Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Fall of the Republic HQ full length version
ChangeDaChannel — October 23, 2009 — Order the DVD at: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net...
Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.
President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations' Security Council, thus becoming the first US president to chair the world body.
A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet.
A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-feudal slavery.
The image makers have carefully packaged Obama as the world's savior; he is the Trojan Horse manufactured to pacify the people just long enough for the globalists to complete their master plan.
This film reveals the architecture of the New World Order and what the power elite have in store for humanity. More importantly it communicates how We The People can retake control of our government, turn the criminal tide and bring the tyrants to justice.
A film by Alex jones
Stewart Rhodes if the founder of the Oath Keepers, and Mark Potok is with the Southern Poverty Law Center
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Tuesday, October 20, 2009
updated 11:02 a.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 21, 2009
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Let‘s play HARDBALL.Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight:
Armed and ready. They‘re called the Oath Keepers. They‘re current and former law enforcement officers who pledge to disobey orders they believe are illegal, saying they‘re preventing cities from becoming concentration camps. Well, at the top of the show tonight, we‘re going to hear the founder of that group but also the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who opposes them.
we start with the Oath Keepers, who are they and what is—what they are and what they say they are all about. Stewart Rhodes if the founder of the Oath Keepers, and Mark Potok is with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Stewart, let me run through a couple of the things you say that your group will not obey orders to do. Let‘s take a look at that. We have the list here. You will not impose martial law or state of emergency on any state. You will not invade or subjugate any state, I guess of the union, that asserts its sovereignty. You will blockade—you will not blockade American cities, turning them into giant concentration camps. And you will assist or support the use of any foreign troops—you won‘t do that or obey orders to do that on U.S. soil.
Do you guys have the current firepower to stand up against the federal government if you people are ordered to do those things?
STEWART RHODES, FOUNDER, “OATH KEEPERS”: Well, it‘s not the point. It‘s not the point of firepower. It‘s the obligation all of us have who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And so what we‘re calling on active duty military and police to do is to simply stand down and to refuse to comply with (INAUDIBLE) unlawful orders.
MATTHEWS: All your people in your recruited groups are all people who are potentially armed, is that right?
RHODES: Well, if they‘re active duty police and military, of course.
I mean, if a cop carries a gun...
MATTHEWS: Well, that seems to be the group you‘re going after.
RHODES: Well, sure.
MATTHEWS: It seems to be the group you‘re recruiting.
RHODES: They‘re the ones that will receive unlawful orders. It was at My Lai that the soldiers committed atrocities...
MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s not—let‘s not confuse the issue with My Lai. You have on your list, you will not assert—you will not obey any orders to invade or subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. You know, I guess I‘m too normal because when I first read that, sir, I thought you were talking about we wouldn‘t invade Iraq, which is a sovereign country. But you‘re not—you laugh.
RHODES: No, we‘re talking...
MATTHEWS: This is why people think you‘re crazy.
RHODES: We‘re talking about domestic...
MATTHEWS: You laugh. A sovereign state of the United States—in other words, the Civil War would not have been fought if you guys had been around.
RHODES: No, that‘s not the point. Look at article...
MATTHEWS: No, wait a minute, “It‘s not the point”—you say you will not invade any state or subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
RHODES: That‘s right.
MATTHEWS: The Confederacy asserted its sovereignty. What would you have done if you had been in the Union army then?
RHODES: If I‘d been in the Union army then?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RHODES: Well, we‘re not talking about secession here. We‘re talking about the balance of power between...
MATTHEWS: No, no, no. You say any state...
RHODES: ... the states and the federal government.
MATTHEWS: ... any state that asserts, either through nullification or secession...
RHODES: Yes.
MATTHEWS: ... its sovereignty. What would you do?
RHODES: We‘re not talking about nullification...
MATTHEWS: ... if this Texas governor, this guy Rick Perry...
RHODES: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... he talks about secession. I mean, obviously, he‘s talking loony tune. He doesn‘t, I don‘t think, mean it, but who knows. If he did try to secede and you were in the federal government, what would you do?
RHODES: Well, I think the state has an obligation—has a right to assert its sovereignty. There‘s dual sovereignty in our system. It‘s not one...
MATTHEWS: Does it have a right to secede?
RHODES: If the federal government violates the compact and destroys the Constitution, then there is no Constitution.
MATTHEWS: Give me the circumstances that that would—in other words, I‘ve always wondered, when I listen to your group, about—I want to know about operations. I don‘t care about your philosophy. A lot of people are Libertarian. Ron Paul, I like him in a lot of ways. I agree with him on the Iraq war. I got no problem with the Libertarian philosophy.
What I don‘t like about people who are armed, who are being recruited to stand up in some operation—I want to know when you would call your forces together...
RHODES: No, see, it‘s not about...
MATTHEWS: ... and challenge the authority of the U.S. government.
RHODES: It‘s not about calling...
MATTHEWS: When would you do that?
RHODES: It‘s not calling forces together. It‘s simply saying they‘re not going to comply with orders to violate the rights of the American people. We‘re not talking about asking them to go fight. We‘re saying simply, Don‘t fight.
MATTHEWS: OK, well...
RHODES: Don‘t fight the people.
MATTHEWS: What‘s this concentration camp thing you‘re talking about?
What is this thing about bringing foreign troops into the United States?
What scenarios do you live in?
RHODES: Well, look at the history of the last 20th century. We had the internment of the Japanese-Americans right here on American soil.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RHODES: And so...
MATTHEWS: Right.
RHODES: ... we don‘t want to see that happen again, do you?
MATTHEWS: Do you foresee concentration camps in this country?
RHODES: It happened once before. It happened to the Japanese-Americans.
MATTHEWS: Do you foresee it?
RHODES: Well, it‘s a possibility. Our goal is—our goal is...
MATTHEWS: Why are you organizing people about the plausibility of concentration camps in this country, of the landing of foreign troops? What foreign troops would be landed in the United States? What are you talking about?
RHODES: This is a historic pattern. This has happened in the past.
MATTHEWS: When?
RHODES: We want to make sure it doesn‘t happen here.
MATTHEWS: When—what...
RHODES: I just gave you...
MATTHEWS: ... do you mean by “foreign troops” in the United States?
Name them. I guess I‘m confused here.
RHODES: Well...
MATTHEWS: Name the foreign troops that are being brought into the United States now, you imagine.
RHODES: Look at the Hessians just in the American revolution were brought here.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RHODES: You had foreign troops then that were used. It‘s—it‘s—it happens throughout history. Go look at history.
MATTHEWS: So you‘re putting people together on a kind of a war footing, preparing them to be vigilant...
RHODES: It‘s not a...
MATTHEWS: ... to be ready...
RHODES: It‘s not a war...
