Ltlowl's Blog

Was flipping thru the TV Channels today and happened to catch the news on Channel 14 CNB.  They were doing a story on the fires and the reporter answered a question regarding what happened at one of the shelters when the police started checking ID's.  The reporter said that prior to the checking of ID's there were about 12,000 people at the shelter but once the police started to check the ID's the amount went down to 400 at the shelter.  Talk about fraud, this makes me angry because it reminds me of what happened when Katrina hit.  How much of our money will be given to scam artists, crooks & liars?????????  How much will be wasted like with Katrina?????  I wonder how many people will have their hands in our pocketbooks again????

WASHINGTON - President Bush asked Congress on Monday for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs. "We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done," Bush said.

The figure brings to $196.4 billion the total requested by the administration for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1. It includes $189.3 billion for the Defense Department, $6.9 billion for the State Department and $200 million for other agencies.

To date, Congress has already provided more than $455 billion for the Iraq war, with stepped-up military operations running about $10 billion a month. The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,830 members of the U.S. military and more than 73,000 Iraqi civilians.

Bush made his request in the Roosevelt Room after meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of veterans service organizations, a fallen Marine's family and military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House originally asked for $141.7 billion for the Pentagon to prosecute the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and asked for $5.3 billion more in July. The latest request includes $42.3 billion more for the Pentagon — already revealed in summary last month — and is accompanied by a modified State Department request bringing that agency's total for the 2008 budget year to almost $7 billion.

Bush said any member of Congress who wants to see success in Iraq, and see U.S. troops return home, should strongly support the request.

"I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking ways to demonstrate that opposition," Bush said. "I recognize their position and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C."

Democrats were not swayed.

"We've been fighting for America's priorities while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy — and wants us to come up with another $200 billion and just sign off on it?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "President Bush should not expect Congress to rubber stamp his latest supplemental request. We're not going to do that."

The State Department is requesting $550 million to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, $375 million for the West Bank and Gaza and $239 million for diplomatic costs in Iraq.

Top House lawmakers have already announced that they do not plan to act on Bush's request until next year, though they anticipate providing interim funds when completing a separate defense funding bill this fall. Bush asked lawmakers to approve the request before the holidays.

"We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done," Bush said. "Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not, and that is America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people."

Congress already has approved more than $5 billion for new vehicles whose V-shaped undercarriages provide much better protection against mines and roadside bombs. It's likely that Congress will quickly grant $11 billion more to deliver more than 7,000 of the vehicles.

The delays in submitting the remaining war funding request were in part due to unease among congressional Republicans about receiving it during the veto override battle involving a popular bill reauthorizing a children's health insurance program.

The request also includes $724 million for U.N. peacekeeping efforts in the war-torn Darfur region in Sudan, $106 million in fuel oil or comparable assistance to North Korea as a reward for the rogue nation's promises to cease its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Another $350 million would go to fight famine in Africa.

For the Pentagon, the latest request includes:

_$1 billion for military construction projects, including improvements at airfields and other U.S. bases in Iraq.

_$1 billion to expand the Iraqi security forces.

_$1 billion to train National Guard units.

All told, the $189.3 billion Pentagon request for 2008 includes:

_$77 billion for military operations and maintenance.

_$30.5 billion for to protect U.S. forces from roadside bombs, snipers, and other threats.

_$46.5 billion to repair and replace equipment that has been damaged or destroyed in combat or worn out in harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

___

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report in Washington.

I just saw this and it makes me sick to my stomach.  HOW DARE BUSH USE THE LIVES OF OUR SERVICE PEOPLE TO BLACKMAIL CONGRESS!!!!!!!!

I don't know where these people think this money will come from, oh yea I forgot the FEDERAL RESERVE JUST PRINTS IT!!!!!

 

 

Our forefathers fought and died so that they and future generations would be free from tyrants, WHAT WILL YOU DO TO HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT????????

 

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

John Hancock

Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

 

Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll
of Carrollton

George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

 

Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

 

Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

Matthew Thornton

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

 

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States

 

Our rights are being systematically taken from us just as they once were when these words were written.  It took an entire nation of people to throw out the British because they were doing to us what our government is doing now.  Where will you stand when they come for your neighbor because he refused to give up his rights and freedoms?????

