-By Warner Todd Huston
There is nothing more dangerous than a party that is about to lose power but still has temporary control of the reins of government. That is, of course, what we call the lame duck session of congress — more like a zombie congress; dead men walking… or sitting as the case may be. It has gotten so bad that Democrats are even throwing away the rules in order to indulge a bacchanalia of a left-wing agenda, the same sort that got them kicked out of office.
Attempting to indulge every activity that got them kicked out of office in a landslide that the country hasn’t seen in decades, House Democrats have instituted what is being called “martial law.” They are trying their level best to shove every profligate spending plan, every extremist, left-wing, anti-American idea they can fling at the people of the United States all in an effort to beat the clock before most of them have to relinquish their seats to Republicans.
House Democrats passed a rules change that would allow them to skirt the usual process and bring any bill they want quickly to the floor for a vote. This rules change is meant to help them push their extremist agenda as quickly as possible before the new congress is convened next year.
The Republicans have decried the move.
“It’s really martial law rule,” said Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, blasting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “not fulfill[ing]” her vows to usher in the most ethical, open and transparent Congress in history.
So, the voice of the people be damned.
Democrats do not care that their agenda cost them the election. They intend to grab as much power, as many goodies, as many payoffs to their pals as they can before they are forced from office.
After all, they haven’t learned from the sound whipping they’ve received. Look at their boss, Speaker of the House Pelosi. Since the massive shellacking she received on Nov. 2, she has made no serious effort to shake up her caucus. She’s made few changes to leadership to reflect the singular fact that the Democrats failed miserably to hold the American people on their side.
Pelosi seems to feel that she has no reason to assume that she and her party have failed. And this inability to grasp reality is exactly why Democrats are so dangerous to our Republic.
One key to understanding the Pigford travesty is realizing how Barack Obama came to the point where today he is giving away billions in taxpayer dollars for potentially fraudulent Pigford-related claims. What may have begun as a legitimate 100 million dollar effort to repair genuine damages caused by alleged USDA discrimination evolved into what amounted to a pay-for-play scam with two linked goals – to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary, then get Barack Obama elected president. The Hill, not Big Government, let that cat out of the bag back in April of 2009:
Supporters of Obama’s presidential campaign argued the then-Illinois senator’s move to resolve late Pigford claims would endear him to Southern black voters during the tough Democratic primary race against former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). At the time of the bill’s introduction in 2007, Obama was finding his footing as a candidate and polls suggested he was struggling to attract black voters. He later won almost unanimously among this group against Clinton and then in the general election against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Now Obama may have to face off with several of his own campaign supporters over how best to compensate discrimination claims by black farmers. Clay, Davis and Thompson endorsed Obama during the presidential primaries.
Just as Obama is today caving to Republicans on a a tax deal, instead of standing up for American taxpayers regarding potential Pigford-related fraud, Obama is also opting to write a check for billions American taxpayers can ill afford – all to satisfy what can rightfully be called a campaign debt.
National Black Farmers Association President, John Boyd, ratcheted up the pressure on Obama in a letter dated April 8, 2010.
In our report, we document two organizations, the Black Farmers and Agriculturists Association and the National Black Farmers Association. These two groups round up tens of thousands of Pigford litigants and then lobby politicians with promises of votes and campaign cash in exchange for championing and funding their causes such as Pigford.
These two groups, and the Pigfored issue, hold huge sway over the rural black vote, and as you can see from this letter from the President of the BFAA John Boyd, Boyd is eager to get rewarded for helping to put President Obama into office.
As violent drug cartels take over Mexico and expand their criminal enterprises north, the United States has signed a “trusted traveler” agreement that allows pre-screened Mexican airline passengers to bypass lengthy airport security checkpoints.
The foreigners will get “trusted traveler cards” with fingerprints and other biometric data and they must answer customs declarations questions on touch-screen kiosks before leaving airport inspection areas. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claims it’s a way to enhance information sharing and mutual security in the face of “ever-evolving, multinational threats.”
About 84 million Mexicans are expected to qualify for the trusted traveler program, according to Mexico’s Interior Ministry Secretary, who signed the agreement on behalf of his country this week. Celebrating the festive occasion, the Mexican government official assured that the new accord will facilitate the U.S. entry of business travelers and tourists who are key factors in economic development, growth of trade and cultural exchange.
Mexicans will get the perk through the U.S. government’s Global Entry Program, which allows participants to obtain security clearance by presenting a “machine-readable” passport or resident card at airport “Global Entry kiosks.” The machines issue the foreign travelers a transaction receipt and directions to baggage claim and the exit into the United States. Applying is easy. Candidates fill out an online application, provide valid identification and answer a few questions from a Customs and Border Protection officer.