MATTHEWS: ... to challenge the imposition of foreign troops in this country, the creation of concentration—you know what I think you‘re up to, is creating a mindset, getting—I heard some people the other day talking about “the battle,” We have to keep “the battle” going. You want to have people in a militant environment where they think militantly with this sense of perhaps taking steps at some point against the government or taking—not taking orders or in some way rebelling so that you keep people in a mindset of right-wing thinking so you can achieve some immediate political goal.
And I‘m just wondering what you‘re—getting them to vote right-wing? What are you trying to get people to do in the next year or two, or 10 years, before this Armageddon struggle occurs?
RHODES: We want them to keep their oath, Chris. Chris, the oath is to the Constitution.
MATTHEWS: No, in the short term what are you—look, you don‘t expect the concentration camps to come in the short run, do you?
RHODES: No, I don‘t.
MATTHEWS: OK, do you expect...
RHODES: It‘s a long-term concern.
MATTHEWS: ... foreign troops—do you expect the Hessians to be back in the short run?
RHODES: We are trying to prevent this country from suffering the abuse and the violation of rights that has happened in other countries in recent history.
MATTHEWS: How so?
RHODES: How so? By keeping the oaths to the Constitution. It‘s not to any one man, whether he gives you a thrill up your leg or not. It‘s to the Constitution.
MATTHEWS: Yes. So you believe that we have a possibility in this country of undermining the Constitution under Barack Obama. That‘s what you see coming.
RHODES: Or under a future President Giuliani or anybody else. The abuse of the Constitution didn‘t begin with Obama, and it hasn‘t stopped, unfortunately, either. Bush was violating the Constitution also.
MATTHEWS: How many hours a day do you worry about the Constitution being undermined by Barack Obama—undermined? In other words, your rights being taken away, concentration camps being formed, foreign troops being landed, the black helicopters stopping at a military base near you. How many hours a day do you think about this probability, or even plausibility, sir?
RHODES: Well, I‘m a Constitutional lawyer. I‘ve been thinking about this for many years.
MATTHEWS: No, but how many hours a day do you worry about this actually happening? Seriously. Do you go to bed at night—when you put your head on the pillow at night, are you afraid that at some point in your lifetime, the black helicopters from the U.N. will arrive in the United States and deny American sovereignty? Do you think that‘s probable or possible?
RHODES: I think it‘s possible.
MATTHEWS: Or plausible?
RHODES: I think we‘re concerned about—look at—look at—look at Germany, an advanced civilization, and they fell into a despotism in a dictatorship, a murderous dictatorship in the span of 10 years after an economic collapse. It could happen here. Think it can‘t happen here? Ask the Japanese-Americans whether it can happen here.
MATTHEWS: No (INAUDIBLE) I‘m talking about the meantime. I think what you‘re trying to do is create a state of mind, sir. That‘s why I‘m concerned.
RHODES: Well, you can think whatever you—you can think what you want. I know what my goals are.
MATTHEWS: No, it‘s obvious what you want to do because you‘re getting people to sign up. You‘re getting people who are armed. It‘s—why do you only recruit among police and military and people like that?
RHODES: Because they—because they will be given the orders to abuse your rights. Who else is going to be doing it? If someday, God forbid, there‘s some dictator comes to power in America, who‘s going to get the order? Wouldn‘t you have liked the soldiers in World War II to have refused the orders to round up Japanese-Americans?
MATTHEWS: OK. I guess I‘ve always assumed...
RHODES: No?
MATTHEWS: ... that people knew that every since Nuremberg, obeying orders wasn‘t a legitimate defense.
RHODES: That‘s exactly right.
MATTHEWS: And therefore, I assumed that this wasn‘t necessary, to form a vigilante group like this one or to get people all roused up against their government.
RHODES: Not—no...
MATTHEWS: By the way, I don‘t understand your thinking about the government. Every time we have a debate on this show, it‘s clear that we don‘t have a unified government in this country. We have Democrats on the Hill of the left, of the center. We‘ve got—or the moderate Democrats. We‘ve got conservative Republicans, some moderate Republicans. They fight all the time. And yet you guys in this sort of strange view of the world say there‘s such a thing as “the government” that‘s all unified and working against you. Where does that exist? You worked in Washington. Where is that thing called “the government” you allude to?
MATTHEWS: So you say there are no...
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking! Where is it?
RHODES: What do you mean, where is it?
MATTHEWS: Where is this government that‘s all unified against you, that‘s frightening and is about to deny your rights? Who is this government?
RHODES: Well, Chris...
MATTHEWS: Give me the name of it.
RHODES: ... the Patriot Act was bipartisan. They both voted for it, both sides. And don‘t you think that was an abuse of power and abuse of rights?
MATTHEWS: And yes, and it‘s being debated and argued among people within the political system we have in this country...
RHODES: And that‘s (INAUDIBLE)
MATTHEWS: ... people fighting it and—right, and we don‘t have to have people, armed people out there standing ready to challenge authority.
Anyway, let‘s move on. I want to bring Mark Potok in here and let him argue the case. What is the danger of these guys sitting around and having meetings? I mean, I‘m challenging him because I think it‘s a state of mind. But if they‘re not operational, if they don‘t take arms against the country, what difference does it make if they have this mindset of fear, Mark?
MARK POTOK, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: Well, I‘d say a couple things. First off, I‘d point out that Stewart Rhodes just talked about, Well, you know, maybe this could happen someday down the line and this is a sort of theoretical worry that he has, or so he says. The reality is, is that when you look at the Oath Keepers‘ Web site, the core of it is this business about the orders they‘re not going to obey. And it starts out with a preamble, a quote from George Washington, saying, you know, Now is the time or soon comes the time when it will be determined whether we‘re slaves or freed men. Immediately after that, the Oath Keepers Web site says, presumably in Stewart Rhodes‘s words, that that time is near at hand again.
Look, I mean, the bottom line is, is that this is a group that is driven by conspiracy theories about the government, very much like the militia conspiracy theories...
MATTHEWS: What‘s the harm?
POTOK: ... of the ‘90s. You know, they...
MATTHEWS: What‘s the harm in his thinking?
POTOK: ... believe, presumably, that FEMA is out there setting up concentration camps and that kind of thing. I mean, this whole list of things that they‘re not going to do are the very fears that were enunciated by people in the militia movement, some of whom went on to do rather violent things, in one case to attempt to attack Ft. Hood in Texas because they thought foreign nationals were being trained there to suppress American patriots. So it‘s very much the same idea. Look, I mean, I have no...
MATTHEWS: OK, let him respond to that. Let him respond to that.
POTOK: ... beef with someone affirming their...
MATTHEWS: Do you have anybody in your group—have you had any indication, Stewart, that any people have heard your arguments and have become dangerous to our society?
RHODES: Not at all. They‘re police officers and soldiers.
MATTHEWS: What about the birther crowd? Are you connected to the...
