Search This Blog

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The Plan to Destroys Israel’s Economy: MUST VIEW for All Friends of Freedom

Omar Barghouti is a Columbia University educated Palestinian commentator and “human rights activist”.

He is a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

The talk (below ) was presented on July 1, 2011, at the United States International Socialist Organization‘s Socialism 2011 conference, which was held in Chicago, July 1-4, 2011.

This is the most comprehensive overview of the Marxist strategy to wreck Israel’s economy, and bring the country its knees you are ever likely to see.

Barghouti outlines to the assembled comrades the history of his movement, its tactics, strategies and its growing successes.

It is made very clear, that while liberal help is welcomed, this is basically a long term Marxist program to annihilate the state of Israel. The same tactics which delivered Apartheid South Africa to the South African Communist Party/African National Congress, will be used to turn Israel over to their Islamist and Marxist-Leninist enemies. Only this time it will be faster – note Barghouti’s reference to South African communist, KGB asset and terror master Ronnie Kasrils.

Omar Barghouti is very calm, very well reasoned, very “reasonable”, very evil.

Source: Trevor Loudon

Saturday, July 16, 2011

The Number One Threat To The United States Today?

Dennis Prager gives his response to that question:

This video is from May 24th, 2010. Dennis Prager Q & A at The University of Denver.  Sarah Palin and Hugh Hewitt were speakers at the event as well. This has been around for a couple of years,but it's still well worth watching:

To see what Dennis means when he says The American Trinity", go to Prager University and click on "The American Trinity" for a 5 minute video explanation by Dennis.

Also, there is another 37 minute speech by Dennis Prager about America's exceptionalism and uniqueness at Stephen Pratt's "Know Your Liberty" Series near the bottom of the page.


Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt on their Event with Sarah Palin

Prager and Hewitt talk about their Denver, Colorado event where they headlined with Sarah Palin. May 24, 2010.

Thursday, July 14, 2011


This is where this story begins:

Jennifer "Jade" Jones -- had her elbow injured (hospitalized) during outrageous and mysterious arrest - disorderly conduct - during peaceful statements at public podium during a town council meeting. Jones had the floor. Police chief Jeff Gilbert (positioned at wall) was directly involved. 

Many in Quartzsite do not understand why this police chief is not under suspension because Arizona State Dept of Public Safety is already investigating him for criminal accusations by officers in his department. Presiding officer of the meeting (Mayor) could not dissuade police from their mission. Many suspect conspiracy between police chief and council members, other than the mayor. 


Arizona Town Declares State of Emergency Amid Death Threats

The City Council of Quartzsite, Arizona is yanking its mayor and putting the police chief in charge after video of a woman being arrested at a public meeting went viral. The video has allegedly prompted death threats against city council members.

Source: Fox News Insider


Interview with Mayor Ed Foster 1/2

Interview with Mayor Ed Foster 2/2

On this Tuesday edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks with Ed Foster, the mayor of Quartzite, Arizona. Foster was ousted by the city council and replaced by the town's police chief. The far western Arizona town is now under martial law after the council declared an open-ended state of emergency in response to a video of the arrest of Jennifer Jones during a council meeting. Foster described the government and the chief of police as corrupt and abusive of their power.

Additional Links to this story:
The Daily Caller

Friday, July 8, 2011

Project Gunrunner Timeline under Obama, Holder and Napolitano

H.R 495~Introduced 1/15/09 (4 days before Obama took office)

H.R. 495  never made it out of committee, but it looks as it was to specifically fund Gunrunner.
Instead portions of it were rolled into the stimulus package a month later. That text found in H.R.1 is:
For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which   $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
Notice that’s $40,000,000 for Southern border enforcement, $10,000,000 of which specifically for Project Gunrunner. What does $10 million pay for here? It didn’t hire any new agents that I am aware of.
So Obama didn’t know anything about this, but he signed $10,000,000 in funding for the program? 

Here's the text of the bill, hr 495 that was introduced 1/15/09- 4 days before Obama took office and it was funded by February though the stimulus:


To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the ‘Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009’.


    (a) In General- The Attorney General shall dedicate and expand the resources provided for the Project Gunrunner initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in the trafficking of firearms across the international border between the United States and Mexico.
    (b) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Attorney General shall--
      (1) assign additional agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the area of the United States adjacent to the international border between the United States and Mexico to support the expansion of Project Gunrunner teams;
      (2) establish not fewer than 1 Project Gunrunner team in each State along the international border between the United States and Mexico; and
      (3) coordinate with the heads of other relevant Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local law enforcement agencies to address firearms trafficking in a comprehensive manner.
    (c) Additional Staff- The Attorney General may hire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and otherwise expend additional resources needed to adequately support, Project Gunrunner.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to carry out this section.


(a) In General- The Attorney General, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall--
    (1) assign agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the United States mission in Mexico, to work with Mexican law enforcement agencies in conducting investigations relating to firearms trafficking and other criminal enterprises;
    (2) provide the equipment and technological resources necessary to support investigations and to trace firearms recovered in Mexico; and
    (3) support the training of Mexican law enforcement officers in serial number restoration techniques, canine explosive detection, and anti-trafficking tactics.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $9,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to carry out this section.

Source: PJ Tatler



Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of President Barack Obama with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announced the Obama Administration's new and aggressive 'comprehensive plan' on March, 24, 2009. The plan was aimed at disrupting gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico.

Full C-SPAN Video Link 3-24-2009

Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference
CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009

Remarks as prepared for delivery.
First, let me express my thanks to Attorney General Medina Mora and Secretary of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible.

This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General.   I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels.  The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.

And, together, we will win – thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.

The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important – the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.  