While Napolitano was in Mexico finalizing the trusted traveler agreement this week, she also took the opportunity to sign a “letter of intent” to develop a plan for protecting immigrants from criminal attacks as they cross the border—illegally—into the U.S. Mexican officials have long complained that American law enforcement officers stand by as illegal immigrants are robbed, killed or violently beaten. Napolitano has committed to reducing the risk to life and security of migrants, according to the Mexican minister.
As newly-elected members of the Senate pointed out in a letter to Majority Leader Reid: “no bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia has ever been ratified during a lame duck session.” Let’s go further: Has any major bilateral U.S. treaty ever been ratified during a lame duck session?
The 20th Amendment (ratified in 1933) established the current dates of Federal office terms, and consequently made possible the modern Congressional “lame duck” session. Since 1933, there have been a total of eighteen lame duck sessions, including the current one.
A study of every treaty ratified by the United States would, though desirable, take more time than is left in the lame duck session. So we assembled a list of 34 significant United States treaties from 1933 to the present from multiple sources (including the State Department ). [For the list of treaties examined, see our Webmemo: Treaty Ratification During Lame Duck Sessions.]
We then cross-checked the Senate ratification dates with the specific dates of each lame duck session. Our findings confirmed the assertion already made (that no bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia has ever been ratified during a lame duck session) and went much further. Though some treaties may have been signed or entered into force during a lame duck session, we found no major treaty that has been ratified by the Senate during a lame-duck session.
Important legislation has in fact been passed during lame duck sessions (such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994), but it must be emphasized that these were not treaties, but executive agreements. While congressional approval is not required for executive agreements, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The requirement for a supermajority makes ratifying a treaty one of the most significant legislative acts a Senate can perform.
The recent midterm elections have placed even more pressure on the passage of the New START treaty during the lame duck session. The Administration will have much more trouble passing the treaty in the new Senate. However, to force action on the treaty at this time ignores those elected to replace many of the Senators who would vote to pass New START.
The ratification of New START by the lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by American citizens in their election of new senators, but also defy the precedent set by American foreign affairs since 1933.
Then there is the Quid Pro Quo in Continuing Resolution for New START Treaty…
The New START Treaty is promoted by the Obama Administration as a means toward a reduction of nuclear weapons.The Treaty is fatally flawed within the four corners of the document and in a side agreement to dismantle missile defense in consideration for Russia’s signature. And now the Obama Administration and allies in the House and Senate have inserted a position in a draft of the Continuing Resolution to condition money for nuclear modernization on ratification of the Treaty.
The Continuing Resolution is the appropriations bill that will keep the government funded into next year. Clearly, liberals in the House and the Obama Administration are trying to use the appropriations process to force Senate consideration of the New START Treaty.
Note this provision in the House Democrats’ DISCUSSION DRAFT (Dec. 5, 2010, 12:18 a.m., page 56) of the year-long appropriations continuing resolution:
SEC. 2412. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for Atomic Energy Defense Activities National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities shall be $7,008,835,000: Provided, That $624,000,000 of such amount shall be available only upon the Senate giving its advice and consent to the ratification of the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (commonly known as the New START Treaty).
This is an outrage to condition the modernization of our nuclear forces on the ratification of a Treaty. This is a quid pro quo to make sure that Republicans in the Senate are pressured, by millions in nuclear modernization monies, to vote for the ratification of the New START Treaty.
The bilateral arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, known as New START, has critical implications for the security of the U.S. and its allies. In a recent article, Senator John Barrasso (R–WY) addresses concerns regarding the treaty. They include limits on U.S. missile defense capabilities, a weak verification regime, and an outdated view of the world that embraces the paradigm of the Cold War by focusing only on Russia with its porous limits on nuclear warheads, delivery vehicles, and inspection regimes instead of looking at the new and shifting 21st-century challenges.
For Barrasso, this nuclear arms treaty hits close to home. On October 26, one-ninth of the United States’ land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles went offline at F. E. Warren Air Force. The Senator asserts that by ratifying New START, the Senate risks taking America’s nuclear deterrent offline. He is absolutely correct.
This incident certainly reveals the need for the U.S. to modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal as soon as possible in order to maintain its nuclear deterrent. Yet the Administration’s plan is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of sustainment over modernization. Current White House policies bar steps that would lead to the development and procurement of “new nuclear warheads” or “capabilities” to meet new missions in the 21st century.
~McCain is talking the talk but will he do the walk? He usually talks out both sides of his mouth.
If this doesn’t reinforce your decision to become more self reliant and store up food, water and supplies for upcoming shortages, then nothing will.
We’re going to talk briefly about riots, we’re going to look at some examples of “mob” mentality from the last few Black Fridays, AND I’m going to show you some videos of how primal people get when they’re hungry, food is limited, and they have to depend on food handouts to feed their families.