POTOK: Chris, if I might...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want to know one other thing because this fellow that broke into the Holocaust Museum...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: No, the other day. It wasn‘t long ago, it was this summer
· broke into the Holocaust Museum and shot the armed guard, he believed he was honoring a cause, which was that Barack Obama shouldn‘t be president because he‘s not a legitimate citizen, a native-born citizen. People do act. McVeigh and those people do act in this way, sir. Stewart, they do act on what they read and hear. You don‘t fear that?
RHODES: Not in our organization at all. And I find it offensive that Potok likes to lump us into with white supremacists. I‘m a quarter Mexican. I come from a family of migrant farm workers from California. And so to (INAUDIBLE) insinuate that I‘m in bed with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, which he has, lumping us all together...
POTOK: Oh, that‘s ridiculous!
RHODES: ... is offensive. Well...
(CROSSTALK)
RHODES: Yes, you have!
POTOK: ... to white supremacists!
RHODES: You said we‘re coalescing, we‘re all coalescing together.
POTOK: And how is that, Mr. Rhodes?
RHODES: Excuse me? You lump us all...
POTOK: How is that?
RHODES: ... in the same bucket.
POTOK: How is that that we‘ve suggested that you‘re white supremacists? That‘s ridiculous.
RHODES: You include—you include us...
POTOK: That‘s ridiculous. You know we haven‘t said that.
RHODES: Yes, you have. You put us in the same bucket.
POTOK: Look, the bottom line about the Oath Keepers is that this is a group of men and women who are in—largely in law enforcement. They are given weapons and they are given authority over the rest of us. And that is well and fine. I‘m all about reaffirming oaths to the Constitution. It‘s a great document, as is the Bill of Rights. However, when people with those powers are animated by dark and utterly false conspiracy theories—they actually mention in the section on the orders they won‘t obey that they fear that the government will be cracking down on militias and calling them right-wing terrorists, and so on.
RHODES: Which you do all the time.
POTOK: So that‘s the real agenda here. They‘re driven by fears that are irrational and have no basis in reality.
RHODES: And what are you driven by?
MATTHEWS: OK, let me—let me—let me stop and let Mr. Stewart...
RHODES: You‘re driven by donations.
MATTHEWS: ... Stewart Rhodes respond. Is your fear—one last word. Is there an imminent fear that our federal government will abandon the Constitution, deny us our rights and even resort to things like concentration camps or disarming the American people in violation of the 2nd Amendment—disarming the people, moving around the country collecting guns—is that a real danger, sir, yes or no?
RHODES: Yes, I think it is.
MATTHEWS: A real danger?
RHODES: Yes, I think it is. Look at the pattern of abuse of executive power and the claimed authority to treat America like a battlefield.
MATTHEWS: You keep changing the subject. What you have in your document says, “will not obey order to disarm the American people.”
RHODES: That‘s right.
MATTHEWS: Well, neither—well, those—do you think these things on your list of fears are imminent and real threats to the American people now—disarm the American people, detain the American people, martial law, concentration camps? Are those real or just scare tactics, sir?
RHODES: Those are real threats throughout society, you bet. Those are real threats throughout history, and our goal...
MATTHEWS: And you fear them?
RHODES: ... is to make sure they don‘t happen.
MATTHEWS: OK.RHODES: Yes. Wouldn‘t you fear them?
MATTHEWS: OK. Fair enough. Thank you, Stewart Rhodes. Thanks for coming on HARDBALL. I‘m not agreeing with you...
RHODES: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: ... but I‘m agreeing with your right to say anything.
Thank you, Mark Potok, as always, sir.
Coming up: Which political party will gain the most if Wall Street cleans up? Well, “if”? Excuse me. If? They‘re cleaning up. We‘ll ask “New York Times” reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin about the whole question.
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
March On DC September 11, 2010.
I know that they exist, I know that they believe earnestly that they stand for the protection of the Constitution and freedom for the people. Chris Mathews [Hardball] next Thursday will be discussing the extreme right of the Tea Party. Is this organization too militant for the grass roots Tea Party, is this movement something ordinary people would want to get involved with.......
We are proud to announce that Oath Keepers will be a co-sponsor for the March On DC September 11, 2010. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes is also on the planning board for the march and will speak at the event. This march is expected to draw well over a million patriotic Americans of all parties, from all parts of this nation, gathered together to defend our Constitution and to honor those who have given their all for liberty. Oath Keepers is proud to take part in this non-partisan event. As the official press release says “This year we simply refuse to provide a platform for anyone who wishes to bash the other party. Both [major] parties must accept responsibility for the state of our union.” Amen.
During the march, Oath Keepers will conduct a massive oath ceremony where those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution can renew that oath, and those citizens who have not yet sworn the oath can do so for the first time, standing shoulder to shoulder on the national mall with military, police, fire-fighters, veterans, and their fellow citizens from all walks of life. We will then demand that our elected public servants HONOR THEIR OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, making it clear that if they don’t we will kick them out of our house in November! As our numbers grow, we urge ALL Oath Keepers to attend this historic March On DC and let the world know that further violation of our Constitution by politicians will not be tolerated…or in our own words “NOT ON OUR WATCH!!”
Below is the press release from the official site at www.marchondc.org
PRESS RELEASE
The September 2010 March On DC
Washington, DC. On January 29, 2010 a national board of advisors, consisting of members from some of the country’s largest independent grassroots conservative minded organizations participated in a roundtable conference to plan for the September 2010 events to be held on Capitol Hill, Washington DC.
Despite rumors and speculation concerning fragmentation within the conservative movement, many national leaders have united for a common cause. While few can logically deny that the September 12th 2009 “Taxpayers March on DC” was a huge success, organizers for the 2010 event are redesigning the format, planning early and this year they promise to deliver a message to Washington DC that both houses of Congress and the Administration, Democrat, Republican or Independent, will not be able to ignore.
In a statement released by one board member on Saturday, January 30th, the message was pretty clear, “We the people are taking our country back, one seat at a time. Republicans, Democrats and Independents will stand united to make one very clear statement. “Change your ways or get out of our house.” If our representatives choose to continue to conduct business as usual, we the people will conduct our business. Working tirelessly to see they are voted out of office in November”.
A spokesman for the group stated that “With the November 2nd elections just 7 weeks from the September 2010 event, the timing could not be better. Once again Americans from every corner of the nation will unite on Capitol Hill for a nonpartisan march and rally. This year there will be no doubt this is a “We the People, For the People, By the People” event. Not one dime will be accepted from corporate sponsors, PAC’s, political parties or political organizations. All of our board members have a complete understanding that they will not receive any remuneration for their services.”
“The speakers for the 2010 event will consist primarily of everyday American citizens without regard to their political party. The message will be one of Unity, Government Reform, the Constitution as well as the upcoming November elections. All speakers will have to be approved by the board with a majority vote and no one will be paid to speak or appear. This year we simply refuse to provide a platform for anyone who wishes to bash the other party. Both parties must accept responsibility for the state of our union”.
