My notes on Rep. National Security Debate 11-22-11

CNN pregame show actually gave Ron Paul credit as a top tier candidate.

In the introductions, Romney, Gingrich and Cain all got slight applause, Bachmann got a more resounding applause because of her thanks to the troops.

Lead off question:

42 TERRORISTS ATTACKS HAVE BEEN THRAWTED SINCE 911, SHOULD THE PATRIOT ACT BE EXTENDED?

Gingrich:  Difference between national and criminal law and although rights should be protected the Patriot Act should stay, not only would not change the Patriot Act but would increase it.

Paul:  Disagrees (applause) unpatriotic, terrorism is a crime, don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security, you can still provide security without gutting our Bill of Rights.

Gingrich:  disagrees

Bachmann:  I’m with the American people, we’re in a different war and different methods in that war.  We have to completely change the way we investigation.  Obama has outsourced interrogation over to the ACLU.

TSA PATDOWNS, VIOLATION OR GOOD TOOL

Romney:  There’s a different body of law that relates to war, we need different tools.

Perry:  would privatize the TSA, we need to keep Patriot Act,

Santorum:  Supports profiling, should try to find the bomber, not the bomb. Voted for privatizing of TSA.  Profile muslims.

Paul:  Digging a hole for ourselves, what if the terrorists looks like Timothy McVeigh, careless use of words, DOD changes definition of terrorists and makes all American citizens fit the description of terrorists.

Cain:  I believe we can do better with TSA, targeted identification, privatization, areas of Patriot Act we can refine, the terrorists want to kill all of us, so we should kill or identify them first.  If you allow our intelligence agencies how to increase identifying terrorists.

RAID ON BIN LADEN….EXPANDED DRONE CAMPAIGN

Huntsman:  In order to have an effective foreign policy, we don’t have a President who can lead, we can’t even get a balanced budget.  Yes, expanded drone campaign would help us.  We don’t need to nation build in Pakistan.

Bachmann:  Pakistan has been the epicenter of dealing with terrorism, one of the most violent and unstable nation there is.  Nuclear sites have already had attempted infiltrations.  They share intelligence data and the money we send is intelligence money that is helping us.  Would continue aide to Pakistan.  Pakistan is too nuclear to fail.

Perry:  They’ve showed us time after time they can’t be trusted.  I would not send them one penny until they can show they are an ally.

Bachmann:  There are nuclear weapons all over this country and Al Quida can potentially get access to them.

Perry:  Create a trade zone with India and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

MONEY FROM TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN IS THAT MONEY WELL SPENT

Romney: We should have a gradual transformation to ease control back to Afghanistan.  We need to bring Pakistan back into the 21st century.

Gingrich: tell Pakistan to help or get out of the way.

IF ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN WOULD YOU HELP ISRAEL LAUNCH THE ATTACK

Cain:  find out if they have a plan of attack, if they had a credible plan yes, would support

Paul:  No, because I don’t expect it to happen.  No one believes there should be a unilateral attack on nuclear sites.  Why does Israel need our help, we interfere with them on everything.  If they want to bomb something they should accept the consequences.  They have 200 to 300 nuclear missles, they don’t need our help.  We don’t even have a treaty with Israel.

Girl interrupted by phone call, missed a lot of the 2nd half.

IF YOU GOT 75-85% WOULD YOU TAKE IT AND FIGHT FOR THE REST LATER?

Santorum:  Yes

IF THE SUPER COMMITTEE HADN’T FAILED, THE PROPOSALS WOULD HAVE BEEN A DROP IN THE BUCKET.  TO STRENGTH OUR ECONOMY WHAT CUTS WOULD YOU PROPOSE?

Gingrich:  Private social security account.

Bachmann:  Our money will be used to grow China’s military at the expense of our own military.

DO YOU CONSIDER THE BORDER ISSUE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE AND HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH MEXICO, WOULD YOU USE U.S. MILITARY

Perry:  Time to bring out the Monroe Doctrine.  Possible sanctions against the banks.  With 12 months that border will be shut down and secure.

