Holy Sh@t, what did you do America??

[Chopper_Dave]

[linemanpaul]

Can't hide from the TRUTH

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion
Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:50pm EDT


U.S. deficit poses potential systemic risk:
21 Aug 2009

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama's opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.

The White House took heat for sticking with its $7.108 trillion forecast earlier this year after the Congressional Budget Office forecast that deficits between 2010 and 2019 would total $9.1 trillion.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year," said the administration official, who is familiar with the budget mid-session review that is slated to be released next week.

"Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out."

The White House budget office will also lower its deficit forecast for this fiscal year, which ends September 30, to $1.58 trillion from $1.84 trillion next week after removing $250 billion set aside for bank bailouts.

Record-breaking deficits have raised concerns about America's ability to finance its debt and whether the United States can maintain its top-tier AAA credit rating.

Politically, the deficit has been an albatross for Obama, a Democrat who is pushing forward with plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare industry -- an initiative that could cost up to $1 trillion over 10 years -- and other promises, including reforming education and how the country handles energy.

DEFICIT WORRIES

Republicans have pounced on Obama for planning to spend too much when deficits are so high, and the issue is likely to loom large in next year's Congressional elections.

Obama, who has promised to halve the deficit by the end of his four-year term and likes to remind constituents he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from former President George W. Bush, says bringing down healthcare costs is critical to long-term deficit reduction.

Treasury markets have been worried all year about the mounting deficit. The United States relies on large foreign buyers such as China and Japan to cheaply finance its debt, and they may demand higher interest rates if they begin to doubt that the government can control its deficits.

"It's one of those underlying pieces of news that is liable to haunt the bond market at some point in the future," said Kim Rupert, managing director of global fixed income analysis at Action Economics LLC in San Francisco, referring to the revised 10-year deficit projection.

Many economists think it is unlikely the government can curtail spending, which means taxes would have to go up to cover the rising costs of providing retirement and healthcare benefits to aging Americans.

Higher taxes, which could slow economic growth, are also a major concern of voters on both sides of the political divide. Obama has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a year.

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion | U.S. | Reuters

[Chopper_Dave]

Norman Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968
and some of us are old enough to remember him running for President) was a
leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate
for the Socialist Party of America ..

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has
adopted our platform."

[Chopper_Dave]

By Paul Harvey
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;
I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man's effort, instead of God's blessings;
I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;
I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;
I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership;
I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;
I would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and invent machines to make it convenient;
I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life of animals are valued more than human beings;
I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was grounds for a lawsuit
I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;
I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the mind of every family member for my agenda;
I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation.
I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;
I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movie screens, and I would call it art;
I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;
I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as politically correct;
I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, and the Bible is for the naive;
I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are optional;
I guess I would leave things pretty much the way they are.

[Chopper_Dave]

David Broder, the "Dean" of liberal pundits presiding at the Washington Post itself, has finally caught on. Mr. Broder has the shakes over Obama's O-dacity. Here's one liberal who is in touch with reality, and he's scared out of his wits.


Writes Mr. Broder,


"The size of the gamble that President Obama is taking every day is simply staggering. What came through in his speech... Tuesday night was a dramatic reminder of the unbelievable stakes he has placed on the table in his first month in office, putting at risk the future well-being of the country and the Democratic Party's control of Washington .

I've come to believe that the Obama crowd is naive to the point of stupidity. They are very intelligent, mind you. They have more academic degrees than the faculty of Harvard. But intelligent people are often deeply stuck in their fix-the-world fantasies, which makes them idiot savants. (There's a reason why that's a French term --- Moliere wrote a comedy about it four centuries ago.)

These people have never accomplished anything but suckering the voters --- and each other. Their policy genius, David Axelrod, is a PR agent. That helped with the campaign, but it means nothing for good government. They seem to have no concept of the economy. They want to impose a cap-and-trade system on "carbon emissions," like oil and coal. That comes down to making Monopoly money and forcing energy-using corporations to pay for it. They have no concept of productive investment compared to a wild spending spree on feel-good ideas, or on kickbacks to their buddies in Chicago . After all the "community organizer" hoo-hah they still learned nothing from the welfare fiasco that was inflicted on Black families by LBJ's War on Poverty, and which ended up hurting them more than anything Bull Connor could have done --- by way of family breakdown, helpless dependency, drugs, and gang warfare. They've just abolished Bill Clinton's version of welfare reform, which was forced upon him by the Gingrich Congress, and which has ended up really helping people, not hurting them.

