Archive for the ‘linkbucks’ Category

Portsmouth UK cops catch a sexual predator after 30 years

Below is an article that appeared on an internet UK news site “The News”. Portsmouth UK cops were able to match DNA evidence found on a rape victim that occurred 30 years ago to a suspect. When they arrested the predator he admitted to additional crimes. This arrest and the perpetrator is worth noting because the suspect is not only a pedophile but has assaulted adults too. Very unusual.

By Gareth Bethell
Court reporter “The News”

Philip Andrew thought he had got away with the assault on a 19-year-old in an alleyway near Clarence Road in Southsea.

Philip Andrew
“The News Picture”

The sexual predator went on to attack another woman in her home, threatening her with a knife and smothering her face with a pillow.

But now, thanks to advances in forensics, Andrew has been told he could face a life sentence in prison.

The 54-year-old was the first person to be arrested as part of a major operation by Hampshire police looking into cold cases.

Andrew had been due to go on trial for the rape but he changed his plea to guilty at Portsmouth Crown Court.

Wearing grey trousers and a red and white T-shirt, he showed no emotion during the hearing and spoke only to enter his plea. Recorder Christopher Parker QC warned him he may face a life sentence because of his long history of offending.

Police initially launched an investigation after the attack took place about 3.25am on July 2, 1982.

But the culprit was never found.

Andrew, of Whitcombe Gardens, Milton, Portsmouth, was arrested earlier this year as part of the review into cases dating back to 1980.

Prosecutor Iain Wicks said Andrew’s first offence was when he was just 14 years old.

On that occasion he sexually assaulted a four-year-old child at a bus stop.

Eight years later, in 1978, he raped and assaulted a woman at Butlins in Bognor Regis, where he was working at the time.

Andrew told his victim ‘You’ve made a big mistake tonight, if you make a sound I will kill you’ before subjecting her to an horrific attack.

He was jailed for the assault and on his release he carried out the rape that until now had gone unpunished.

In 1989 he stole a key to a woman’s home in the Portsmouth area.

He let himself into her house at 3am, took a knife from her kitchen and jumped on the woman in bed and threatened to rape her.

She managed to talk him out of the attack and Andrew was later jailed for five years for burglary with intent to rape.

Richard Button, defending, asked for Andrew’s sentencing to be adjourned so that a psychiatric report could be carried out.

He said: ‘He has a history of depression and mood swings.’

Recorder Parker told Andrew: ‘I’m adjourning sentence now so that a psychiatric report can be prepared on you to look into your background, to examine the circumstances of your offending and in particular to consider the size of the risk to the public that you represent at present.

‘The court is bound to have in mind the possibility of a sentence of life imprisonment for you because of your record.’

Andrew was remanded in custody to be sentenced in December.

Detectives are looking at a total of about 2,500 unsolved cases across the area under Operation Galaxy.

So far they have reviewed about 700 cases – the majority of which are serious sex assaults – which happened between 1980 and 1985.

Forty of those have been singled out for further investigation by the Forensic Science Service who are looking at evidence such as swabs taken from crime scenes, victims, or clothing.

Codefore Publishing

We will kill Arpaio says Cartel

I had expected that the news floating around  about the threat  on Sheriff Arpaio’s life by the Mexican Cartel would have dominated the internet media.  It did not.

I have written several articles about Sheriff Arpiao because as a retired police officer I have heard of  and admired Arpaio for years.  And as a former resident of Arizona I saw first hand some of his professional efforts and the effects.

Its probably true that Sheriff Arpaio receives threats against his life by unhappy people in Arizona because he is either loved or hated and I mean real hate. After all his approach to the law is strict. His approach to the inmates in his jail is even more strict.

People who enforce our laws are allowed a certain amount of latitude in the their approach to our laws. Good officers  rely on common sense as to who should and should not be held to task.  In my opinion Arpaio is stricter than most but not to the point of being unreasonable. He is widely criticized for his approach. Those who are on the receiving end of his and his deputies approach to the law are no doubt angry. After all Boulder Colorado did not make them wear pink underwear.  I doubt the victims of their crimes are complaining.

And  so we must be wary  of this latest threat on his life. It was not uttered and passed on by unreliable sources. Sheriff Arpaio was informed of this threat by our own FBI.  I doubt that the FBI would pass on this information had it not originated from a source they believed to be credible.