I have been a so called rebel since about the time I learned to read.  My mother used to say that once I started reading that she could set a bomb off by me and I would not budge.  I read everything I can get my hands on or find in such places as the internet.  Most of what I read, especially political, historical & religious I take with a grain of salt.  That saying "every a_ _hole has an opinion and every opinion has an a_ _hole" or "opinions are like a_ _holes everyone has one" is especially true with religion and politics.  My opinions are my own and I do my best not to force my opinions or beliefs on anyone else including my family.  I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion and beliefs and should not be ridiculed or made to feel what they believe has no value.

Growing up in the 50's I learned respect, the value of a dollar, the pleasure of doing a job or task to the very best of my abilities, that family and true friends are the only real treasure to have, to speak my mind, to hold firm to my beliefs, to defend myself if attacked and that America was the greatest nation on this earth and that our government was a good and rightous one.

In the 60's I learned about war, that to die for ones country was an honorable death until I read what the Vietnam war was really about.  That our government used our solders as test subjects by supplying them LSD to find out what the affects of chemical weapons would be in combat situations.  They sprayed agent orange on every tree and bush and they knew that it would be toxic to every living thing it came in contact with for generations to come.  My husband was a walking casualty of that war.  The nightmares he continued to have until his death were horrible.  He developed a condition where his entire body would turn red & blister then he would shed his skin from head to toe after the blisters dried up.  The government said it was not responsible for his condition, that agent orange was not the cause (we now know they lied).  A few years ago he developed an enlarged heart and one of his valves had to be replaced.  Because he was a vietnam vet he sought help at the VA Hospital here in Houston.  They replaced his valve with one that they knew was defective and when it failed a few months later they removed it but he did not survive.  We were told that even though they knew it was defective we could not sue the VA because they had immunity.  Because our government lied I lost the best friend I could ever have.

In the 70's, 80's, 90's and now I have learned more and more about the "government" and the horrible things they have done and are doing now to us and other people.  How many more will die because of our "government"?  How many of our rights and freedoms will we lose before the "people" say enough is enough???  Our greatest enemy is our apathy, by not standing up for our rights and freedoms we are our own worst enemy!!

I encourage everyone to watch the video at the link below.  I do not care if you agree with me, call me crazy or whatever else you may think.  I only ask that you watch with an open mind and form your own opinions.  I have written about these things in other posts and will continue to do so here until the powers that be shut me off, then I will go somewhere else and continue to spread the word.  This video is about an hour & 27 minutes long and has previews of other videos but it is worth the time to watch.

http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=533a> 

 

This is how main stream media disrespects Ron Paul and people that believe the same way he does.

Dear Subscriber,

I think the writers for the St. Petersburg Times (in Florida) have been reading my "Tyrant" book. I can't resist using a recent article on Ron Paul as a prime example of how tyrants use propaganda to control what people think, and what people do. First, here is the link for the article:

http://tinyurl.com/3yrjuy

Let's consider some of the tyrant tricks used in that "story." I'll simply include a few clips from the story, along with excerpts from my book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant." (Remember, the book is written from the point of view of telling people how to be tyrants.)

1) First, the piece is disguised as a "news story," written by an objective "journalist."

From my book: "Almost as important as getting your message out is getting it out in such a way as to give the impression that the message is not coming from you. ... In this way, your message, delivered to the masses via someone perceived as an independent thinker, can get mass support for your agenda, without it looking as if you were the one pushing for more power....[O]ne of the best ways to ensure that your subjects are getting a daily dose of your indoctrination is to control the 'news' they are exposed to.  Of course, just reporting significant facts and occurrences provides no opportunity for thought control, but deciding which facts to mention, which facts to ignore, which 'facts' to make up, and how to spin the facts, while throwing in opinion-shaping messages disguised as 'reporting,' can give enormous control. The skillful tyrant controls the message, not by blatant censorship and state-owned media, but by more subtle means of 'influence.' ...[I]f the media appears to [the public] to be a neutral and objective 'free press,' your ability to control their thoughts and beliefs will be enormous. ... Like any other business, 'the press' can be controlled and manipulated without the use of open force.  If you can get people of like mind (i.e., elitists who think they have every right to rule the 'unwashed masses') to hold the highest positions at the newspapers, TV stations, etc., they will push your agenda for you, without the need of a conscious conspiracy....In any hierarchical organization, all you need to do is have an ally at the top, and the underlings will naturally 'evolve' to match your agenda. Think of it as 'trickle-down tyranny,' where those who see eye to eye with the top dog will get promoted, will have job security, etc., while those who see things differently will naturally want to leave, or will get fired, or will at least get muzzled."