Paul:  Drug war we need to cancel and that’s where the violence is coming from.  Mad about all the money spent on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and none on our southern border.  Eliminate all the illegal benefits and the welfare benefits.  Federal war on drugs a total failure, feds overriding state law.  Alcohol and prescription drugs kill more people than illegal drugs.  Over a trillion dollars spent of the drug war but yet kids can still get all the drugs they want.   ( large applause)

Cain:  Secure the border for real, enforce the laws already there, promote the current path to citizenship and deal with the illegals who are already here

IMMIGRATION

Gingrich:  if someone is here and pays taxes and belongs to a Church, let them stay.

Bachmann:  disagree

Romney:  disagree Creates a magnet with incentives to come here.

Perry:  disagree  Until we secure the border it’s a moot point.

A pretty fair debate so far. I was wrong in assuming that Gingrich would win, he got a hearty round of applause for his stance on immigration.  Paul is doing okay on the applause scale as is Romney.  Cain is very low key tonight, no 999 as of yet but I haven’t given up that happening at this point, he has a way of throwing it into every conversation whether it’s relevant or not.  Perry doing pretty good.  Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum are inconsequential at this point.  

WHAT ARE THE INTEREST OF THE U.S. IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

Cain:  would work with allies in the region, get them to stop buying oil from Syria, would not impose a no fly zone as Perry has advocated.

Perry:  No fly zone is one of many sanctions that work well.

ARAB SPRING, DO YOU WORRY THIS COULD GO BAD?

Huntsman:  Sanctions will not work.  Let History be our guide.  Our interest in the middle east is Israel

POLICY OF DISENGAGEMENT WITH SOMALIA

Paul:  You have to understand who Al Quida is, they’re inspired by the fact that we have bases in Saudi Arabia, Should have a policy of goodwill to others.  Why don’t we mind our own business.

Romney:  Disses on Obama.   Don’t agree with a no fly zone, time for covert action.

WHAT NATIONAL SECURITY ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH THAT NO ONE HAS ASKED YOU ABOUT

Santorum:  Spread of socialism in this administration.  Concerned about Central America.

Paul:  Overreaction on our part.  Taliban want to kill us over there, want to get us out of their country.  (applause)

Perry:  Communist China

Romney:  China, the most immediate threat is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.  Agree with Santorum on Central and Latin America

Cain:  Cyber attacks

Gingrich:  Weapons of mass destruction, EMP, cyber atttack

Bachmann:  Bringing the terrorist threat to the United States

Huntsman:  Our biggest problem is right here at home, the economy, a congress no one believes in and a president who doesn’t lead.

END OF STORY

Paul, Romney and Perry dominated, Gingrich wasn’t so good.

Obama’s buddy Tony Rezko gets 10½ years

Top Blagojevich adviser Tony Rezko gets 10½ years

Convicted extortionist faces sentencing, argues for time served

By Annie Sweeney Tribune reporter3:42 p.m. CST, November 22, 2011

Hailed by prosecutors as a “wake-up call,” Antoin Rezko was sentenced to 10½ years in prison today for extorting millions of dollars from firms seeking state business or regulatory approval while he was a top fundraiser and adviser to then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Rezko’s daughter broke down sobbing as U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve handed down the sentence, telling Rezko his “selfish and corrupt actions” had damaged the trust people have in their government.

“You defrauded the people of Illinois, you engaged in extensive corruption throughout the state of Illinois,” the judge said, adding that she hoped other politicians would take note of the penalty for corruption.

“This sentence must send a message that enough is enough,” she said.

Rezko asked St. Eve for mercy and apologized to the court, his friends and family.  “I come to ask for God’s forgiveness and the court’s mercy.

“I deeply regret my conduct,” he said. “I take full responsibility for my actions.”

Rezko told the judge his brother, sister and favorite cousin passed away during his incarceration, and no punishment could be greater than the guilt he feels for not being with them when they were dying.

A gaunt Rezko, clad in a prison uniform and shackled at the ankles, bore little resemblance to the robust millionaire whose trial was held more than three years ago — a transformation even St. Eve mentioned.

“Just looking at you physically is evidence of the great fall that you have had,” she said to Rezko, who stood before her with his arms crossed.

Rezko showed no initial reaction when the sentence was handed down, but several relatives began crying.

Several family members called out ‘we love you” as Rezko was led away.