Unfortunately there are those who would discount this threat. After all it was not made at a good time for the pro immigrant groups in this country. But there is information that I became aware of  last year when writing about the crime in Arizona that indicates that there is a clear and definable relationship between the passing of illegal immigrants across our borders and the death of our police officers.

Written 1m 2009.

FBI says 41 police officers killed in 2008.

Days after Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s arrest of 60 people in a two day crime sweep, the FBI reminds us of the number of police officers killed in the line of duty for 2008.  41 police officers were killed in the United States and Puerto Rico in 2008. There have been 530 police officers killed in the line of duty since 1999.

Mexicans walking the border fence

Sheriff Arpaio’s tactics have been severely criticized since he took on the responsibility of enforcing federal immigration laws. His critics say that he is profiling and that profiling is not acceptable. But if the FBI statistics are accurate, they seem to suggest an outrageous increase in the number of police officers murdered in states that have immigration issues. Do we really want to stop Arpaio’s efforts?

Although the FBI statistics reflect crimes committed by race region and many other tables, they apparently do not reflect crimes committed by immigrants, whether legally in this country or not.

Arizona ranks sixth in Officers killed since 1999 with 16 officers lost. Arizona rose to fourth in officers killed in the last two years losing 5 officers, behind an astounding 12 officers killed in Texas, 9 in Florida and 7 in California and Louisiana.   All of these states are either on the Mexican border or the Gulf of Mexico. Not even New York with its huge populace can equal any one of these statistics.

Arizona lost three officers during 2007. Of these three, a Glendale police officer and a Phoenix police officer were killed by illegal immigrants. All three officers were killed by persons with extensive criminal histories.

One might assume that the Mexican Cartel has been at war with Sheriff Arpaio and for that matter with all United States Police officers for years and now feel confident enough to publicly announce their intentions.

What gave the Cartel their confidence ?

Protectus Prol

The two faces of Janet Napolitano

On December 30, 2009 I wrote this article for the “Examiner”. I did not know then how accurate my thoughts would be.  You can decide for yourself.

Janet Napolitano’s Two Faces

In light of the recent lapses in our National security the question now is who is running our Homeland Security? Obama or Napolitano ? Is Napolitano a figure head that is going to suffer the wrath of the media and absolve the Obama administration of accountability? Or is Obama going to admit that Napolitano is really not qualified and he needs a true military or police security professional in charge of protecting US Citizens.
The Examiner reported on 12-28-2009 that the qualifications of Napolitano may not be appropriate for the position she holds or what the Obama administration expected.

Now that the news media frenzy begins to bring out the performance of our Homeland Security the spot light is on Napolitano’s laundry. She cannot escape her history as the Arizona Governor, or her actions to protect Arizona’s borders from the influx of Mexican drugs and illegal immigrants. She certainly cannot take back her words.

It seems that Napolitano has two resumes. One that was effective enough to convince the Obama administration to offer her the position of Secretary of Homeland Security (not to mention her pro Obama campaign efforts) and one that most Arizonian’s know as the real Napolitano.

No matter if your a Republican or a Democrat the facts stand on their own. Napolitano has tried to walk the line. One side advocates a hard line secure the border stance with severe penalties for employment of illegal immigrants and the other is a soft stance to Immigrants and Arizona business’s who hire these immigrants to increase their profits and who presumably contribute to the political candidates who sympathize with their plight.

Napolitano is a savvy politician and in an effort to court the Obama administration Napolitano provided this press information on November 23rd 2008.

Washington bureau David G Savage:

As governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano last year signed into law the nation’s harshest penalty for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, a measure that would take away their business licenses for a second violation.

She called it the “business death penalty” and the “most aggressive action in the country” to stem the flow of illegal workers. She also criticized Congress and the federal government for failing to act on immigration overhaul. “The states will take the lead, and Arizona will take the lead among the states” she said.

But in Arizona her press is different:

Arizona Republic: December 28th, 2008.

“Still, Napolitano has resisted pressure from the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature to take an even harder stance against illegal immigration. She vetoed more than a dozen bills aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants”

Some of the bills that Napolitano vetoed are…
1. A bill that denied in-state tuition and day care for illegal immigrants.
2.A bill that would have given all Arizona police officers the authority to enforce immigration law. (and   her law)
3.A bill that would have designated English the official Arizona language
4.A bill that would have prohibited the use of a Mexican ID card called the “Matricula Consular” from use     as a form of proof of identity in Arizona. According to the FBI, this form of ID is easy to forge, and is in wide circulation  through out the United States in fraudulent from.

