I took the snarkiest clip and dropped it here:
If anyone is interested in catching the whole 1.5 hours of me singing my song, please visit this YouTube Profile. Profound thanks to RebelForGod - one, dude.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
5-11 Campaign GONE WILD!!
Truth Seekers of Austin played documentarian and did a You Tube series on my LONNNG talk to Texans on the problems with Real ID.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
HOPE OR NOPE: The War on Debt, err, Drugs!
"In questioning during Congressional hearings related to her nomination, Napolitano spoke in favor of the militarization of the Mexican border, saying that border fences should be used to separate urban areas from Mexico, but that higher technology should be used in the more remote expanses of the border area. She did not oppose the “Real ID program,” which would create an internal passport system in the US, saying only that the financial burden it will impose on states needs to be lessened."
Who’s Who in the Obama Cabinet, by Peter Phillips for The Daily Censored
We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union need to get out of the foreign relations business for just a minute to mind the store internally. We just managed to extract the thumbscrews and the sensory deprivation equipment off of people living at Guantanamo Bay. If we look again, we see The Real ID program is an embarrassment to U.S. identity. It says we can't manage ourselves without a digital chaperone.
The chaperone may make a lot of money in the public-private partnership. However, when the whole of the US economy is having a tough time squeezing nickles out of the Fed .... it's obvious; we have a long way to go.
My intuitive guess with the blowups in Juarez, aptly timed for new presidential accompli, has as much to do with economic hardship as it does with our last president's confusing blitz of legislation that goes against the Republican base's demands for small government and our needs for fiscal conservatism NOW more than ever.
THE SHADOW PUPPET SHOW
As of today, El Paso Texas is not in a state of emergency even if Juarez, Mexico is.
Can we keep it that way?
What else are the chemtrails skywriting out other than DIRECTIVE 51 and CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT? The Department of Homeland Security cannot "take it to the next level" without a national federal emergency. In times of federal emergency, NPSD 20 overrides whatever constitutional rights you are under the impression you possess.
Whatever you do - don't believe the hype. Agitprop in the form of CNN's Lou Dobbs has been setting up the staging for a faux flag attack strategy for over 10 months. The violence is real. It is just really contrived. I do not trust that FEMA prison camps are collecting dust in the deserts at a collective loss to provisos.
Prisoners have little to no rights in this country. Most Americans do what they can to avoid imprisonment. However, if you are running a drug cartel, like Manuel Noriega, you can be imprisioned in America. From there you can put together car stereos, do data entry, field collection calls from creditors, process purchase orders for China, assemble electronic motherboards etc. etc. Whatever it takes to pay back your "debt to society". WE NEED FREE LABOR!! And we will get it one way or another. This country was built on the sweat of rich delusional men and their dehumanizing entitlements. I will say it now, before it becomes the next eventuality; and for the sake of human dignity, so that it won't.
The trouble is, 10 trillion is a lot of debt and Americans aren't good for it. So here is the #1 question to answer the electric company before they shut you down...how am I going to pay for this?
My hope, my real hope, is that we can live without debt. To live without debt is to get a whole other economic way of life altogether. This is apart from the intricately incestuous International Monetary Fund and World Banking System. It comes on the terms of the community. A gold standard perhaps. Maybe it means reevaluating the monetary systems in terms of community currencies - sustainable by green economic growth, urban rooftop farmers who can provide surplusses to neighboring counties with smaller ways and means.
However, we come by it, it might be time to give up the ghost on America's plan for internment in the states to get our needs met. That was never a good idea. We can do different and better and we should.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
HR 140: EVIL CARROT OF HIGHWAY TERROR
WHAT IS HR 140?
In my work approaching State legislators, some of them are cowing down due to threats of losing federal funding for their Highways by hitching them to Real ID regulatory conditions (Yes, the exact ones you hate). Otherwise this is still a voluntary unfunded mandate; the same as it was when it was passed on May 11th, 2005. There is a federal bill out there, HR 140, very similar to the one which died last session without even entering committee, that dearly craves the public-private bankrolling from your identity traffic. I assure you, that is what is driving it.