“Our intent is to have representation from every state and all will be involved in the decision making process. Our focus is not on any particular groups or organizations but rather on individual leadership abilities, unity and cooperation. We will welcome the participation of all of the November Candidates and will be providing them with a unique opportunity to speak directly to their constituents at pre-determined locations throughout Washington DC.”
The 2010 Event will take place from the 9th – 12th of September. The “official” web site for the event will be located at www.MARCHONDC.org. We will be working very closely with all of the media this year and welcome their presence. The official name of the “Event” will be released in the next press release.
During the march, Oath Keepers will conduct a massive oath ceremony where those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution can renew that oath, and those citizens who have not yet sworn the oath can do so for the first time, standing shoulder to shoulder on the national mall with military, police, fire-fighters, veterans, and their fellow citizens from all walks of life. We will then demand that our elected public servants HONOR THEIR OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, making it clear that if they don’t we will kick them out of our house in November! As our numbers grow, we urge ALL Oath Keepers to attend this historic March On DC and let the world know that further violation of our Constitution by politicians will not be tolerated…or in our own words “NOT ON OUR WATCH!!”
Below is the press release from the official site at www.marchondc.org
PRESS RELEASE
The September 2010 March On DC
Washington, DC. On January 29, 2010 a national board of advisors, consisting of members from some of the country’s largest independent grassroots conservative minded organizations participated in a roundtable conference to plan for the September 2010 events to be held on Capitol Hill, Washington DC.
Despite rumors and speculation concerning fragmentation within the conservative movement, many national leaders have united for a common cause. While few can logically deny that the September 12th 2009 “Taxpayers March on DC” was a huge success, organizers for the 2010 event are redesigning the format, planning early and this year they promise to deliver a message to Washington DC that both houses of Congress and the Administration, Democrat, Republican or Independent, will not be able to ignore.
In a statement released by one board member on Saturday, January 30th, the message was pretty clear, “We the people are taking our country back, one seat at a time. Republicans, Democrats and Independents will stand united to make one very clear statement. “Change your ways or get out of our house.” If our representatives choose to continue to conduct business as usual, we the people will conduct our business. Working tirelessly to see they are voted out of office in November”.
A spokesman for the group stated that “With the November 2nd elections just 7 weeks from the September 2010 event, the timing could not be better. Once again Americans from every corner of the nation will unite on Capitol Hill for a nonpartisan march and rally. This year there will be no doubt this is a “We the People, For the People, By the People” event. Not one dime will be accepted from corporate sponsors, PAC’s, political parties or political organizations. All of our board members have a complete understanding that they will not receive any remuneration for their services.”
“The speakers for the 2010 event will consist primarily of everyday American citizens without regard to their political party. The message will be one of Unity, Government Reform, the Constitution as well as the upcoming November elections. All speakers will have to be approved by the board with a majority vote and no one will be paid to speak or appear. This year we simply refuse to provide a platform for anyone who wishes to bash the other party. Both parties must accept responsibility for the state of our union”.
“Our intent is to have representation from every state and all will be involved in the decision making process. Our focus is not on any particular groups or organizations but rather on individual leadership abilities, unity and cooperation. We will welcome the participation of all of the November Candidates and will be providing them with a unique opportunity to speak directly to their constituents at pre-determined locations throughout Washington DC.”
The 2010 Event will take place from the 9th – 12th of September. The “official” web site for the event will be located at www.MARCHONDC.org. We will be working very closely with all of the media this year and welcome their presence. The official name of the “Event” will be released in the next press release.
Oath Keepers
Orders We Will Not Obey
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” -- Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”
Harry Reid vs. the Oath Keeper Wanna-Be
The Nevada Democrat's new opponent reaches out to a group preparing to resist federal tyranny.
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 11:51 PM PDT
Oath Keepers, which recruits soldiers and police to resist federal "tyranny," has become a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement.
Sharron Angle won yesterday's primary to become Nevada's Republican candidate for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat. She may have never advocated bartering for health care with chickens [1], as her opponent Sue Lowden did, but Angle already has some issues. Beyond embracing the Tea Party, she's also reached out to the Oath Keepers [2], the fringe patriot group whose core membership of cops and soldiers are gearing up to resist the Obama administration's anticipated slide toward outright tyranny.
Back in April, Angle told TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro that she was a member of the Oath Keepers [3]. This Monday, Angle's husband Ted told TPM [4]'s McMorris-Santoro and Justin Elliott that "We support what the organization stands for" and that he and his wife "desire" to join it. Oath Keeper founder Steward Rhodes said that candidate Angle had paid a visit to the group's Southern Nevada chapter last fall.
For the full scoop on the Oath Keepers and what they stand for, check out the in-depth investigation [5] MoJo published about them this spring. In it, Justine Sharrock profiles Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray, a young soldier who joined the group to prepare for the day when he might have to turn against his commander-in-chief to resist martial law and the mass detention of American citizens. Pray told Sharrock that he'd been recruiting buddies, running drills, and stashing weapons—just in case. Like all Oath Keepers, he's sworn to disobey any orders he considers unconstiutional or illegal.
Back in April, Angle told TPM's Evan McMorris-Santoro that she was a member of the Oath Keepers [3]. This Monday, Angle's husband Ted told TPM [4]'s McMorris-Santoro and Justin Elliott that "We support what the organization stands for" and that he and his wife "desire" to join it. Oath Keeper founder Steward Rhodes said that candidate Angle had paid a visit to the group's Southern Nevada chapter last fall.
For the full scoop on the Oath Keepers and what they stand for, check out the in-depth investigation [5] MoJo published about them this spring. In it, Justine Sharrock profiles Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray, a young soldier who joined the group to prepare for the day when he might have to turn against his commander-in-chief to resist martial law and the mass detention of American citizens. Pray told Sharrock that he'd been recruiting buddies, running drills, and stashing weapons—just in case. Like all Oath Keepers, he's sworn to disobey any orders he considers unconstiutional or illegal.
Angle's not the group's only high-profile ally. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and conspiracy guru Alex Jones have praised it, and last year it helped organize the National Liberty Unity Summit [6], a Tea Party-type confab that drew Georigia Republicans Rep. Phil Gingrey and Rep. Paul Broun. Since she's not an active duty police officer or soldier, Angle can't actually become a full-on Oath Keeper. But she already seems to have the rhetoric down. As she told the Reno Gazette-Journal [7] last week, she's noticed that ammo seems to be flying off the shelves at sporting goods stores: "That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?...If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"
Continue to the Next Photo [1]
Glenn Beck loves them. Congressmen listen to them. How the Oath Keepers are mainstreaming the militia movement.
| Mon Feb. 22, 2010 4:46 AM PST
The Tea Party's Military Wing
Oath Keepers, which recruits soldiers and police to resist federal "tyranny," has become a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement.