2) The first time the article mentions Ron Paul, it describes him as "a gaunt, grumpy, 10-term congressman." Later it mentions that Dr. Paul has "personal wealth" of between 1.5 and 4 million dollars.

From my book: "In addition to belittling the opinions of your opponents, be sure also to frequently demonize those who hold those opinions.  The moment you question people's motives, they will almost always shift to defending themselves instead of arguing their original point."

3) The article says Ron Paul's speeches "resemble an economics lecture, not graceful oratory."

From my book: "If the average peasant has to choose between 'free goodies for all!' (your message) and an academic explanation of the long-term benefits of free market economics, he will almost always choose free stuff.  When the peasants view you as an all-powerful Santa Claus, they will hate anyone who attempts to rid them of their childish delusion. ... Your average public 'debate' (on any subject) usually consists of a battle of personalities, with the most arrogant, assertive, and condescending winning out, and the timid and unsure (or even just polite) caving in. Actual substance, proof and logic usually have very little to do with who 'wins.' It is far easier to browbeat the peasants into agreeing with your tyrannical plans (or at least refraining from speaking out against them) than it is to present a rational argument for why they would be better off enslaved by you than free (because no rational argument supports such a claim)."

4) The article quotes one Republican (who ran against Ron Paul) as saying that people are seeing Dr. Paul "for what he is now, and they are alarmed," and quotes another saying that Dr. Paul is a "nutcase."

From my book: "As mentioned before, you must demean and vilify [your opponents] so that the rest of the peasants won't want to be associated with them or even listen to their 'fringe extremist' (anti-you) beliefs. Constantly characterize their ideas as absurd, ridiculous, and even dangerous. ... Use whatever nasty stereotypes and demonization tactics you must to make the group look distasteful to the other peasants.  Paint them as dangerous, mentally unstable, paranoid and delusional."

5) The article then lists Ron Paul's supporters as "people who want prostitution legalized, taxpayers who oppose paying taxes, a white supremacist running for the Florida state House, and those who think the Sept. 11 attacks were a government conspiracy." The article also says that Ron Paul's "rugged honesty" is "endearing him to a menagerie of political misfits and castoffs."

From my book: "You can paint a detailed (though inaccurate) picture of your opponents in such a way that no one wants to be associated with them, and therefore no one wants to oppose you for fear of being associated with the unpleasant stereotype that you fabricated. ... The message should always be clear: 'You either support my plans or you're a despicable low-life.'"

6) The article says that Ron Paul's views "have earned him a cultlike following, particularly online."

From my book: "Because people can express opinions anonymously [on the internet], they can say what they really think without fear of ostracism, and can see other, like-minded people saying the same things.  About all you can do is vilify the lot of them, and even impugn the internet itself as the place where the wacko crazies talk, as opposed to the sources of information you control, which are where the informed, civilized people talk."

7) The article repeatedly pushes the idea that Ron Paul cannot possibly win because he has no mainstream support, saying that he is "what pundits always thought he would be--an also-ran," adding that "History says he has no shot," and saying that Ron Paul should be "a presidential afterthought by now."

From my book: "If you can't dupe a majority of the people into actually supporting your agenda, just lie about it: tell your peasants that most people support your agenda.  Make up or badly distort 'poll' results. ... Unless they bother to do a poll of their own, they will never know that you lied. ... People, particularly the weak-minded, want to 'fit in' more than they want to know the truth.  If 100 peasants believe 'A,' but you can convince each one of them that the other 99 believe 'B' instead, very few will still publicly state A. And if only 10 dare to speak out in favor of A, the other 90 will each assume that only ten other people believe in A. Each will believe himself to be in the minority, and will therefore censor himself, rather than risking saying something he thinks is unpopular."