“That’s what an honest man deserves in this country!” one relative shouted outside the courtroom.

When others tried to quiet her, she said: “I don’t care, put me in with him!”

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called St. Eve’s decision a “stiff” but “appropriate sentence.”

“I don’t know how many times we’ve had sentences of 10 1/2 years” in public corruption cases, Fitzgerald said.”“It’s a bit of a wake-up call.”

But Rezko’s lawyer, Joseph J. Duffy, called the judge’s sentence “harsh.”

“We’re obviously very disappointed,” Duffy said. “I understand why the judge wants to send a message. The message should be sent to the community, but the message. . .and punishment should go to the public officials who abuse the public trust.”

Rezko has already served almost 3 ½ years in prison and will be credited for that time with the 10½-year sentence.

Rezko opted to enter jail after his June 2008 conviction, but his sentencing was delayed because of the possibility that federal prosecutors would call him as a witness at other key trials connected to the probe of the Blagojevich administration, including the former governor’s retrial over the summer.

Rezko was never called to testify, but the years he stood ready to do so have become a key point of debate between his attorneys and prosecutors in recent court filings.

Rezko’s attorneys asked that he be sentenced to time served, while prosecutors sought a prison term of 11 to 15 years.

Rezko was convicted by a federal jury of extorting millions of dollars from firms seeking state business or regulatory approval while he was a Blagojevich confidant. More than two years later, in October 2010, he pleaded guilty to wire fraud over the bogus sale of his pizza restaurants. He still faces sentencing for that conviction as well.

Rezko’s lawyers have argued that the harsh conditions he endured since his incarceration have been unprecedented for a white-collar defendant and are a key reason why he should not spend any more time behind bars. While at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago and a jail in Dodge County, Wis., Rezko was often allowed just one hour a day outside his cell, had meals pushed through a slot and was not able to breathe fresh air or see sunlight, they have said.

“The only reason Mr. Rezko has had to endure such conditions is because the government asked him to delay his sentencing for nearly four years,” his attorneys wrote in a recent filing.

The defense also complained that other defendants convicted in the probe — particularly corrupt political insider Stuart Levine — face far less time in prison than prosecutors are seeking for Rezko.

The prosecution, however, has argued that Rezko’s cooperation was essentially too little, too late, coming after his conviction at trial on 16 counts that included fraud, bribery and money laundering.

Prosecutors, in a filing Monday, also described how Rezko withheld information from them, undercutting their investigation.

“Rezko lied point-blank repeatedly over his first 19 interview sessions about his criminal involvement with Blagojevich,” the prosecution said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-rezko-sentencing-1122-20111122,0,7545749.story

By phoebe53 Posted in Crime

CNN Rep. Presidential hopefuls National Security Debate tonite

I predict Gingrich to be the winner and Cain to develop eye tics and a speech impediment.

Much to gain and lose for Gingrich, rivals in CNN national security debate

By Paul Steinhauser, CNN Deputy Political Director
updated 3:10 PM EST, Tue November 22, 2011

Republican presidential candidates take on national defense, the economy, international relations and terrorism issues in the CNN Republican National Security Debate in Washington, moderated by Wolf Blitzer at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday on CNN, the CNN mobile apps and CNN.com/Live.

Washington (CNN) — The Republican presidential candidates face off Tuesday night just a few blocks from the place they all hope to call home: the White House.

The candidates share the stage at DAR Constitution Hall, just down the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. CNN is teaming up with leading Republican-leaning think tanks Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute to host a debate that focuses heavily on national security and foreign policy issues, but which will also include top economic concerns, including the failure of the congressional super committee to find agreement to cut $1.2 trillion from the country’s long-term debt.

The debate is the 11th major showdown between the Republican candidates and the first in 10 days.

It’s also the first in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is firmly among the front-runners in national surveys, deadlocked with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the top spot in the nomination race.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released on the eve of the debate, 24% of Republican and GOP-leaning independent voters say they are most likely to support Gingrich for their party’s nomination, with 20% saying they back Romney, who is making his second bid for the presidency.

Gingrich’s four-point margin over Romney is within the survey’s sampling error. A CNN poll released one week ago had Romney at 24% and Gingrich at 22%. Gingrich was at 8% in a CNN poll in October.

