Juan Williams: Songs of the Summer of 1963 . . . and 2013

Rap songs celebrating tattooed thugs make a sad contrast with the sweet music of the March on Washington

By  JUAN WILLIAMS  - WSJ

Fifty years after the March on Washington, mystical memories of that seminal moment in the civil-rights era are less likely to focus on movement politics than on the great poetry and great music.

The emotional uplift of the monumental march is a universe of time away from today's degrading rap music — filled with the n-word, bitches and "hoes" — that confuses and depresses race relations in America now.

The poetry of Aug. 28, 1963, is best on view when Martin Luther King Jr. went off his speech script and started using a musical, chanting reprise — "I have a dream." The transforming insight born of the power of the interracial gathering at that time of turmoil, combined with the power of the spoken word, created an emotional message that still grips the American mind.

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood," King said, in verse that somehow spanned a history of slavery and the Founding Fathers' uniquely American promise of equality.

"I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. I have a dream today!"

Getty Images  -  The March on Washington, Aug. 28, 1963

That poetry rose above the reality that as King spoke the civil-rights movement was stalled. Few schools had integrated after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision nine years earlier. One hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act was stuck in Congress. NAACP leader Medgar Evers had been killed in June. After a violent April in Alabama, in which protest marchers were beaten and set upon by police dogs, an estimated 15,000 more civil-rights activists had been arrested at protests across the country that summer.

King sailed past all those sad realities to invoke his soaring vision of the nation at racial peace. When he finished speaking, the crowd spontaneously broke into singing "We Shall Overcome," holding hands and swaying as if in communal prayer.

That sense of unity, promise and purpose was also evident in the music of the march. It's music that still stirs emotions to this day.

Bob Dylan's "Blowin' In The Wind," written in 1962, hit No. 2 on the Billboard charts just before the crowd gathered in Washington. When the folk-music trio Peter, Paul and Mary sang the song for the 250,000 people in front of the Lincoln Memorial that day, it became an interracial anthem for change. The song itself drew inspiration from two others: The lyrics brought to mind Woody Guthrie's "Bound for Glory," which included an allegory about newspapers blowing down city streets, and its melody came from a slave protest song called "No More Auction Block."

And so they sang in Washington: "Yes, how many years can some people exist before they're allowed to be free? Yes, how many times can a man turn his head, pretending that he just doesn't see? The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind."

Sam Cooke, the black gospel and rhythm-and-blues singer began performing the Dylan song immediately after the march. He had been working on a song about the hurt he felt as a black man living with racism yet also with hope for better times. In December 1963, Cooke recorded "A Change Is Gonna Come." The song became a hit on black radio, another anthem of yearning for a nation without racial rancor.

"I go to the movie and I go downtown, somebody keep telling me don't hang around," Cooke wrote. "It's been a long time coming but I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will."

The next year, in 1964, Curtis Mayfield—also openly inspired by the music of the march—wrote an even more hopeful song: "People Get Ready." It, too, picked up on a frequent image of American folklore, the train of salvation.

Just as Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash had sung "This Train's Bound for Glory," Mayfield, a black Chicago singer steeped in church gospel music and the blues, sang about faith in the American struggle for racial justice.

"People get ready, there's a train a comin'; you don't need no baggage you just get on board . . . there ain't no room for the hopeless sinner who would hurt all mankind just to save his own. Have pity on those whose chances grow thinner. For there's no hiding place against the Kingdom's throne."

The uplifting lyrics made "People Get Ready" one of the earliest hits on both black and white radio. Bob Marley later used some of the words in his poignant song "One Love." Bruce Springsteen used the song as a healing anthem at concerts after the 9/11 terror attacks.

The songs by Dylan, Cooke and Mayfield have been ranked 14th, 12th and 24th on Rolling Stone magazine's list of greatest songs of all time. All three have roots in the March on Washington.

Now, half a century after the lyrical promise of that inspiring music and poetry, there is the inescapable and heartbreaking contrast with the malignant, self-aggrandizing rap songs that define today's most popular music.

In Jay-Z's current hit, "Holy Grail," he sings about "psycho bitches" and uses the n-word seven times while bragging that he is "Living the life . . . Illest [n-word] alive." Another top rapper, Lil Wayne, released a song in the spring with an obscenity in the title, using the n-word repeatedly and depicting himself as abusing "hoes" and "bitches."

Similar examples abound in the rap-music world and have persisted for years with scarcely any complaint from today's civil-rights leaders. Their failure to denounce these lyrics for the damage they do to poor and minority families—words celebrating tattooed thugs and sexually indiscriminate women as icons of "keeping it real" — is a sad reminder of how long it has been since the world heard the sweet music of the March on Washington.

Mr. Williams is a political analyst for Fox News and a columnist for the Hill. He is the author of "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years 1954-1965" (Kindle). (Viking, 1987).  A version of this article appeared August 27, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Songs of the Summer of 1963 . . . and 2013.

Technorati Tags: Juan Williams,music,choices,entertainment,tatoo,n-word,MLK,Black Community,culture,society,Misogyny,remembering,looking back,rap-music,wake-up America,civil rights,race relations,divide and conquer,parenting,power of the purse,civil-rights,Fox News,War on Woman,rappers,inspirational,freedom,degrading rap music

Obamacare Produces Pain and Chaos by Design

EIB/Rush – Cross-posted at True Health Is True Wealth:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Denise in Trenton, Michigan, as we head back to the phones.  Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush.  My question is pretty simple, but I also want to ask, you talked to somebody on Tuesday, it was a guy, I know you'll remember him, he worked two part-time jobs and he had a one-year-old and he talked about how he can't get benefits. And you had told him that you had hope to give him, and you talked about a time where there were people in like their fifties and stuff, and they had to go back and they basically lost their jobs, and they did what they really wanted to do.

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  And I just hope he's listening today, 'cause I was on the phone with you on hold saying, "Please take my call so I can tell him."  It was true then, and it's true now.  That's what we're doing.  That's what our family is doing, 'cause of course thanks to Obama and his infinite wisdom, I went through the same thing and lost two of my jobs, and I'm back in school and I'm gonna do what I want to do.  And I just want your guy -- I hope he hears this because anybody can do it, and you are who you are not because of who they let you be, but because of you.  He has to do what you said and follow his passion, because --

RUSH:  That's a good point.  It really is.  Just to recap, I remember the guy.  He was working two jobs because he had been downsized because of Obamacare.  He'd been reduced in both jobs to part-time status, so he'd lost his benefits. Even though with two jobs he had the equivalent of a full-time job, he didn't have any benefits, and health care, particularly, was gone.  He didn't know what he was gonna do.  He was from Asheville, North Carolina, and I told him, "You know, even true today, most of the limitations that people face are self-imposed."  And I asked him, "Are you willing to move to pursue your dream?"  He said, "Yeah." 