I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue.  On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico. 

Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels.  My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.  DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.

But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone.  Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel.  This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra – once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States.  

With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way.  I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight.  Thank you again for inviting me here.

Quiero que el pueblo Mexicano sepa que mi nación está con ustedes en la lucha contra los narcotraficantes.

México y los Estados Unidos comparten mas que una frontera—compartimos cultura, sangre e intereses comunes. Somos hermanos unidos contra una batalla que ganaremos.

Tenemos que aprender de uno a otro, trabajar juntos y luchar juntos.  Si hacemos estas cosas, si nos dedicamos juntos a esta lucha, no tengo duda que tendremos éxito.
Source: DOJ


Presidents Obama and Calderón (Mexico) speak to the press assembled at Los Pinos, the Mexican presidential residence, on April 16, 2009. 

Office of the Press Secretary
(Mexico City, Mexico)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          April 16, 2009
Los Pinos
Mexico City, Mexico
4:29 P.M. CDT

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen of the press, of the media, I would like to give the warmest welcome to Mexico to President Barack Obama, and to the delegation accompanying him. This is an historic event that will inaugurate a new era, a new relationship between our two countries.

Today in the meetings that we have held we have confirmed the determination of both governments to consolidate the very, very close contacts and links that join and bring together Mexico and the United States. We have new projects in important affairs such as security, migration, competitiveness, and global affairs.

As never before we have decided that the fight against multinational organized crime must be based on cooperation, shared responsibility, and in trust, a mutual trust.

Both governments recognize that the Merida Initiative is a very good starting point in order to strengthen cooperation in security. But we want to go beyond, we want to go further in order to liberate, to free our societies from the criminal activities that affect the lives of millions of people.

We have also agreed to expedite the times so that we can have available the resources for this Merida Initiative, and we have also decided to launch other activities that are in the hands of our governments. For example, we can adopt new measures for preventing illicit flows at the border, particularly the flow of weapons and of cash. We will also be strengthening our cooperation in information and intelligence in order to more efficiently fight against money laundering.

On the other hand, we have also agreed that both governments should produce propositions -- proposals for our cooperation so that we can eventually have reform in the United States with full respect to the sovereign decisions of both congresses -- of both nations, that is. Our governments will work in this sense to make migration an orderly, respectful process of human rights, a process in which human rights will be respected.

In energy and climate change, we have agreed to work together in order to guarantee a legal framework of certainty, transparency for the future; better use of cross-border resources such as gas and energy. And I have given to President Obama concrete proposals on climate change. One of them has to do with the integration of a bilateral market of carbon emissions, which coincides a lot with proposals that he has made to the U.S. audience, and other cooperation, ways of cooperation in climate change, such as something that Mexico has proposed, called the Green Fund.

We have also said that in addition to discussing our goals for carbon emissions that are linked in the fight against climate change globally, we must also act very soon in the design of new instruments, of new tools in order to fight against climate change. That is really the central proposal of the Green Fund.

And in a gesture of recognition, of acknowledgment on this topic, we know that President Obama and his government have made considerable efforts to provide new arguments to the discussion of this topic. We would also like to thank -- to welcome the possibility that Mexico might be the seat of the 16th U.N. conference on climate change that will be taking place in 2010.

We have recognized and acknowledged, ladies and gentlemen, that Mexico and the United States do not have to compete among themselves, but rather they must be able to take advantage of the complementary nature of their economies in order to compete as partners with regard to other parts of the world. We have the chance to make our region more competitive and to have greater, more agile production.

And we will be working in three areas. First, in the strengthening of the border infrastructure, I have also given to President Obama a proposal to facilitate the economic flows between both countries to improve the quality of life of the residents in the border areas, and to foster the development of our two nations through very specific projects on infrastructure at the Mexican-U.S. border.

Secondly, we believe it is essential to increase our cooperation and customs so that we can have a more efficient trade. And thirdly, we have also proposed to improve our cooperation in regulatory matters regarding tariff or non-tariff issues that very often make difficult our trade between two countries.

We have agreed with President Obama that we seek agreements to truly improve the economic situation not only of the United States but of the entire region and the world. We have stated our cooperation to strengthen the democracy of the market and of regional security.

In relation to President Obama's recent security to lift the restrictions for people from the U.S. to travel to Cuba and to be able to send remittances, Mexico acknowledges that this is a very constructive, positive step for the hemispheric relations, particularly for the region.

And finally, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you that I am absolutely convinced that President Obama's visit is just an initial step, the beginning of a relationship between two countries that are friends, neighbors, and must also be partners and allies.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, President Obama, for your visit. The President Barack Obama now has the floor.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to begin by thanking the people of Mexico for their gracious welcome. And I want to thank President Calderón for the hospitality he has shown as a host.

You know, this is my first trip to Mexico as President, and I see this visit -- as I know President Calderón does -- as an opportunity to launch a new era of cooperation and partnership between our two nations, an era built on an even firmer foundation of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest. We had a productive and wide-ranging conversation and I think we have taken some very important steps down that path.

It's difficult to overstate the depth of the ties between our two nations or the extraordinary importance of our relationship. It's obviously a simple fact of geography that we share a border, and we've always been bound together because of that geography. But it's not just that shared border that links us together. It's not only geography, but it's also culture, it's also migration patterns that have taken place that have become so important.

Our deep economic ties mean that whenever -- whatever steps that we're going to take moving forward have to be taken together. And that's why we worked hard, hand in hand at the G20 summit. And that's what we will continue to do at the Summit of the Americas and beyond, so that we can jump start job creation, promote free and fair trade, and develop a coordinated response to this economic crisis.

