World News

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Occupy Building 7 Nov. 19-20

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: COTO Report <donotreply@wordpress.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM
Subject: [New post] Occupy Building 7 Nov. 19-20
To: baconlard@gmail.com

New post on COTO Report

By OccupyBuilding7.org March from Liberty Plaza to WTC 7 at noon each day. Occupy the park in front of WTC 7 until nightfall. General Assemblies will be held at 2pm each day to discuss the direction and continuation of the Occupy Building 7 occupation after 11/20. To all those who continue to fight for the [...]

Senators Ask DOE Inspector General to Investigate $730 Million Loan to Russian-owned Steel Mill

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Senators Ask DOE Inspector General to Investigate $730 Million Loan to Russian-owned Steel Mill

by Scotty Starnes

Obama, and his team of wealth redistributors, continue to spend taxpayer dollars recklessly. Why would the US government give a Russian-own steel mill a $730 million dollar loan? If the pattern fits, I'm sure we will learn that they gave money to Obama's campaign and Obama awarded them with this loan.

From The Hill:

Two GOP senators want the Energy Department's (DOE) internal watchdog to investigate a planned $730 million loan for a company to manufacture high-strength automotive steel in Michigan.

Sens. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are asking DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman to probe whether Severstal North America — a subsidiary of Russian steel giant OAO Severstal — should receive public financing to retool and expand facilities in Dearborn, Mich.

"Given the tremendous fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in today, it does not seem appropriate for the program to subsidize technologies that have already achieved commercial success through private-sector means," their Nov. 7 letter to Friedman states.

The letter follows House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu last month attacking the potential financing.

More broadly, the senators' push for an IG probe comes amid GOP criticism of Energy Department loan programs following the collapse of Solyndra, the California solar manufacturing company that went belly-up two months ago after receiving a $535 million DOE loan guarantee in 2009.

Severstal won a conditional commitment from DOE in June to receive a loan through DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program.

Translation. Money for union bosses and union workers.

The senators' letter asks a series of questions about the planned funding, such as whether DOE undertook a "market analysis" to determine whether the loan was needed, and whether the project is even eligible under the program.

From the senators' Nov. 7 letter to the IG:

The Department's stated purpose for the loan program is to "accelerate the domestic commercial deployment of … new or significantly improved energy technologies." There is ample evidence to show that several U.S. companies already manufacture the Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) for which Severstal is receiving this loan award. As such, the Department's decision to issue the loan raises very serious concerns.

How many jobs will this $730 million loan create?

"Severstal's application is for a project that would help make American car manufacturers more competitive as demand for lighter, more-fuel-efficient vehicles increases; strengthen the American steel industry; and support more than 2,500 construction jobs and over 260 permanent manufacturing jobs in Michigan," DOE spokesman Damien LaVera said last month in response to Issa's inquiry.

260 permanent jobs @ $370 million comes out to $1.42 million per job. This is how the government works.

Scotty Starnes | November 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Tags: DOE, Energy Department, Michigan, OAO Severstal, Russia, Severstal North America, steel mill | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-66I

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/senators-ask-doe-inspector-general-to-investigate-730-million-loan-to-russian-owned-steel-mill/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy

Nov 6, 2011 7:00pm
Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul's Controversial Foreign Policy
By Jason M. Volack

Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.

His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.

Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.

"He's attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular," said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul's calls for reducing America's military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations' security.

A huge, Cold War-era global presence with hundreds of overseas military bases isn't necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.

"It's not in America's interest," said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.

Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn't need a huge global presence.

He also argued that the United States' military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For sure America's attitudes toward the war has changed and popular opinion seems to be on his side.

It's evident at most of his campaign stops, where Paul's calls for the troops to return home are met with thunderous applause and the occasional standing ovation.

But not all of Paul's foreign policy positions have gone over well.

Paul has often said that America encourages terror by stationing troops worldwide.

"That's irresponsible," former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said. "A future president of the United State should not be parroting what Osama Bin Laden said on 9/11."

Santorum, who is among Paul's rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, challenged him at a recent debate, to explain his view that American overseas domination caused the Sept. 11 attacks.