In addition Napolitano also yanked $1.6 million in state funding from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to blunt his efforts to arrest illegal immigrants through crime sweeps that critics said were terrorizing immigrant communities and violating civil rights.”

In December 2009 Napolitano told the Arizona Republic: “What I would say is that we are undoubtedly safer now than prior to 9/11. I would give credit in the Department of Homeland Security context to my tow predecessors (Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff). Building a federal department is not easy work. We’re still building it”.

It’s true that the influx of immigrants across our borders has decreased, and the crime rate in border cities has decreased , but some have said that our global economy has been, in part, the reason and the crime rate is not the result of Homeland Security’s performance. The rate of drugs passing over our borders has not decreased but increased.

In some cases States and local jurisdictions have taken it upon themselves to do what the Federal Government would not. In Napolitano’s own state of Arizona the Sheriff of Maricopa County has empowered his deputies to round up illegal immigrants and hand them over to the Homeland Security (ICE) in a effort to enforce Federal Immigration Laws that were not being enforced by the State of Arizona or the Federal Government.

And in Texas, according to Washington Post writer Spencer Hsu on March 12th 2009:

President Obama is reviewing a request from Texas Gov. Rick Perry to send National Guard troops to the Mexican border in response to violence triggered by Mexico’s fight against drug cartels, the White House said.

“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama told reporters from regional newspapers on Wednesday as reported by the Dallas Morning News and McClatchy Newspapers.

“I’m not interested in militarizing the border,” Obama said.

In the most direct comments so far on the drug fight that has killed 7,000 people in Mexico since the beginning of 2008, the president praised Mexico President Felipe Calderon for “taking some extraordinary risks under extraordinary pressure” to fight the cartels.

US Officials say the amount of violence that has spilled over into the United States so far does not warrant major concern. Nevertheless, Obama added, “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. Citizens”

Perry, who called on Washington to pay for 1,000 additional troops or federal agents on the border, called Obama’s statement “a mistake”.

Certainly Napolitano’s background validates her report card of the Homeland Security’s performance in the last year and mirrors her performance as the governor of Arizona but is it in concert with Obama’s security plan for the United States of America ? Is our Homeland Security responding to Obama’s vision or Napolitano’s vision? Possibly they are one in the same.

Protectus Prol

President Obama does as President Lincoln did and ushers the banks to the door

The Republicans took the Banks to task in 1865.

The banks have responded by becoming the Republican Party.

According to Wickipedia: Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. He successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, preserving the Union and ending slavery. Before his election in 1860 as the first Republican president, Lincoln had been a country lawyer, an Illinois state legislator, a member of the United States House of Representatives, and twice an unsuccessful candidate for election to the U.S. Senate. As an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery in the United States, Lincoln won the Republican Party nomination in 1860 and was elected president later that year.

When Lincoln took office, Congress was out of session. The only available means Lincoln had to finance the war effort was to go to the Associated Banks of New York, run by British agents Gallatin and Astor. The government depended upon these banks for specie, and the government budget was financed through the sale of bonds to these banks. America was then mortgaged to Britain, as the U.S. debt was sold overseas to the Rothschild and Baring banking houses.

But, Carey and his circles organized an alternative, whose spirit was set forth by Lincoln in his famous Dec. 3, 1861 “Annual Address to Congress.” The significance of this address cannot be overstated, as the British were well aware.

Lincoln’s emergency economic measures included:

  1. A nationally regulated private banking system, which would issue cheap credit to build industry;
  2. The sale of long-term, low-interest bonds (5:20s) to the general public and to the nationally chartered banks;
  3. The increase of tariffs until industry was running at full tilt;
  4. Government construction of railroads into the middle South, promoting industrialization over the Southern plantation system–what Carey called “a peace-winning program” to industrialize the South.

The national banks were intended to serve a useful purpose by being both investors in the future wealth of the U.S. through the purchase of 20-year bonds at 5% (the 5:20s) and through the issuance of long-term, low-interest loans to manufacturers, as well as by acting as a medium for the circulation of currency. Instead of selling the U.S. debt to the British, the citizens would buy the debt. The policy was identical to Hamilton’s: The debt would be the basis for credit for industrial development.

