This how the government workd...

If nothing else has pissed you off about this administration this might get to you. The US has entered into a contract with a real estate firm to sell 56 buildings that currently house U.S. Post Offices. The government has decided it no longer needs these buildings, most of which are located on prime land in towns and cities across the country. The sale of these properties will fetch about $19 billion. A regular real estate commission will be paid to the company that was given the exclusive listing for handling the sales. That company is CRI and it belongs to a man named Richard Blum. Richard Blum is the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein. (Most voters and many of the government people who approved the deal have not made the connection between the two because they have different last names). Senator Feinstein and her husband stand to make a fortune (est. at between $950 million and $1.1 billion!!) from these transactions. His company is the sole real estate on the sale. CRI will be making a minimum of 3% and as much as 6% commission on each and every sale. All of the properties that are being sold are all fully paid for. They were purchased with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars. The U.S.P.S. is allowed free and c lea r, tax exempt use. The only cost to keep them open is the cost to actually keep the doors open and the heat and lights on. The United States Postal Service doesn't even have to pay county property taxes on these subject properties. Would you put your house in foreclosure just because you couldn't afford to pay the electric bill? Well, the folks in Washington have given the Post Office the OK to do it! Worse yet, most of the net proceeds of the sales will go back to the U.S.P.S, an organization that is so poorly managed that they have lost $117 billion dollars in the past 10 years! No one in the mainstream media is even raising an eyebrow over the conflict of interest and on the possibility of corruption on the sale of billions of dollars’ worth of public assets. How does a U.S. Senator from San Francisco manage to get away with organizing and lobbying such a sweet deal? Has our government become so elitist that they have no fear of oversight? And it's no mere coincidence that these two public service crooks have different last names; a feeble attempt at avoiding transparency in these type of transactions. Pass this info on before it's pulled from the internet. Verified on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp

BEST QUOTE ABOUT GOVERNMENT EVER

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. 

One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. 

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

CISPA abolishes internet privacy...

CISPA would obliterate any semblance of online privacy.

And it's up for a vote this week.
We need to slam Congress's phone lines to encourage lawmakers to vote no.
Please click here to find your lawmaker's phone number and place a call today.
CISPA would allow corporations to track and share all variety of information about Americans.
It would demolish existing barriers between the government and the private sector -- and between government agencies -- that restrict data sharing without cause, effectively allowing information about Americans' use of the Internet to slosh back and forth uninhibited.
It would provide the military and security agencies with broad new powers to track Americans' online activity.
We need members of Congress to oppose the legislation when it comes up for a vote later this week.
Please click here for a call script and to find your lawmaker's phone number -- we need as many calls as possible right away.
Thanks for keeping up the fight.
-Demand Progress

Don Young 202-225-5765

Thank you for calling your member of Congress -- will you take another minute to call members of House leadership? They control what bills Congress votes on.
You can tell them "CISPA would infringe on the privacy of all American Internet users. I urge you to oppose it."
House Speaker John Boehner: (202) 225-6205
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: (202) 225-4000
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-4965

Reply from Senator Mark Begich--First Amendment right.

 All the Senators and President are sworn to uphold the Constitution but will violate their Oath of Office in favor of corporate money--or at least that is their excuse for taking away your First Amendment Right to free Speech along with your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

January19, 2012

Dear Mr. Kroll:

Thank you for contacting me about the Protecting Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act(PROTECT IP). I support a free and open Internet.

With online commerce continuing to grow and evolve as a significant portion of our country's economy—as well as day-to-day life for many Alaskans—it is important we maintain the free flow of information while at the same time protecting users against the threat of cyber theft or attack.  The debate about how to protect intellectual property rights and fight online piracy and counterfeit operations has been going on for over a decade. 

Both the PROTECT IP Act and the version in the House of Representatives, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), have received a large amount of attention from consumers and companies who are concerned about the impact on innovation and the flow of information online.  I believe intellectual property rights should be respected and we should address how they are enforced.  However, I do not feel the protections should restrict the flow of information through search engines or technical alterations. I will continue to review the legislation and details as we move closer to a vote.

I am continuing to monitor the development of online commerce which I believe will help grow businesses in Alaska.  Online privacy and the protection of free speech are important to Alaskans, and I appreciate hearing your comments on pending legislation.