Continue to the Next Photo [1]
For our March/April 2010 issue [2], reporter Justine Sharrock [3] got up close and personal [4] with Oath Keepers [5], a fast-growing "patriot" group that recruits active-duty soldiers, police, and veterans to resist what its members consider an increasingly tyrannical government. Members reaffirm their service oath to uphold the Constitution and further vow to disobey any orders they deem illegal or unconstitutional. Unveiled last April, the group has already established itself as a hub within the larger anti-Obama movement [6], attracting a wide range of followers from politicians to Tea Partiers to militia enthusiasts—not to mention alienated soldiers like Private 1st Class Lee Pray, above. The group has also drawn praise from a who's who of right-wing cable hosts [7] including Glenn Beck. (Bill O'Reilly [8] proved a tougher audience.) In this slideshow, we look more closely at some of the group's connections.
U.S. Baptist Convicted in Haiti, but Free To Go May 17, 2010
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, May 17, 2010
-
U.S. missionary Laura Silsby leaves a courthouse in Port-au-Prince, Monday, May 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)
Missionary Laura Silsby Convicted of Trying to Take 33 Kids out of Haiti following Quake But Is Credited with Time Served
AP) The last of 10 Americans detained while trying to take 33 children out of Haiti following the Jan. 12 earthquake was released Monday after a judge convicted her and sentenced her to the time she had already served in jail.
Laura Silsby, the organizer of the ill-fated effort to take the children to an orphanage being set up in the Dominican Republic, returned to her jail cell briefly to retrieve belongings before quickly heading to the Port-au-Prince airport.
"I'm praising God," Silsby told The Associated Press as she waited for a flight out of Haiti. She declined further questions.
The Idaho businesswoman had been in custody since Jan. 29. She was originally charged with kidnapping and criminal association. Those charges were dropped and she was convicted of arranging illegal travel under a 1980 statute restricting movement out of Haiti signed by then-dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.
Prosecutor Jean-Serge Joseph said she was convicted and sentenced to the 3 months and 8 days she has spent behind bars. Earlier, the prosecution had recommended a six-month sentence and she faced a maximum of three years on the charge.
"She is free," Joseph said.
The 40-year-old Silsby told the court earlier she thought the children were orphans whose homes were destroyed in the earthquake. But she lacked the proper papers to remove them from the country at a time when the government was restricting adoptions to prevent child trafficking in the chaos that followed the earthquake.
An AP investigation later revealed all the children had at least one living parent, who had turned their children over to the group in hopes of securing better lives for them.
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, May 13, 2010
Jail Time Sought for U.S. Missionary in Haiti
Prosecutor Says Woman Charged in Effort to Smuggle 33 Children Out of Country Should Serve Six Months
-
Laura Silsby of Meridian, Idaho, leader of the missionary group, is still being held in Haiti. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)
(AP) A U.S. missionary should spend six months in prison for her failed attempt to remove 33 children from Haiti following the Jan. 12 earthquake, a prosecutor said Thursday on the first day of her trial.
Prosecutor Sonel Jean-Francois told the court that Laura Silsby knew she was breaking the law by trying to take the children without proper documents to an orphanage she was starting in the neighboring Dominican Republic.
"Laura recognized she violated the law," Jean-Francois said as lawyers and a small group of spectators crowded into a a stiflingly hot tent in the parking lot of the quake-damaged courthouse.
He spoke after the Idaho woman testified. Silsby, who was leader of a group of Baptists detained by authorities, was the only person to testify on the first day of the trial. She spent much of the rest of the session reading the Bible.
The 40-year-old businesswoman told the court she thought the children were orphans whose homes were destroyed in the earthquake. As it turned out, all the children had at least one living parent, who had turned their children over to the group in hopes of securing better lives for them.
"One week after the earthquake I left my family and my home to help children that had been orphaned in the earthquake," Silsby said. "We came here with a heart to help."
Silsby was originally charged with kidnapping and criminal association. She now faces one count of arranging illegal travel under a 1980 statute restricting travel out of Haiti signed by then-dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.
A six-month sentence is the minimum jail time recommended under the law. She would receive credit for time served if convicted and sentenced to prison, prosecutors told The Associated Press.
Silsby has been in custody since Jan. 29, when she and nine other Americans were detained at the Dominican border. The other missionaries have all been released and charges against them dismissed.
A defense request for her to be released immediately was denied.
Prosecutors also asked for six months in prison for Jean Sainvil, an Atlanta-based pastor born in Haiti who allegedly helped find the children for the missionaries. He is not in Haiti and is being tried in absentia.
The next session of the trial is expected next week.
The Americans' arrest came as the Haitian government was trying to control adoptions to prevent the trafficking of children after the earthquake, which killed a government-estimated 230,000 to 300,000 people and left some 1.3 million homeless.
Silsby sat quietly through Thursday's proceedings, dressed in a black shirt and denim skirt, while her Haitian lawyers argued with the prosecution. Hers was the only foreign face in the room other than AP journalists. Three men arrested for other crimes sat behind her in handcuffs.
The argument came down to a simple point on both sides:
Prosecutors said she knowingly took children to the border without papers.
"If the United States had an earthquake, that would not give you the right to take children," Jean-Francois said.
The defense responded in an often rambling address that Silsby was trying to help earthquake survivors under societal breakdown, with bodies in the street and government ministries destroyed.
"Why take the chance away from Haitian kids to have an opportunity for a better life?" asked lawyer Jean-Rene Tesir.
Silsby's testimony came early in the trial, given as she stood beside the desk of Judge Denis Cyprien. She spoke calmly in a low voice, choking back tears when she talked about the children she tried to transport, as a clerk rang a tin bell for order.
She identified her occupation as "manager of an orphanage," referring to the institution she had hoped to create in the northern Dominican Republic. There are no kids there; the children she tried to transport have been returned to their parents.
Sometimes Silsby spoke so quietly that the translator couldn't hear her. After she muttered her address twice, he shrugged and said in Creole to the clerk transcribing proceedings by hand, "somewhere in the United States."
In another strange moment he translated a judge's question as "Did you appreciate being arrested?"
The missionary told the judge that she met the children for the first time in front of a flattened building and described being turned away from closed government ministries in her attempt to get them documents.
"They said there was nobody there to help me," Silsby said.
Jack Abramoff has left prison
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
06/08/10 2:00 PM EDT
 |
Former Washington lobbyist, Jack Abramoff (L), walks to a court building with his attorney, Abbe Lowell (C), after his sentencing at the Miami Federal Court House March 29, 2006 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Carlo Allegri/Getty Images) |
That means that he has been moved from the Federal Correctional Institution at Cumberland (Md.), and as I write this, he is in an Federal Bureau of Prisons car, van, or bus. According to the National Journal, he’s headed to a halfway house in Baltimore to serve out the remainder of his sentence, which ends December 4.
U.N. Approves New Sanctions Against Iran
UNITED NATIONS, June 9, 2010
The U.N. Security Council has approved new sanctions against Iran over its suspect nuclear program that target the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard, ballistic missiles, and nuclear-related investments.