James Gallatin, the New York Associated Banks, and their friends in the British government went nuts. On Dec. 28, 1861, they suspended specie payment to the government. They suspended payment of gold owed to their depositors, and stopped transferring to the government the gold which they had pledged for the purchase of government bonds. The banks of other cities immediately followed suit. They came to Washington to present their alternative to Lincoln: high-interest bonds to be sold to the European banking syndicates; deposit of U.S. government gold in private banks for the investment use of the bankers; and a tax on basic industry to finance the war.

Lincoln showed the bankers the door, something which could be usefully repeated all over the world today.

While Lincoln fought the Eastern bankers, the Treasury issued several hundreds of millions of new greenbacks. Jay Cooke was employed to become sole agent for the 5:20 bonds. Carey’s associates Colwell and Elder prepared the propaganda to sell the bonds, and were appointed to posts in the Treasury Department. Cooke sold over $1.3 billion worth of bonds to the citizens of the U.S. between 1862 and 1865.

The original bill authorizing the sale of the 5:20 bonds contained no provision for paying the interest on the bonds in gold. If the bill as prepared by Thaddeus Stevens’s House Ways and Means Committee had passed the Congress, it would have had the effect of severing the domestic economy of the U.S. from the British early in Lincoln’s administration.

The British pound sterling at the time was the world reserve currency. But, before the bill was passed, August Belmont and James Gallatin worked out a compromise with Congress which allowed the bonds to be purchased with greenbacks, but the interest to be paid in specie.

This compromise was the first step in pegging the value of the U.S. national currency, the greenback, to gold, and allowed August Belmont and other New York merchants engaged in the export-import trade to speculate in gold through the Associated Banks and thus create fluctuations in the greenback as measured by the British gold standard.

Lincoln had to bring the national banks under his control, out of the condition of anarchy and treason. Lincoln succeeded, through the enactment of two bills, the National Currency Act of February 1863, and the National Banking Act of June 1864.

Since the time of Andrew Jackson’s removal of government deposits from the Bank of the United States, there was no national bank and no national currency, which, in effect, meant no national sovereignty. Each bank issued its own notes. In January of 1862, there were 1,496 banks in the U.S., 7,000 legitimate notes and 5,500 counterfeit notes. The specie payment on these notes was now suspended.

Banks promoting the most outrageous schemes and responsible to no one were the order of the day. The large private banking houses, like the House of Morgan, used large credit lines from Europe to add to the chaos.

Lincoln attacked the British dominated banks through the following steps:

  • First of all–strict federal supervision of bank chartering, eliminating chaotic state banking practices. State chartered banks fell from 1,466 to 297, while federal banks increased to over 1,600.
  • Secondly–regulations were imposed covering minimum capitalization, reserve requirements, the definition of bad debts, reports on financial condition and identity of ownership and other elements of safety to depositors. Every bank director had to be an American citizen, and three-quarters of a bank’s directors had to be residents of the state in which the bank did business. Interest rates were limited by state usury laws, with the maximum allowable rate set at 7%.
  • The third step concerned the control of currency. There were to be two kinds of legal money: greenbacks and bank-issued notes. Government-authorized bank-issued notes were strictly regulated. Banks were required to deposit bonds with the Treasury to qualify as a circulator of notes, and strict specie and money reserves were also required.

During the war, $450 million in greenbacks were issued. It is doubtful the war could have been won without the issuance of the greenbacks. By creating $450 million worth of greenbacks, Lincoln increased, by increasing government credit, government spending by 300%! The revolutionary nature of the greenbacks, of putting a nation in charge of its own currency, cannot be overstated. The Venetian system of finance was based upon limiting payment to gold, and controlling the gold supply, as was the Venetian-inspired British system.

But the British-allied Northern bankers and their congressional spokesmen forced several compromises, while the British government itself organized every possible opposition.

Frantic over the American System financial policy, the British began a massive organizing drive in the U.S. in support of free trade. John Stuart Mill and Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone controlled the Cobden Clubs–Britain’s worldwide agitators for free trade. These were heavily deployed into the free trade wing of the Republican Party and abolitionist movement.

There was speculation on Wall Street to depreciate the greenbacks, by Belmont and other New York merchants engaged in export-import trade.

The second compromise forced on Lincoln was his appointment of British agent and rabid free-trader Hugh McCullough as first Comptroller of the Currency, which he had to do to get enough votes to pass the National Banking Act. Lincoln appointed McCullough in March of 1865, one month before the war’s end.