Okay, well, that's the big one.  Once you're willing to move you're really over a hump, but if you're not gonna leave Asheville, then you have to realize your potential is dictated by what Asheville has, what there is to do there job-wise, career-wise, or what have you.  But the point that I made that you recounted here that's really worth it, all these guys in the nineties laid off in their middle ages, fifties, white-collar guys, could not get rehired at the salaries that they were earning.  So what they did late in life was start businesses with the things they really loved and always wanted to do but had never done.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, one thing from our last caller.  The caller she was talking about was Andy from Asheville, North Carolina.  This is worth repeating.  He was downsized in two jobs, so he had a full-time workweek with two jobs. So he was part time in two jobs, did not have any benefits as a result. He was been downsized in both jobs because of health care. The companies where he worked converted him to part-time status so that they would not have to provide him health care coverage, and that's common and it's happening with greater frequency and will increase its occurrences as more companies realize what they have to do to be complicit with Obamacare. 

If they want to stay in business they're gonna have to let people go.  If they want to stay in business they're gonna have to convert people to part time.  They're gonna have to reduce their hours and they're gonna have to reduce their benefits.  No, that's not the spirit of Obamacare at all.  In fact, Obamacare officials are shocked and stunned that this is happening.  Actual people in the government can't believe this.  They thought that the health care experience in America would be, as they said, enriched because of Obamacare.  They're just a bunch of political lug heads who accept the flawed premise and promises of liberalism.  And because they're good people and because they've put the program together, it's magically gonna work.  Never does.

(interruption)

I was just asked if they just discount all the articles that point out how it's not being implemented as it was designed.  'Cause it isn't a surprise.  It isn't a surprise that business is doing this.  Everybody that paid any attention, had any smarts at all, knew exactly what businesses were gonna have to do in order to stay in business once this thing started to be implemented.  And so the question is, don't these guys in government -- how do they not know this?  Don't they read these stories?  I don't know.  Maybe they don't read them.  But more likely they do and just discount what they're reading.  They do.  They think it's all right-wing propaganda, no matter where it runs.

All of these forecasts, Obamacare not working, all of these stories of companies downsizing, they just think that's evil business profit-taking.  These people in the government who really thought that Obamacare and even do still think Obamacare is gonna lower costs and expand coverage, and when it doesn't happen, what do they think?  They think that evil CEOs are being greedy and they're just laying people off using the excuse of Obamacare, but all they're doing is hoarding money and building bigger houses for themselves and buying nicer cars while they're firing or laying people off.  That's what they think.  They think that all of this is right wing conspiratorial activity designed to harm Obama.  When they read these stories -- look, try this one.  This is from the Washington Examiner but this is just a repeat of an LA Times story. 

"UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest private insurer, will not participate in California’s Obamacare health exchange, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. Health insurance giants Aetna and Cigna will also opt out of Covered California, the state agency charged with implementing Obamacare. All three insurers will still provide health insurance through large employers in the state," but they're not going to participate in the Obamacare exchanges. 

"Kaiser Permanente, the largest health insurer in California, will work with Covered California, as will Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California. Together, these two companies already control 87 percent of the state’s individual health insurance market. That number will only go up as UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna drop out of the individual market entirely. Market consolidation and decreased consumer choice is exactly what some supporters of Obamcare hoped would happen all along."

This is my point.  As UnitedHealth pulls out, as Cigna pulls out, as Aetna pull out, what does that mean?  It means consumers have fewer choices.  That's the design.  The people that really thought about this at the government, the Obamacare people, the people that really put this together with their ultimate aim in mind, intended all of this.  They intended for it to be too big, too unworkable, and too expensive.  They intended for all of these companies, be they businesses or insurance companies, to pull out, to not insure people, they intended this.  That's why the fines for not having insurance in the first couple years are very cheap. 

The fines for not having a policy cost much less than having a policy. They want people to not have the policy. They want people to pay the fine. They want to upset the market and create a mess -- and, then to clean up the mess, they want everybody just to finally say, "You know what? You know what would fix this? Single payer! Just have the government do it. To hell with Aetna, to hell with Cigna, to hell with United Health, to hell with private insurance. Just have the government do it."

That will be the solution.

Video – Obama on Single-Payer Health Insurance

It's not me saying so. Obama said this in 2007 in a speech to the Service Employees International Union. We've played the audio of that speech on this program I don't know how many times where he said to 'em, "I know you want single payer. I want single payer, too. But we can't get there overnight. It's gonna take 10, maybe 15 years. People are going to have  to be slowly conditioned to it and ultimately it's going to have to be the only option available. That's how we'll get it done."

Because people don't want that. Obama knows it. He knew it in 2007; he knows it today. He's governing against the will of the people. People do not want single-payer, government-run health care. They don't want Obamacare. Still, the numbers are 60%. But the people in the regime who believe in this, who think that all of this is the perfect solution to our health care problems, they'll read a story here. They'll read this LA Times story: United Health, Aetna, Cigna pulling out.

They will tell themselves that the people running these companies are just a bunch of greedy Republicans trying to screw Obama. Everything is political to them, and there is no legitimacy in capitalism, and therefore no capitalistic entity is legitimate. They're all cheats, liars. They're all frauds. "Capitalism is unfair. Capitalism is what the 1% use to stay the 1%, and they got to be the 1% by taking everything from everybody else!"

So if you start out from the standpoint that there's nothing legitimate about free markets, if there's nothing legitimate in capitalism, and you read a story like this (and you know how mean and nasty Republicans are), well, you're just gonna assume that the people running these companies are Republicans and hate Obama and they're trying to screw up his grand plan. Then, at some point, they realize what's going on. That's when you get the stories, "Yeah, we really thought it was gonna lower costs!

"We really thought it was going to enrich health care experience for people." The cookie-cutter liberal, the standard operating procedure liberal is really a giant ignoramus. I mean that seriously. They're really ignorant. They are so politically oriented, and they are so arrogant and condescending -- and they have such solid boundaries built around themselves -- that the truth of anything doesn't permeate. The only truth is what they believe and what they think, including all of their biases and all of their prejudices.

Those things are truth. Anything outside their believability system, outside the cocoon, is a conspiracy designed to undercut them or destroy Obama -- or it's just a bunch of right-wing kooks. That's the challenge. That's why there's no working with these people. There isn't any point in bipartisanship. There is no area of commonality. We don't have anything in common with these people. That's why, in my mind, politically they're to be defeated. The problem is we usually do. They are a minority.

