the need to legalize illegal immigrants so they can get that coverage.

THIS is the time to get things started.

National Sovereignty!

OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IS AT RISK!!!

What can you do to help?