Monthly Archives:October 2011
This is a podcast with 2-4 radio engineers about various radio broadcasting topics. They cover this EAS test very well. They discuss it only form a technical standpoint…not the extreme precedent it sets for gov’t control over our lives.
American journalism is in “grave peril,” FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says, and to bolster “traditional media,” he said the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcast station at relicensing time.
In a speech at the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York on Thursday, Copps also said station relicensing should happen every four years instead of the current eight.
Beck explained that in every previous instance where the EAS system was tested, broadcasters were in control of whether or not to flip the switch, although they did face losing their broadcast license if they failed to partake. However, for the very first time, the federal government will have complete control over the broadcast frequency and will be able to override all radio and television stations.
Next month’s test also marks the first time that the alert has been conducted nationwide.
“The nationwide test may last up to three and a half minutes. The public will hear a message indicating that “This is a test.” The audio message will be the same for radio, television and cable,” states a FEMA press release.
Beck warned that the first of its kind test gave the government the pretext to take over all civilian communication outlets under the guise of a national emergency.
“If the state wants to take control…they can just take it and there is nothing I can do about it,” Beck stated, adding that the process “seizes control of the broadcast frequency.”
If you don’t want the gov’t or any other entity to be able to interfere with you then don’t use their vehicles to avoid paying taxes or get around regulations they also enforce. Otherwise they do have the right to regulate your behavior while using said instruments. If you truly want to be free then don’t be an NPO. Otherwise you have to deal with their interference.
A religious group is charging the Internal Revenue Service with using a legal loophole to first tax nonprofits’ free speech, then run away with impunity when challenged in court.
The nonprofit Catholic Answers tasted this tactic firsthand in 2008, when its president, Karl Keating, posted a discussion on the organization’s website arguing that, according to church rules, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., should not be allowed to receive communion in the Catholic Church because of his support for legalized abortion.
The IRS then levied an excise tax on Catholic Answers for engaging in alleged “political speech” against then-presidential primary candidate Kerry, a tax Catholic Answers paid.
Find out what you need to do! Get “Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality, and Justice” – Autographed!
But when challenged in court, the IRS simply refunded the tax, while refusing to change its ruling that Catholic Answers’ speech was taxable political intervention in an election. Lower courts then ruled Catholic Answers had no course of action against the IRS.
But Catholic Answers, together with the James Madison Center for Free Speech, are now asking the Supreme Court to step in, claiming this “tax-and-run” strategy allows the IRS to arbitrarily tax churches, charities and religious activists into silence, or dodge the consequences if the nonprofits fight back.
“Not only did the federal courts in this case misapply Supreme Court law, they have allowed the IRS to engage in trickery by penalizing nonprofits who exercise their right to speak, only to return the money at the last possible second,” explained James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center and co-chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society. “So long as the IRS is allowed to do this, nonprofits like Catholic Answers will be deterred from speaking about individuals who are political candidates in any context for fear they’ll be investigated and taxed. Nothing prevents the IRS from doing this again. And these groups now have no judicial remedy.”
This would be an easy question if folks would read the US Constitution. We are NOT a democracy but a republic….and there are huge differences between the two.
OWS is bringing out the iron fist of American Gov’t….
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that under the administration’s policy of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” in the enforcement of the immigration laws, her department is currently authorizing some illegal aliens to work in the United States.
I hate to inform the author but since that time NONE of the so called two parties are a bastion of govern by the Constitution. Neither of the two parties are really different just look at the records with anything but blinders and/or rose colored glasses. We need to vote third or no party across the board and then start a cleanup of the justice system(in terms of judges) to get the judicial back into it’s constitutional box. It is going to take at least 50 years to do this…i’m not sure our current batch of communist, mind-controlled, public “educated” citizens have the mental fortitude for it.
Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen – NYTimes.com
The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.
But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.
The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.
The administration did not respond to requests for comment on this article.