We're just being governed by a minority. It's made to look like the majority because of their never-ending media support. I mentioned yesterday that even the union for the people who are going to enforce Obamacare, the IRS, is begging out of it. It's the National Treasury Employees Union, which runs the IRS. That's the union that all IRS workers are members of. They want to be exempted from it. Their job is to make sure you sign up. Their job is to make sure you are assessed a fine if you don't get insurance under the terms of Obamacare.

They want an exemption. That is liberalism for you. They set up two sets of rules: One set for everybody else, and another set for them. They never have to live by the rules that they set up for everybody else. 'Cause they're special! They're better. They're more important. The rules set up for everybody else are to handle "the masses," the bourgeois -- you know, the slow-witted, dim-witted, mindless people that are incapable of taking care of themselves.

So they set up rules for them, and then another set for themselves, and that's how it works. United Health, Aetna, and Cigna opt out of the California Obamacare exchange -- and they're going to continue to offer insurance policies to employers. Eventually what is designed to happen, and therefore will, is that the policies are going to be so much more expensive than what will be found at the exchanges, private insurance will end.

END TRANSCRIPT

Technorati Tags: single payer,ObamaCare,Obamaland,THITW,watch the other hand,defund ObamaCare,defeat ObamaCare,socialized medicine,manipulation of the public,wake-up America,stand-up America,smoke and mirrors,WSJ,EIB,ObamaCare exchanges

Today… A Car That Takes Your Pulse, Tomorrow A Card or Implant That Controls Your Life

WSJ – Cross-Posted at AskMarion and at True Health Is True Wealth: What the car of the near future will sense about your biology. Auto makers are researching technology that could feed your heart rate, blood pressure and other biometric responses into the car's computers, the better to determine when you're drowsy or overwhelmed with distracting media. MIT researcher Bryan Reimer and WSJ's Joe White has details on Lunch Break. See Video

A Car That Takes Your Pulse

Designing Vehicles To Monitor Brain Waves, Sleepiness

Could a car that knows when you are stressed or ill save you from having an accident? Auto makers are stepping up efforts to find out.

A number of big car manufacturers are accelerating research into equipping vehicles with so-called biometric sensors that would keep tabs on a driver's vital health signs, including pulse, breathing and "skin conductance," aka sweaty palms. When that information is fed into the computers that manage a car's safety systems, it could enable a vehicle to better react to whatever challenges the road and traffic dish out.

The move comes amid major advances in mobile medical-monitoring technology, as well as growing concerns about meeting the needs of an aging and increasingly distracted population of motorists.

It also reflects another step in the industry's broader move toward self-driving cars, a brave new world in which computers could all but eliminate the potential for driver error—whether it's due to a distracting phone call or a sudden drop in blood sugar.

Already, some Lexus models use in-cabin cameras and some Mercedes-Benz vehicles have steering sensors to detect drowsy-driving behavior. The cars sound a warning beep or flash a coffee-cup icon to suggest that it's time for a break. Luxury brands are promoting these accident-avoidance technologies as examples of what sets their expensive vehicles apart from cheaper, mainstream models. The Mercedes system, called Attention Assist, comes as standard equipment in a wide range of its vehicles, from the smaller C-class sedans to the more opulent, and high-tech, S-class models.

View Interactive

Separately, car makers and federal safety regulators are working on in-vehicle systems that could reliably detect when someone is too drunk to drive.

The new body monitors could, if a driving hazard appeared imminent, trigger the car's safety systems to tap the brakes, turn off a radio, block a cellphone from ringing or take other actions. Some of these advances may be in cars in three to five years. Others depend upon whether researchers can crack the challenge of designing health-related sensors that can work flawlessly in a vehicle for up to a decade.

Sports car maker Ferrari SpA, for one, has filed a patent application that indicates the company is evaluating technology that would embed wireless electrodes in a car seat's headrest to monitor drivers' brain waves for stress as they pilot machines capable of roaring up to 200 miles per hour. Depending on what the sensors detect, the car might try to mitigate the driver's risk by cutting power to the motor or automatically stabilizing the vehicle. As Ferrari researchers put it in the patent filing: "drivers tend to miscalculate—in particular, overestimate—their driving skill and, more important, their psychophysical condition."

At Ford Motor Co., F +1.26%researchers are looking at connecting information from medical monitors, like seat-belt-based respiration sensors and steering-wheel heart-rate trackers, to its cars' in-dash multimedia systems.

Ford's prototype system aims to lessen distraction by taking readouts from biometric sensors and combining the data with information from the car, including speed, steering-wheel angle, and data from radar sensors or cameras used in blind-spot obstacle detection or cruise control. All the data are run through software that can gauge the driver's overall stress level. If it is high, the system could automatically engage a "Do Not Disturb" function for the driver's phone.

Jeff Greenberg, a senior technical leader involved with the Ford research, says the broad goal is to minimize driver distraction and stress. This may involve keeping people engaged and alert on a boring drive to work or helping them stay focused in more difficult driving moments. If a truck looms out of the blind spot during a high-speed freeway merge, for example, a driver would be better off if his phone's ringer was disabled at that moment, he says.

Mr. Greenberg says phone-disabling technology could come to showrooms "relatively quickly." Adding the biometric sensors, he says, "is further out." Ford classifies those technologies as research projects that typically are at least three to five years from being offered to consumers.

One reason: The technology is evolving faster than issues such as medical privacy and regulatory oversight can be resolved. Ford, like other auto makers, is loath to add the Food and Drug Administration to an already heavy regulatory load.

Car makers hope that vehicles with medical monitors will appeal to an aging population that wants to keep driving.

"If we want to keep people in their vehicles, it's key we integrate systems to support them," says Bryan Reimer, a researcher with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology AgeLab, which focuses on innovations for an aging population. AgeLab has worked with Toyota Motor Corp., 7203.TO -1.56%Ford and other companies to test how biometric sensors could be used both to guide the design of vehicles to make them easier to operate and as onboard systems to help people drive more safely.

Getty Images/Onoky

A number of big car manufacturers are accelerating research into equipping vehicles with so-called biometric sensors that would keep tabs on a driver's vital health signs.

Dick Myrick, a 63-year-old retired electrical engineer from Arlington, Mass., participated in AgeLab experiments in biometrically monitored driving. His says he would be interested in a car that kept tabs on his condition as part of its safety technology, but only if he was in control of the system. "I need to know that the function is on, and have it not on when I want," he says.

Others see the new technology as yet another thing to keep track of behind the wheel. It's "a further distraction" for drivers, says Gabrielle Lucci, 60, a Farmington Hills, Mich., retiree.