President Obama welcomed the new sanctions, saying it sends an "unmistakable message" to Tehran.
Mr. Obama called them the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government, even though the final version was not as tough as what his administration initially proposed.
Speaking at the White House shortly after the U.N. vote, Mr. Obama said that Iranian leaders continue to "hide behind outlandish rhetoric" while moving ahead with "deeply troubling" steps on a path toward nuclear weapons.
With Middle East tension high and Iran at the center of the storm, the Obama administration successfully got China and Russia to back the new sanctions resolution, the U.N.'s fourth since 2006, CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk reports.
“Iran is high on President Obama's agenda for good reasons: Iran's Red Crescent Society announced this week that a 3,000 ton vessel is heading soon for Gaza; International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors reported that Iran has enough nuclear fuel, if enriched, for two nuclear weapons, and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in London, said the U.S. has not lost the ability to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but the clock is ticking,” Falk said.
The resolution imposing the latest sanctions against Iran was approved Wednesday with 12 "yes" votes, two "no" votes from Brazil and Turkey, and one abstention from Lebanon.
Before the vote, Turkey and Brazil, both non-permanent council members, brokered a fuel-swap agreement with Iran which they hoped would address concerns Tehran may be enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and avoid new sanctions.
Diplomats said the United States, Russia and France rejected that agreement hours before approving the new sanctions.
Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee defended the country's right to produce nuclear energy and accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.
"No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation's determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights," Khazaee said. "Iran is one of the most powerful and stable countries in the region and never bowed - and will never bow - to the hostile actions and pressures by these few powers and will continue to defend its rights."
"These sanctions are as tough as they are smart and precise," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said after the vote, dismissing Khazaee's statement as "ridiculous" and "reprehensible."
"Today the Security Council has responded decisively to the grave threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Rice said after the vote, CBS Radio News reports.
In Tehran, one man told CBS Radio News the sanctions won't make a difference.
"We have been sanctioned for the last 30 years, and it had not had an effect on Iran and it will not have any effect on Iran in the future," the man said. "We are determined to become the eighth nation in the world for peaceful energy activities, and therefore it makes us more determined to follow our goal."
Immediately after the Security Council vote, the White House released a statement saying, "The United States remains open to dialogue, but Iran must live up to its obligations and clearly demonstrate to the international community the peaceful nature of its nuclear activities."
Mr. Obama said the United States "will ensure that these sanctions are vigorously enforced."
"These sanctions show the united view of the international community that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is in nobody's interest," Mr. Obama said at the White House. "The Iranian government must understand that true security will not come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons. True security will come through adherence to international law and demonstration of peaceful intent."
Brazil and Turkey delayed the sanctions vote by an hour because the representatives for both countries were waiting for word from their foreign ministries on whether to vote for or against, Falk reports.
Brazil and Turkey, in voting against sanctions, complained that the proposal for Iran to export low-grade uranium was not given its due and that the sanctions resolution was negotiated behind closed doors, Falk reports.
Brazil's U.N. Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said sanctions would lead to "suffering" by the Iranian people, delay dialogue on the country's nuclear program, and run contrary to Brazil and Turkey's efforts to engage Tehran.
The Security Council imposed limited sanctions in December 2006 and has been ratcheting them up in hopes of pressuring Iran to suspend enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program. The first two resolutions were adopted unanimously and the third by a vote of 14-0 with Indonesia abstaining.
Iran has repeatedly defied the demand and has stepped up its activities, enriching uranium to 20 percent and announcing plans to build new nuclear facilities. Tehran insists its program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy.
The U.S. and its allies believe Iran's real aim is to produce nuclear weapons and want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and start negotiations on it nuclear program.
The new resolution bans Iran from pursuing "any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons," bars Iranian investment in activities such as uranium mining, and prohibits Iran from buying several categories of heavy weapons including attack helicopters and missiles.
It imposes new sanctions on 40 Iranian companies and organizations - 15 linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, 22 involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and three linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. That more than doubles the 35 entities now subject to an asset freeze.
The resolution also adds one individual to the previous list of 40 Iranians subject to an asset freeze - Javad Rahiqi who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran's Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center. Under its provisions, all 41 individuals are now also subject to a travel ban.
The resolution also calls on all countries to cooperate in cargo inspections - which must receive the consent of the ship's flag state - if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the cargo could contribute to Iranian nuclear program.
On the financial side, it calls on - but does not require - countries to block financial transactions, including insurance and reinsurance, and to ban the licensing of Iranian banks if they have information that provides "reasonable grounds" to believe these activities could contribute to Iranian nuclear activities.
China and Russia have strong economic ties with Iran and last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying in Beijing that the resolution would protect the economic interests of both countries.
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said after the vote that the sanctions were aimed at curbing nonproliferation and would not affect "the normal life of the Iranian people" nor deter their normal trade activity.
The new resolution was hammered out during several months of difficult negotiations by the five veto-wielding permanent council members - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - and nonmember Germany who have been trying for several years to get Iran into serious discussions on its nuclear ambitions.
The five permanent council members, in a statement after the vote, stressed that the resolution "keeps the door open for early engagement" with Iran. It welcomed and commended "all diplomatic efforts, especially those by Brazil and Turkey."
But in Vienna, three diplomats said the U.S., Russia and France dismissed Iran's proposal to swap some of its enriched uranium for fuel for a research reactor in Tehran which was brokered by Brazil and Turkey.
The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the replies were private, said they contain a series of questions that in effect stall any negotiations on the issue and present Tehran with indirect demands that it is not ready to meet.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed receipt of the three-nation response and said it would be passed on to Tehran.
The U.S., Russia and France have said that - unlike the original plan drawn up eight months ago - the swap proposal would leave Iran with enough material to make a nuclear weapon.
A European Union statement also criticized Iran for stonewalling attempts to probe its nuclear activities and refusing to heed U.N. Security Council demands for a freeze on enrichment, which can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.
But his Iranian counterpart, Ali Asghar Soltanieh told the meeting that "illegal resolutions" by the council will not stop his country from exercising its "legitimate right to develop its nuclear program."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Calls Fourth Round of Sanctions Against Country Toughest Ever
-
President Obama makes a statement about Iran June 9, 2010, in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (AP Photo)
The U.N. Security Council has approved new sanctions against Iran over its suspect nuclear program that target the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard, ballistic missiles, and nuclear-related investments.
President Obama welcomed the new sanctions, saying it sends an "unmistakable message" to Tehran.
Mr. Obama called them the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government, even though the final version was not as tough as what his administration initially proposed.
Speaking at the White House shortly after the U.N. vote, Mr. Obama said that Iranian leaders continue to "hide behind outlandish rhetoric" while moving ahead with "deeply troubling" steps on a path toward nuclear weapons.
With Middle East tension high and Iran at the center of the storm, the Obama administration successfully got China and Russia to back the new sanctions resolution, the U.N.'s fourth since 2006, CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk reports.