Conclusion: These folks are arrogant and ignorant. Intelligent, yes, articulate, yes, and utterly persuasive to millions of suckers, yes. But reality has a harsh way with fools.

[Chopper_Dave]

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had
insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one
would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have
an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade
so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first
test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who
studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little
had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted
a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a
D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all
resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of
anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor
told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the
reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government
takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that....

[linemanpaul]

The Dems have had control of the houses of congress for over two years and cannot even take care of the housing for the poor and now they want to control Healthcare

Section 8 Shortfall Leaves Thousands Waiting

by Dan Gorenstein


August 23, 2009

Federal funding for Section 8, the nation's largest rental assistance program, could dry up for some housing authorities before year's end. The shortfall is forcing some low-income families to pay higher rents — and putting others in jeopardy of losing their vouchers altogether.

As for the hundreds of thousands currently on multiyear waiting lists nationwide, the wait is now even longer.

In New Hampshire, the Housing Finance Authority cut aid, forcing people to pay more in rent. Executive Director Dean Christon doesn't like to squeeze people who make on average less than $15,000 a year, but he says that's better than the alternative.

"It puts increased burden on those households, but it's an option that is short of obviously terminating assistance," Christon says.

"Terminating assistance" is a polite way of saying pushing people off the program. Some housing agencies now face that option because increased program costs this year were not fully funded by Congress.

There are a few reasons for the shortfall. More families lost income in 2009 as the recession widened, forcing housing authorities to pick up a greater share of the rent. Rents went up as well, further increasing program costs. When authorities finally received their 2009 budgets in May, many realized too late that Congressional funding would not cover the commitments that had already been made.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, is tapping money set aside for emergencies to pump $130 million more into the program, but Doug Rice of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities doubts that will go far enough.

"Many local programs will be assisting fewer families at the end of this year," Rice says. "During one of the deepest recessions in decades, the program really ought to be assisting more people, not fewer."

A Wait Without End

Dick Dunfey, who directs the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority in New Hampshire, says that while his deficit is a huge concern, it's not what keeps him up at night. "In 2001, I recall going over to City Hall and reporting that we had 1,900 families on our waiting list. Currently we have over 10,000," he says.

Someone at the back of that line faces "an indefinite wait," Dunfey says. "It means we don't know when, if ever, we are going to be able to assist you."

Manchester's lengthy waiting list isn't unusual; just take a look at these numbers from some housing authorities:

* In Houston, 19,000 people are on a waiting list that could take up to three years.
* In Washington, D.C., there's an eight-year wait, with 28,000 families in line.
* The number of people on the Section 8 waiting list with the New York City Housing Authority is 127,825.

Need Can't Be Put On Hold

Back in New Hampshire, Cheri Salie has been on the Section 8 waiting list for more than three years.

"When I signed up, my daughter was walking. Now she's not," Salie says. Her daughter Sam has fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, a condition where bone grows over her muscles and joints, restricting her ability to move.

The 16-year-old, who weighs 67 pounds, gets around in an electric wheelchair and depends on an array of machines to keep her alive. This spring, doctors said she had only 24 months to live.

It's not the only crisis Salie faces. She's also going through a divorce and won't be able to afford her place anymore. But even if she could, she wants to move because of her daughter's deteriorating condition. Between Sam's cumbersome life-support equipment and the three flights of stairs, the teenager only makes it outside about once a month.

Sam's prognosis jumps the Salies to the front of the Section 8 waiting list, but there's no voucher on the horizon.

HUD Assistant Secretary Sandra Henriquez says she would love to be able to shower vouchers on the Salies and all the other families who need help. But right now, she says, the department's first priority is to ensure that no one loses a voucher because of the shortfall.

She is confident that HUD can keep that from happening, but realistically, she says, those waiting lists won't be getting shorter anytime soon.