We also discussed our shared interest in meeting an immigration challenge that has serious implications for both the United States and for Mexico. My country has been greatly enriched by migration from Mexico. Mexican Americans form a critical and enduring link between our nations. And I am committed to fixing our broken immigration system in a way that upholds our traditions as a nation of laws but also as a nation of immigrants. And I'm committed to working with President Calderón to promote the kind of bottom-up economic growth here in Mexico that will allow people to live out their dreams here, and as a consequence will relieve some of the pressures that we've seen along the borders.

We also discussed what our nations can do to help bring a clean energy future to both countries. This is a priority for the United States. I know it's a priority for President Calderón. And I want to commend him for the work that he's already made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the commitment that he's made even though Mexico is not required to do so under the Kyoto Protocol. And together, we're establishing a new Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change that will focus on creating green jobs, promoting renewable energy, and enhancing energy efficiency. I look forward to strengthening our partnership in the upcoming Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate and in next year's U.N. climate negotiations, which I hope will be held here in Mexico.
Now, as essential as it is that we work together to overcome each of these common challenges, there's one particular area that requires our urgent and coordinated action, and that is the battle that's taking place with -- with respect to the drug cartels that are fueling kidnappings and sowing chaos in our communities and robbing so many of a future, both here in Mexico and in the United States.

I have said this before; I will repeat it: I have the greatest admiration and courage for President Calderón and his entire cabinet, his rank-and-file police officers and soldiers as they take on these cartels. I commend Mexico for the successes that have already been achieved. But I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

So we have responsibilities, as well. We have to do our part. We have to crack down on drug use in our cities and towns. We have to stem the southbound flow of guns and cash. And we are absolutely committed to working in a partnership with Mexico to make sure that we are dealing with this scourge on both sides of the border.

And that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border. That's why, for the first time, we are inspecting trains leaving our country, not just those entering it. That's why our Department of Homeland Security is making up to $59 million available to defend our common border from this threat to both of our countries.

Now, as we discussed in our meeting, destroying and disrupting the cartels will require more than aggressive efforts from each of our nations. And that's why the United States is taking the following steps: We've begun to accelerate efforts to implement the Merida Initiative so we can provide Mexico with the military aircraft and inspection equipment they need when they need it.

Yesterday, I designated three cartels as Significant Foreign Narcotics Drug Traffickers under U.S. law, clearing the way for our Treasury Department, working together with Mexico to freeze their assets and subject them to sanctions.

My National Homeland Security Advisor, who is here, General Jim Jones, as well as my Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, and my top advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, John Brennan, are all meeting with their Mexican counterparts to develop new ways to cooperate and coordinate their efforts more effectively.

In addition, as President Calderón and I discussed, I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.

Now, there are some of the common challenges that President Calderón and I discussed in our meeting and that we're going to be working on to overcome in the months and years ahead. It will not be easy, but I am confident that if we continue to act, as we have today, in a spirit of mutual responsibility and friendship, we will prevail on behalf of our common security and our common prosperity.

So I think that this is building on previous meetings that we've had. In each interaction, the bond between our governments is growing stronger. I am confident that we're going to make tremendous progress in the future. Thank you.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, as well.

President Obama, as a candidate for your office, you said that you wanted to see the assault ban weapon -- the ban on assault weapons reinstated. Your Attorney General has spoken in favor of this. Mexican officials have also spoken in favor of it. But we haven't heard you say that since you took office. Do you plan to keep your promise? And if not, how do you explain that to the American people?
And, President Calderón -- I'm sorry, if I may -- would you like to see this ban reinstated?
And have you raised that today with President Obama? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense. And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.
Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.

And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws. And in fact, I've asked Eric Holder to do a complete review of how our enforcement operations are currently working and make sure that we're cutting down on the loopholes that are resulting in some of these drug trafficking problems.
The last point I would make is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus. I'll give you one example, and that is the issue of gun tracing. The tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that have been used in major crimes -- that's information that we are still not giving to law enforcement, as a consequence of provisions that have been blocked in the United States Congress, and those are the areas where I think that we can make some significant progress early.

That doesn’t mean that we're steering away from the issue of the assault guns ban, but it does mean that we want to act with urgency, promptly, now. And I think we can make significant progress.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you for your question. I want to say that, in effect, on this topic -- not only on this topic, but on many of the other thorny topics of relations between the U.S. and Mexico, we have had an open, frank, trusting conversation between President Obama and myself. We have spoken of assault weapons. He is well aware of our problems.
And we have described it as it is from the moment that the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico. Only in my administration, in the two years and four months, we have been able to see -- or rather we have seized more than 16,000 assault weapons. And in the efforts we have made to track their origin -- and President Obama has referred to that -- we have seen that nearly 90 percent of those arms comes from the United States -- those weapons come from the United States. There are about 10,000 sales points in the U.S.-Mexico border -- only at the border.

On the other hand, I do believe that our relationship -- the new era we must build in our relationship between Mexico and the United States must be one with trust and respect. And we definitely respect the decision of the U.S. Congress and of the U.S. people in this regard, because they are very well aware of President Obama and his government's willingness to move forward on these issues.