- ----------------------------------------

So, in summary, like a good tyrant mouthpiece, the "journalist" pushed the points that Ron Paul is an unpleasant, fringe nutcase whom only unsavory people would support, and that he has no real support from "normal" people and so has no chance of winning.  Therefore, resistance is futile, so you should give up now. (That's also what the leftist media said about the conservatives, just before the 1994 "Republican Revolution," and then they feigned surprise when it happened anyway.)

Now for the worst news: Most Americans fall for such idiotic propaganda--hook, line, and sinker. They will follow what they think is popular. "Popular opinion" is simply MANUFACTURED, and then the braindead sheep follow along, proud to be "in the know," and in the mainstream. They eagerly "fit in," while advocating their own enslavement. It's pathetic how well the same old tyrant tricks still work on the unthinking public.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. No, I still don't advocate voting for anyone, including Ron Paul. I still think it does more damage to legitimize "democracy" by participating in it, than providing any possible benefit. The term "wasted vote" is redundant.)

(P.P.S. In case you doubt the top-down, pro-tyranny agenda of mainstream papers, the above article was in the same St. Petersburg Times which was all set to run my "Please Prosecute Me" thing, as a paid ad--for a lot of money--when the higher-ups intervened and said it couldn't run. That even surprised the advertising guy at the Times.)

Comments?????????

Ok this one does not make sense.  Seems that 7 guards and a nurse were on trial in Florida in the manslaughter death of a 14 year old black teenager in a juvie boot camp.  They were filmed kicking and beating the boy after he collapsed during intense exercise, he was described as limp while they kicked and beat him, dragged him all over the area and forced him to inhale ammonia to try and revive him.  The nurse just stood there and watched them do it, but the all white jury came back with a verdict of NOT GUILTY FOR ALL OF THEM!!!  That just does not seem at all a reasonable verdict.  If the kid was still alive when they kicked him but had a heart attack or something they should have been at least found guilty of contributing to his death, but if he was already dead there should have been a charge of abuse of a corpse.  Justice surely is blind on this one.

I was not going to really get in the fray on the Jena 6 topic but the latest news really ticks me off.  Seems the Bell kid went to jail again for a violation of his probation that he was on during the beating of the other kid and now the black community is saying that the judge is getting back at him and them for the march on Bell's behalf. This kid violated his probation by beating the other kid and should go to jail just like anyone else that violates probation or parole. The judge had every right to send that kid back to jail and the kid knew that.  He was told that if he violated his probation he would go straight to jail and serve his original sentence.  These people have no respect for the law!!!!

Ltlowl

Just got back from the kick off of Domestic Violence Awareness Month at Ben Taub Hospital.  Turnout for this event was great!!.  This is a problem that has long been kept secret by the victims but needs to be shouted from the roof tops.  I must plug another network because they will be airing a report today on Domestic Violence and how to get yourself out of a dangerous situation, watch channel 13 for the report.

Resources:

National Domestic Violence Hotline--1-800-SAFE (7233)

Crisis Intervention Hotline: 713-228-1505

HPD Family Violence Unit: 713-308-1100

Harris County Sheriff's Family Violence Unit: 713-967-5743

Harris County Hospital District VIVA Clinic: 713-873-4980

TO REPORT ABUSE FOR SOMEONE WHO NEEDS HELP

 TEXAS ABUSE HOTLINE: 1-800-252-5400

TEXAS LAW REQUIRES MANDATORY REPORTING ONLY FOR ABUSE INVOLVING A CHILD UNDER 18 OR ADULT OVER 65 OR IF SOMEONE IS DISABLED.

Domestic abuse is a crime, get off your butts and help someone in need.  No one deserves to be abused in any way, from verbal, physical or mental abuse.

Domestic violence can strike anywhere to anyone, women, children and even men are victims.

TO MY DAUGHTER

Honey, please, please get out!!!  He is a crack head, control freak!!!!  You do not deserve to be treated with such disrespect, he will not leave the whores or the crack alone.  I know he promises to stop, to keep up with his probation & NA & AA but how many times have we heard that before????? 