Gingrich’s campaign was left for dead by many in May and June, after a number of controversies that spurred some of his top advisers and staffers to quit, and that left the campaign coffers in the red. But the former House speaker has performed well in the 10 previous major GOP presidential debates this year, acting as the elder statesman while many of his rivals for the nomination attacked each other.

“It seems likely that Gingrich’s performance in past debates has helped him — 43% say he is the Republican candidate who best understands complex issues, more than double the number who say that about Romney,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

The candidate sees it the same way.

“I entered this race with a huge amount of background story, some public, some private, which led people initially to think, ‘Well, I’m not sure I want him.’ And part of what the debates have done is they’ve been able to see me without editing, and, therefore, they’ve been able to say, ‘Gee, that’s not the guy I thought he was,’ ” Gingrich recently told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Gingrich gets another chance to score points with Republican voters at the CNN debate, which comes just six weeks to the day before the Iowa caucuses, the first contest in the presidential primary and caucus calendar.

And the debate, the second in a row to spotlight national security and foreign policy issues, seems to be in Gingrich’s wheelhouse. According to the CNN poll, 36% of Republicans say Gingrich is most qualified to be commander-in-chief — 16 points higher than Romney.

But the rise in the polls has brought Gingrich more scrutiny — he has already been peppered with questions from reporters the past two weeks regarding his lucrative consulting for Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant that was bailed out by the federal government. He was in the spotlight over the weekend for controversial comments over altering child labor laws and his criticism of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

GOP strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos calls Gingrich, “a Roman candle — soaring high, but only briefly.”

“As Newt Gingrich becomes more relevant, so will his many faults. Newt is a great candidate, as long as he is not in contention,” said Castellanos, who was a top media adviser in Romney’s 2008 bid but is not taking sides this cycle.

Gingrich and Romney will be joined on stage by businessman and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain; Texas Gov. Rick Perry; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is making his third run for the White House; Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota; former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; and former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman.

The question is which of Gingrich’s rivals will use the Tuesday debate to fire away at the new front-runner. One possible candidate is Bachmann, who in the past few days has criticized Gingrich’s commitment as a pro-life candidate.

Rich Galen, a GOP political analyst who advised Fred Thompson during his 2008 GOP presidential bid, thinks it will be Bachmann, who entered the race in the summer and surged to the top of polls before settling back down into single digits.

“We’ll watch to see how Gingrich responds — swatting her away like a fly might be the legitimate response, but probably not the polite response,” said Galen, author of the online column Mullings.com.

Galen served as communications director for then-House Speaker Gingrich’s political shop in the 1990s, but is not taking sides in this nomination battle.

Also in the spotlight at the debate will be Cain, who has a tendency to answer foreign policy questions at debates by saying that he would consult with the experts or the generals. Video of him seeming to stumble as he answered a question about President Barack Obama’s handling of the conflict in Libya last week during an editorial board meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel went viral online. Cain could use a strong performance on Tuesday night to deflect criticism that he is inexperienced on such issues as national security and foreign policy.

Perry, who soared in the polls after he jumped into the race in August but dipped after a series of debate stumbles, also has a lot to prove. And with border security and immigration reform sure to come up, Perry could be in the spotlight, since those are issues where the Texas governor stands apart from the rest of the field.

The showdown could benefit those candidates with more experience in foreign policy and national security.

Castellanos said the only candidates on the stage who can speak credibly about foreign policy are Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman and Santorum.

“This should be their night,” said Castellanos, who was also a top media adviser to the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. “Santorum doesn’t have presidential stature, so that leaves three. Expect the same, solid, impressive performance as usual from Romney, but this is Huntsman’s opportunity to shine. If Huntsman can bigfoot Romney or Gingrich on a foreign policy question, he can move into the set of serious contenders.”

But Galen disagreed, saying, “It’s none of their strong points.”