Paul's answer received a hostile response from the audience and even a few boos.

Paul's view that a withdrawal of U.S. troops would decrease the incentive for terrorists to attack the United States g ot him into trouble with a Concord, N.H., voter earlier this year, who questioned his sanity.

"Anyone who thinks that is off their rocker," she said.

"He's easily dismissed as a crank," said Sapolsky, who says Paul has good ideas but can be an inarticulate messenger.

Like most aspects of running a national political campaign, style often outweighs substance and both Sapolsky and Preble said that Paul is neither a great orator nor does he break down large global situations well.

But despite his shortcomings, Sapolsky does give Paul credit for speaking his mind.

"A lot of people won't say come home," Sapolsky said. "But Ron Paul does and that's great."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

At 10:28 AM 11/8/2011, you wrote:

Show me where the Constitution or the Declaration or the Federalist Papers or the Articles of Confederation or any founding document has mentioned that it applies to anyone other than a citizen of the 13 separate colonies (it did not even apply to Slaves or Indians that were here legally until "LAW" changed that). Show me anywhere that says that the laws, mandates and ideals of the USA apply to anyone outside their borders without the consent of the "governed" and the "government" of that other nation with "borders".

I will wait right here for both REAL LIFE examples. (real life is something that does not wax philosophical and is enforceable)

It what?

The Constitution created the Federal Government. It provides specific functions to each of its branches. It provides limitations on what it can do and how it must treat Individuals.
Look at Amendment V, for instance:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Where does it claim 'citizen'? Voter? 'Governed'? It states PERSON.

When the US Federal Government is seeking to 'hold' *anyone* to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime within its jurisdiction ... it MUST (per the Constitution) act accordingly.

But the premise HERE was NOT the gang created by the Constitution -- put into force without unanimity (and thus a violation of the premise of 'consent' by definition) ... voted upon by no living Individual in this country nor others (again no 'consent' of the governed).

The issue HERE was (natural) rights -- which migration is.

Regard$,
--MJ

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering" -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

yes migration is one of those (natural) rights that the "governed" and the "government" have in this nation.

Actually, migration is one of the (natural) rights that is VIOLATED by the government in this nation.

Please, in very simple terms, explain to me exactly how a foreign national without permission to cross our border (or Mexicos border for that matter as the laws there require THEIR "governed" have permission to exit the country) is considered to be one of OUR "governed".

As to understanding "natural rights"... I understand the "concept" perfectly. I also understand that they exist nation by nation as granted to its citizens by constitutional decree. The question is: Do you?

You prove the point as you continue to describe permissions -- not (natural) rights.

It is noted that you dropped the 'consent' portion.

Regard$,

--MJ

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:22 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Yelling does little for your delusion.
Migration, of course, is one of those (natural) rights.

Maybe THAT is the problem. You simply do not understand/grasp (natural) rights.

I certainly did not 'consent' ... the same applies for MOST within this Country.

You might seek out some Spooner, as well.

Regard$,
--MJ

"By what right do men exercise power over each other?" -- Auberon Herbert

At 09:18 PM 11/7/2011, you wrote:

SHOW ME THE MAP OF THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE LINES... YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASED IN FANTASY... MINE IN REALITY... "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" MEANS EXACTLY THAT.... "NO GOVERNMENT.....NO GOVERNED" , "NO GOVERNED....NO GOVERNMENT"

THIS REQUIRES CITIZENSHIP OR CONSENT (2 WAY...NOT 1 WAY STREET) TO BE GOVERNED... A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITHOUT THAT 2 WAY CONSENT IS ILLEGAL

PLEASE TAKE A READING COMPREHENSION CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

JUST NOTICED THE CAPS....SORRY.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

You remain confused.

