Jun 172010


In an effort to please union backers ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quietly trying to nationalize rules governing every police, fire and first responder union in the nation.

Through the benignly named Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R.413), Reid wants all first responders represented by collective bargaining rules emanating from Washington D.C. Naturally this legislation is being pushed as a matter of “national security.”

Democrats’ union supporters will greatly benefit from nationalized rules for police and fire unions. This plan would replace with federal rules state laws on collective bargaining between state and local governments and their first responder unions and would greatly empower unions to dictate pay scales and benefits on a national level.

While a boon to unions, this law would seriously damage our federalist system by taking away a large measure of local control over police and firefighters unions and lead to higher costs to local governments and taxpayers, costs that neither will be able to affect at the ballot box.

Imagine the loss of control that local governments will face when first responder unions no longer have to deal with local rules and laws but can force a federal one-size-fits-all style rule on all local governments.

Local governments will no longer be able to determine pay scales and benefits and will lose control of their own ability to budget in that respect. H.R.413 will also completely remove the ability of voters to have any say in local matters as a top down control from Washington will rule the day where it concerns local police, fire and other first responders’ benefits bargaining.

Additionally when local governments want to fire a policeman or fireman they now do so through local laws and home-based unions. If H.R.413 passes, no local government will be able to fire a cop or fireman without appealing to the federal government and courts, authorities far, far removed from the local area and completely unfamiliar with the needs and interests of that local area.

According to the Public Service Research Council, a union watchdog group based in Vienna, Va., the legislation could even be unconstitutional. In Alden v. Maine on June 23, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court raised serious doubts as to whether Congress had the authority to impose federal labor law on state, and therefore local, government.

Unfortunately there is bipartisan support for this government takeover of first responder collective bargaining. Many think what they are doing is leveling the playing field for all first responders and setting rules that can govern them equally.

Police Union Uses Fear-Based Ads

Critics claim shocking TV ads aimed at fighting budget cuts go too far

Jun 172010


“Mr. President, you were looking for someone’s butt to kick,” said Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph, recently. “You’re kicking ours.” The sooner the Administration climbs down from this pointless exercise, the better for a Gulf that needs real help.

Before the Obama Administration sweeps under the carpet the controversy over the drilling experts it falsely used to justify its moratorium, the incident bears another look. Not least because it underlines the purely political nature of a drilling ban that now threatens the Gulf Coast economy and drilling safety.

When President Obama last month announced his six-month deepwater moratorium, he pointed to an Interior Department report of new “safety” recommendations. That report prominently noted that the recommendations it contained—including the six-month drilling ban—had been “peer-reviewed” by “experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” It also boasted that Interior “consulted with a wide range” of other experts. The clear implication was that the nation’s drilling brain trust agreed a moratorium was necessary.

As these columns reported last week, the opposite is true. In a scathing document, eight of the “experts” the Administration listed in its report said their names had been “used” to “justify” a “political decision.” The draft they reviewed had not included a six-month drilling moratorium. The Administration added that provision only after it had secured sign-off. In their document, the eight forcefully rejected a moratorium, which they argued could prove more economically devastating than the oil spill itself and “counterproductive” to “safety.”

The Administration insisted this was much ado about nothing. An Interior spokesman claimed the experts clearly had been called to review the report on a “technical basis,” whereas the moratorium was a “comprehensive” question. Obama environment czar Carol Browner declared: “No one’s been deceived or misrepresented.” Really? We can only imagine the uproar if a group of climate scientists had claimed the Bush Administration misappropriated their views.

We decided to call some of these experts ourselves. Their information, and concerns, are revealing.

The experts were certainly under the impression they were reviewing a comprehensive document, as some of the recommendations would take six months or even a year to implement. And the report they agreed to did address moratoria: It recommended a six-month ban on new deepwater permits. Yet Benton Baugh, president of Radoil, said that in at least two separate hour-and-a-half phone calls among Interior and the experts, there was no discussion of a moratorium on existing drilling. “Because if anybody had [made that suggestion], we’d have said ‘that’s craziness.'”

JUST read it all…

Jun 172010

Washington Times By Jerry Seper

Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio is known as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” but he has a secret that not many people outside Arizona know: He loves little critters, like puppies and kittens.

Honored for his humanitarian efforts by the Humane Society of the United States, he also received the lifetime achievement award from the nonprofit group In Defense of Animals for his work encouraging police agencies nationwide to take more seriously the crimes of animal cruelty.

He puts animal abusers in jail instead of giving them citations.

The sheriff even has dedicated an air-conditioned jail solely as a sanctuary for dogs, cats and other animals that have been removed by his deputies from abusive and neglectful homes. He began a training program for some of his female inmates to learn how to care for, groom and train those very animals.

Joe's Deputy Shariff

So you might imagine how disappointed he was when President Becky Barnes of Guide Dog Users Inc. (GDUI) booted him as the keynote speaker for its July national convention in Phoenix because of his tough stance on immigration enforcement and the state’s pending immigration law.

Full story

Jun 172010

Quote of the Day “Congress ‘pretending it cares” –Cavuto

Jun 172010


Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of Obama’s Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media. In our book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.

Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on “reinventing” the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them “a terrible idea,” his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal — a subsidy for news organizations.

By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations. Should the government follow through on Leibowitz’s ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.

Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question — as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did — whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an “arm of the Republican Party”? We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.

Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.

In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment — trial balloons that would obviously be shot down — very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal — the subsidy of news organizations.

But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine “whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model.” Among the steps under consideration are changing “the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws.”

These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.

Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.

The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.

Jun 172010

~CFP By Marion Valentine

First of all I spent 9 years in Navy Intelligence, gathering information, connecting the dots, and predicting the next moves by the enemy.

This Administration has been shredding the Constitution since day one, and has accumulated more power to the Executive branch than any time in the history of our Country.


* This administration does not wish to do anything to protect our borders.

* This administration advocates OPEN borders.

* This administration has looted our financial resources.

* This administration is hell bent on Nationalizing all businesses.

* This administration has declared war on free market capitalism.

* This administration has stolen the future of generations of Americans by running up unsustainable debt.

* This administration has pulled off the largest land grab in history.

Take into consideration, open borders, a bankrupt country, Government control of finance, energy, health, and almost every other aspect of your daily life. Also consider the areas in America on Government controlled land where there are signs posted warning Americans not to enter because of the smuggling activities of ILLEGAL aliens. Now consider the over 13 million acre land grab by this administration.

This old intel guy connects the dots as follows. This administration wants total executive power, and for a time until Obama can declare himself “Dictator” a compliant Congress which will support this agenda. The majority of the American People are against this, so millions of illegals in this country now and are being ALLOWED to come in every day, must have a safe haven where they can go but American’s can’t, namely Government controlled land. You can bet your assets they will be housed, fed, provided health care at taxpayers expense, and they will be registered by their friendly community organizer and allowed to vote as long as they vote for a Democrat.

I was right when I wrote almost 2 years ago that Obama was a Socialist and wanted to transform America into a Socialist Nation, and Ultimately just another Nation State in the Global Union Of Socialist Nation States. I will bet my assets that I am right now.

Thank you Marion !!!

Marion Valentine Most recent columns

Marion A. Valentine U.S. Navy Intelligence/Cryptologist(disabled)

Marion can be reached at madaket6@yahoo.com

Jun 172010

~Thanks for the FYI Char!

~I guess Gov. Jan has her answer about the National Guard , funding & EVER hearing from Obama & his typical hollow promises ~JP

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, first, let me say how pleased I am that I have this chance to talk to you about these and other important issues. President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.

Jun 172010

By Jana Winter

Ret. Maj. Stephen Godin says he could be fired from his ROTC teaching job for refusing to pay union dues

The Massachusetts governor signed a bill on Wednesday afternoon that saves the job of a retired Marine and public high school ROTC instructor who refused to pay teachers union fees.

Gov. Deval Patrick signed a supplemental bill that included language added as an amendment by state senator Richard R. Tisei that exempts Junior ROTC instructors at public high schools across the state from having to pay union fees. Juan Martinez, Patrick’s press secretary, confirmed that the ROTC provision was signed.

It was passed by the Massachusetts Senate and House earlier this week.

Sen. Tisei introduced legislation last week on behalf of Maj. Stephen L. Godin, a retired Marine and senior naval science instructor at the Naval Junior ROTC at North High in Worcester. Godin told who said he receives medical and dental benefits and half his salary from the military and refused to join the union or pay it’s “agency fee,” which is assessed to offset the union’s collective bargaining costs.

On Monday, Tisei, who is also running for lieutenant governor on the Republican ticket, reintroduced the bill as an amendment to a supplement bill that was passed by the Massachusetts Senate and House. The language added to the bill exempts public school junior ROTC teachers across the state from having to pay union fees.

Patrick, a Democrat is running for re-election against Republican Charlie Baker, whose running mate is Tisei.

Full Story…

Jun 172010

Former BP Chairman and current BP CEO both dumped stocks in weeks before disaster

Paul Joseph Watson

BP was aware of cracks appearing in the Macondo well as far back as February, right around the time Goldman Sachs and BP Chairman Tony Hayward were busy dumping their stocks in the company on the eve of the explosion that led to the oil spill, according to information uncovered by congressional investigators.

The Mining and Mineral Services agency released documents to Bloomberg indicating that BP “was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast,” according to the report.

The fissures, which BP began to attempt to fix on February 13, could have played a role in the disaster, though this is a question still being explored by investigators. Improperly sealed, the cracks cause explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft.

“The company attempted a “cement squeeze,” which involves pumping cement to seal the fissures, according to a well activity report. Over the following week the company made repeated attempts to plug cracks that were draining expensive drilling fluid, known as “mud,” into the surrounding rocks,” states the report.

Goldman Sachs dumped 44% of its shares in BP Oil during the first quarter of 2010 – shares that subsequently lost 36 percent of their value, equating to $96 million. The current chairman of Goldman Sachs is Bilderberg luminary Peter Sutherland, who is also the former chairman of British Petroleum.

Halliburton is named in the majority of some two dozen lawsuits filed since the explosion by Gulf Coast people and businesses who claim that the company is to blame for the disaster.

Halliburton was forced to admit in testimony at a congressional hearing last month that it carried out a cementing operation 20 hours before the Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames. The lawsuits claim that four Halliburton workers stationed on the rig improperly capped the well.

Full Story