We know that it is a politically delicate topic because Americans truly appreciate their constitutional rights, and particularly those that are part of the Second Amendment. I personally believe that as long as we are able to explain clearly what our problems in Mexico are, then we might also be able to seek a solution respecting the constitutional rights of the Americans, at the same time will prevent -- or rather avoid that organized crime becomes better armed in our country.
But we have to work on it. We have to work on it. But we fully respect the opinion of the U.S. Congress and we know that there's a great deal of sensitivity regarding this topic.
But there are many, many things that we can definitely move forward in. For example, in armament, it is not only a matter of seeing whether we can change the legislation on assault weapons -- we have already said what our position is -- but we might also be able to see whether they can apply existing legislation in Mexico and the United States on armament. For example, in Mexico it's a matter of enforcement, with the Export Control Act, for example -- this is in the United States -- I'm sorry -- prohibits the export of weapons to those countries where those weapons are prohibited.
And that is the case of Mexico. If we actually comply with the U.S. law -- or rather if everybody complies with the U.S. law that prohibits the sale of these weapons and their export to Mexico, we can move a great deal forward.
President Obama has made recent decisions in the last few weeks, and we value them and appreciate them -- for example, to reinforce the operational capability of U.S. border agencies in order to comply with this legislation and with other laws, in order to review the flows of entry not only into the United States, but also the outgoing flows, outgoing from the U.S., to make sure that there is no illicit money, in strict compliance with United States legislation. I think these are very important steps.

But there is a problem, and only as long as we build on this trust and we clearly explain to citizens of both countries how we must find a solution, we will be able to achieve one. We do so respectfully, presenting our position, knowing full well how the U.S. people feel about this and being fully respectful of the sovereign decisions that the United States might make, or that any other country might make.

One more thing -- one more thing I forgot to mention. One other thing we can do is to track the weapons that we have in Mexico. If we manage to detect weapons sold illegally in the United States in violation of this law on the control of weapons exports, or if, in the United States, they can have -- probably move forward on a good registry of armament or on the prohibition of certain massive sales of weapons, for example, to a hunter or to a common citizen -- we know that these people do not usually buy hundreds of rifles or assault weapons or grenades -- if we can move forward in those areas, I do believe that security both of the United States and Mexico will improve because those weapons are pointing against Mexican people and Mexican officials today.

But crime is not only acting in Mexico. It is also acting in the United States. Organized crime is acting in both countries. And I do hope that those weapons that are sold today in the United States and are being used in Mexico, I hope the day will never come in which they will also be used against the North American society or against U.S. officials, just like they are now being used in Mexico.

Q (As translated.) Good afternoon, Presidents. You are going to share four years of an administration, and there can be an in-depth change in this fight against organized crime in these four years. As of today, how can we establish the concrete objectives that in 2012 will allow us to say, fine, a new era began between Mexico and the United States back then?

Particularly I'm addressing this to you, President Obama. In addition to the chance that you will invest your political capital in being able to stop the flow of these weapons to Mexico, what can we hope for, what can we expect to see in terms of arresting the drug lords, the kingpins, in the U.S.? Because there are laws against corruption, but this is enabling now -- in other words, the U.S. market is now the biggest for drugs. And former President of Mexico, ex-President Fox, said that in the back they have only gotten little pats in the back from his predecessors. Can we hope for more from your administration?

And to you, President Calderón, with this new era, how can you measure the detention, the arrest of drug lords in the United States, and also putting a stop to the flow of weapons? How can you measure this?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think that we can measure this in terms of the reduction in violence; in the interdiction of drugs; in the interdiction of weapons coming south; in the dismantling of the financial structures that facilitate these drug cartels; in the arrest of major drug kingpins.

So I think we know how to measure progress. The challenge is maintaining a sustained effort. And as I said, something that President Calderón and myself absolutely recognize, is that you can't fight this war with just one hand. You can't just have Mexico making an effort but the United States not making an effort. And the same is true on the other side.

I think both our efforts have to be coordinated; both of our efforts have to be strengthened. I've made some very concrete commitments, already sending additional resources, already making additional investments. These are measurable in millions and, ultimately, billions of dollars over several years. And I believe that President Calderón has used enormous political capital to deal with this issue.

Obviously the Mexican people, particularly along the borders, have suffered great hardship. And as a consequence, if we partner effectively -- and that's why I brought many of my top officials on this trip, to interact with their counterparts -- I'm confident that we're going to make progress. Now, are we going to eliminate all drug flows? Are we going to eliminate all guns coming over the border? That's not a realistic objective. What is a realistic objective is to reduce it so significantly, so drastically, that it becomes once again a localized criminal problem as opposed to a major structural problem that threatens stability in communities along those borders and that increases corruption and threatens the rule of law -- that's the kind of progress that I think can be made.

And so, we are going to -- we're going to work as hard as we can and as diligently as we can on these issues -- always mindful, though, that the relationship between Mexico and the United States cannot just be defined by drugs. Sometimes there's a tendency for the media to only report on drug interdiction or immigration when it comes to U.S.-Mexican relations. And one of the things that we talked about is the extraordinary opportunities for us to work together on our commercial ties; on strengthening border infrastructure to improve the flow of goods; on working on clean energy, which can produce jobs on both sides of the border.

So we're going to stay very focused on this. We're going to make this a top priority, but we just always want to remember that our relationship is not simply defined by these problems; it's also defined by opportunities. And that's what we want to take advantage of as well.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: Thank you, President. I agree a great deal with you and I fully thank you for your support and understanding in this very difficult topic. I think the question is very relevant. I see a big opportunity for President Obama and myself, since we are going to be sharing the next four years as heads of our administrations, I see a big opportunity here.

And on this issue, what I hope to see at the end of my administration is actually many things. One is a reduction in the levels of criminal activities in our countries related to organized crime, which is also related to drug trafficking -- they go hand in hand. We have a strategy with short-, midterm, and long-term objectives.

In the short term, for example, we have set out to recuperate the security and tranquility of our citizens, particularly in those areas that have been harder hit by the crime. And this is where we have the joint operations, where we are mobilizing not only our federal police but also the army -- and this, regardless of the fact that it is not an easy matter and it hasn't been and it can change in the course of time, but at least we begin to see fruitful results in some areas.