Devices that collect data about an individual's physical condition are getting cheaper and smaller. Many are designed to connect to smartphones using the same Bluetooth technology that connects smartphones to cars. This provides a gateway for wirelessly connecting devices like glucose or heart monitors into a car's multimedia displays.

"The same sensor you are wearing for your weekend warrior stuff…is the sensor you could slap on your mother" to monitor her heart, says Leslie Saxon, a cardiologist who leads the University of Southern California's Center for Body Computing. Dr. Saxon's project recently formed a research alliance with German luxury car maker BMW BMW.XE +0.72% AG.

Daniel Grein, a BMW designer, says the USC research could help determine how to connect a Bluetooth-equipped blood-sugar monitor to future BMW models. In Munich, he says, BMW engineers are also investigating how to design a car that could automatically stop if the driver suffered a heart attack.

Dr. Saxon says he sees a time when biometric monitors in a car could feed data, not just to onboard safety systems, but also to doctors and patients looking to better manage health care. "My car calls me when it needs something," Dr. Saxon says, referring to vehicle-service alerts generated by the car. "I want patients' cars to call them when they need blood-pressure medicine."

Sound interesting? Might increase safety? But as Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said, “He who trades security (or safety) for freedom" usually gets (nor deserves) either!!” Wake-up America, Europe, Christians, Patriots, lovers of freedom… this is Big Brother 1984 style all the way! Today it is a smart car… tomorrow it will be a smart card. Be sure to watch the video below and then you be the judge!

Video: Smart card (made 2005)

Related:

Now Big Brother is REALLY watching you

Smart Dust Computers… Vaccination Nanotechnology… NWO Here We Come

RFID Chip for all Americans in 2013 as Part of ObamaCare… See Biden Telling Fed Judge He Will Have to Rule on Implanted Microchips

Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School

MARK OF THE BEAST IS COMING SOON ! – WIFE STANDS UP FOR JESUS AND AGINST THE RFID IMPLANT AT HOSPITAL — GOD BLESS HER FOR HER STRENGTH OF CONVICTION

Buying and Selling in an RFID Chip for the First Time – VeriChip Changes Its Name

FBI begins installation of $1 billion face recognition system across America

Technorati Tags: Smart Card,Smart Car,Big Brother,watch the other hand,RFID,Implants,Big Brother is watching you,1984,RFID chip part of healthcare bill,NWO,safety,smoke and mirrors,BMW,smartphones,wake- up,wake-up America,biometric monitors,Benjamin Franklin,safety vs freedom

Governor Palin’s WSJ Editorial: ‘How Congress Occupied Wall Street’

A Wall Street Journal editorial:

Mark Twain famously wrote, “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Throw Them All Out,” reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)

Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers’? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it’s sickening.

Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it’s easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

The corruption isn’t confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It’s an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It’s an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

None of this surprises me. I’ve been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.

We were successful because we had the righteous indignation of Alaskan citizens on our side. Our good ol’ boy political class in Juneau was definitely not with us. Business was good for them, so why would they want to end “business as usual”?

The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they’ll moan that they can’t govern effectively without it. Perhaps they’ll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of “We the people” to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.

I’ve learned from local, state and national political experience that the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public’s attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.

What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party’s mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been “Occupying Wall Street” long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

By Sarah Palin

Related:

REVEALED:  Nancy Pelosi Blocked Credit Card Reform While Investing Millions in Exclusive Visa Stock

Jobs? Obama? Impeach Him!

By Alan Caruba

America is dying a death by a thousand cuts in the form of hidden and explicit taxation, the insane generation of new regulations, and the resulting massive unemployment. Obama just selected a new economic advisor who is known to favor a value-added tax that would drive up the cost of everything you purchase.

It’s not like solutions to our economic disaster are not known. They are and the Obama administration will not implement them. They do know what they are doing and it is deliberate.

On September 7, in the guise of a jobs speech Obama will offer massive new spending programs. The money for them would have to be borrowed. The interest on that borrowing would sink the nation further into debt.

In the August 31 edition of The Wall Street Journal, an editorial revealed that, when Speaker John Boehner asked the White House to disclose any “major” federal rules in the works with estimated economic costs of $1 billion or more, he was informed that the Obama regulatory agenda for 2011 contains 219 proposed such new regulatory initiatives.

In 2010 the administration had 191 proposed regulatory initiatives in the works which combined with those proposed in 2011 add up to a total of 410. By contrast the first two years of the Bush administration rulemaking accounted for only 103 new, major regulations.

Of seven pending major rules estimated to cost more than $1 billion one includes the Environmental Protection Agency’s ozone regulations, estimated to cost $90 billion if Congress does not step in and put a stop to it. The EPA is trying to eliminate one tenth of all the utilities that provide the electricity the nation needs to function.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s experts on regulation have concluded that the present cost of federal regulation to businesses that must comply with them is $1.75 trillion annually.

If you visit USA Action News.com, you will find an issues section devoted to the Cloward-Piven strategy named after two socialist academics who spelled out just what it would take to economically destroy the nation. It is being implemented by the Obama administration.

Posted by Alan Caruba on August 31, 2011 at 3:21pm

Posted at TPN

The True Elephant In The Room Appears: Trillions In Commercial And Industrial Loans To Europe's Insolvent Countries

July 18, 2011

With the market's attention over the past year exclusively focused on bank holdings of insolvent European sovereign debt, which as is now well known had been declining for months, many if not all forgot that banks also have credit exposure via far simpler conduits: retail and commercial debt. And as an analysis of the full disclosure in the EBA's second stress test exposes, banks are on the hook for literally trillions in various plain-vanilla commercial and retail loans to individuals and businesses. WSJ's David Enrich summarizes it best: "Friday's test results shed light on another potential problem for Europe's banks: huge piles of residential mortgages, small-business loans, corporate debt and commercial real-estate loans to institutions and individuals from ailing countries. As those economies struggle, the odds of rising defaults grow." Oops.

From the WSJ:

Banks tend to be holding far greater quantities of those commercial and retail loans than they are of sovereign debt, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of disclosures accompanying the stress tests.

This year's stress tests represent the first time there has been a uniform way to measure this exposure. Until now, banks have disclosed their portfolios of loans to customers in troubled countries on a piecemeal basis. That made it virtually impossible to aggregate data across the industry or to compare different institutions.

"The country-by-country exposure [data] is better than any data we've seen before," said Alastair Ryan, a London-based banking analyst with UBS AG. "It's giving me more things to be fearful of," Mr. Ryan added, referring to the disclosures of some banks' large holdings of loans to customers in troubled countries.