I am here waiting for you to say enough is enough, just let me know and I will come get you.

Love,

Mom

TO WHOEVER WROTE THE THREAT OF RIOTS ON ISSAH'S BLOG

How dare you threaten violence!!!!!  You and your hoodlum buddies better watch your step.  This is Texas not wussey Califorina and people here will not put up with your crap!!!!  I am sick and tired of people like you and your buddy Quanell X pulling the race card everytime one of your own breaks the law!!!!!

When people like the judge's daughter get off with a slap on the wrist it makes me angry but that is no reason to riot.  Slade had a fair trial and if she is found guilty and goes to prison she can appeal her conviction.  Slade only has herself to blame for the situation she is in.  A riot is not the answer, it only shows your ignornace!!

You want to riot, BRING IT ON!!! The only people that will get hurt is you and your buddies.

Hillary Clinton’s American Retirement Accounts Plan: A 401(k) Plan For All Americans

Today, Hillary Clinton announced a bold new American Retirement Accounts plan with generous matching tax cuts that—alongside her efforts to strengthen defined benefit pension plans—will help tens of millions of middle class families build wealth for their future. Building on her commitment to protect the guaranteed benefit of Social Security, Hillary’s American Retirement Accounts plan will tackle the current retirement savings crisis by helping ensure that all Americans can afford a dignified retirement.

Under the plan, working and middle class families who currently have the hardest time saving will get generous matching tax cuts as an incentive to save. And all Americans will get to open new American Retirement Accounts that will be designed to provide no-hassle, portable savings throughout their careers. In essence, the plan will provide universal access to a generous 401(k) for all Americans.

“I believe it’s time for a new bargain with the American people – a bargain that reflects the changing global economy and the new realities of aging. I believe that if you work hard and contribute to our country, you should have the opportunity to save and invest. And through the discipline of good planning and the miracle of compound interest, you should be able to build wealth for yourself, a better future for your family, and a secure retirement,” Clinton said.

“That’s why today I’m announcing my plan to provide every single American with an easy, automatic opportunity to save for the future through a new account I’m calling an American Retirement Account. These accounts will take the best of 401(k) plans – and make it available to every working family in America.

“They will help those who are currently falling through the cracks of our system, while reducing wealth inequality, increasing national savings, and encouraging economic growth. And they will ensure all Americans can save and build wealth for their retirement. This is a major commitment to ensuring a secure retirement for all Americans.

“My plan will help tens of millions of middle class families go from just getting by to getting ahead – putting them on a path to a secure retirement.”

Hillary’s American Retirements Account plan will:

• Offer matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1000 to help middle class and working families save
• Establish new “American Retirement Accounts” that allow families to save for retirement in a way that is easy, secure and portable
• Encourage all employers to allow no-hassle, direct deposit enrollment into American Retirement Accounts
• Reduce disincentives to saving by removing asset-tests for moderate income families to contribute to American Retirement Accounts
• Freeze the estate tax at 2009 levels to pay for matching tax cuts for middle-class savings

Hillary Clinton’s American Retirement Accounts Plan

The Challenge: When it comes to defined contribution plans, we know what works to help families save for retirement. We know that when people have access to retirement accounts that provide generous matching incentives and that make saving easy and secure—with automatic enrollment, direct deposit options from workers paychecks and secure diversified investment options—they are more likely to build solid nest-eggs for their future. Yet today, more than half of Americans each year are not able to benefit from an easy, secure and generous retirement account. As a result, there are huge holes in our retirement savings system:

• Over 75 million workers each year have no employer sponsored pension. This includes 77% of small business employees; 77% of part time workers; 73% of Hispanics; 59% of women and 56% of African Americans. [Census, 2006]

• Among households nearing retirement, half have $15,000 or less in a 401(k) or IRA type plan. [Federal Reserve, Survey of Consumer Finances 2004]. Nearly a third—and 39% of African American and Hispanic households—do not have enough retirement savings, including Social Security, to replace even half of their income in retirement. [Economic Policy Institute, State of Working America, 2007]