For example, in the last quarter -- or rather compared to the last quarter of last year, our first quarter of this year, there was already a drop of 27 percent in criminal activities. That is as an average for the entire country, only in Ciudad Juarez -- as of the joint operation that we launched in February, between February and March violent deaths in Ciudad Juarez, crime-related -- violence related to crime dropped by 80 percent.

Of course I understand that the spectacular nature of some of these operations has really attracted worldwide attention. But with a very difficult crime rate that we had last year, despite them, crime in Mexico was 10.7 deaths because of crime for every 100,000 inhabitants. It is less than what it is in Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, or Brazil in Latin America, and it is also a lower number than the crime rates of many U.S. cities.

I believe one issue has to be, of course, that we have to cut down on crime in Mexico, for sure, but, number two, I hope, in the course of time, to be a safer border and a more efficient border. As long as -- if we are able to stop the flow of drugs, illicit money and weapons, we will have greater progress both in the United States and Mexico. And one way to measure this is by appreciating and valuing the technological capabilities, particularly of nonintrusive detection at the border, so that for those who do want to make business and do want to trade, that the border is open, and those who want to commit crime, the border will be a closed area.

One way to measure this -- and here U.S. cooperation is essential -- is to have the right technology, particularly nonintrusive technology that will enable us to have safe borders. And the initiative, the Merida Initiative, is very much focused on this.

Now, in the midterm, we would like a renewal of our police forces in Mexico. At the end of my administration, I would like to be able to have a new federal police that will be worthy of the citizens' trust and that will be efficient. And here U.S. cooperation is also fundamental. Why? Well, because on our side we are cleaning our house, we are sweeping everything from top to bottom so that all the police forces, from the top officials at the Attorney General's office, the army, the navy, that all officials in Mexico, all police officials that we can truly trust in their honesty, and that at the same time, technologically, they will be top-notch, as the rest of the world, in investigation, in databases. We want a scientific police, one that is very well-trained in technology, and U.S. help will be very welcome and it will be essential.

We also have a judicial plan for oral trials. And I think that as we fulfill these objectives, many of them have already -- are part of our agreement on safety, security and protection. With a shared responsibility that we now have with President Obama and his team, we are certain that we will reach these objectives and that our strategy, which is the correct one, will have many more possibilities of achieving success, and that at the end of our administration we will have a Mexico, a United States, that are much safer and freer of violence -- violence free, rather.

Of course, drug trafficking cannot be ended by decree. As long as there is a supply of high -- or rather, is high demand, there will be a high supply. But what we can control is the effect of criminal activities in society, to stop the actions of organized crime, and we can also act preventively in order to bring down the consumption of drugs in the United States, and in Mexico, too, which also begins to be a problem of great concern to us.

Q Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President.

President Obama, you said in an op-ed that was out today that your new Cuba policy was part of an effort to move beyond the frozen disputes of the 20th century. Why then is it so limited? Why not open the door for all Americans to visit Cuba? And what will you say to your colleagues at the Summit of the Americas who want you to do more?

And, President Calderón, what do you think the United States should do more on Cuba in order to improve relations with the region? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think that we should dismiss the significance of the step that we took. We eliminated remittance restrictions and travel restrictions for Cuban Americans who have family members in Cuba. For those families, this is extraordinarily significant. For the people in Cuba who will benefit from their family members being able to provide them help and to visit them, it's extraordinarily significant. We took steps on telecommunications that can potentially open up greater lines of communication between Cuba and the United States.

And so I think what you saw was a good-faith effort, a show of good faith on the part of the United States that we want to recast our relationship. Now, a relationship that effectively has been frozen for 50 years is not going to thaw overnight. And so having taken the first step, I think it's very much in our interest to see whether Cuba is also ready to change. We don't expect them to change overnight. That would be unrealistic. But we do expect that Cuba will send signals that they're interested in liberalizing in such a way that not only do U.S.-Cuban relations improve, but so that the energy and creativity and initiative of the Cuban people can potentially be released.

We talk about the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba, but there's not much discussion of the ban on Cuban people traveling elsewhere and the severe restrictions that they're under. I make that point only to suggest that there are a range of steps that could be taken on the part of the Cuban government that would start to show that they want to move beyond the patterns of the last 50 years.

I'm optimistic that progress can be made if there is a spirit that is looking forward rather than backward. My guidepost in U.S.-Cuba policy is going to be how can we encourage Cuba to be respectful of the rights of its people: political speech and political participation, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of travel. But, as I said before, I don't expect things to change overnight. What I do insist on is that U.S.-Cuban relationships are grounded with a respect not only for the traditions of each country but also respect for human rights and the people's -- the needs of the people of Cuba.

And so I hope that the signal I've sent here is, is that we are not trying to be heavy-handed. We want to be open to engagement. But we're going to do so in a systematic way that keeps focus on the hardships and struggles that many Cubans are still going through.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: I would not pretend to give advice or suggestions to President Obama on this matter or any other. Let me just say what I personally believe -- or rather what I believe about the Cuban reality. The question that has to be posed rather is whether the U.S. embargo on Cuba has worked. The reality is that the embargo has been there long before we were even born, and yet things have not changed all that much in Cuba. I think we would have to ask ourselves whether that isn’t enough time to realize that it has been a strategy that has not been very useful to achieve change in Cuba.

I do think -- I share fully the idea we do not believe that the embargo or the isolation of Cuba is a good measure for things to change in Cuba. On the contrary; the reality that we see there is that the reality has not changed. And it's because of internal factors, mostly, of course, but also because of external reasons, such as the embargo. Because of that, the Cubans have become impoverished.