After Spanish and Italian banks, France's banks appear to be the most exposed. As of Dec. 31, its four largest banks—BNP Paribas SA, Crédit Agricole SA, BPCE Group and Société Générale SA—were holding a total of nearly €300 billion, or about $425 billion, in loans and other debt issued to institutions and individuals in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, the countries that are among Europe's most troubled. That is largely a result of some of the French banks having big retail- and commercial-banking operations in Greece, Italy and Spain.

The French banks' portfolios of commercial and retail loans in those countries dwarf their holdings of sovereign debt.
For example, the four banks have a total of about €51 billion of loans to Spanish customers, according to the Journal's analysis.

Here is how this latest elephant looks like in chart format:

Germany, so far represented as a stalwart of investment prudence (despite its Landsbanken being decimated and on a constant lifeline by the CDO scammery of our own investment banks back in 2005-2006), is among the most impaired:

The dozen German banks that disclosed their stress-test results were exposed to €174 billion of commercial and retail loans to Greek, Irish, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish borrowers as of Dec. 31. They are holding an additional €70 billion of sovereign debt issued by those countries, according to SNL.
More than half of the German banks' loan exposures are concentrated in the country's two biggest lenders, Deutsche Bank AG and Commerzbank AG. Deutsche Bank alone is holding nearly €80 billion of loans in those countries, including €7.5 billion of residential mortgages in Spain. Deutsche, which passed the stress tests with a 6.5% capital ratio under the EBA's worst-case scenario, said Friday that it "feels well prepared" to hit its capital targets.

Naturally, it is no secret that the second Stress Test was nothing but another attempt at redirection:

While the tests did consider the impact of an economic downturn on banks' portfolios of loans and nonsovereign debt in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, many critics complained that the tests were overly benign. For example, the EBA's worst-case scenario for Portugal envisioned an 11.6% unemployment rate this year, rising to 12.9% in 2011. The unemployment rate there is currently 12.4%.
The stress-test figures actually understate some banks' holdings of loans in certain troubled countries. That is because the European Banking Authority required banks to disclose their loan holdings in countries only if they represent more than 5% of the bank's total loan exposures.
As a result, some banks opted not to disclose details of their loan portfolios.

Once again, just like in the case of Spain's LaMancha region lying outright about its deficit, "out of left field" discoveries such as this will keep reappearing until the full kit and caboodle of tens of trillions in impaired exposure finally hits the market. Of course, at that point nothing, not even the Fed's unlimited FX swap lines will do much if anything to help.

Source: Zero Hedge

Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate

President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes. With unemployment stuck at 9.2% and a vigorous economic “recovery” appearing more and more elusive, his timing couldn’t be worse.

Cops to Use Facial Recognition iPhone

CRIMEARE U.S. COPS PREPARING WIDESPREAD USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION IPHONE?

Starting as early as September, cops across the country  may be using a new iphone-based device to identify people based on a picture of their face, iris scan, or a fingerprint reader, raising concerns about how the data will be gathered, stored, and used.

The device in question is called the MORIS,  which stands for Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System. Made by BI2 Technologies of Plymouth, Mass, it runs on the iphone platform. The company states that it has contracts with 40 government agencies to deliver 1,000 devices this fall.

Unlike other currently used biometric technologies, the MORIS does not require a separate digital camera or upload time, and automatically scans known databases for criminal warrants and other relevant history. The Wall Street Journal gives specifics on how this new device works:

“To scan a person’s iris, police officers can hold the special iris-scanning camera on device, called MORIS, about 5 to 6 inches away from an individual’s irises. After snapping a high resolution photo, the MORIS system analyzes 235 unique features in each iris and uses an algorithm to match that person with their identity if they are in the database.”

“For the facial recognition, an officer takes a photo of a person at a distance of about 2 feet to 5 feet. Based on technologies from Animetrics Inc., the system analyzes about 130 distinguishing points on the face, such as the distance between a person’s eye and nose. It then scans the database for likely matches.”

As for the usage of the devices, the law does not appear settled on whether police need consent to take a person’s photo.  Generally speaking, the law does not prohibit taking photos of people in a public place. But taking and storing photos for law enforcement purposes- particularly if the subject is in custody- could trigger a different standard of rules. The law becomes even more vague on issues such as whether an iris scan constitutes a search.

Below is a video presentation for the Brockton Police Department showing facial recognition and iris scanning technologies that have been demoed and will soon be in use by various law enforcement units in Massachusetts. The presenters show the devices, discuss the database, and describe the features designed to help law enforcement officers.

Video:  Mass. Police Get Facial Recognition App For iPhones

US Troops overseas have used a variety of biometric tools for years to vet allies and identify insurgents and terrorists. But the MORIS is poised to become the first widespread, mobile usage of such technology here in the US by local and federal law enforcement.

Law enforcement analysts believe the device could prevent the wrong inmates from obtaining prison release, to identify accident victims and keep track of the homeless. While there are many privacy and civil liberties concerns associated with law enforcement’s widespread use of facial recognition devices, the landscape of biometrics is already rapidly changing with programs such as Facebook Facial Recognition:

Video:  Facebook Expands Facial Recognition for Photo Tagging, Triggering Privacy Concerns

Source:  the Blaze

Important info for anyone- just like "Minority Report" - please read the threads below as well.

After frantic calls and a hearing with Registry officials, Gass learned the problem: An antiterrorism computerized facial recognition system that scans a database of millions of state driver’s license images had picked his as a possible fraud.

It turned out Gass was flagged because he looks like another driver, not because his image was being used to create a fake identity. His driving privileges were returned but, he alleges in a lawsuit, only after 10 days of bureaucratic wrangling to prove he is who he says he is.

· Caught in a dragnet [facial recognition software glitch - MA]

Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:09:57 AM · by Daffynition · 8 replies

Boston Globe ^ | July 17, 2011 | Meghan E. Irons

John H. Gass hadn’t had a traffic ticket in years, so the Natick resident was surprised this spring when he received a letter from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles informing him to cease driving because his license had been revoked. Tweet 4 people Tweeted this ShareThis “I was shocked,’’ Gass said in a recent interview. “As far as I was concerned, I had done nothing wrong.’’ After frantic calls and a hearing with Registry officials, Gass learned the problem: An antiterrorism computerized facial recognition system that scans a database of millions of state driver’s license images had picked his...

Police to Scan Faces and Eyes, Prompting Privacy Concerns
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread728366/pg1

*** FACE RECOGNITION DEVICE - ALL POLICE FORCES WILL HAVE IT BEFORE YEAR END ***
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1563576/pg1

Hospitals, doctors take 'palm prints' to ID patients

Palms have taken on a new meaning at some doctors' offices and hospitals. More unique than fingerprints, palm readings are helping keep patients straight and safe.

