Law of the Sea Treaty now dead, DeMint says

Comments Off on Law of the Sea Treaty now dead, DeMint says

The Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed and thus will not have the Senate votes for ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

Critics of the treaty had argued that LOST would require the U.S. to subject its sovereignty to an international body, require U.S. businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation, and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined in the treaty.

“4 additional senators have joined in opposition to LOST, including Mike Johanns (R-NE), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year,” Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said in a statement on his website.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

The four senators Mr. DeMint named would bring those opposed in the Senate to 34 — making it impossible to reach the 67 votes that would be required to ratify the pact, which Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, had wanted to bring to a vote later this year.

Ms. Seth said the senator’s decided long ago to hold off on requesting a vote on the treaty until after the November elections because “right now we’re in the middle of a white hot political campaign season where ideology is running in overdrive.”

“That’s why Senator Kerry made it clear from day one that there wouldn’t be a vote before the election and until everyone’s had the chance to evaluate the treaty on the facts and the merits away from the politics of the moment,” she said.

“The [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce and the oil and gas and telecommunications industries are some of the most effective in this town because they stick to their guns and they’ve been unequivocal about the need to get this [treaty] done,” Ms. Seth said. “They’ll keep at it, and we will continue the work of answering questions and building the public record.”

Mr. Kerry held three hearings this year on the treaty. The first hearing brought together a rare joint appearance by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, as well as Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who testified in favor of ratifying the treaty. The second hearing brought together six four-star military officers, who also testified in favor of ratifying the treaty. At the third, former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld testified against the treaty.

Continue reading

 

Advertisements

The Rich Need to Pay More Taxes? While 36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes

Comments Off on The Rich Need to Pay More Taxes? While 36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes

How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Because how unfair — indeed, un-American — it is for an office worker like, say, Warren Buffet’s secretary to dutifully pay her taxes, while some well-to-do people with better educations and higher incomes end up paying a much smaller tax rate.

Or, worse, skipping their taxes altogether.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

The IRS’ 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees’ tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes.

The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. That’s up 3% in the past year.

That scale of delinquency could annoy voters, hard-pressed by their own costs, fears and stubbornly high unemployment despite Joe Biden’s many promises.

The tax offenders include employees of the U.S. Senate who help write the laws imposed on everyone else. They owe $2.1 million. Workers in the House of Representatives owe $8.5 million, Department of Education employees owe $4.3 million and over at Homeland Security, 4,697 workers owe about $37 million. Active duty military members owe more than $100 million.

The Treasury Department, where Obama nominee Tim Geithner had to pay up $42,000 in his own back taxes before being confirmed as secretary, has 1,181 other employees with delinquent taxes totaling $9.3 million.

Continue reading

Do Obama’s Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern?

Comments Off on Do Obama’s Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern?

Yes they sure do! (But the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Government the authority to declare martial law nationwide. The Individual States declare martial law in their State when necessary)

President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term.  He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of “Emergency Powers” and martial law EOs.  And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.

And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.

Is it now time to start connecting the dots?  Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012.  Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency.  Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.

In EO 13603, entitled, “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” Obama says (among other things) that [we must]:

be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

Obama has the power, through this EO, to “nationalize” (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests.  Further, the EO effectively states that he can:

1.   “identify” requirements for emergencies

2.   “assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base

3.   “be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat

4.   “improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense

5.   “foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors

There are pundits that suggest that by signing  EO 13603, Obama has given himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections.

The main problem with EO 13603 is that the words/phrases in quotes can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that favor Obama and Democrats.  Wait, we can have our Supreme Court decide what they mean.  But that won’t work since we know four of them to be Democrat hacks, and one justice can be influenced by the MSM.

Then, in EO 13618, entitled, “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions,” Obama states (among other things) that:

 

The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. …  Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.

 

Obama cites “national security” in this EO.  I guess Obama sees ANY excuse for declaring a national security emergency will appear better than taking over the nation’s communications assets by force

Want more examples of what Obama is doing?

  • EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
  • EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
  • EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision
  • EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
  • EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
  • EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
  • EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?  We’re being prepared  for a national emergency.  Then there’s taking control.  I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared.

I’m never comfortable with laws that give the government broad reaching powers in the event of a “national emergency,” especially when there is no clear, set, unchangeable definition of what actually constitutes a “national emergency.”

Circumvention of the US Constitution by any means possible is the ultimate goal of Democrats and the Obama administration because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a repeat of the 2010 election.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these three latest EOs and previous EOs Obama signed, coupled with Perdue’s and Orszag’s comments, suggest that something besides coincidence is going on.

Michelle Obama…All This For A Flag?

Comments Off on Michelle Obama…All This For A Flag?

How many more ways can the Obamas insult this country? I don’t approved of flag burning, but to trash the flag being folded in honor of the 9/11 victims?Please voters, send them packing!!!  From the Washington Times:

 

By James S. Robbins – The Washington Times

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs. Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr. Obama nods.