The debates have proven extremely influential this cycle, with performances having a direct impact on polls. The next debate after the CNN showdown is not until December 10, which means a candidate who suffers a major gaffe may have to wait 2 1/2 weeks for redemption.

 http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/politics/cnn-security-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Demonstrators Plan to Occupy Retailers on Black Friday

Can someone explain to me what these morons are thinking? If they occupy on private property, let’s hope someone has the means to remove them in a not so peaceful way.
Published: Tuesday, 22 Nov 2011
By: Cadie Thompson

Some demonstrators are planning to occupy retailers on Black Friday to protest “the business that are in the pockets of Wall Street.”

Organizers are encouraging consumers to either occupy or boycott retailers that are publicly traded, according to the Stop Black Friday website.

The goal of the movement is to impact the profits of major corporations this holiday season.

“The idea is simple, hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts, their profits, ” states the Occupy Black Friday Facebook page.

A few of the retailers the protesters plan on targeting include Neiman Marcus, Amazon and Wal-Mart.

Their website states the following:

“Keep in mind that we are not occupying small businesses or hardworking people—we must make a distinction between the businesses that are in the pockets of Wall Street and the businesses that serve our local communities.

We are NOT anti-capitalist. Just anti-crapitalist.

Below is a shortlist for publicly traded large businesses to Occupy or to boycott on Black Friday. Luckily, most of them don’t have good presents anyway. If you want to see the top 100 retail businesses for 2010 to boycott, click here.

On Black Friday, Occupy or boycott:

– Abercrombie & Fitch [ANF  45.85    -0.62  (-1.33%)   ]

– Amazon.com (yes, we have to stay away from Amazon, too!) [AMZN  192.34    3.09  (+1.63%)   ]

– AT&T Wireless [ATT  27.04    0.15  (+0.56%)   ]

– Burlington Coat Factory

– Dick’s Sporting Goods (I was surprised, too!) [DSG-FF  28.935    0.055  (+0.19%)   ]

– Dollar Tree [DLTR  77.09    1.40  (+1.85%)   ]

– The Home Depot [HD  37.10    0.04  (+0.11%)   ]

– Neiman Marcus

– OfficeMax [OMX  4.49    0.09  (+2.05%)   ]

– Toys R’Us [JPM  29.41    -0.50  (-1.67%)   ]

– Verizon Wireless [VZN  94.30    -0.40  (-0.42%)   ]

– Wal-Mart [WMT  56.85    0.19  (+0.34%)   ]

Solidarity!”

This is not the first time the demonstrators have taken action against corporations by using their money as weapon for change.

 

holidaybadge

On Nov. 5th many demonstrators participated in “Bank Transfer Day” and moved their money from banks to credit unions.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45402815

Turkey jihad coming to a house near you Nov. 24th

Turkey Terror Tips

DHS issues Turkey fryer warning
by Charlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer

The Department of Homeland Security is taking any threat seriously during the Thanksgiving holiday, including the ominous threat to our national security posed by turkey fryers.

“How dangerous can turkey fryers be?” asks a warning issued on the official DHS Twitter account. “Make sure the turkey is completely thawed before placing in a fryer, or this may happen.”

The department linked to an ominous video highlighting the dangers of deep frying a turkey.

“Use turkey fryers outdoors at a safe distance from buildings.” the DHS tweeted, “Never use turkey fryers in a garage or on a wooden deck.”

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/dhs-issues-turkey-fryer-warning

Govt Forces Private Citizens to Pour Bleach on Home-Grown Organic Food *Video*

This is unbelievable! I believe, as the lady in the video, that genetically modified food is what is causing the need to over-medicate our children and a good deal to do with the high rate of obesity in this country. 

Outrage: Government Forces Private Citizens to Pour Bleach on Home-Grown Organic Food *Video*

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

The Declaration of Independence
July 4, 1776

With 48 million Americans on federal food assistance we are bewildered by the latest government outrage from Nevada, where a  group of private citizens gathered together at Quail Hollow Farm for a Farm-to-Fork dinner consisting of an organic spread prepared by Chef Gio were forced to dispatch and sanitize hundreds of pounds of food with bleach.

As invited guests began to arrive, mingle and satiate their appetites, one unexpected individual, operating under the auspices of the Southern Nevada Health District, had another plan in store for dinner.

The following outrageous first-hand account of the incident should make your blood boil. If it doesn’t then we don’t know what will.