Full Speed Ahead For Facial Recognition Technology

Face.com has been used to tag over 25 billion faces in over 7 billion photos since launching in late 2007. Facebook users had been using the Face.com facial recognition app to tag friends in photos for two years before Facebook stepped on the Israel-based company’s toes by making facial recognition a default feature for photo tagging this year.

How to protect your mobile phone and computer from illegal police searches

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long defenders of electronic rights, has  written a legal guide - http://www.naturalnews.com/032985_illegal_searches_mobile_phones.html

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Constitution is clear about the issue of privacy. In fact, the Fourth Amendment states, in part, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
With that in mind, it's safe to say it's more than just a little disturbing to know that, in certain circumstances, police can search your cell phone and computer(s), even if you don't want them to and even if they don't yet have a warrant to do so.

The good news is, someone out there has recognized the problem and has taken steps to help you protect that vast amount of data you have stored on your smart phone or laptop.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long defenders of electronic rights, has written a legal guide designed to help you better understand your rights and, more importantly, when police can - and cannot - legally confiscate and search your personal electronic devices.
"In the heat of the moment, it can be hard to remember what your rights are and how to exercise them," says EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Sometimes police can search your computer whether you like it or not, but sometimes they can't. We wrote this guide to help you tell the difference and to empower you to assert your rights when the police come knocking."

Adds EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury, "With smart phones, tablet computers, and laptops, we carry around with us an unprecedented amount of sensitive personal information.

"That smart phone in your pocket right now could contain email from your doctor or your kid's teacher, not to mention detailed contact information for all of your friends and family members," Fakhoury continued. "Your laptop probably holds even more data -- your Internet browsing history, family photo albums, and maybe even things like an electronic copy of your taxes or your employment agreement. This is sensitive data that's worth protecting from prying eyes."

According to a summary of full EFF legal guide:

· Always say "no" when police ask if they can search your server, personal computer or cell phone because if you give them permission to search, they don't need a warrant - even to enter your home;
· If police tell you they have a search warrant, ask to see it because you have a right to;
· Make sure police are only searching the areas outlined in the warrant;
· Be silent - you don't have to help the police or answer their questions, and that means you don't have to give them your encryption keys or passwords;
· If you do decide to talk, don't lie because lying to the police is a crime;
· Finally, if you can consult with a lawyer before police conduct a search or even just talk to you, that's ideal.

This guide is extremely helpful in this digital age when being secure in our "papers" and effects now includes our data-filled electronic devices. Know your rights; that is your best protection.

HIDDEN CAMERA : Actual Cable Box with Hidden Camera

You really need to read the comments on this video.  Evidently if your computer has a video camera, web cam, the gov't can go in and activate it. Also I saw this advertised on TV today
http://thefutureoftv.org/

Mirrored

Video:  Hidden Camera in Cable Box

What do you think?

Uploaded by ledaOhio937 on Jul 20, 2011

FULL ARTICLES BELOW!!

SUB my Channels Since YT nukes me!!!

Cable companies installing HIDDEN CAMERAS in your boxes!!

Did You Go Digital Last Night? Does Your Latest Must-Have Tech Gadget Have Hidden Surveillance for Our Police State Nanny System?
http://ur1.ca/44yio  from newteevee: If you have some tinfoil handy, now might be a good time to fashion a hat. At the Digital Living Room conference today, Gerard Kunkel, Comcast's senior VP of user experience, told me the cable company is experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who's in your living room.

Kunkel also spoke on camera with me about fixing bad Comcast user experiences, the ongoing BitTorrent battle and VOD. But he mostly towed the corporate line on these issues (the monitoring your living room came up after my camera was put away).

There Is No First Amendment Without the Second Amendment!

“ He who gives up their freedom for security, generally gets or deserves either!!”  …Benjamin Franklin

DOH! Extreme Leftist Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Reveals Democrat Strategy For Budget Bill & Rubio (R-FL) on Not Raising Debt Ceiling

Posted by Jared Law on March 29, 2011 at 10:01pm in Elections, Issues, News, & Politics

• Send Message View Discussions

This is rich, especially coming from such an extreme, radical leftist like Chuck Schumer. Talk about the soot-encrusted pot calling the gleaming, polished-stainless steel kettle (with a solid copper bottom) black!

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats in 'leadership' positions in the U.S. Senate are hardcore, radical leftists. Many who call themselves Communists are just as far left, as Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Frank Lautenberg, and other 'Progressives' in the Democrat party.

It's nice to see what we all know is happening, exposed to the light of day. Those dirty, radical leftists can't hide their scheming to combine against the liberty of the American People forever; thankfully, we have examples to show potential recruits to our cause. Cold, hard evidence which cannot be explained away by the honest and honorable.
--------

On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER | March 29, 2011, 12:30 PM 4:58 p.m. | Updated: Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button?

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.
How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

--------
CAUGHT: REPORTERS OVERHEAR DEM’S SECRET BUDGET STRATEGY — ‘ALWAYS U...

Posted on March 29, 2011 at 2:21pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
“Um, Senators, ever heard of the mute button?”
That’s how the New York Times — yes the New York Times — begins its story on how Democratic Senators were caught Tuesday morning discussing secret marching orders before a conference call. Apparently, the senators didn’t realize that several of the reporters were already logged into the call and began discussing just how they wanted to verbally paint the GOP, House Speaker John Boehner, and the Tea Party.

The instructions came from the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat, New York’s Charles Schumer. The Times explains his instructions:

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Tom Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John Boehner of Ohio, the Speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said, “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.” [Emphasis added]

Eventually, it seems someone did find that mute button. But Schumer‘s instructions didn’t fall on deaf ears. As soon as the call officially started the senators accomplished their mission:

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process. [Emphasis added]

Sure, this isn‘t we’re-involved-in-a-third-war shocking — securing messaging is a fact of political life. But it is, if nothing else, worth a chuckle. Especially considering the Democrats — possibly oblivious to the gaffe — said exactly what they said they were going to say.

That, folks, is how the political sausage is made.

Why I Won't Vote to Raise the Debt Limit

Everyone in Washington knows how to cut spending. The time to start is now

By MARCO RUBIO

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America's exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation's greatest challenge is an economy that isn't growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn't have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today's $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama's latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We're therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it's nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

View Full Image

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on "major" regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It's not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it's time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

Related:

Red Ink Rumble | The American Spectator

Must-Read - Unions vs. Right to Work

The Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal has been a bastion of common sense in a world of ridiculously biased print news media. In fact, other than the Washington Times, there is no other national newspaper that contains a shred of the sort of common sense we regularly find on the WSJ's Editorial Page.