To Secure (natural) rights ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Governments are created to secure (natural) rights.
You want Government to VIOLATE (natural) rights ... and then insert some nonsense about voting and map lines.
INSTEAD of securing (natural) rights, you want Government to extend and withhold permission -- which has NOTHING to do with the Declaration et al.
Regard$,
--MJ
A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society -- you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum

At 04:47 PM 11/7/2011, you wrote:

Hey MJ'..... It's right HERE:

That to secure these rights,

Governments are instituted among Men,,,,,,,,,,,,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Foreign nationals are not "Governed" nor can they "Vote". Please read and heed the Documents you try to quote.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

At 12:26 PM 11/4/2011, you wrote:

MJ says: They argue that we can't have people circumventing the
system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate
only when they protect the natural rights of others.
Laws are designed to protect the natural rights of that countries
citizens... Definitely NOT "natural rights of others."

Where was THAT portion of the Declaration?

Regard$,

--MJ

It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson to Jarvis, 1820

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Mark M. Kahle H.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Mark M. Kahle H.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Mark M. Kahle H.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Immigration and Misplaced Blame

Show me where the Constitution or the Declaration or the Federalist Papers or the Articles of Confederation or any founding document has mentioned that it applies to anyone other than a citizen of the 13 separate colonies (it did not even apply to Slaves or Indians that were here legally until "LAW" changed that). Show me anywhere that says that the laws, mandates and ideals of the USA apply to anyone outside their borders without the consent of the "governed" and the "government" of that other nation with "borders".

I will wait right here for both REAL LIFE examples. (real life is something that does not wax philosophical and is enforceable)

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

yes migration is one of those (natural) rights that the "governed" and the "government" have in this nation.

Actually, migration is one of the (natural) rights that is VIOLATED by the government in this nation.

Please, in very simple terms, explain to me exactly how a foreign national without permission to cross our border (or Mexicos border for that matter as the laws there require THEIR "governed" have permission to exit the country) is considered to be one of OUR "governed".
As to understanding "natural rights"... I understand the "concept" perfectly. I also understand that they exist nation by nation as granted to its citizens by constitutional decree. The question is: Do you?

You prove the point as you continue to describe permissions -- not (natural) rights.
It is noted that you dropped the 'consent' portion.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:22 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Yelling does little for your delusion.

Migration, of course, is one of those (natural) rights.

Maybe THAT is the problem. You simply do not understand/grasp (natural) rights.

I certainly did not 'consent' ... the same applies for MOST within this Country.

You might seek out some Spooner, as well.

Regard$,

--MJ

"By what right do men exercise power over each other?" -- Auberon Herbert

At 09:18 PM 11/7/2011, you wrote:

SHOW ME THE MAP OF THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE LINES... YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASED IN FANTASY... MINE IN REALITY... "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" MEANS EXACTLY THAT.... "NO GOVERNMENT.....NO GOVERNED" , "NO GOVERNED....NO GOVERNMENT"

THIS REQUIRES CITIZENSHIP OR CONSENT (2 WAY...NOT 1 WAY STREET) TO BE GOVERNED... A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITHOUT THAT 2 WAY CONSENT IS ILLEGAL

PLEASE TAKE A READING COMPREHENSION CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

JUST NOTICED THE CAPS....SORRY.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

You remain confused.

To Secure (natural) rights ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Governments are created to secure (natural) rights.
You want Government to VIOLATE (natural) rights ... and then insert some nonsense about voting and map lines.
INSTEAD of securing (natural) rights, you want Government to extend and withhold permission -- which has NOTHING to do with the Declaration et al.

Regard$,
--MJ

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society -- you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum

At 04:47 PM 11/7/2011, you wrote:

Hey MJ'..... It's right HERE:

That to secure these rights,

Governments are instituted among Men,,,,,,,,,,,,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Foreign nationals are not "Governed" nor can they "Vote". Please read and heed the Documents you try to quote.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

At 12:26 PM 11/4/2011, you wrote:

MJ says: They argue that we can't have people circumventing the
system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate
only when they protect the natural rights of others.
Laws are designed to protect the natural rights of that countries
citizens... Definitely NOT "natural rights of others."

Where was THAT portion of the Declaration?

Regard$,

--MJ

It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson to Jarvis, 1820

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Mark M. Kahle H.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Mark M. Kahle H.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.