“Iran is high on President Obama's agenda for good reasons: Iran's Red Crescent Society announced this week that a 3,000 ton vessel is heading soon for Gaza; International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors reported that Iran has enough nuclear fuel, if enriched, for two nuclear weapons, and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in London, said the U.S. has not lost the ability to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but the clock is ticking,” Falk said.
The resolution imposing the latest sanctions against Iran was approved Wednesday with 12 "yes" votes, two "no" votes from Brazil and Turkey, and one abstention from Lebanon.
Before the vote, Turkey and Brazil, both non-permanent council members, brokered a fuel-swap agreement with Iran which they hoped would address concerns Tehran may be enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and avoid new sanctions.
Diplomats said the United States, Russia and France rejected that agreement hours before approving the new sanctions.
Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee defended the country's right to produce nuclear energy and accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.
"No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation's determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights," Khazaee said. "Iran is one of the most powerful and stable countries in the region and never bowed - and will never bow - to the hostile actions and pressures by these few powers and will continue to defend its rights."
"These sanctions are as tough as they are smart and precise," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said after the vote, dismissing Khazaee's statement as "ridiculous" and "reprehensible."
"Today the Security Council has responded decisively to the grave threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Rice said after the vote, CBS Radio News reports.
In Tehran, one man told CBS Radio News the sanctions won't make a difference.
"We have been sanctioned for the last 30 years, and it had not had an effect on Iran and it will not have any effect on Iran in the future," the man said. "We are determined to become the eighth nation in the world for peaceful energy activities, and therefore it makes us more determined to follow our goal."
Immediately after the Security Council vote, the White House released a statement saying, "The United States remains open to dialogue, but Iran must live up to its obligations and clearly demonstrate to the international community the peaceful nature of its nuclear activities."
Mr. Obama said the United States "will ensure that these sanctions are vigorously enforced."
"These sanctions show the united view of the international community that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is in nobody's interest," Mr. Obama said at the White House. "The Iranian government must understand that true security will not come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons. True security will come through adherence to international law and demonstration of peaceful intent."
Brazil and Turkey delayed the sanctions vote by an hour because the representatives for both countries were waiting for word from their foreign ministries on whether to vote for or against, Falk reports.
Brazil and Turkey, in voting against sanctions, complained that the proposal for Iran to export low-grade uranium was not given its due and that the sanctions resolution was negotiated behind closed doors, Falk reports.
Brazil's U.N. Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said sanctions would lead to "suffering" by the Iranian people, delay dialogue on the country's nuclear program, and run contrary to Brazil and Turkey's efforts to engage Tehran.
The Security Council imposed limited sanctions in December 2006 and has been ratcheting them up in hopes of pressuring Iran to suspend enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program. The first two resolutions were adopted unanimously and the third by a vote of 14-0 with Indonesia abstaining.
Iran has repeatedly defied the demand and has stepped up its activities, enriching uranium to 20 percent and announcing plans to build new nuclear facilities. Tehran insists its program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy.
The U.S. and its allies believe Iran's real aim is to produce nuclear weapons and want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and start negotiations on it nuclear program.
The new resolution bans Iran from pursuing "any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons," bars Iranian investment in activities such as uranium mining, and prohibits Iran from buying several categories of heavy weapons including attack helicopters and missiles.
It imposes new sanctions on 40 Iranian companies and organizations - 15 linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, 22 involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and three linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. That more than doubles the 35 entities now subject to an asset freeze.
The resolution also adds one individual to the previous list of 40 Iranians subject to an asset freeze - Javad Rahiqi who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran's Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center. Under its provisions, all 41 individuals are now also subject to a travel ban.
The resolution also calls on all countries to cooperate in cargo inspections - which must receive the consent of the ship's flag state - if there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the cargo could contribute to Iranian nuclear program.
On the financial side, it calls on - but does not require - countries to block financial transactions, including insurance and reinsurance, and to ban the licensing of Iranian banks if they have information that provides "reasonable grounds" to believe these activities could contribute to Iranian nuclear activities.
China and Russia have strong economic ties with Iran and last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying in Beijing that the resolution would protect the economic interests of both countries.
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said after the vote that the sanctions were aimed at curbing nonproliferation and would not affect "the normal life of the Iranian people" nor deter their normal trade activity.
The new resolution was hammered out during several months of difficult negotiations by the five veto-wielding permanent council members - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - and nonmember Germany who have been trying for several years to get Iran into serious discussions on its nuclear ambitions.
The five permanent council members, in a statement after the vote, stressed that the resolution "keeps the door open for early engagement" with Iran. It welcomed and commended "all diplomatic efforts, especially those by Brazil and Turkey."
But in Vienna, three diplomats said the U.S., Russia and France dismissed Iran's proposal to swap some of its enriched uranium for fuel for a research reactor in Tehran which was brokered by Brazil and Turkey.
The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the replies were private, said they contain a series of questions that in effect stall any negotiations on the issue and present Tehran with indirect demands that it is not ready to meet.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed receipt of the three-nation response and said it would be passed on to Tehran.
The U.S., Russia and France have said that - unlike the original plan drawn up eight months ago - the swap proposal would leave Iran with enough material to make a nuclear weapon.
A European Union statement also criticized Iran for stonewalling attempts to probe its nuclear activities and refusing to heed U.N. Security Council demands for a freeze on enrichment, which can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.
But his Iranian counterpart, Ali Asghar Soltanieh told the meeting that "illegal resolutions" by the council will not stop his country from exercising its "legitimate right to develop its nuclear program."
U.N. Hits Iran with New Sanctions over Nuclear Program
CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk filed this post from the United Nations Headquarters in New York.
The U.N. Security Council Wednesday voted -- although not unanimously -- for a tough new resolution to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Iran because of its defiance of international demands to freeze its nuclear program, with Brazil and Turkey voting against it and Lebanon abstaining.
With Middle East tension high and Iran at the center of the storm, the Obama administration successfully got China and Russia to back a new U.N. Security Council resolution, which increases the cost to Iran of purchasing banned weapons.
Iran is high on President Obama's agenda for good reasons: Iran's Red Crescent Society announced this week that a 3,000 ton vessel is heading soon for Gaza; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors reported that Iran has enough nuclear fuel, if enriched, for two nuclear weapons, and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in London, said the U.S. has not lost the ability to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but the clock is ticking.
U.N. Approves New Sanctions Against Iran
Iran U.N. Sanctions Push: Timing is Everything
Delayed by an hour by Brazil and Turkey waiting for word from their foreign ministries on whether to vote for or against, both countries in voting against the resolution complained that the so-called Tehran proposal for Iran to export low-grade uranium was not given its due and that the resolution was negotiated behind closed doors.
U.K. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said Wednesday's sanctions resolution was passed because of Iran's defiance and its refusal to respond to its international obligations.
