July 6th, 2011
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
By Amanda Terkel
WASHINGTON -- While some have asserted that the debt limit might be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and therefore President Obama does not need congressional approval to raise it, Republicans have been quick to express skepticism over the idea. On Tuesday, a Republican congressman went a step further, saying that if Obama were to use that argument to bypass Congress on the issue, it would be an impeachable offense.
"This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act from my perspective," said Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) at a meeting sponsored by the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 Project on Tuesday, first reported by Lindsay Street on Summerville Patch.
His comments were met with enthusiastic applause.
"There are a lot of things people say, 'Are you going to impeach the president over that?' -- No. But this? This is catastrophic," continued Scott. "This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant."
Obama doesn't appear to be looking at ways to "usurp congressional oversight" on the debt ceiling. During his Twitter town hall on Wednesday, the president was asked whether he would consider invoking the 14th Amendment to pay government obligations if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling.
Obama did not rule out such an option, but he did insist that the situation should not get to a place where such drastic measures would be needed.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also said he's not aware of any White House lawyers looking into the issue, although last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner mentioned the clause in the 14th Amendment that states U.S. public debt "shall not be questioned."
On Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told The Huffington Post he thought the whole issue was "silly." "I think it's interesting to talk about, but I don't think it's sustainable as a legitimate position," he said.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), meanwhile, has called the 14th Amendment solution "crazy talk."
WATCH (Video by Summerville Patch):
More From Huffington
July 6th, 2011
Cr Editorial note: This could easily be called an attack On America by a government official. At some point those individuals who are unconvinced will have to start wondering with regard to why a government official is trying to indoctrinate our firefighters and policemen that America's most sacredly held beliefs are 235 year-old lies.
Check the date stamp on this: 2001 ??
July 6th, 2011
The New York Times /
By RAVI SOMAIYA
Published: July 6, 2011
LONDON — The term “phone hacking” dominating headlines around the world refers broadly to a variety of methods journalists at The News of the World and other British newspapers could have used to listen to thousands of voice mail messages until the scandal came to light.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police, the force investigating the matter, said it was defining the practice as “the illegal interception of messages relayed by telecommunications that were not intended for the person who has intercepted them,” without providing specifics.
In practice, as court documents and interviews with those involved have demonstrated, the hacking involved a number of techniques.
They took advantage of default codes — like 1111 or 4444 — that cellphone providers in Britain gave users to retrieve their voice mail. Many customers did not change this standard number to a more secure code, allowing hackers to use it in one of two ways.
In the first way, according to current and former tabloid journalists interviewed for an investigation by The New York Times Magazine into the practice, one reporter would call the intended victim’s phone, engaging the line. A second reporter would call simultaneously, and would be directed to the voice mail system. There the default codes could be entered, potentially allowing access to messages (which were then often deleted to prevent other rival newspapers from hearing them).
The second method was detailed on a recording obtained by The New York Times as part of the same investigation. In the recording, Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective jailed for six months in 2007 for phone hacking, described a method of calling into a voice mail system by dialing an external number provided for checking messages from other telephones, like land lines. It, too, required the default code to be entered.
If any of the intended victims had changed their codes, the hackers would resort to what they called “blagging” — calling cellphone companies, pretending to be authorized users or company insiders, and requesting that the access code be reset to the default.
Britain’s major cellphone companies — Orange, Vodafone, O2, Three and T-Mobile — said in interviews on Wednesday that their voice mail access procedures had become more stringent since the early 2000s, the heyday for phone hacking.
Orange, Three and T-Mobile no longer provide default voice mail pass codes; users must set their own. O2 and Vodafone will codes to be set only from the cellphones they supply. If that number is reset, the new code is also sent directly to the phone. Vodafone alerts customers if three failed attempts are made to enter the number, and O2 locks voice mail services.
What’s Popular Now
July 6th, 2011
July 6th, 2011
Canada Free Press
Has there ever been an elected official, in America or elsewhere, who lies as continuously as you, Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro? Is not the constant telling of blatant and obvious lies a mental condition, either sociopathic or compulsive lying? Your whole demeanor is a very close fit for sociopathic, as defined and the web:
“Glibness and Superficial Charm…(but) contemptuous of those who seek to understand them.
Manipulative and Conning: They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self: Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
Pathological Lying: Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt: A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions: When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises…”
This may not be the first time we’ve had a mentally ill president, but please God, can you let it be the last?
And how, I wonder, can one solve an economic “crisis” caused by out-of-control spending, by raising one’s debt limit, thus allowing more out-of-control spending? Concomitantly, I wonder how you lower a massive deficit, caused by borrowing to indulge your out-of-control spending, by demanding to be allowed to borrow and spend even more? And does it not strike you as misguided, not to say really stupid, to advocate for another massive, multibillion dollar “stimulus” when by all accounts, except those of the sycophantic liars you have surrounded yourself with, the first one was an abject and total failure, and a major contributor to the mess we find ourselves in, today?
As a follow-up, I might ask where you got the ludicrous idea, one thoroughly discredited by facts, over and over, that raising taxes on people during an economic recession will do anything but make things significantly worse?
All this brings us to a final set of questions that many might think go to the heart of the matter.
First, do you really expect us to believe that you are brilliant when you think there are 57 states; can’t remember how old your oldest daughter is; called it the Marine Corpse, and on another occasion didn’t remember that a Marine you gave the Medal of Honor to was dead, not alive; in Austria, referred to a nonexistent “Austrian language”; called the Mexican Independence Day “Cinco de Quatro”; and can’t give a speech, not even to elementary school kids, without a teleprompter?
If you were such a brilliant student, why have you sealed from public view all of the records from the colleges and universities you claim to have attended and done so well at? And why have you spent some $2,000,000 to make sure that they stay that way? Why is it that nobody – I repeat, nobody – who was at Columbia when you claim to have been there, including people who should have sat with you in classes day after day, remembers ever seeing or hearing of you?
Also, if your abilities as a lawyer were so superior, why did you relinquish your license to practice law, in 1991? Was it because you lied on your bar admittance application? And incidentally, why did your wife relinquish hers, in 1993?
I could go on, but since I don’t expect any answers from you anyway, only more lies and excuses, more absurd obfuscation and placing the blame on everyone but yourself, I don’t see much point in continuing. However, Dear Readers, should you have questions of your own, I urge you to mail them to:
Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Michael Oberndorf, RPA Most recent columns
The son of a German immigrant, I am an archaeologist by profession, with a BA from Metropolitan State College of Denver, and an MA from Leicester University, in England. I am also the Chairman of the Freedom21 Legislative Committee. Over the years, I have lived and worked all over the country, and traveled in Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Europe, Australia, and Japan. I sincerely believe in the old saying, “America, love it or leave it.” Michael can be reached at: email@example.com