Lincoln and Carey were quite aware of the problem created by such compromises. Several steps were taken. First, at Lincoln’s request, Thaddeus Stevens authored a bill to outlaw all sale of gold in the New York Gold Room.

Just three days before Lincoln’s death, McCullough initiated an attack on Lincoln with an open letter to Carey in the Chicago Tribune, in which he called for a reduction of the protective tariff, an immediate return to specie (elimination of the greenback), and contraction of the currency. The article was accompanied by the following excerpt from the London Times:

“He [McCullough] is what few Americans are; a sound political economist. He has studied the philosophy and theory as well as the practice. To read his letters and treatises anyone who did not know that he was American might imagine that he was an Englishman or a Scotsman, who had never embraced the delusion so prevalent on this side of the Atlantic, that as the resources of America are not half developed it is competent to American statesmen to run riot in world experiment and set as defiance the dearly bought experience of older communities. McCullough is, as far as his published opinions testify, a worthy successor of Adam Smith, Mill, Ricardo….”

Lincoln responded with a brutal attack on McCullough–and was killed three days later. In fact, just before his assassination, Lincoln and Carey were making major moves to wipe out some of the most pernicious British-controlled New York banks. They had already severely restricted their speculative real estate loans by law.

In fact, on the day he was assassinated, Lincoln was considering the problem of how to combat speculation by bringing the national currency (the greenbacks) up to par value without contracting the supply. He was planning to break with the British gold standard altogether. At Lincoln’s request, Carey wrote a series of open letters to Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax that were titled, “How to Defeat England without Fighting Her.” Carey argued against the heteronomy with which U.S. economic policy was carried out. Carey said that Lincoln had been forced to put his signature to bills that he did not consider in the national interest.

Carey called for the creation of a national economic policy planning body under the control of the Executive branch, which Lincoln did set up shortly before his death, called the Commission on Revenue.

Lincoln’s assassination constituted a virtual coup d’état. A single bullet had succeeded in wiping out the hope of the world.

Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, in his inaugural address, signaled a total reversal of Lincoln’s economic policy. He called Lincoln’s tariff “a clearly recognized outrage.” He concluded his inaugural with the statement: “Free trade with all the markets of the world is the true theory of government.”

Almost the entire Johnson cabinet were outright British agents or corrupted by British ideology.

In late 1865, McCullough officially announced his intention of reversing the American System and all that Lincoln fought for. His policy was to rapidly contract the national currency (the greenback) and return the nation immediately to specie payments and direct taxation of productive wealth (looting) to pay off the national debt. Within the context of a policy which called for destroying the nation’s industrial base to pay off foreign debts, any positive program for reconstruction of the South was impossible.

The congressmen and senators allied with Carey launched a counterattack in defense of Lincoln’s program–that action, even if rear guard at times, was responsible for the continued growth of American industry and the scientific development of the last three decades of the 19th century, which turned this nation into the most technologically advanced nation in the world.

(paraphrased from the writings of  Rochelle Ascher)

The banking industry has long courted the Republican Party. The courting began with President Andrew Johnson and continues to this day.



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is “unabashedly courting Wall Street bankers for political money” and “happy to scratch their backs if they’ll scratch his,” opines McConnell’s home state newspaper, the Lexington Herald-Leader, in an unusually strong rebuke.

In a staff editorial headlined “McConnell to big banks’ rescue,” the Herald-Leader decries McConnell’s pandering to Wall Street executives and repeated use of the catch phrases outlined in an anti-financial reform memo written by pollster Frank Luntz. Here’s a sample of the Herald-Leader’s outrage:

McConnell’s statements are perfectly calibrated to inflame the public. He insists the bill would “allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks.”

Their resemblance to the truth is another matter.

McConnell, it should be remembered, voted for the bailout of the big investment banks in the fall of 2008, when it was the only alternative to global economic meltdown.

We have read that the Republicans have a plan for financial reform, but McConnell isn’t talking up any solutions, just trashing the other side’s ideas with no respect for the truth.

While the intricacies of financial regulation are complicated, McConnell’s calculus is pretty obvious.

WASHINGTON — In the face of stiff GOP opposition, Obama administration officials want Senate Democrats to purge a $50 billion fund for dismantling “too big to fail” banks from legislation that aims to protect against a new financial crisis. Republicans contend the provision would simply continue government bailouts of Wall Street.