I greet -- I welcome the measures that President Obama has taken in order to change this attitude, and to try to attempt -- and the attempt must be appreciated -- to change the policy towards Cuba little by little. But what is clear to me is that we both share the same ideals. I think we would both like to see the world living at some point under a full democracy, a world with full respect for human rights, with no exceptions whatsoever. We would like to see a world working with people being able to take care of their families, to live in peace, and those principles that must protect humanity. That we do share.

We also share the idea that each nation must be respected in its own decisions. It's like we were saying a moment ago when we were talking about the prohibition of assault weapons. Of course, we do not want those weapons to be out in the streets, but at the same time we want those decisions to come from the people themselves and to be self-determinant. And it's the same for Cuba. But I believe that the steps President Obama has taken are very positive.

Mexico is a good friend of Cuba, and Mexico is also a good friend of the United States. We want to be a good friend of Cuba and of the United States. We want both things. And we know that one day, the day that these principles we believe in prevail, that day we will be able to be neighbors, the three of us -- the United States, Cuba and Mexico.

What are the principles we believe in? Democracy, human rights, but also liberty, property, trade, free trade, free economy. And I think as long as those principles can function and bring benefits to the Cuban economy, then things can begin to change. We cannot change anything that has already taken place in the past, but I am certain that as heads of state, we can do a lot to try to make a different future, both for the world, both for our countries, and also in relation to Cuba.

I told President Obama that the best of luck in this panorama that is now so totally different from what U.S. policy has been in the past. I hope for the best, and I hope that more expeditious steps could be taken so that we can move forward in this regard, and that everything will be done with good understanding. And as Mexico can contribute in any way for two of our friends to work out what they have between themselves, I hope that we can contribute. And if our best contribution is just to maintain our respect, that is fine.

Last question.

Q Good afternoon. For President Obama. Mr. President, -- as U.S. senator in 2006 voted in favor of the approval of the construction of the border wall. I would like to know, and I think Mexicans would like to know, what is your real commitment of your administration to present a new migratory -- comprehensive migratory reform? What would be its scope? And when would you approve this reform? 
And on free trade, on NAFTA, it seems that because of the last events there's not a great deal of interest in the U.S. to apply or to comply with all the items in NAFTA. I would like to ask President Calderón whether you spoke of some of those issues during your conversations, whether you addressed the migratory issue and some of the NAFTA issues?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, with respect to the immigration issue, I think it would be useful to point out that I also voted twice for comprehensive immigration reform that would have provided a pathway for legalization and improvement of the orderly process of migration into the United States.

I've said before that we have to have a comprehensive approach, recognizing that the United States has a very legitimate concern -- if you've got hundreds of thousands of people from other countries coming into the United States without anybody knowing who they are, who when they arrive can often be exploited and, because they're not protected by various laws, undermine the wages of U.S. workers -- those are legitimate concerns on the part of the United States people and the United States government. And so working effectively with the Mexican government to create an orderly border is very important. And there are a whole host of strategies that we need to pursue.

What I've also said is that for those immigrants who are already in the United States -- and by the way, we focus a lot on Mexicans who have come into the United States, but the number of immigrants from Central America, from Ireland, from Poland are substantial as well; it's not -- this is not just an issue with respect to Mexico -- for those immigrants who have put down roots, may have come there illegally, I think they need to pay a penalty for having broken the law. They need to come out of the shadows, and then we have to put them through a process where, if they want to stay in the United States, they have an opportunity over time to earn that opportunity, for a legal status in the United States.

Now, we came close to getting that kind of reform done several years ago and then it became politicized. And my whole goal is to remove the politics of this and take a very practical, common-sense approach that benefits people on both sides of the border -- and creates a secure and safe border so you don't have people who are dying in the deserts as a consequence of a disorderly and illegal migration process. I think that's a goal that President Calderón and I share and one that we discussed during our bilateral meeting.

With respect to trade, Mexico is one of our largest trading partners. The amount of commerce that flows back and forth creates wealth in Mexico and it creates wealth in the United States. I have said repeatedly that I'm in favor of free trade. I know that there has been some concern about a provision that was placed in our stimulus package related to Mexican trucking. That wasn't a provision that my administration introduced, and I said at the time that we need to fix this because the last thing we want to do at a time when the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking is to resort to protectionist measures.

My team is working with President Calderón's team to resolve this issue. I'm hopeful that we can resolve it in an effective way. It's not helpful to a number of U.S. producers who are interested in selling into Mexico and are fearful that they may be subject to countervailing tariffs or retaliation.

So we're going to see if we can get this fixed. But I can tell you that President Calderón and I are entirely on the same page in believing that we can create greater opportunities for trade and strengthen our commercial relationships between our two countries.

I have said before in the past, and I will continue to say, that as part of the NAFTA framework, that it would make sense for labor and environmental provisions to be enforceable within that agreement rather than just be viewed as a side agreement. But I recognize that we are in a very difficult time right now economically on both sides of the border and that those kinds of negotiations are going to need to proceed in a very careful and deliberate way, because we don't want to discourage trade; we want to encourage trade right now.

So I'm confident that our administrations are going to be able to work together, and it's going to be to the benefit both of Mexico and the United States.

PRESIDENT CALDERÓN: We spoke at length on migration and on trade, and particularly on the economy in general between both nations. President Obama is well aware, is very knowledgeable about the problem, and his position in favor of a comprehensive migratory reform is well known. I would simply repeat the idea -- refrain the idea that we share the objective of achieving an orderly, legal, productive migration between both countries.