Via Laura Bledsoe of Quail Hollow Farm:

[Video of the Event Can Be Viewed Below]

Our guests were excited to spend an evening together. The food was prepared exquisitely.  The long dinner table, under the direction of dear friends, was absolutely stunningly beautiful. The music was superb. The stars were bright and life was really good.

And then, …

for a few moments, it felt like the rug was pulled out from underneath us and my wonderful world came crashing down.  As guests were mingling, finishing tours of the farm, and while the first course of the meal was being prepared and ready to be sent out, a Southern Nevada Health District employee came for an inspection.

Because this was a gathering of people invited to our farm for dinner, I had no idea that the Health Department would become involved.  I received a phone call from them two days before the event informing me that because this was a “public event” (I would like to know what is the definition of “public” and “private”) we would be required to apply for a “special use permit”.

If we did not do so immediately, we would be charged a ridiculous fine.

Stunned, we immediately complied. (That was mistake number 1)

We were in the middle of our harvest day for our CSA shares, a very busy time for us, but Monte immediately left to comply with the demand and filled out the required paper work and paid for the fee.  (Did I mention that we live in Overton, nowhere near a Health Department office?)  Paper work now in order, he was informed that we would not actually be given the permit until an inspector came to check it all out.

She came literally while our guests were arriving!

In order to overcome any trouble with the Health Department of cooking on the premises, most of the food was prepared in a certified kitchen in Las Vegas; and to further remove any doubt, we rented a certified kitchen trailer to be here on the farm for the preparation of the meals.  The inspector, Mary Oaks, clearly not the one in charge of the inspection as she was constantly on the phone with her superior Susan somebody who was calling all the shots from who knows where.

Susan deemed our food unfit for consumption and demanded that we call off the event because:

1. Some of the prepared food packages did not have labels on them.  (The code actually allows for this if it is to be consumed within 72 hours.)

2.  Some of the meat was not USDA certified.  (Did I mention that this was a farm to fork meal?)

3.  Some of the food that was prepared in advance was not up to temperature at the time of inspection. (It was being prepared to be brought to proper temperature for serving when the inspection occurred.)

4.  Even the vegetables prepared in advance had to be thrown out because they were cut and were then considered a “bio-hazard”.

5.  We did not have receipts for our food.  (Reminder!  This food came from farms not from the supermarket!  I have talked with several chefs who have said that in all their years cooking they have never been asked for receipts.)

The only way to keep our guests on the property was to destroy the food.  (This was mistake number 2!  Screw them, go ahead and feed your guests anyway and worry about the repercussions later, fight it in court.)

We asked the inspector if we could save the food for a private family event that we were having the next day.  (A personal family choice to use our own food.)  We were denied and she was insulted that we would even consider endangering our families health.  I assured her that I had complete faith and trust in Giovanni our chef and the food that was prepared, (obviously, or I wouldn’t be wanting to serve it to our guests).

I then asked if we couldn’t feed the food to our “public guests” or even to our private family, then at least let us feed it to our pigs.  (I think it should be a criminal action to waste any resource of the land. Being dedicated to our organic farm, we are forever looking for good inputs into our compost and soil and good food that can be fed to our animals. The animals and compost pile always get our left over garden surplus and food.  We truly are trying to be as sustainable as possible.)

Again, a call to Susan and another negative response.

Not only were we denied the use of the food for any purpose, to ensure that it truly was unfit for feed of any kind we were again threatened with police action if we did not only throw the food in the trash, but then to add insult to injury, we were ordered to pour bleach on it.

Now the food is also unfit for compost as I would be negligent to allow any little critters to nibble on it while it was composting and ingest that bleach resulting in a horrible death.  Literally hundreds of pounds of food was good for nothing but adding to our ever increasing land fill!

This is the land of the free?

If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.

-Henry Kissinger, Former U.S. Secretary of State

When a farmer cannot prepare a farm-to-plate home cooked meal for friends and guests without intervention by a government agency we have a problem – one that goes against every founding principle of this nation.

This is just the latest example of the police state moving into every facet of our lives. They want it all. Total control. They want to know who you talk to, what you say, where you meet, what you eat, and what you’re thinking. Failure to comply will unleash a beast so powerful and with tentacles so widespread that it can, with no qualms or conscience, destroy your life, liberty and right to pursue happiness.