The sweeping bill aims to prevent a recurrence of the crisis that nearly caused a Wall Street meltdown in 2008. Beside creating a mechanism for liquidating large firms, House and Senate bills would govern previously unregulated derivatives, create a council to detect system wide financial threats and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending, credit cards and other bank-customer transactions.


President Barack Obama declared Friday that he would veto the bill if it doesn’t regulate the freewheeling derivatives market. “We can’t afford another AIG,” the president said, referring to the giant insurance conglomerate that relied heavily on the complex, sometimes exotic investment instruments.

Separately on Friday, the government accused Goldman Sachs & Co., Wall Street’s most powerful firm, of defrauding investors by failing to disclose conflicts of interest in mortgage investments it sold as the housing market was collapsing two years ago.

One senior Treasury official said Friday that the fund for dismantling giant failing banks, which would be financed by large financial institutions themselves, is unnecessary. He said the costs of dismantling the firms could be recouped from the industry after liquidation.

If the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., complies, that would remove one component of the bill that Republicans have persistently used to rally opposition. But it was unclear whether that step alone would yield any Republican votes.

Senate Republicans stood solidly against the bill Friday after GOP leader Mitch McConnell persuaded Susan Collins, R-Maine, to join 40 fellow lawmakers in expressing their opposition and demanding further negotiation.

McConnell suggested it wouldn’t be enough to satisfy Republicans.

“I appreciate the Obama administrations recognition of the need to substantively improve this bill,” McConnell said. “And I hope we can work with them to close the remaining bailout loopholes that put American taxpayers on the hook for financial institutions that become too big to fail.”

 

 The Huffington Post: July 25th, 2010

Protectus Prol

A List of Senators Who Voted Against Unemployment Benefits

Amature Author: JD Benish (Unemployed)

Washington Monthly 

(Steve Benen) 

Senate Republicans on Thursday once again blocked legislation to reinstate long-term unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their aid, prolonging a stalemate that has left more than a million people without federal help. 

With the Senate apparently paralyzed by partisan gridlock, the fate of the aid, as well as tax breaks for businesses and $16 billion in aid for cash-strapped states, remains unclear…. Republican lawmakers — joined by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska — maintained a unified front to sustain a filibuster of the $110-billion bill. The vote was 57 to 41; the majority was three short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and bring the bill to a final vote. […] 

“If there were ever evidence that this is the party of no, this is it,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who added that several governors would be arriving in Washington next week to make the case for the bill to help states, businesses and those who have been out of work more than six months. […] 

It was the third time in two weeks that Democrats failed to circumvent unified GOP opposition, despite making a series of changes to accommodate complaints about deficit spending.   

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement late yesterday, noting, “By blocking an up or down vote on this legislation, Republicans in the Senate obstructed a common-sense package that would save jobs, extend tax cuts for businesses and provide relief for American families who have suffered through the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression, even after Democrats offered multiple compromises to gain Republican support for the bill.” 

As for the next step, the bill, for now, is dead. If voters in Maine — a state that will be particularly hard hit by Republicans’ decision — start making some phone calls to their senators, the bill may be brought back

The following is a list of all of the Senators who voted to prevent the extension of unemployed benefits in the United States.  These Senators apparently have no empathy for the unemployed in this country. It seems they are driven by Party loyalty and or other interests that have nothing to do with their unemployed constituents. 

However it is true that this unemployment extension of benefits was a part of a Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4213, with the Baucus Amendment No. 4386  but the Democratic Senate leadership is not without blame for its failure. 

The extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of families who are suffering from the worst recession since the great depression SHOULD HAVE been presented and voted on as a separate issue.  What this indicates is that as long as our political system is driven by party loyalty and the big money of lobbyists ,the interests of the working man in this country is not of importance except during the election process. 

Our politicians will say anything at election time to get elected. When elected their promised agendas  serve only their campaign chests not their constituents 

I believe the Senators listed below should join the ranks of the unemployed.  Take this list with you to the polls, write or call them and voice your concerns but most of all let them know that you will not vote for them. 