Please feel free to stay in touch as we continue to debate these issues. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Begich

U.S. Senator

HE TOLD US WHAT HE PLANNED TO DO..AND YOU VOTED FOR HIM.

Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do. Few were listening.

The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press."

From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008, 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator                                 Obama was asked about his stance on the American flag.

General Bill Ginn, USAF (ret.), asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol with the National Anthem is played. The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform,) are expected to stand at attention, facing the flag, with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

NOW GET THIS !

'Senator' Obama replied:

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides." "There are a lot of                                 people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression." "The anthem itself                                 conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air, and all that sort of                          thing.

(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS?)

Obama continued:, "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem,                                 then I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails, perhaps  a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments.

"When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice, which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag, and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past.”

                       

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

NOTE THE LEFT HANDS OVER THE HEART. NOTE THE RING ON THE LEFT HAND...

WHAAAAAAAT, is that???

Yes, you read it right.

I, for one, am speechless!!!

Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post

EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEEDS TO READ THIS, SAVE AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE ! ! PASS IT ON.

Senator Mark Begich e-mail December 10th. No mention of 800 detention camps.

December 10, 2011

I received this e-mail this morning from Senator Begich. There is no mention as to why the government is maintaining 800 detention camps. You decide...

Dear Mr. Kroll:

 

Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which passed the Senate 93-7 on December 1, 2011. These provisions will continue to be worked on and finalized during conference negotiations with the House of Representatives. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to and understand your concerns prior to the negotiations of the final bill.

 

As an advocate of constitutional rights and civil liberties, I strongly oppose the military arresting U.S. citizens on American soil. I also do not support military detention of U.S. citizens–unless they are members or supporters of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, were involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or have engaged in hostile action against our troops overseas. I voted in support of the detainee provisions in S.1867 because it will codify law which provides protection for civil liberties, does not allow for the military to arrest U.S. citizens on American soil and prohibits military custody of individuals who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. 

The just-passed bill does not allow for military apprehension of U.S. citizens on American soil and does not mandate indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens who have participated in an act of war. In fact, the provisions provide no new or expanded detention authority to the President. To ensure that was clear and to continue to defend citizens' rights under the Constitution, I supported one of Senator Feinstein's amendments.  The amendment clearly states the provisions shall not be construed to affect existing laws or authorizations relating to the detention of our citizens arrested in the United States by the civil authorities–even if they are  members or supporters of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or who engage in hostile action against our troops overseas. 

 

The bill does, however, affirm the President's existing detention authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) passed by Congress in 2001. This law already allows the President to detain any person who is deemed to be a member or supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or has engaged in hostile action against our troops overseas. This includes the authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens like John Walker Lindh, who fought alongside the Taliban against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as an enemy combatant subject to the law of war. The authority to detain U.S. citizens engaging in acts of war against the U.S. was confirmed in a Supreme Court case in 2004, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which stated that "[t]here is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." 

 

To protect citizens and non-citizens from being wrongfully held, S.1867 also includes a number of provisions to uphold the rights of those accused of joining the Taliban or al-Qaeda during their detention. The bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide them with an attorney and mandates DOD provide evidence of proof to a federal judge the person is a member or supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, was involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or has engaged in hostile action against our troops. There will also be an annual review of the person's status as an enemy held under the law of war. Further, nothing in the bill undercuts habeas corpus rights of those in detention. Citizens and non-citizens will still be able to seek a federal court review of the legality of their detention.

 

I believe affirming the President's already existing authority to detain persons who would harm America under the law of war is important to national security. While the provisions in the bill provide no new authority relating to detention of persons who commit acts of war I understand there is much debate regarding the Hamdi court case and detention of U.S. citizens. I believe the provisions in the bill will protect innocent American citizens from unwarranted detention and I will be working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure this remains absolutely clear as negotiations begin with the House of Representatives. 

Sincerely,

Mark Begich

U.S. Senator

Who determines what is an act of war? Is posting this e-mail an act of War? Will the president put me into one of their camps for asking questions? Why didn't he mention the 800 or so detention camps and why have they spent $400-billion building and maintaining them? Why do they ask soldiers if they would fire upon American Citizens before they are allowed to re-enlist??