• Rather than helping these families, our system for encouraging retirement savings is upside-down. By relying on tax deductibility, an employee in the 35% bracket gets 35 cents for every dollar he saves; while an employee in the 10% bracket gets only 10 cents. The result: of the nearly $200 billion a year the U.S. spends to encourage retirement savings, about half goes to the top 10% of earners, while 10% goes to the bottom 60%. [OMB 2007; Brookings,2004]

• This upside-down system, with so many families falling through the cracks, has contributed to America’s abysmally low private savings rate. In 2006, the private savings rate fell to its lowest level since the great depression. [Bureau of Economic Analysis]

A Solution: Hillary’s American Retirement Accounts Plan. Hillary believes that we need to take head-on this national retirement savings crisis by giving all Americans an opportunity to save and build wealth for retirement that is as easy, secure and generous as is offered by good employer-sponsored 401(k)s. Her American Retirement Accounts Plan will give that chance to the tens of millions of Americans who are currently falling through the cracks while reducing wealth inequality, increasing national savings, and encouraging economic growth. Under the plan, working and middle class families who currently have the hardest time saving will get generous matching tax cuts as an incentive to save. And all middle class Americans will get to open new American Retirement Accounts that will be designed to provide no-hassle, portable savings throughout their careers. In essence, the plan will provide universal access to a generous 401(k) for all Americans.

Key Components of Hillary Clinton’s
American Retirement Accounts Plan

1. Matching Tax Cuts to Help Middle Class and Working Families Save: This new proposal will provide a matching refundable tax credit—dollar-for-dollar—for the first $1,000 of savings done by every married couple making up to $60,000. The plan will provide a 50% match on the first $1000 of savings for every couple making between $60,000 and $100,000, which will be phased out after that. This matching tax credit will be available to all Americans in existing 401(k) type accounts as well as the new American Retirement Accounts. That means tens of millions of middle-class families will get matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1000 to help them build a nest egg for retirement.

2. A New “American Retirement Account”: Like Hillary’s approach to health care, her American Retirement Account plan will build off the existing employer-based retirement savings system. Those who like their current retirement savings accounts can keep them —the only change is that they may be eligible for generous new matching tax credits. For those who want a new choice, Senator Clinton will let all middle class Americans open a new American Retirement Account. These accounts will allow individuals to contribute up to $5,000 per year on a tax-deferred basis. The first $1000 contributed into the accounts will be eligible for the new 1-to-1 and 50% government matches. In addition, the new American Retirement Accounts will:

   • Offer secure, diversified investment options: Individuals will have the choice to set-up their accounts with any private provider that offers diversified investment options and that includes as a default option, a passively managed lifecycle-type fund. Individuals will also have a fall-back option of setting up accounts through a similar system to the one that Members of Congress currently utilize.

   • Help Build Wealth and Provide a Cushion During Economic Downturns: The new American Retirement Accounts would, like existing IRAs, limit penalty-free withdrawals to major life investments—buying a home, paying for higher education, and retirement. But in light of the growing economic uncertainty facing American families, workers will also be able to withdraw 10-15% of the savings from their American Retirement Accounts to help tide them through periods of extended unemployment. Individuals would also have the option of taking out loans from their American Retirement Accounts in limited circumstances.

   • Provide the First Fully Portable Matching Account: The American Retirement Account will be the first account that provides a secure, diversified opportunity to get generous matching financial incentives for saving regardless of whether you are working for a firm that provides an employer match or traditional 401(k). This is particularly important to middle class workers who start their own businesses, take time off to care for a child or relative, or work independently or part-time. Hilary does not believe that we should deny matching retirement incentives to these workers and parents simply because they are outside the employer-sponsored system. Rather than having to rely on full-time jobs with certain employers, these Americans will continue to receive a strong financial incentive to build wealth throughout their lives.

   • New Choices Without New Bureaucracy: American Retirement Accounts will be established without any new government bureaucracy, by creating competition in the private sector to provide plans that are both secure and marketable. Individuals will get to choose how they want to set up their American Retirement Accounts. They can set them up with private providers who offer diversified investment options with a default passively managed lifecycle-type option and low administrative costs. Or they will have an option of opening an American Retirement Account through a publicly managed clearinghouse similar to the Thrift Savings Plan which Members of Congress can currently utilize. Investments in the accounts opened through this public clearinghouse would be held and managed by private financial institutions, who to the greatest extent possible would manage administrative and transactional support.