Senator Nelson-Nebraska

  

 
 
 

  

 

Senator Bunning

  

Senator John McCain-Arizona


 


 

Alexande(R-TN)
Barrasso(R-WY)
Bennett(R-UT)
Bond(R-MO)
Brown(R-MA)
Brownback(R-KS)
Bunning(R-KY)
Burr(R-NC)
Chambliss(R-GA)
Coburn(R-OK)
Cochran(R-MS)
Collins(R-ME)
Corker (R-TN) 

Cornyn (R-TX) 

Alexander(R-TN)
Barrasso(R-WY)
Bennett(R-UT)
Bond(R-MO)
Brown(R-MA)
Brownback(R-KS)
Bunning(R-KY)
Burr(R-NC)
Chambliss(R-GA)
Coburn(R-OK)
Cochran(R-MS)
Collins(R-ME)
Corker (R-TN) 

Lugar(R-IN)
McCain(R-AZ)
McConnell(R-KY)
Nelson(D-NE)
Risch(R-ID)
Roberts(R-KS)
Sessions(R-AL)
Shelby(R-AL)
Snowe(R-ME)
Thune(R-SD)
Vitter(R-LA)
Voinovich(R-OH)
Wicker(R-MS) 

Learn how to protect your kids from molesters

The Toughest Sheriff inThe Country is Raising Money to Stop Amnesty for Immigrants

Today Sheriff Joe Arpaio sent out a mass appeal to raise money to fight a perceived movement by Democrats to grant Amnesty to all immigrants who are in this country illegally.

Arpaio is well known for his battle against illegal immigrants in Arizona. He is also well known for his tough stance against crime in Arizona and touts a strong  popularity among Arizona voters.

Arpaio’s battles were not limited to criminals and immigrants. He has resisted  Janet Napolitano’s attempt to stop his enforcement of Federal Immigration laws when Napolitano was Governor of Arizona.

THE FOLLOWING IS ARPAIO’S BLOG

Welcome to BanAmnestyNow.com

The PRO-AMNESTY forces are actively building  coalitions to force on America a “comprehensive immigration reform” scheme that grants Amnesty to illegals in the United States.  If you haven’t already, please sign B.A.N.’s CITIZEN PETITION and send a loud message to the pro-Amnesty liberals that America opposes Amnesty, once and for all!Thank you again for visiting B.A.N. – America’s leading coalition of conservatives united to BAN AMNESTY NOW!  Now more than ever, what we need most is YOU!

SEAN McCAFFREY
President & CEO

WHAT DOES SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO SAY ABOUT B.A.N.?

“I’ve been called ‘America’s Toughest Sheriff‘ because I enforce the law and go after the criminals, even when the Liberals in the media and the Socialists in Washington disagree.”Today, I’m asking you to support B.A.N., Ban Amnesty Now, because they are America’s toughest anti-illegal immigration organization, and they are our best hope for stopping the Obama Amnesty scheme in its tracks.”

~Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Hon. Co-Chairman
BanAmnestyNow.com

SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM SEN. RUSSELL PEARCE
Hon. Co-Chairman, BanAmnestyNow.com
Sponsor, Arizona Law SB1070

Dear Fellow Americans,

The White House and Congress are mobilizing against Americans who oppose Amnesty and support secure borders!White House and Congressional Leaders just held meetings with leaders the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and the powerful National Association of Evangelicals to plot strategy to MAKE AMNESTY LAW!!!

Collectively, these organizations boast membership in the tens-of-millions! This is just the sort of base and clout the pro-Amnesty Lobby needs to kick off their national drive for Amnesty all illegals living in the United States!

We believe there should be a pathway for earned legal status and citizenship,” said a leader of one of the evangelical groups leading the charge for Amnesty.

Abortion divides us, gay rights divide us, war and peace divides us, but comprehensive immigration reform [amnesty] unites us,” said another.

While the pro-Amnesty Washington Establishment works behind closed doors to craft their latest Amnesty scheme, I need your help today. We successfully stopped their Amnesty plans in 2007. We passed SB 1070 in Arizona this year.

Together we can and will STOP AMNESTY again!
Friends, we can keep the pro-Amnesty forces at bay, but only if we act today! Please join me on the front lines of stopping the Obama Amnesty scheme by JOINING B.A.N. right now with a contribution of $20, $30, $50 or even $100.Every $20 donation allows us to reach more than 1,000 new potential supporters, so please be generous today. Our first goal is to collect 1,000,000 signatures to BAN’s national petition against Amnesty! With your help, we’ll reach that goal – but one thing is certain: we can’t do it without the support of patriots like you.

Thank you in advance for your support!