I have said, and I maintain, that as a Mexican, as President of Mexico, it doesn’t make me particularly happy to see our people risk their lives going across a border, because I know that with every migrant that leaves we have the best of our people leaving -- the youngest, the most courageous, the strongest, the hardest-working -- they are the ones that are leaving. Because I have seen in many communities here in Mexico, and particularly the state I come from, where there are phantom towns now, where there are only the elderly, children, women, and no one else is left there.

So I am working hard to create in Mexico the conditions, the opportunities of work, of employment for our people here in Mexico. That is really the only way out that can put a stop to migration. I think that is the best way out, to create opportunities and employment in our country. But in the meantime, President Obama is very clear on what the problem consists of, and it's very important to establish those instruments that will enable people to come out of the shadows, as he himself has said, and that our region can gradually become more orderly, more legal and better migration flows.

I think the two of us share the idea that trade produces benefits on both sides of the border. Not only are there many Mexican workers that depend on their exports to the United States today -- by the way, in a very delicate situation that we're going through because of the economic situation, the drop in U.S. industry is very co-related to the drop in our Mexican industry -- but there are also many workers in the United States that depend on the purchases that we make of U.S. products. Today Mexican consumers are among the best buyers of U.S. products. Few consumers in the world buy as many U.S. products as we do here in Mexico.

So we must protect trade. And the best way of doing so is to allow it to flow naturally, with no restrictions. So going beyond the autonomous decisions that every country can take, and the legitimate exercise of the rights that are part of the pacts and agreements that we have in order to protect free trade, I agree with President Obama, we have to go further. We have to go beyond in order to improve trade between both our countries. And we do not want to restrict it. We can come to agreements; we might have certain differences; I believe that we can move a great deal forward in labor and environmental issues, but it concerns me that to reopen those things that have been proven to work well can merely create further obstacles and worsen the situation we have today.
Our focus today on practical matters -- and this is why --let me just mention three things that I believe we can work on. One is infrastructure at the border. I have talked to President Obama, I have shown him a list of 200 infrastructure projects of a larger or smaller scale that can generate employment both in the U.S. and Mexico at the border, and improve our competitiveness at the border. So we have focused on six projects of border bridges, border crossing points that can lead to further employment and prosperity for our people.

The second item is customs cooperation that will enable us to have better cooperation, more expeditious cooperation, with no drop in productivity -- to maybe have one single customs form, whether we're talking about exports or imports from one country to another; to have one single form that will allow us to reduce bureaucracy and make trade more expeditious.

And then also, third, concrete measures to have a harmonization of standards. Certain U.S. products, for example, need to have the units measured in pounds, and here we need them measured in kilos or in grams, we need to be able to have standards. If certain requirements differ from our two countries, I think we have to work towards a harmonization of these requirements.

So these practical matters that seem to be minor are actually quite important. And I think they can truly help us.

And let me wrap up by saying that one of the things we emphasized is that both of us are going through economic problems because of this international crisis that we're undergoing. But if we act intelligently we will understand that if we improve the North American competitiveness as a region that entails Canada, United States and Mexico, if we improve the competitive conditions of our entire region, vis-à-vis other regions such as Asia or Eastern Europe or the rest of Latin America, then I do believe we will be able to come out of this problem much, much faster.

Trade means opportunities, equal opportunities of employment and of prosperity for our peoples, always, always, and particularly today in these times of crisis and economic difficulties.

President Obama is undergoing tremendous efforts to improve things in the United States and he is exercising in international leadership to face this economic situation. We firmly support on our side this situation, doing everything we can in order to revert this critical situation. And I do believe one way to do it is by strengthening trade, not restricting it.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we now bring to an end our press conference. Thank you so much. We thank you.
5:24 P.M. CDT

Monday, July 4, 2011

God Bless The USA~Great Version By Jeremy Dodge


This is a GREAT version for the 4th of July.

To learn more about Jeremy and his music: Jeremy Dodge Website

Sunday, July 3, 2011

President Ronald Reagan Speech~July 4, 1986

On July 4, 1986, President Reagan remarked, “if there's one impression I carry with me after the privilege of holding for 5 1/2 years the office held by Adams and Jefferson and Lincoln, it is this: that the things that unite us -- America's past of which we're so proud, our hopes and aspirations for the future of the world and this much-loved country -- these things far outweigh what little divides us. And so tonight we reaffirm that Jew and gentile, we are one nation under God; that black and white, we are one nation indivisible; that Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans. Tonight, with heart and hand, through whatever trial and travail, we pledge ourselves to each other and to the cause of human freedom, the cause that has given light to this land and hope to the world.”

To learn more about President Reagan: Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library

Stop The Senate's Attempt To Give Obama More Power To Avoid The Senate Confirmation Of Executive Nominees

By Josiah Ryan - 06/29/11 12:31 PM ET

The Senate on Wednesday cleared legislation by a vote of 79-20 that would improve efficiency in the upper chamber’s process of confirming minor executive nominees.

"This bipartisan bill and resolution ... will effectively change the way the Senate does business,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in the moments leading up to the vote. “For the good of our democracy, the Senate must become more efficient.”

The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 would eliminate the need for many executive nominees for minor posts in the government to be confirmed by the Senate as a whole.

Instead it would allow some nominees to be dealt with on the committee level, a measure that is expected to save hundreds of hours of the Senate’s time.

But Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who opposed the bill, said the Senate was dealing with a symptom of the problem of rapidly expanding government, rather than the root cause.

“We're dealing with symptoms of a much deeper problem,” said DeMint. “The reason we have gone from a few hundred confirmations ... to thousands today are because of the incredible exponential growth of the federal government.

“Rather than to look at this behemoth that we have created, we are looking to make it somewhat less accountable,” said DeMint.

But Schumer did not seem troubled by the growth in executive scope and power.