Let’s start by looking at a video from Black Friday, 2010.
When the doors opened at a North Buffalo Target store at 4.00 a.m. Friday morning, the crowed waiting outside turned into a chaotic mob.
That’s your fellow man…if you’re in the US, it’s your fellow Americans. It could be argued that people are fighting the crowds to buy gifts for loved ones, but they’re not fighting for food, water, medication, or other essentials. These people all got in line for non-essential goods.
As I’ve mentioned several times, the average city has enough food on the shelves to provide 9 meals for the population. If people are acting like this to save a few bucks on toys, games, and electronics, how much more aggressively will they act if a family member’s life depends on them getting what they’re after?
This is what was happening in a Walmart in Texas. They would bring out the items and attempted to take them to their designated area but before they would get there the mob of people would attack them . There where also fights and people getting arrested.
In this video, we have some great examples of riot behavior. I wouldn’t really call this a “riot” but it is a good example of a minor breakdown in civil order. I’ve set the video to start 38 seconds in…it’s 38 seconds of “boring and peaceful.”
What happens next is that EVERYONE starts grabbing at boxes. And this is important.
In a riot/mob/breakdown in civil order, there are some key components:
An agitator: Someone who’s increasing the intensity of emotions in the crowd. In this case, both the WalMart employee is agitating the crowd AND the crowd is agitating itself with pushing, facial expressions, and talking.
An instigator: This is the person who takes the first non-civil action.
A trigger: If the crowd isn’t sufficiently worked up, the instigator will be a loner and looked at as an oddball by the crowd. If the crowd IS sufficiently worked up, the actions of the instigator will trigger a response by the crowd.
Aggressive follower: These are the people who won’t start the trouble, but are looking for any opportunity to cause trouble.
Sheep/Lemmings: These are the people who, once they see the instigator and aggressive followers breaking the rules/laws, will jump in because “everyone else was doing it.” This is when the unacceptable quickly becomes seen as acceptable and people who are ordinarily squared away get caught up in the moment. People who normally obey authority figures suddenly ignore them with reckless abandon.
This video is such a great example of this that you might want to watch it again. If you’re squeamish, it’s a great learning tool because there’s no real violence, people are laughing, and the behavior patterns are easy to spot. Once you start understanding mob/riotous behavior, your ability to identify and sense it will shoot through the roof.
Sen. Reid and Obama donors back company seeking $450 million in U.S. money
WASHINGTON — Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.
The farm’s backers also have close ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who, at the height of his hard-fought re-election bid this fall, helped blunt congressional criticism over stimulus dollars possibly going to create jobs in China by endorsing a proposal by the Chinese company to build a factory in his home state. Although his campaign received thousands of dollars in donations from the wind farm’s backers and Reid stood on stage with them at a campaign event they hosted, his office declined to answer any questions about the wind farm’s organizers or their plans for Nevada.
It is being planned by an unusual joint partnership between the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a Dallas investment firm with strong ties to Washington and the Democratic Party, and A-Power Energy Generation Systems, an upstart Chinese supplier of wind turbines. Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate the Chinese are bringing financing and the turbines.
The clock is ticking for Spinning Star: To claim the stimulus grant it must arrange its financing and begin work on the wind farm by Dec. 31. Besides the $450 million stimulus grant, A-Power’s SEC filings indicate the joint-venture also will pursue a Department of Energy-backed loan guarantee. According to the SEC filings, the project is waiting to hear if it will receive the loan guarantee before financing will follow to build the turbines.
Powerful donors to Democrats
The investment group’s public face is often Cappy McGarr, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, investor and longtime fixture in Democratic politics, who has given heavily to Democratic candidates across the country and was an early backer of President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Joining McGarr in Dallas is Ed Cunningham, a former executive for several large Western entertainment companies in China, a 2002 Democratic senatorial candidate and a former member of Obama’s national finance committee.
White House visits
McGarr’s connections and party loyalty do seem to open doors for him in Washington — and at the White House. McGarr visited the White House at least eight times in the administration’s first 18 months in office, according to visitor records disclosed by the White House. (These disclosures are voluntary, and do not include meetings held with staff outside of the White House, telephone contacts or records that the Obama administration has not released from its first nine months.) Three of the visits were for large social functions hosted by the president, but four were occasions when he met with senior White House staff and presidential advisers.
Obama White House won’t answer questions
Liz Oxhorn, a White House spokesperson for the Recovery Act, declined to answer questions about what was discussed during that meeting or any other — including whether Rouse and other White House officials know about the Spinning Star project or were asked to intervene on its behalf.
“Competitive Recovery Act funds are only awarded by experts at federal agencies following an internal merit-based review process,” she said in an e-mail, denying the White House had intervened in the process to award a loan guarantee.