Bush should have been jailed but Obama is doing this stuff out in the open.
Obama said the other day that “What Wall Street did was immoral, but it wasn’t illegal” in response to a question about why nobody had gone to jail.
Really Mr. President? None of the following is illegal?
The list of criminal behavior by this administration continues to grow. Only by the American public lighting a fire under the posteriors of their congresscritters is any real “change” going to be effected.
The other shoe has dropped in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, and it has landed on Eric Holder’s doorstep. Members of Congress are calling for his resignation, and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the affair.
Holder’s resignation would be a good start. But if there is anyone in Washington who doubts that the White House not only knew about the illegal ATF project but was up to its elbows in it, that person must be in an hypnotic trance deep inside the CNN Washington bureau.
There is mounting evidence that far from being a rogue operation by a few ATF agents, the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking project had the backing of officials at the highest levels in the Obama administration.
Email messages between Justice Department officials and ATF managers made public last week by CBS News show that Attorney General Holder was well aware of the ATF operation in mid-2010, almost a full year earlier than previously admitted. This means Holder lied to a congressional committee. Why did he lie and what else has he been lying about?
Holder’s complicity in the ATF scandal is only the latest in a series of cases showing pervasive corruption inside the Department of Justice. The first case was the outrageous dropping of the prosecution the Black Panther Party for blatant, well-documented intimidation of Philadelphia voters in the 2008 election. The “Fast and Furious” scandal is remarkable only in its scope and sheer audacity – and the ugly byproduct: the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
The evidence of DOJ involvement and support for the illegal ATF operation also shows clearly that the White House was also aware of it. Again, there are some obvious and inevitable questions that flow from this fact, questions enterprising journalists are beginning to ask. For example, how could the White House be “aware” of the operation and not call a halt to it – unless it had the approval of the West Wing? If the president approved of the operation, what were the motives behind it?
It is worth remembering what brought on Richard Nixon’s impeachment and eventual resignation. It was not the Watergate break-in itself, because there was never any evidence that Nixon personally had prior knowledge of the break-in. But he did participate in the cover-up, which is a felony; it is obstruction of justice.
News-Post Staff Advertisement Several Frederick County volunteer fire companies plan to host open house events through October during Fire Prevention Month.The National Fire Protection Association’s theme this year is “Protect Your Family From Fire.” Firefighters will be on hand to discuss developing a home escape plan, practicing a home fire drill and checking smoke alarms.Admission to the events is free. Each event includes station tours, fire safety activities, informational handouts and demonstrations of emergency equipment, according to a Division of Fire and Rescue Services news release.The open houses will take place at the following locations:Oct. 8From 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., Woodsboro Volunteer Fire Co. — Station 16, 2 S. Third St., Woodsboro. 301-898-5100.From 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Independent Hose Co. — Station 1, 310 Baughman’s Lane, Frederick. 301-600-1720.Oct. 9From 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Carroll Manor Volunteer Fire Co. — Station 14, 2795 Adams St., Adamstown. 301-874-5111.Oct. 13From 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Vigilant Hose Co. — Station 6, 25 W. Main St., Emmitsburg. 301-447-2728.Oct. 16From noon to 4 p.m., Urbana Volunteer Fire/Rescue Co. — Station 23, 3602 Urbana Pike, Frederick. 301-663-3822.— Nicholas C. Stern
Right from their website.
If so — if this is really about “the 99%” — then you need to understand a few things.
Some of you already do. To those, this article is redundant. To the rest, and to the majority of the people in this nation, it is not.
Last night I appeared on Dylan Ratigan’s show. You can watch the segment, and should. I used the word financialization, which a few people emailed me about and asked me to explain.
Thus, this Ticker.
So what is financialization anyway? It is the process by which something very ordinary (say, a TV set) becomes financed. In doing so there is inherently created the use (and usually the abuse) of leverage.