Section 8 Shortfall Leaves Thousands Waiting : NPR

[linemanpaul]

The small fry are getting picked off one at a time, just can't wait for the big fish

Democratic fund-raiser charged in Citigroup fraud
Reuters


By Jonathan Stempel Jonathan Stempel – 2 hrs 3 mins ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A major fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats was charged by federal prosecutors in New York in connection with a scheme to defraud Citigroup Inc.

Hassan Nemazee, 59, was accused of one count of bank fraud for allegedly seeking a fraudulent $74 million loan from Citigroup's banking unit, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and the Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Tuesday.

Nemazee will be released Wednesday on $25 million bond and be confined to his apartment on Park Avenue in Manhattan, with no access to computers. The bond is secured by the apartment and another home in Katonah, New York.

Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor who represents Nemazee, at a hearing called the bail "draconian," saying "it's the most onerous bail package I've ever been a part of." His client did not enter a plea.

Nemazee faces up to 30 years in prison and a fine that could reach $1 million or more. He is chairman and chief executive of Nemazee Capital Corp, a private equity firm.

The U.S. attorney's office declined to elaborate on the charges. Another hearing was set for September 24.

Prosecutors said Nemazee tried to get Citigroup's banking unit to lend up to $74 million based on fraudulent and forged documents suggesting that he had hundreds of millions of dollars of accounts available as collateral.

They said Nemazee provided Citigroup with fake references so that when the bank would try to confirm details about his accounts, it would actually be contacting him.

The scheme lasted from December 2006 to this month, prosecutors said.

Federal agents stopped him on Sunday at Newark Liberty International Airport as he prepared to board a flight to Rome, and he repaid a loan of more than $74 million to Citigroup the following day, the government said.

Nemazee was a national finance chair of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and a supporter of Sen. John Kerry's run for the White House in 2004.

He typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer, and sits on the board of the Iranian American Political Action Committee.

Bill Clinton, when he was president, had nominated Nemazee to be U.S. ambassador to Argentina. Hillary Clinton is U.S. Secretary of State.

Nemazee is listed as having been among the top "bundlers" of contributions to Obama's presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website maintained by a nonpartisan research group, the Center for Responsive Politics.

According to Nemazee Capital's website, the firm was founded in 1987 and specializes in financial services.

It said its acquisitions have included Carret Asset Management, a privately held firm founded by legendary investor Philip Carret, and part of what is now Brean Murray Carret & Co, a small investment bank.

Brean did not immediately return a request for a comment. Citigroup spokeswoman Shannon Bell said the bank is working with authorities on the matter.

The case is: U.S. v. Nemazee, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 09-mj-1927.

Democratic fund-raiser charged in Citigroup fraud - Yahoo! News

[linemanpaul]

Political Payoff from the Obama Administration not being reported on by the Minions in the media, this wreaks of corruption

New York Fed Names AFL-CIO Leader as Chairman of the Board



Denis M. Hughes, a New York labor leader, was named Monday to chair the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's board of directors.

Instead of a résumé filled with corporate or financial experience, as has been typical of his predecessors, Hughes is president of the New York State AFL-CIO. He succeeds Stephen Friedman, who resigned from the job in May after drawing criticism for his simultaneous service as a director of Goldman Sachs and for buying stock in the company even after it became regulated by the New York Fed.

The board of directors of the regional Federal Reserve banks serves mainly an advisory role, sharing with bank presidents its views of economic conditions and business trends. The directors have no role in setting monetary policy or determining how banks are regulated, though they select the president of the bank, who does have those powers, subject to approval by the Fed board of governors in Washington.

In the past, the chairman of the New York Fed was usually chosen from the corporate or financial elite. Friedman was a former Goldman Sachs chief executive. Before him, Jerry I. Speyer was one of New York's leading developers of commercial real estate as head of Tishman-Speyer. Another recent chairman was Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire founder of private equity firm the Blackstone Group. A recent exception to the rule: John E. Sexton, who served between Speyer and Peterson, is president of New York University.

Hughes, as leader of a labor union that represents 2.5 million workers, is an even greater departure from that tradition. But he is no newcomer. Hughes has been on the New York Fed board since 2004 and deputy chairman since 2007. He was named acting chairman of the board in May when Friedman stepped down.
ad_icon

Completing the move away from having people from the financial world lead the New York Fed board of directors, Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, was named deputy chairman on Monday.