Obviously, the same cannot be said for the rest of that newspaper, but at least it's partially good, like Fox News Channel has Glenn Beck, and despite Shep and the rest of the biased, hardcore leftists (and confused 'Progressives' like Bill O'Reilly) working at FNC, Glenn (and sometimes Hannity and Megyn Kelly) is NOT part of the problem; he (and sometimes they) are definitely part of the solution!

Anyway, this Op-Ed discussion unions and the right to work is excellent, as one might expect when one considers the source; I love the subtitle of this article: "Collective Bargaining on a Broad Scale Is More Similar to an Antitrust Violation Than to a Civil Liberty." That is so true! Also, this is a pretty short, but sweet article; great for a short break at work. I think you'll enjoy it:

Unions vs. the Right to Work

Collective Bargaining on a Broad Scale Is More Similar to an Antitrust Violation Than to a Civil Liberty.

By ROBERT BARRO | FEBRUARY 28, 2011

How ironic that Wisconsin has become ground zero for the battle between taxpayers and public- employee labor unions. Wisconsin was the first state to allow collective bargaining for government workers (in 1959), following a tradition where it was the first to introduce a personal income tax (in 1911, before the introduction of the current form of individual income tax in 1913 by the federal government).

Labor unions like to portray collective bargaining as a basic civil liberty, akin to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion. For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty.

In fact, labor unions were subject to U.S. antitrust laws in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which was first applied in 1894 to the American Railway Union. However, organized labor managed to obtain exemption from federal antitrust laws in subsequent legislation, notably the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Remarkably, labor unions are not only immune from antitrust laws but can also negotiate a "union shop," which requires nonunion employees to join the union or pay nearly equivalent dues. Somehow, despite many attempts, organized labor has lacked the political power to repeal the key portion of the 1947 Taft Hartley Act that allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, which now prohibit the union shop in 22 states. From the standpoint of civil liberties, the individual right to work—without being forced to join a union or pay dues—has a much better claim than collective bargaining. (Not to mention that "right to work" has a much more pleasant, liberal sound than "collective bargaining.") The push for right-to-work laws, which haven't been enacted anywhere but Oklahoma over the last 20 years, seems about to take off.

The current pushback against labor-union power stems from the collision between overly generous benefits for public employees— notably for pensions and health care—and the fiscal crises of state and local governments. Teachers and other public-employee unions went too far in convincing weak or complicit state and local governments to agree to obligations, particularly defined-benefit pension plans, that created excessive burdens on taxpayers.

In recognition of this fiscal reality, even the unions and their Democratic allies in Wisconsin have agreed to Gov. Scott Walker's proposed cutbacks of benefits, as long as he drops the restrictions on collective bargaining. The problem is that this "compromise" leaves intact the structure of strong public-employee unions that helped to create the unsustainable fiscal situation; after all, the next governor may have less fiscal discipline. A long-run solution requires a change in structure, for example, by restricting collective bargaining for public employees and, to go further, by introducing a right-to-work law.

There is evidence that right-to-work laws—or, more broadly, the pro-business policies offered by right-to-work states—matter for economic growth. In research published in 2000, economist Thomas Holmes of the University of Minnesota compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing (the traditional area of union strength prior to the rise of public-employee unions) in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

Beyond Wisconsin, a key issue is which states are likely to be the next political battlegrounds on labor issues. In fact, one can interpret the extreme reactions by union demonstrators and absent Democratic legislators in Wisconsin not so much as attempts to influence that state—which may be a lost cause—but rather to deter politicians in other states from taking similar actions. This strategy may be working in Michigan, where Gov. Rick Snyder recently asserted that he would not "pick fights" with labor unions.

In general, the most likely arenas are states in which the governor and both houses of the state legislature are Republican (often because of the 2010 elections), and in which substantial rights for collective bargaining by public employees currently exist. This group includes Indiana, which has recently been as active as Wisconsin on labor issues; ironically, Indiana enacted a right-to-work law in 1957 but repealed it in 1965. Otherwise, my tentative list includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, Florida, Tennessee, Nebraska (with a nominally nonpartisan legislature), Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota.

The national fiscal crisis and recession that began in 2008 had many ill effects, including the ongoing crises of pension and health-care obligations in many states. But at least one positive consequence is that the required return to fiscal discipline has caused reexamination of the growth in economic and political power of public-employee unions. Hopefully, embattled politicians like Gov. Walker in Wisconsin will maintain their resolve and achieve a more sensible long-term structure for the taxpayers in their states.

Mr. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

h/t to Jared Law at the 912 Project

Related: 

Organized in Wisconsin  -  You Will Want to Read These!

How to Lock Democrats in Power – Stop Universal Voter Registration!!

A variety of moves being undertaken by Democrats are designed to ensure their permanent hold on power through engineering a new electorate.

In a recent article, we discussed the possibility that Democrats will introduce universal voter registration (UVR) legislation this year, and we offered that as an explanation for their seeming carelessness in the face of plummeting poll numbers. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, who originally brought this item to public attention (saying it would be proposed in January), has reiterated his belief that UVR will be proposed sometime this year, although it will await the outcome of the health care bill still under consideration.

Fund asserts that UVR will open the nation up to massive vote fraud. The reasons are straightforward and many. Among them, (1) registering people using existing government databases will result in many duplicates, (2) many of the lists contain names of illegal immigrants; and (3) the list could be expanded to include felons currently ineligible to vote.

Like most leftist agenda items, the notion of universal voter registration has been a long time in the making, but it has been flying beneath the radar for all but those paying close attention. As a result, most of us are behind the curve. The left can thus present universal voter registration as a much-needed "reform," with talking points and ready answers to objections all lined up, while the rest of us struggle to assess the damage it will do. But it will do damage -- potentially permanent damage to our representative republic.

Voter Registration and Registration Fraud

Most of the calls for UVR cite the fact that about thirty percent of eligible voters remain unregistered. (In the last election cycle, 29 percent were not registered.) The radical left Nation magazine effuses:

It doesn't have to be this way. Registration rates in other countries frequently run upwards of 90 percent (both Canada and France hit that mark, for example, while Venezuela stands at roughly 94 percent, and Russia about 97).

Venezuela and Russia. How has voter registration worked out for them? They're not exactly the role models for democracy if you ask me, but then, for the folks at Nation, they're all of a piece. Just ask Bill Ayers.