3. No-Hassle Direct Deposit Savings into New American Retirement Accounts: To ensure that the 75 million workers currently falling through the cracks of our savings system not only have access to a new American Retirement Account but can save in a way that is easy and automatic, Hillary’s plan will encourage all employers to provide their employees with the option to directly deposit a portion of their salaries into the new American Retirement Accounts – and automatically deposit savings unless their workers opt-out. First, the new government matches will themselves take an important step in that direction by giving employers a strong incentive to make it easy for their rank-and-file workers to begin saving—and give employees new reason to request this option from their employers. Second, while for the large majority of firms that already employ payroll deposit systems, the cost of providing employees with the option to direct a portion of their salary into a new American Retirement Account will be negligible, Hillary’s plan will offer new tax credits to help small businesses offset the start-up costs of getting their employees saving. She will double the existing tax credit to $1,000 for the first year that a small employer offers a qualified retirement plan to its employees, and create a new $500-per-year tax credit for the first three years that a small employer provides direct deposit options to its employees. Finally, Hillary will streamline the filing system for employers to make it as easy and automatic as possible for them to claim these tax credits and provide new savings options for their employees.

   • Automatic Savings Options for Self Employed Workers: In addition to ensuring that more employees can benefit from automatic payroll deposits into American Retirement Accounts, Hillary’s plan will work with Congress, financial institutions and community groups to make it easy for the self-employed and others outside of the employer-based system to put their savings on auto-pilot through easier access to electronic automatic debit arrangements.

4. Reforming the Asset Tests that Force Moderate-Income Families to Choose Between Retirement Savings and Receiving Benefits like Food Stamps. In addition to providing generous new incentives for working families to save, Hillary’s American Retirement Accounts plan will reduce disincentives to save that exist in our retirement system. Unfortunately, current policy actually penalizes lower-income families who want to save for retirement, by disqualifying them for means-tested benefit programs like food stamps, SSI, and Medicaid. Hillary’s plan will reform existing asset tests to exempt retirement account balances—including in existing 401(k)s and IRAs and in new American Retirement Accounts—for means-tested benefit programs. This will ensure that working families who are already struggling to save will no longer have to choose between saving for retirement and receiving key benefits and income supports. Nor will they be forced to liquidate retirement savings if they hit hard times.

5. A Fiscally Responsible Plan to Provide a 5000-to-1 Tax Cut for Wealth Creation: The cost of the generous matching tax cuts to middle income families in Hillary’s American Retirement Accounts plan would be about $20-$25 billion per year. Hillary will finance these tax cuts without increasing the deficit by dedicating a portion of the revenue from freezing the estate tax at its 2009 level of $7 million per couple. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, freezing the estate tax at that level and avoiding outright repeal generates more than $400 billion over ten years. By devoting a portion of these resources to fund the matching tax cuts in the American Retirement Accounts plan, Hillary will be avoiding a further tax cut for 10,000 of the wealthiest estates in the U.S. in order to give tens of millions of families a tax cut to help build their own nest egg for retirement. If 50 million households benefit from the matching tax credits in the American Retirement Account, that would mean that for every 1 wealthy estate facing a less generous estate tax exemption, at least 5,000 middle class families would receive a tax cut that will help them save, invest and one day own an estate of their own.

   • Positive Impact on Private and Net National Saving: The American Retirement Accounts plan will help increase both our anemic national and private saving rates. Unlike consumption oriented tax cuts that can reduce national saving if not fully-paid for, the matching credits in the American Retirement Accounts plan will result in an increase in national and private saving. First, the matching tax credits will be directly saved in retirement accounts and therefore have no negative impact on national saving. Yet, most important, tens of millions of Americans will only receive these matching tax credits if they are committing to new and additional savings. As a result, whereas savings incentives for the well-off typically lead to a shift in savings to tax-favored accounts, the matching tax cuts in the American Retirement Accounts will encourage families to begin saving or to save more – thus leveraging in additional private savings and making a positive contribution to net national saving as well. The private saving rate in the US is near its lowest level since the 1930s. And according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, if the bottom half of Americans saved only $500 more a year, it would increase national saving by 26%. Thus, if a far greater share of Americans than expected respond to the new matching incentives in the American Retirement Accounts by saving more—while it might require additional offsets to make the proposal budget neutral—this higher take up rate would mean a higher increase in national saving and thus represent a high-class problem to deal with.