I find it highly ironic that 4 Republicans from the destitute state of California stepped up to try to move this forward. California is suffering immensely due to lack of State funds. Cali also had a garden variety of pan-partisan effort to drown HB 60, CA’s Real ID bill, when it came up for air last session -R.I.P.
So I take delicious glee in naming names of the federal traitors trying to bully a broke state into a place of reckless endangerment. The technologies are neither secure or affordable. Many needs go ahead of Real ID compliant licenses. Especially when most states have insituted secure license measures before the passage of the Real ID Act.
SHAME ON YOU!!!
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]introduced
Cosponsors [as of 2009-01-14]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA]
Rep. John Campbell [R-CA]
I think we can live without our nationalized ID with surveillance capacity. However, they are going to try to starve states into making it happen.
There are a couple of ways to tell them your State will not suffer from this coercion:
1)Contact your State’s federal legislators and tell them as a constituent that you cannot afford the comprehensive damages to your identity in this time of economic crisis and that you feel secure license technologies are available without volunteering for the Real ID license regulations. Ask them to oppose HB140.
2) Contact & fiscally support grassroots lobbies who understand what is happening, and will send someone to fight for you in Washington.
Wherever you are in the political strata there are those who will support your position. Here are a few who are working to curb Federal coercion on Real ID:
Center for Democracy & Technology
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
The American Civil Liberties Union
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee
The Stop Real ID Coalition
To withhold certain highway funds if a State does not comply with certain requirements in issuing a driver's license or identification card, and for other purposes.BTC Exclusive
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-140&tab=related
In my work approaching State legislators, some of them are cowing down due to threats of losing federal funding for their Highways by hitching them to Real ID regulatory conditions (Yes, the exact ones you hate). Otherwise this is still a voluntary unfunded mandate; the same as it was when it was passed on May 11th, 2005. There is a federal bill out there, HR 140, very similar to the one which died last session without even entering committee, that dearly craves the public-private bankrolling from your identity traffic. I assure you, that is what is driving it.
I find it highly ironic that 4 Republicans from the destitute state of California stepped up to try to move this forward. California is suffering immensely due to lack of State funds. Cali also had a garden variety of pan-partisan effort to drown HB 60, CA’s Real ID bill, when it came up for air last session -R.I.P.
So I take delicious glee in naming names of the federal traitors trying to bully a broke state into a place of reckless endangerment. The technologies are neither secure or affordable. Many needs go ahead of Real ID compliant licenses. Especially when most states have insituted secure license measures before the passage of the Real ID Act.
SHAME ON YOU!!!
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]introduced
Cosponsors [as of 2009-01-14]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA]
Rep. John Campbell [R-CA]
I think we can live without our nationalized ID with surveillance capacity. However, they are going to try to starve states into making it happen.
There are a couple of ways to tell them your State will not suffer from this coercion:
1)Contact your State’s federal legislators and tell them as a constituent that you cannot afford the comprehensive damages to your identity in this time of economic crisis and that you feel secure license technologies are available without volunteering for the Real ID license regulations. Ask them to oppose HB140.
2) Contact & fiscally support grassroots lobbies who understand what is happening, and will send someone to fight for you in Washington.
Wherever you are in the political strata there are those who will support your position. Here are a few who are working to curb Federal coercion on Real ID:
Center for Democracy & Technology
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
The American Civil Liberties Union
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee
The Stop Real ID Coalition
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Beltway's "Post" Attempts Nailing Jello to Wall
Audacity Without Ideology
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, January 15, 2009; A19
For the past two years, Barack Obama has made it hard for anyone to pin him down philosophically. So when he raises his hand on Tuesday, exactly what -- beyond the efforts of an eager, data-driven problem-solver -- can the American people expect?
Obama has spent his adult life tilting left while courting conservatives. That's how he won his very first campaign, for president of the Harvard Law Review.
He has been known to call himself a "progressive," and when he occasionally uses the word "ideological" in reference to his own leanings, he clearly casts himself as somewhere left of center.
Yet most of his references to ideology are disdainful and dismissive. In discussing his economic stimulus package, he speaks of judging his proposals by how many jobs they produce and how quickly they will move the economy. Other criteria are inadmissible.
There are at least three keys to understanding Obama's approach to (and avoidance of) ideology. There is, first, his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies.