“The rapid growth of the executive branch has put unanticipated burdens on the Senate whose job it is to confirm the president’s appointees,” Schumer said.  “But there is nothing wrong with the Senate doing a little prioritizing of its pending business.”

Prior to the passage of the bill, the Senate also debated a series of amendments to determine which nominees would still require full Senate confirmation.

The Senate also defeated two DeMint amendments. One would have enhanced accountability and transparency among various executive agencies and another would have stripped the International Monetary Fund of some U.S. funding.

Source: The Hill


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 679 as Amended )
Vote Number: 101 Vote Date: June 29, 2011, 11:53 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 679 (Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 )
Measure Title: A bill to reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation.
Vote Counts:YEAs79


Not Voting1

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---79
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---20
Ayotte (R-NH)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 1
Udall (D-NM)

Speed Up Nominations and Confirmations, but Do Not Enact S. 679

On March 30, 2011, Senator Charles Schumer (D–NY) with 15 cosponsors, including the Senate Majority and Republican Leaders, as well as six other Democratic Senators, six other Republican Senators, and an Independent Senator,[1] introduced in the Senate the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 (S. 679). The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.
The Senate Should Preserve, But Speed Up, Its Role in Senior Presidential Appointments

When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

Many of the Framers had practical experience with government and recognized that not every office would be of sufficient authority and consequence as to merit the attention of both the President and the Senate to an appointment to the office. Therefore, they provided a means by which the Congress by law could decide which of the lesser offices of government could be filled by the President alone, a court, or a department head.

The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President:
 … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.[2]
The Appointments Clause is “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme”[3] and “is a bulwark against one branch aggrandizing its power at the expense of another branch.”[4]

For principal officers of the United States, such as the heads of executive departments, the President nominates an individual for the office, the Senate consents (or not), and after the Senate consents the President appoints the individual to the office. The same three-step process applies in appointing the inferior officers, unless Congress by law vests the appointment of an inferior officer in the President alone, in a court of law, or in the head of a department. If enacted, S. 679 would vest in the President alone the appointments to several hundred inferior offices in executive agencies that now require Senate consent.

The Congress should not decide by law to relinquish the Senate role in filling a federal office and leave filling the office to the President alone, unless the Congress concludes for each such office that the Senate’s checking influence on the President is of no value because the office is of little or no authority or consequence. Generally, each time Congress by law removes the Senate from a role in the appointment to a federal office, the institutional influence of the Senate diminishes by a marginal amount and the influence of a President increases by a marginal amount. If the office is of little or no authority or consequence, the shift in influence may be immaterial, but if the office wields power that affects the American people, the Congress should not abdicate the Senate checking function.

It does not appear that the sponsors of S. 679 have determined that each of the offices the bill converts from appointments made by the President with Senate consent to appointments made by the President alone is an office of little or no authority or consequence.[5] Instead, it appears that the principal sponsors simply concluded that the Senate is too slow in performing its duty to consider and consent (or not) to presidential nominations and hope to accelerate the Senate process by simply reducing the number of such nominations the President must make.

The Congress should not reduce the number of Senate-confirmed appointments as a means of dealing with its cumbersome and inefficient internal process for considering nominations. Doing so gives away Senate influence over a number of significant appointments, does nothing to improve the Senate process, and still leaves nominees whose offices require nominations mired in the Senate process. The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate. The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations.[6] The proper solution also is the faster one, as the Senate can accomplish the solution by acting on its own in the exercise of its power to make Senate rules,[7] while S. 679 requires approval by both Houses of Congress.

Story Continued: The Heritage Foundation

The Bill just passed the Senate and will be sent to the House.  Please contact your Congressman and tell them to vote NO for
S. 679   (Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 ) 

Tunisia Announces New Constitution Rejecting Israel With $20 Million Support From Obama Administration

US gives $20 million to support Tunisian democracy

On Tuesday March 22, 2011, 11:58 am EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration says it is providing $20 million to support the democratic transition in Tunisia following a popular uprising that ousted the North African country's longtime autocratic leader in January and emboldened anti-government protesters across the Middle East.

The State Department announced Tuesday that the money will go to help draft a new constitution, strengthen political parties and non-partisan civic groups, develop a framework for free and fair elections, create a professional and independent news media and encourage economic reforms. Tunisia's revolt was a catalyst for the unrest that is now sweeping the Arab world. The U.S. is concerned that the revolutions may be hijacked by extremists or anti-democratic forces.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Tunisia last week to pledge U.S. backing for democratic change.

Fast Forward to yesterday........................................


(ANSAmed) - TUNISIA, JULY 1 - Today Tunisia's commission of political reform announced that it adopted (by majority) a ''republican pact'' that will be the basis of the future new Constitution, and in particular it states the rejection of any normalisation with Israel.

While announcing the pact the president of the commission, Yadh Ben Achour, did not offer any details, but the Arab speaking Tunisian press published its content, which defines Tunisia as a free and democratic country, whose official language is Arab and whose religion is Islam.

The pact, that will serve as the basis of the future Constitution, categorically rejects ''any form of normalisation with the Zionist State'', and supports the Palestinian cause.(ANSAmed).

So let me make sure I have this right.  The Obama administration, with the assistance of Hillary Clinton, gave $20 Million of our tax dollars (that we borrowed from China) to Tunisia, an Islamic Arab Country, so they could draft a "New Constitution" that rejects Israel and aligns itself with the Palestinians.

I have to say, I don't know how anyone that truly calls themselves a Jew would EVER be able to  put their support behind a Democratic candidate ever again.  It is increasingly clear, this is not the Democratic Party of our parents. These are radical, Anti-Semitic, Pro-Islam Communists that have taken over the Democratic Party.