6. Moving Forward to Secure Retirement Savings For All Americans: Hilary looks forward to working with families, pension, labor and savings experts and members of Congress—including the chairmen and members of the tax writing committees—during this campaign and in the White House to ensure that the American Retirement Accounts plan includes the best ideas and the right details to make it as effective as possible. She will work to implement her plan to make 401(k)s universal alongside her strong commitment to strengthen defined benefit pensions and to protect Social Security’s guaranteed risk-free benefits.

   I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want anyone telling me how to save my money (what little I do get to keep).  What about all the money we have put into the governments mandated Social Securtiy fund, do we get it back???  Social Securtiy is a tax that the government takes from us supposedly to help take care of us in our old age but in reality it goes into the general fund and is not set aside for us.  Our income taxes do not go to pay for government services like they say it does but is used to pay the interest on the national debt.  This woman scares me down to my bones!!!!

Ltlowl

War Powers Act ...

On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971." "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes." "Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." "With the melting of the cold war--the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions."

However, in relating an overview of the history of this emergency rule, the Committee admitted that

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

President Woodrow Wilson, after the Allied victory of World War I, "relinquished his wartime authority and asked Congress to repeal the emergency statutes, enacted to fight more effectively the war. Only a food-control measure and the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act were retained. This procedure of terminating emergency powers when the particular emergency itself has, in fact, ended has not been consistently followed by his successors."

In fact, the Report continues, the "Trading With the Enemy Act had, however, been specifically designed by its originators to meet only wartime exigencies. By employing it to meet the demands of the depression, Roosevelt greatly extended the concept of emergencies to which expansion of executive powers might be applied. And in so doing, he established a pattern that was followed frequently: In time of crisis the President should utilize any statutory authority readily at hand, regardless of its original purposes, with the firm expectation of ex post facto congressional concurrence ... Beginning with F.D.R., then, extensive use of delegated powers exercised under an aura of crisis has become a dominant aspect of the presidency. Concomitant with this development has been a demeaning of the significance of emergency."

The Report states, "Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations ... the temporary states of emergency declared in 1938, 1939, 1941, 1950, 1970, and 1971 would become what are now regarded collectively as virtually permanent states of emergency (the 1939 and 1941 emergencies were terminated in 1952). Forty years can, in no way, be defined as a temporary emergency."

Secondly, it adds, "the various administrations who drafted these laws for a variety of reasons were understandably not concerned about providing for congressional review, oversight, or termination of these delegated powers which gave the President enormous powers and flexibility to use those powers."

The Special Committee's opinion was that, "In the view of the Special Committee, an emergency does not now exist. Congress, therefore, should act in the near future to terminate officially the states of national emergency now in effect", although the Committee was also "of the view that it is essential to provide the means for the Executive to act effectively in an emergency. It is reasonable to have a body of laws in readiness to delegate to the President extraordinary powers to use in times of real national emergency."

---

According to one source, as the declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies. This allowed Maritime Law to come onto land."

The writer says to "Be careful of that pretty little flag with the gold trim that sits on a pedestal in your courtrooms. That is an Admiralty flag (an ensign, a military flag) flown on the open seas, not the American flag ... The US Constitution allowed for three types of laws, Common Law ('We the People'), Contract Law governing contracts and agreements, and Maritime Law that is to be used on the open seas to govern our Naval forces while out there since the ships are not on our land. Only in times of war can Maritime Law govern on land. This is proclaimed by the president. This flag changes your status from Sovereign (God's Law) to subject (the Kings Law)."

COMMENTS???????????           SOLUTIONS??????????????????

Ltlowl