This part of him was once the detached writer and professor who could view even his own life from a distance and with a degree of abstraction. Seen with perspective, after all, the ideological differences in the United States are rather small. We have no major socialist party, and when it comes down to it, even conservatives are reluctant to dismantle our limited social insurance and welfare programs.
But Obama's anti-ideological turn is also a functional one for a progressive, at least for now. Since Ronald Reagan, ideology has been the terrain of the right. Many of the programs that conservatives have pushed have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests. How else could conservatives claim that cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue, or that trickle-down economic approaches were working when the evidence of middle-class incomes said otherwise?
Thus the second key: Right now, being empirical is in the progressive interest. Note that data show that the parts of the stimulus package most congenial to liberals (increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps; fiscal aid to the states; government spending on public projects) are also the parts with the most economic bang. In other words, progressives don't need ideology to make their case.
In this respect, at least, Obama is rather like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who dismissed the conservative economic doctrines of the 1920s. "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature," Roosevelt said, directly countering the central premises of orthodox economics. "They are made by human beings." Thus did Roosevelt make pragmatism and experimentation enemies of conservative ideology. Obama, wearing a smile as he stands on a mountain of data, is doing the same.
But in a third respect, Obama's anti-ideological talk is not just a vehicle for progressive inclinations but the real deal. Obama regularly offers three telltale notions that will define his presidency -- if events allow him to define it himself: "sacrifice," "grand bargain" and "sustainability."
To listen to Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag is to hear a tale of long-term fiscal woe. The government may have to spend and cut taxes in a big way now, but in the long run, the federal budget is unsustainable.
That's where sacrifice kicks in. There will be signs of it in Obama's first budget, in his efforts to contain health-care costs and, down the road, in his call for entitlement reform and limits on carbon emissions. His camp is selling the idea that if he wants authority for new initiatives and new spending, Obama will have to prove his willingness to cut some programs and reform others.
The "grand bargain" they are talking about is a mix and match of boldness and prudence. It involves expansive government where necessary, balanced by tough management, unpopular cuts -- and, yes, eventually some tax increases. Everyone, they say, will have to give up something.
Only such a balance, they argue, will win broad support for what Obama wants to do, and thus make his reforms "sustainable," the other magic word -- meaning that even Republicans, when they eventually get back to power, will choose not to reverse them.
It is riotously ambitious. But it's worth remembering that in November, Americans elected a man who counts "audacity" as one of his favorite words.
postchat@aol.com
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, January 15, 2009; A19
For the past two years, Barack Obama has made it hard for anyone to pin him down philosophically. So when he raises his hand on Tuesday, exactly what -- beyond the efforts of an eager, data-driven problem-solver -- can the American people expect?
Obama has spent his adult life tilting left while courting conservatives. That's how he won his very first campaign, for president of the Harvard Law Review.
He has been known to call himself a "progressive," and when he occasionally uses the word "ideological" in reference to his own leanings, he clearly casts himself as somewhere left of center.
Yet most of his references to ideology are disdainful and dismissive. In discussing his economic stimulus package, he speaks of judging his proposals by how many jobs they produce and how quickly they will move the economy. Other criteria are inadmissible.
There are at least three keys to understanding Obama's approach to (and avoidance of) ideology. There is, first, his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies.
This part of him was once the detached writer and professor who could view even his own life from a distance and with a degree of abstraction. Seen with perspective, after all, the ideological differences in the United States are rather small. We have no major socialist party, and when it comes down to it, even conservatives are reluctant to dismantle our limited social insurance and welfare programs.
But Obama's anti-ideological turn is also a functional one for a progressive, at least for now. Since Ronald Reagan, ideology has been the terrain of the right. Many of the programs that conservatives have pushed have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests. How else could conservatives claim that cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue, or that trickle-down economic approaches were working when the evidence of middle-class incomes said otherwise?
Thus the second key: Right now, being empirical is in the progressive interest. Note that data show that the parts of the stimulus package most congenial to liberals (increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps; fiscal aid to the states; government spending on public projects) are also the parts with the most economic bang. In other words, progressives don't need ideology to make their case.