Your friend,

RUSSELL PEARCE
State Senator, Arizona

P.S. Please join me with a contribution of $20, $30, $50 or even $100 today. Your support is critical to stopping Amnesty in its tracks!P.P.S. For everyone who contributes $50 or more June 30th, we will send you, as a special “thank you”, a BanAmnestyNow.com bumper sticker and a special invitation to the upcoming BAN kickoff TELE-TOWN-HALL, which I’ll host. We will talk about SB1070, how it can work in every state in the nation, as well as how we can stop the new Obama assault on Amnesty!

Join the B.A.N. Wagon

 
 

// <![CDATA[
function CheckMultiple8(frm, name) {
for (var i=0; i
Social Networks

B.A.N. BLOG

Sean

Blog Posts:

Obama ICE Appointment Signals Push for “Sanctuary Nation”
June 27, 2010, 01:51 AM
Former Houston Policy Chief Harold Hurtt is President Obama’s appointee to run the 287g program within the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is the program intended to assist law enforcement to identify illegal aliens. This is done by empowering local law enforcement to investigate the immigration status of a criminal after their arrest.  If that sounds familiar, it should: it’s the same policy as the new Arizona law, SB-1070, signed into law this spring – and which takes effect July 29. SB 1070, of course, was sponsored by Ban Amnesty Now national co-chairman Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ)…..
Read More…
ACTION ALERT: Amnesty Bill Gets 100th Co-Sponsor in Congress
June 25, 2010, 10:34 AM
Yesterday, pro-Amnesty leaders in Congress announced they had reached an important milestone with their 100th co-sponsor for legislation putting illegal immigrants on a pathway to citizenship. The legislation supporters claim the comprehensive immigration reform measure is not Amnesty because it requires a $500 fine and a background check in order to begin the citizenship process…..
Read More…
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO: Help Me Ban Amnesty Now!
June 24, 2010, 06:02 PM
In this letter from Sheriff Joe Arpaio to conservatives across the nation, America’s Toughest Sheriff explains why signed on as a new B.A.N. national co-chairman, and why he needs your help to Ban Amnesty Now… before Obama and the Washington Establishment can force their schemes on America!
Read More…

//

Protect your kids

Voters Give Washington A One-Two Punch

Voters landed two punches square on the chin of the political fat cats in Washington.

It appears that the national voter sentiment about electing new candidates who lack experience and thus are not in the grasp of either the Democratic or Republican Party is alive  in California and South Carolina.

Last Tuesday voters in California passed Proposition 14.  Proposition 14 is to a politician what Arizona’s Immigration Proposition 1070 is to Illegal Immigrants.

Also on Tuesday voters in South Carolina followed up with an upper cut by electing a virtual unknown in the State primary to represent Democrats in the November Senatorial Election.

It appears that the voters in California don’t take kindly to the idea that money can buy anything, even a primary election. Tuesdays Republican primary election of Meg Whitman for governor  and Carley Fiorina for Senate seem to be evidence that if you have enough money you don’t really need good old-fashioned voter support or their donations.

Jae C. Hong Associated Press

AP Pic

Whitman spent 71 million dollars of her own money to defeat long time politician Steve Poizner.

Carley Fiorina spent 5 million dollars of her own money to win her nomination for Senator. In addition Chris Kelley who was running for California Attorney general lost his bid but not before he spent 12 million dollars of his own money.

In response to this voters passed proposition 14.  Proposition 14 is the first step to take away the two-party system in California.  It takes effect in the primary elections in 2012. This law does away with the notion that only Democrats and Republicans can vote in the State’s Primary. It also does away with the notion that you must actually be a Democrat or Republican to be a candidate in the State’s Primary election.

“Specifically, Proposition 14 provides for a “voter-nominated primary election” for each state elective office and congressional office in California. Voters can vote in the primary election for any candidate for a congressional or state elective office without regard to the political party affiliations of either the candidate or the voter. Candidates can choose whether or not to have their political party affiliation displayed on the ballot. “ (Ballot Pedia)

In South Carolina voters elected a virtual unknown person as their democratic candidate for Senate Alvin Green and sent home long time Democratic politician Vic Rawl. To add insult to injury, Mr. Green did not have a campaign, did not have campaign money, and has a questionable personal history. Rawl just doesn’t believe he lost to Green and is reportedly challenging the outcome.

-LA Times Pic

No matter what happens in the November General Election, the election of Mr. Green is an acute message to Washington and a victory for Democracy.

Protect Your Kids