Just for a flag? If that is what she said it is regrettable. Even with all her years being around those who hold high public office Mrs. Obama does not seem to understand the purpose and importance of ceremonies. They reaffirm the bonds of loyalty and fellowship that cement our national unity. Yes, at one level a flag is just a colorful piece of cloth. But it symbolizes much more. It is the emblem of our land and all its ideals. It has been present at every major event of any importance to the country, battles, celebrations, meetings, and the lunar landings. It is a symbol of unity that transcends party, faction and time. It is something uniquely and explicitly American. Men and women have fought and died for it. Our enemies hate us for it and burn it in the streets. All that should mean something.

Perhaps Mrs. Obama thinks that all the pomp and circumstance she experiences in her daily life has something to do with her, rather than the unofficial office she holds. If so she should disabuse herself of that notion quickly. The official gestures of respect shown to her are the same shown to any First Lady, and if she wasn’t married to the president she would be just another citizen. Ruffles and flourishes are not hers by right, but by coincidence of marriage. Yet this is the same woman who said she had never in her adult life been really proud of America before her husband ran for president, so it is no wonder she might dismiss a flag ceremony as just so much nonsense.

All this just for a flag? Has anyone said, “All this just for Michelle Obama?”

Government Wants Your Credit Score…

1 Comment

So, now what are the Free Credit Score guys gonna sing about now? Isn’t it a comforting thought that your government is now going to decide your creditworthiness? Aren’t you excited about the prospect? Hey, they’re only in debt almost past the point of their income now…last I checked, China owns almost the equivalent of Alaska…from the Associated Press:

 

Govt to supervise credit reporting for first time

NEW YORK (AP) — The companies that determine Americans’ credit scores are about to come under government oversight for the first time.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said Monday that it will start supervising the 30 largest firms that make up 94 percent of the industry. That includes the three big credit reporting firms: Equifax Inc., Experian and TransUnion.

In remarks prepared for a speech Monday, Richard Cordray, the government agency’s director, said that scorekeeping by credit bureaus plays such a large role in Americans’ financial lives, it requires scrutiny.

The CFPB said its oversight may include on-sight examinations, and that it may require credit bureaus to file reports.

Cordray said the agency’s oversight will extend to niche companies that “focus on payday loans or checking accounts, as well as resellers of credit reports and those that analyze credit report information.”

The announcement wasn’t a total surprise, said Jon Ulzheimer, president of consumer education at SmartCredit.com and a former Equifax employee. He said the CFPB had hinted earlier this year that it was considering supervising the industry.

To Ulzheimer, the CFPB’s move implies that it will soon clarify what the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires of credit bureaus, a constant source of debate in the consumer credit world. When a person challenges what’s in their credit report, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires the bureaus to investigate.

“But what exactly constitutes a reasonable investigation?” Ulzheimer asks. “The act doesn’t say.”

Each of the three biggest credit reporting agencies maintains files on more than 200 million Americans. These reports are filled with details on an individual’s payment history with credit cards, mortgages, auto loans and other borrowing, applications for credit, medical account information and other financial details. Past behavior, like late payments or carrying high balances on credit cards, is used to determine credit scores.

Lenders, like banks or auto finance companies, use credit scores to measure eligibility for mortgages, credit cards and a wide variety of other consumer loans. Low scores based on missed or late payments, for instance, can mean higher interest rates or rejected applications.

There have been thousands of complaints about the bureaus by consumers who claim they are unsuccessful getting credit reporting agencies to correct inaccurate information contained within credit reports.

The protection bureau will start regulating the industry after the new rule takes effect on Sept. 30.

More hypocrisy: Report shows Obama took donations from Bain executives

Comments Off on More hypocrisy: Report shows Obama took donations from Bain executives

On Friday, Ben Shapiro reported at Breitbart.com that Barack Obama’s campaign and the DNC has received a number of donations from executives of Bain Capital.

Shapiro wrote that “many of the very executives who were running Bain Capital during the 1999-2002 period now under media scrutiny donated to Obama’s presidential campaign. And Obama was more than happy to cash the checks.”

Joshua Bekenstein, a managing director of Bain Capital since 1986, gave Obama $4,600 in 2008. He also donated $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

“That’s outsourcing money, plain and simple,” Shapiro wrote. “And Obama was happy to take it.”

Stephen Pagliuca, another Bain executive, gave a $35,800 donation to Barack Obama’s Victory Fund last year, along with a $30,800 donation to the DNC.

Shapiro added that he cut “another $30,800 check to the DCCC.”

Two other executives have “maxed out to Obama already, as well as to the DNC,” and one was a bundler for Obama who raised over $100,000.

Shapiro continued:

As we’ve seen, the leftist media thinks it’s a disaster if a private citizen, Mitt Romney, made money from an investment company that outsourced jobs to save companies. But the leftist media seems perfectly comfortable with Barack Obama cashing checks from the executives who actually made the decisions to outsource.

A post at Freedom Outpost notes that “there is nothing wrong with outsourcing jobs. There is nothing wrong with taking campaign contributions from businesses. The problem comes when one wants to bash his opponent over being in a company that did something you claim is bad and then took money from the very same people.”

“Apparently, it’s fine to outsource so long as the name on the contribution check reads ‘Barack Obama,'” Shapiro concluded.

Examiner