Laura the farmer and her healthy organic food eating friends are domestic terrorists for attempting to serve bio-hazard materials for consumption. And, if you haven’t given your government a reason to be considered one yet, we can assure you that you’ll do something soon enough. They’re watching, ready to pounce at a moment’s notice.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/outrage-government-forces-private-citizens-to-pour-bleach-on-home-grown-organic-food-video_11102011

Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility


By Brent Budowsky – 11/21/11 10:04 AM E

There are now multiple polls that show Ron Paul has gained support and has a legitimate chance to come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would now call Ron Paul one of three front-runners in both Iowa and New Hampshire alongside Mitt Romney and a third candidate, currently Newt Gingrich. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which he might, all bets are off. Also, most analysts miss the fact that many states have open systems where independents, and in some cases Democrats, can vote for a Republican nominee. This could give a further boost to Paul.

It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community.

For Paul this presents good news and new challenges as his positions are given the kind of wider attention I have called for. For example, his foreign policy positions could help him attract independents and some Democrats in open primary states, along with some Republicans, but they also conflict with the majority Republican view.

The campaign gets very interesting if Newt Gingrich joins Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Donald Trump in collapsing, which would give Paul a head-to-head contest with Romney.

I am not predicting Ron Paul is nominated, I am suggesting he deserves to be treated with the respect of now being a serious contender to win first or second place in Iowa and New Hampshire. I have always predicted that Paul will ultimately be one of three finalists for the Republican nomination, which will become a three-person race, with Ron Paul one of the three.

At a minimum Ron Paul is now a force to be reckoned with. His support has surged in multiple polls. His fundraising will probably surge even more. He has the potential to be a kingmaker if he is the third Republican left at the convention with no candidate having a majority of delegates.

No doubt about it, a Ron Paul third-party candidacy would now be very formidable.

It may be that before this is done, one of the most important questions in American politics will be whether Paul runs as a third-party candidate, especially if the race is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Fasten your seatbelts.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo…ty-possibility

UPDATED WITH VIDEO Gingrich advocates child labor, for poor kids only

I haven’t seen any hard news stories on this but that doesn’t mean it’s not true, there are several commentaries about it out there. 
I see nothing wrong with kids of any social stature doing a little work but make it dependent on age appropriateness and for limited time period per day, making sure that kids can still be kids.   Don’t fire the adults and give the kids jobs, let the kids be helpers or apprentices.
Here’s the video of Gingrich speaking.

Labor dispute
Gingrich plan calls on kids

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich took advantage of his recent surge in the polls to re-introduce an idea that long ago fell out of favor with most Americans: child labor.

During a speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government on Friday, Gingrich called current child labor laws “truly stupid” and suggested a plan both to save money and help kids develop a strong work ethic.

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid,” Gingrich said. “Saying to people you shouldn’t go to work before you’re 14, 16. You’re totally poor, you’re in a school that’s failing with a teacher that’s failing.”

The trouble with Gingrich’s 19th century philosophy about child labor is that, first and foremost, American industry has a deplorable record when it comes to exploiting the labor of young children. American industrialists used children in mines, factories and clothing factories, forcing them to work long hours, in dangerous conditions, all while robbing those children of an education.

The second flaw in Gingrich’s proposal is his assumption that children between the ages of 14 to 16 can’t work and that to get them to work requires a government-run child labor program.

Children can, and do, work at even younger ages. They shovel snow, mow lawns, rake leaves, baby-sit and find other odd jobs to fill their pockets. In the process, they learn how to find work, how to manage a job and how to earn money. Current child labor laws don’t prohibit a 14-year-old from working; they simply restrict the type of work, and the hours, those kids can work.

For all the Republican campaign rhetoric about a “nanny-state” government that aims to tell Americans how to live their lives and raise their kids, it is ironic that a GOP presidential candidate would advocate for a government work program, in part designed to circumvent parents in order to teach kids the value of hard work.

Americans should quickly dismiss this idea as fringe. It is ridiculous that in the 21st century a leading presidential contender would seriously consider the idea of childhood labor as the key to future success.

http://www.hutchnews.com/Editorialblogs/edit–child-labor