In this respect, at least, Obama is rather like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who dismissed the conservative economic doctrines of the 1920s. "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature," Roosevelt said, directly countering the central premises of orthodox economics. "They are made by human beings." Thus did Roosevelt make pragmatism and experimentation enemies of conservative ideology. Obama, wearing a smile as he stands on a mountain of data, is doing the same.
But in a third respect, Obama's anti-ideological talk is not just a vehicle for progressive inclinations but the real deal. Obama regularly offers three telltale notions that will define his presidency -- if events allow him to define it himself: "sacrifice," "grand bargain" and "sustainability."
To listen to Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag is to hear a tale of long-term fiscal woe. The government may have to spend and cut taxes in a big way now, but in the long run, the federal budget is unsustainable.
That's where sacrifice kicks in. There will be signs of it in Obama's first budget, in his efforts to contain health-care costs and, down the road, in his call for entitlement reform and limits on carbon emissions. His camp is selling the idea that if he wants authority for new initiatives and new spending, Obama will have to prove his willingness to cut some programs and reform others.
The "grand bargain" they are talking about is a mix and match of boldness and prudence. It involves expansive government where necessary, balanced by tough management, unpopular cuts -- and, yes, eventually some tax increases. Everyone, they say, will have to give up something.
Only such a balance, they argue, will win broad support for what Obama wants to do, and thus make his reforms "sustainable," the other magic word -- meaning that even Republicans, when they eventually get back to power, will choose not to reverse them.
It is riotously ambitious. But it's worth remembering that in November, Americans elected a man who counts "audacity" as one of his favorite words.
postchat@aol.com
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
ALOHA, Chertie!
Let's all say goodbye to Sr. Michael "you-know-you-want-this" Chertoff - his tour of public service is over. FINALLY!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
BTC DIGEST: Pros & Cons of Real ID, Citizenship & License quagmires
As legislative sessions kick in, it's back to basics. Businessweek.com Debate Room
To promote safety and cut red tape, state-by-state licenses should be replaced by federally issued ones. Pro or con? [MORE]
The debacle analysis continues.
TechRepublic c/o Chad Perrin
Isn’t greater security important? Doesn’t a set of national standards set a minimum bar for security, bringing nationwide compliance up to at least a tolerable level? Aren’t standards — especially for something as important as security — good things?
The answer is complex, but key points include:
effectiveness: As Governor Schweitzer points out in the above-linked interview, most of the identified 9/11 hijackers would have qualified to be issued an ID under the requirements of the REAL ID Act.
privacy: Among other issues of privacy, this Act aims to create a national database, available to many federal and state agencies, tracking personally identifying information about carriers of REAL ID compliant identification cards — which could also contribute to increased risk of identity fraud.
risks: Some of the requirements of the Act may actually increase security risks, rather than reducing them. This is a common problem with broadly applied standards enacted by people (like Congress) who have no security expertise. Among the problems is the mandate for RFID chips in your wallet — a source of security vulnerability about which I’ve already written, in What to do about RFID chips in your wallet.
legality: The law created by the passage of the REAL ID Act may itself be illegal. Specifically, it has been argued that it is unconstitutional, violating the 10th Amendment. [MORE]
Drivers license rejection anger policy's critics
Susan Carroll, Houston Chronicle
New citizenship rules for Texas licenses lead to misfortune, complications“I have always maintained my legal status,” Mehmood said. “It's not fair to people who want to live here and follow the law.”-Adeel Mehmood, University of Houston alumni
Three months after the policy took effect, critics are pointing to a growing list of cases involving legal immigrants who have been significantly delayed or outright rejected in efforts to get or renew licenses despite being authorized to live and work legally in the U.S.
“I have always maintained my legal status,” Mehmood said. “It's not fair to people who want to live here and follow the law.”
Under the policy change, only applicants who have documents showing they have permission to stay in the U.S. for at least six months are eligible for Texas drivers' licenses. But immigration attorneys are reporting that people who meet that criteria but are unable to produce documents required by the Department of Public Safety to prove their legal status are still being turned away.
For example, Mehmood said he was rejected by DPS after being told his letter from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granting him asylum wasn't specifically listed on DPS' list of acceptable forms. [MORE]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)