These folks also argue that UVR will prevent voter registration fraud. If the feds do all the registering, they reason, groups like ACORN that have been tied to rampant registration fraud -- not to mention all their other illegal activities -- will be disenfranchised.

But a look at who is supporting the idea gives the lie to that one. An article appeared last year on Alternet.org, a leftist website run by former Mother Jones publisher Don Hazen. Titled "Consensus Builds for Universal Voter Registration," the byline was Project Vote. This is the same Project Vote where Barack Obama cut his teeth organizing for the Senate election of communist-sympathizer Carol Moseley Braun. Project Vote is at the forefront of the voting rights movement. It is also an ACORN subsidiary.

In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act into law. Commonly known as Motor Voter, the law allows for people to register to vote at welfare offices, motor vehicle departments, and other government agencies. These agencies are required to provide necessary forms and even promote voter registration. Democrats billed Motor Voter as a method to make it easier for "disenfranchised voters" to become registered. Note that there was nothing except their own inertia preventing eligible people from registering to vote before this was passed, but the Democrats are all about saving the "poor and oppressed," especially when most of those poor and oppressed will be guaranteed Democrat voters.

A 2008 Project Vote report titled "Unequal Access: Neglecting the National Voter Registration Act 1995-2007" claimed that "40 percent of voting-aged citizens from households earning under $25,000 were unregistered." The report further complains that "Thousands of eligible low income voters could be brought fully into the democratic process every day if states fully complied with the NVRA." Once again, these people are perfectly capable of bringing themselves into the "democratic process" if they so choose, but that's not good enough for Democrats. The report also observed that twenty percent of qualified citizens making $100,000 or more remain unregistered, but that didn't seem to bother them.

Motor Voter was anticipated to create a massive potential for voter registration fraud. Events since its passage seem to have borne that out. And while supporters of the law claim that vote registration fraud does not necessarily lead to vote fraud, the danger is clearly there, especially from absentee ballots and in states where only minimal identification is required. It also creates opportunities for voting activists to challenge elections. If the registration process is flawed, they argue, why not the election process itself?

The Motor Voter law was the brainchild of socialists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Inventors of the Cloward/Piven Crisis Strategy, these two radical activists spent a lifetime dreaming up ways to wreak havoc upon our government, hoping that the crises they fomented would ultimately lead to its collapse. ACORN has been the main vehicle for this strategy. Therefore, the filing of excessive and fraudulent voter registrations may be an end in and of itself. It certainly has created chaos and undermined the integrity of our voting system.

It also could be the pretext upon which the left intended to base their push for universal voter registration. And while there is little doubt, given the current condition of federal and state databases, that such a move would create all kinds of duplication, Democrats would achieve their goal of getting all of those unregistered fellow travelers on the rolls. Then all they'd have to do is get them to the polls. No longer having to sully itself with fraudulent registrations, maybe ACORN could turn its attention more fully to get-out-the-vote activities the ones it illegally conducted for the Obama campaign in 2008.

Illegal Immigrant Voting

Critics fear that universal voter registration will allow many illegal immigrants to register and vote. UVR proponents will dismiss the "illegal immigrant" objections by countering that such individuals either won't be counted or could be weeded from voter rolls depending upon the methodology used to register voters. Congressional opponents of UVR will of course seek amendments making sure illegals and felons are excepted. But that is a throwaway for the left. They have something else in mind.

Separate and distinct from UVR legislation, Congress intends to move forward once again on immigration "reform." According to Reuters, the Obama administration has already signaled its intention to push for this in 2010, including "a path to citizenship for the 12 million immigrants living here illegally." There are probably more than 12 million at this point. During the health care debates, the Democrats reduced their estimates of people needing coverage from 47 million to 30 million to subtract out illegal immigrants. This suggests that they believe the current number to be 17 million.

Getting the illegal immigrant vote is key for Democrats in 2010. While registering low-income people to vote will guarantee more Democrat voters, it may not in and of itself provide the winning margins Democrats need to overcome their growing unpopularity. And while amnesty would provide Democrats with a huge pool of potential new voters, without UVR, the logistical problem of getting them registered to vote in time for the 2010 elections would remain. UVR would solve this problem, guaranteeing these people to be registered to vote the minute they achieve citizenship.

But it doesn't end there. Once again, separate and distinct from UVR, legislators are contemplating granting felons the right to vote. A bill, S. 1516, was proposed by Democrats in the Senate last summer. While the Senate bill deals only with felons who have served their time, don't expect it to end there. An organization called ProCon.org claims that in 2004, there were 5.2 million felons "disenfranchised" from voting. That's a lot of potential Democrats.

This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Washington state law banning felons from voting. Fortunately, saner heads still exist, and the state of Washington has asked the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit ruling. The Obama administration likely agrees with the 9th Circuit, however, having appointed felon-rights advocate Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

So look to Congress to propose both immigration reform and felon "voting rights" legislation. For all this to work, however, Congress needs to propose universal voter registration first. That way, they can pretend that illegal immigrants and felons will not be included. This may be why John Fund was so confident that UVR will be proposed sometime in January 2010.

But it doesn't end even there. Expect to hear calls for abolishing the electoral college and moving toward direct presidential elections. That's in the works, too. It can be accomplished without a constitutional amendment. State legislatures can vote to give all their electors to the winner of the popular vote. Direct elections will become law when enough state legislatures have passed legislation to make up a majority of the electoral vote (270 of 538). Only five states holding 61 electoral votes -- Hawaii, Washington, Illinois (go figure), New Jersey, and Maryland -- have signed on to this so far, so it will take longer to accomplish. But if they get it done, direct elections will be the last nail in the coffin for our beloved Republic.

Add to this the deliberate sabotage of our economy with unprecedented deficit spending, stimulus bills that stimulate only Democrats while unemployment rises to Depression-era levels, cap-and-trade legislation that threatens devastating tax increases justified by a hoax, a health care bill that will make us all sick while dramatically ramping up costs, and all the other garbage legislation designed to keep us distracted, distraught, and demoralized, and you have the prescription for an unprecedented takeover of our country from which we may never recover.

I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this. But if it is the Democrats' agenda to use UVR, illegal immigration, and felon votes to steal the 2010 election -- and I believe it is -- then they need to know that we are going to do everything within our power to stop them. They represent gangster government, a radical cabal aiming to consolidate power once and for all by duplicitously using our own institutions against us. If they attempt this, then they have lost the legitimate right to lead, and those institutions, by definition, will have been corrupted beyond repair. It will be left to us to get rid of them, and it will be our right to do so by any means at our disposal.

By": Jim Simpson - a former White House staff economist and budget analyst – The American Thinker

Help Stop Universal Voter Registration (UVR)