The unusual mix of public and private governance of the regional Fed banks was put in place by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, and some in Congress are looking to revisit how the regional banks are structured as they consider broader reforms to the financial world. Board members such as Hughes and Bollinger are "Class C" directors, chosen by the presidentially appointed Fed board of governors in Washington, and to represent business, industry, agricultural, labor or consumer interests.

The boards also include "Class A" directors, who lead private banks, and "Class B" directors, who are business leaders chosen by bankers.

Denis Hughes Named Chairman of New York Fed's Board of Directors - washingtonpost.com

[linemanpaul]

A tribute very fitting for a Murdering Piece of Shit

[SAINT_X]

GROAN...hey, watch the language LP!!! I'm gonna call the port authorities on you and your leaning cargo containers...( crazy bastard...oops...)

[linemanpaul]

A Country enforces it's Constitution and the Obama administration is siding with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega and denying the will of the People of Honduras to have a free and open Democracy. WTF is wrong with this picture???

U.S. moves toward formal cut off of aid to Honduras
Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:23pm EDT


WASHINGTON, Aug 27 (Reuters) - U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation.

The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon.

Washington has already suspended about $18 million aid to Honduras following the June 28 coup and this would be formally cut if the determination is made because of a U.S. law barring aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."

The official said that $215 million in grant funding from the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation to Honduras would also have to end should Clinton make the determination that a military coup took place.

About $76 million of that money has already been disbursed and a second U.S. official said this implied that the remaining roughly $139 million could not be given to Honduras should the determination be made.

Diplomats said that the United States had held off making the formal determination to give diplomacy a chance to yield a negotiated compromise that might allow for Zelaya's return to power.

Such efforts, however, appear to have failed for now and so the United States is taking steps -- including its decision on Tuesday to cease issuing some visas at its embassy in Tegucigalpa -- to raise pressure on the de facto government.

"The recommendation of the building is for her to sign it," said the first U.S. official said of the 'military coup" determination, saying this was a response to the de facto government's refusal to accept a compromise that would allow Zelaya to return to power ahead of November elections.

U.S. moves toward formal cut off of aid to Honduras | Reuters

[linemanpaul]

Shinning the light on more sneaky behind closed door BULLSHIT

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh



Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

Obama's 'emergency' powers over Internet: Cybersecurity Bill S. 773 - Computerworld Blogs

Jay Rockefeller’s S773, S778 and Internet Cybersecurity

[linemanpaul]

Bump it up

[linemanpaul]

First the Financial Institutions, then the Auto Industry, next lets try Healthcare, and last but not least the Youth of America, to see what happens when a young charismatic leader is able to corrupt the above we only have to look back to the mid 20th century.

Letter From Secretary Arne Duncan to School Principals
August 26, 2009

President Obama to Address Students

Classroom Activities
Grades preK-6
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

Grades 7-12
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf




Please note that the time of this speech has changed to 12:00 noon eastern standard time.

Dear Principal:

In a recent interview with student reporter, Damon Weaver, President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

Since taking office, the President has repeatedly focused on education, even as the country faces two wars, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and major challenges on issues like energy and health care. The President believes that education is a critical part of building a new foundation for the American economy. Educated people are more active civically and better informed on issues affecting their lives, their families and their futures.

This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong. I encourage you, your teachers, and students to join me in watching the President deliver this address on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. It will be broadcast live on the White House website Welcome to the White House 12:00 noon eastern standard time.

In advance of this address, we would like to share the following resources: a menu of classroom activities for students in grades preK-6 and for students in grades 7-12. These are ideas developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives. We are also staging a student video contest on education. Details of the video contest will be available on our website U.S. Department of Education Home Page in the coming weeks.

On behalf of all Americans, I want to thank our educators who do society's most important work by preparing our children for work and for life. No other task is more critical to our economic future and our social progress. I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead to continue improving the quality of public education we provide all of our children.