What is leverage? Leverage is simply the ability to act as though you have much more of something than you really do. For example, you can use leverage to pry off the lid on a beer bottle. Your raw strength is multiplied by the lever (the bottle opener) to lift the cap.
But note that there is no free lunch. While the opener may multiply the force applied to the cap, the distance the opener moves is proportionally reduced compared to the movement of your hand.
In economics, leverage is the use of debt to pretend to have more economic surplus (that is, purchasing power) than you really have.
Let’s take a TV set. If you save up the money to buy one, then go into the store and pay for it, you now own a TV set. There is no leverage involved; you took your economic surplus from working (which you didn’t need for food, energy, shelter and clothing – thus, it’s a true surplus to you) and you expend it on a TV set. The transaction is simple; once it is completed there are no residual effects. If you lose your job the next day, you still have the TV set and will forever more until it either breaks, wears out or you dispose of it in some way.
But what if the TV set costs $500 and you only have $100? Well, you could financialize your acquisition of the TV. That is, you could borrow $400 by buying the TV on installment payments with a $100 down payment, and now you have a TV.
Or do you?
Actually, the bank (or the store) owns a TV. You may have custody of a TV set, but you don’t own a TV set. You owe a debt. You have promised to work tomorrow to cover the expense of the television. You don’t own the TV until you pay it off.
This is all fine and well up until you lose your job. Now the bank comes after you and wants the TV back, plus whatever deficiency there is on reselling the TV set to cover your debt. You suddenly discover, much to your chagrin, that you never owned it at all.
This all sounds pretty ordinary, except that the economic effect of financializing that transaction isn’t, in fact, ordinary at all.
See, in economics there is this thing called “supply and demand.” The more demand there is for something with a given supply, the higher the price tends to be. In ordinary times a gallon jug of drinking water in a store is a dollar, and from the tap it costs so little we don’t ordinarily put a price on it. Yet if there was just a hurricane, and there is no fresh water available, what would the price of that same gallon be? Ah, now we have much demand and very short supply, and as such the price will be quite dear. Perhaps the price of that water might be several gallons of gasoline (for the seller’s generator, of course.)
Read this entire article. It is lengthy but well worth it.
The links connecting Anwar al-Awlaki to anti-American terrorism were entirely suppositious, forged through unsubstantiated official assertion. He was, at most, a clerical propagandist who never exercised command authority. For that matter, no evidence has been presented that he ever had an operational role in a military force of any kind.
Awlaki — an American-born cleric who was once courted by the Pentagon — was accused of expressing support for armed attacks against U.S. military personnel and government interests. It is not terrorism to employ lethal violence against an invading and occupying army, nor is it a crime to express support for armed self-defense — or even to call for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (or do I repeat myself).
The administration asserted – without providing evidence – that Awlaki had an “operational” role in planning terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. If evidence supporting that charge existed, the administration had the unconditional constitutional duty to indict Awlaki and put him on trial.
Intelligence officials knew Awlaki’s location. The government of Yemen, which is headed by a pliant thug named Ali Abdullah Saleh, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington and would have eagerly cooperated in an effort to track down and extradite Awlaki. But this would not have validated the claim – made by the Bush administration, and embraced by its successor – that the President of the United States isn’t bound by the Constitution, but rather is the Living Constitution.
I’m no fan of hte abuses of the IRS but these pastors are forgettign one thing. You are using an IRS regulation to avoid paying taxes( the 501 (c) series). If you are taking government funds or using govt regulations to get around something you can expect the government to exercise it’s monetary authority over you. If you want to be free of government interference you need to renounce your NPO status. This way you have a leg to stand on when not if the government comes a calling. These pastors who are challenging the IRS are going to loose if they are Federal NPOs and i bet all of them are. If you want to have the ability to truly tell the government to go away stop using hte government to avoid taxes. Until you do the government has the ability to and they will use it to tell you what you can and cannot say. Once you take money from the government or you use a government regulation to bypass something like taxes you are ceding control to said government.