Sincerely,



Arne Duncan

U.S. Department of Education Home Page

[linemanpaul]

I can't believe the lack of response to the post about the Presidential Address to the Youth of America at school and the Youth have no choice but to listen and participate, no comments about the "Emergency Takeover" of the Internet being proposed, now I know how the guest and crew of the SS Minnow felt.

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

I can't believe the lack of response to the post about the Presidential Address to the Youth of America at school and the Youth have no choice but to listen and participate, no comments about the "Emergency Takeover" of the Internet being proposed, now I know how the guest and crew of the SS Minnow felt.

I guess that you've had little reply because an "emergency takeover" of the internet by the government is just another liberty under threat. Since 2001, bigger and far more important liberties have been lost, parts of the Constitution have been neutralised and the government has more power over you than at any time in the US's history.

The fact that the US legislature signed the PATRIOT Act into law without even reading it gave Bush and now Obama effectively unlimited power to implement any law they saw fit as long as they tagged "terrorist" somewhere in the preamble. All they need to do is threaten to expose a Senator or Congressman as a "terrorist sympathiser" and they get enough votes to get anything through.

In a blind panic over terrorists, you've allowed your liberties to be taken away one after another and, unfortunately, it's a bit late now to be complaining because it's not your guy in the White House.

All it takes is a government official to say someone is a "terrorist" and their rights instantly evaporate; they're treated as guilty before any trial by both the media and public; they can be locked up indefinitely without trial; even if they are tried, they can be tried in secret by pre-selected judges without jury and be given no access to the "evidence". That's power you've allowed your government to take that is more arbitrary and unfettered than any time since the feudal dark ages.

Please see my signature for further details.

[wil]

Originally Posted by ckn

The fact that the US legislature signed the PATRIOT Act into law without even reading it gave Bush and now Obama effectively unlimited power to implement any law they saw fit as long as they tagged "terrorist" somewhere in the preamble. All they need to do is threaten to expose a Senator or Congressman as a "terrorist sympathiser" and they get enough votes to get anything through.

Yeah seriously. I feel all boxed in and afraid to do anything thanks to the Patriot Act.

[ckn]

Originally Posted by wil

Yeah seriously. I feel all boxed in and afraid to do anything thanks to the Patriot Act.

Bush may not have used the laws he enacted to ruin your life, Obama probably will not either but what if a future Democrat President decides that Republican voters are all America-hating terrorists. The laws are there, the institutions are there, as is the blind unquestioning obedience instilled in certain enforcement agencies.

If Barack Obama has a brain fart tomorrow and arbitrarily decides that YOU are a terrorist then your life effectively ends. You are guilty in the view of the state and the media. Not one single person arrested since 2001 on terrorist charges has been treated as innocent until proven guilty. Even if they are acquitted or released, their lives are ruined as they're on "terrorist watch" alerts meaning no international or even inter-state flights, no federal employment, even your bank will have you marked as a "terrorist suspect".

The repeal of your liberties has been clever. They didn't simply say "let's rip up the Constitution" as that'd have sparked anarchy and rebellion, they've done it bit by bit. They've used the media-hyped fear of terrorism to chip away to the point now that people turn a blind eye when even more liberties are lost. The drip by drip power transfer to the executive has allowed the President to hold the power of a medieval king, if he so chooses.

The only reason that that "emergency takeover of the internet" thing gets attention from the Republican media is that it's Obama's initiative, the Democrat media is ignoring it. Same when Bush was in power, the Republican media was silent over loss of liberty while the Democrat media was ranting. Partisan media only telling you half the truth.

Your forefathers fought, first against the British, then in a Civil War, then two World Wars to protect the liberties of all Americans. In eight short years, you've allowed the sacrifices of those forefathers to be cheapened because you've given them up without a fight.

[wil]

Originally Posted by ckn

Bush may not have used the laws he enacted to ruin your life, Obama probably will not either but what if a future Democrat President decides that Republican voters are all America-hating terrorists. The laws are there, the institutions are there, as is the blind unquestioning obedience instilled in certain enforcement agencies.

Haven't you been paying attention? ...

Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times

Part of their "warning" states:
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

I am opposed to abortion and illegal immigration. And I strongly favor states rights over federal authority, so sheesh... I guess I had better change my route to work every day since I am probably being followed by the feds.