The new sanctions -- which U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said will be the toughest ever adopted -- was passed with 12 votes in favor with Brazil and Turkey against and Lebanon abstaining.
Prior to the vote, Iran threatened to withdraw the offer to export some of its uranium under a deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey because the new resolution proposes tough new enforceable sanctions, including financial restrictions on Iranian banks, Iranian businesses and on individual members of the powerful military force, the Revolutionary Guard, and it bans Iranian purchase of certain missiles, combat aircraft and warships.
Marines Honor the Fallen on Memorial Day
I Marine Expeditionary Force (Fwd)
Photo by Sgt. Heidi Agostini
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:04
Photo ID: 284806
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-005
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:04
Photo ID: 284806
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-005
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:04
Photo ID: 284807
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-010
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:05
Photo ID: 284808
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-013
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:05
Photo ID: 284809
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-006
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
The firing detail fires off rounds in honor of the fallen May 31 at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan. The I Marine Expeditionary Force (Fwd) held a Memorial Day ceremony to remember all war dead, to include the 15 Marines and one Sailor who have died since the transfer of authority.
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:05
Photo ID: 284810
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-012
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Marines pay tribute to fallen Sailors and Marines following the I Marine Expeditionary Force (Fwd) Memorial Day ceremony at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan, May 31. Fifteen Marines and one Sailor have died since the I MEF (Fwd) transfer of authority.
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:05
Photo ID: 284814
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-009
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Date: 05.31.2010
Posted: 05.31.2010 12:05
Photo ID: 284815
VIRIN: 100531-M-0944A-001
Location: Camp Leatherneck, AF
Sgt. Seah Donohoe, I Marine Expeditionary Force (Fwd) prepares to hoist the colors May 31 at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan.
Obama to make fourth Gulf trip next week with two-day visit
- 06/08/10 05:40 PM ET
President Barack Obama will next week make his fourth visit to the Gulf Coast since the massive BP oil spill began in April, the White House said.
Obama was in Louisiana last week, where he warned oil giant BP against “nickel and diming” Gulf Coast residents when it comes to paying out damages claims.
Obama has been to Louisiana three times since the spill. But next week’s two-day visit — on Monday, June 14 and Tuesday, June 15 — will take the him to Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to “further assess the latest efforts to counter the BP oil spill,” the White House said.
Obama was in Louisiana last week, where he warned oil giant BP against “nickel and diming” Gulf Coast residents when it comes to paying out damages claims.
Obama has been to Louisiana three times since the spill. But next week’s two-day visit — on Monday, June 14 and Tuesday, June 15 — will take the him to Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to “further assess the latest efforts to counter the BP oil spill,” the White House said.
Who Is Alvin Greene?
MoJo talks to the candidate who came from nowhere—with no website, no signs, and no campaign funds—to win the Democratic Senate primary in South Carolina.
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 7:59 PM PDT
An unemployed 32-year-old black Army veteran with no campaign funds, no signs, and no website shocked South Carolina on Tuesday night by winning [1] the Democratic Senate primary to oppose Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). Alvin Greene, who currently lives in his family's home, defeated Vic Rawl, a former judge and state legislator who had a $186,000 campaign warchest and had already planned his next fundraising event. Despite the odds, Greene, who has been unemployed for the past nine months, said that he wasn't surprised by his victory. "I wasn’t surprised, but not really. I mean, just a little, but not much. I knew I was on top of my campaign, and just stayed on top of everything, I just—I wasn't surprised that much, just a little. I knew that I worked hard and did," Greene said in an interview.
Greene insists that he paid the $10,400 filing fee and all other campaign expenses from his own personal funds. "It was 100 percent out of my pocket. I’m self-managed. It’s hard work, and just getting my message to supporters. I funded my campaign 100 percent out of my pocket and self-managed," said Greene, who sounded anxious and unprepared to speak to the public. But despite his lack of election funds, Greene claims to have criss-crossed the state during his campaign—though he declined to specify any of the towns or places he visited or say how much money he spent while on the road.
"It wasn’t much, I mean, just, it was—it wasn’t much. Not much, I mean, it wasn’t much," he said, when asked how much of his own money he spent in the primary. Greene frequently spoke in rapid-fire, fragmentary sentences, repeating certain phrases or interrupting himself multiple times during the same sentence while he searched for the right words. But he was emphatic about certain aspects of his candidacy, insisting that details about his campaign organization, for instance, weren't relevant. "I'm not concentrating on how I was elected—it's history. I’m the Democratic nominee—we need to get talking about America back to work, what's going on, in America."
The oddity of Greene’s candidacy has already prompted speculation from local media [2] about whether he might be a Republican plant. But Greene denies that Republicans or anyone else had approached him about running. "No, no—no one approached me. This is my decision," he said. A 13-year military veteran, he says he had originally gotten the idea in 2008 when he was serving in Korea. "I just saw the country was in bad shape two years ago…the country was declining," he says. "I wanted to make sure we continue to go up on the right track." But when asked whether there was a specific person or circumstance that precipitated his decision to jump into politics, Greene simply replied: "nothing in particular...it's just, uh, nothing in particular." South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler speculated [1] that Greene won because his name appeared first on the ballot, and voters unfamiliar with both candidates chose alphabetically.
Greene has yet to speak to any Democratic officials, either. After filing to run, his campaign went dark. According to this report, [2] he didn’t show up to the South Carolina Democratic Party convention in April and didn't file any of the required paperwork for candidates with the state or Federal Election Commission. When I spoke to him, the state’s Democrats had yet to contact him after his victory was announced.
Greene insists that he's planning to work with state and national officials to ramp up his campaign and raise money "as soon as I can." And he plans on putting his unemployment at the center of his campaign. "I’m currently one of the many unemployed in the state and this country. South Carolina has more unemployed now than at any other time," Greene says. "My campaign slogan: Let's get South Carolina back to work." He adds that he would like to see "one Korea under a democracy."
Sen. DeMint, a Tea Party darling and leader of the GOP's far-right flank, wasn't expecting a competitive challenge this election cycle. But conservative activists are already thrilled to see the Democrats' hand-picked candidate go down in flames. “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,” tweeted [3] Tea Party activist and Redstate blogger Erick Erickson after finding out about Greene’s victory.
Greene offered no volleys against DeMint, and he seemed to have more questions than attack lines when it came to the Tea Party. "What's the Tea Party’s position on wars in the Middle East? …I want to know the Tea Party's position on the wars in the Middle East?" he asked. But Greene says that he's excited about the prospect of taking on DeMint in the public arena: "I'm looking forward to the debate this September." DeMint and his supporters are no doubt looking forward to it too.
Update: Via the AP [4], Greene is facing a felony charge for allegedly showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student.
First, Alvin Greene (who MoJo's Suzy Khimm interviewed [1] last night), shocked political observers by seemingly coming out of nowhere to win South Carolina's Democratic Senate primary. Now the unemployed vet has another surprise in store. Turns out, he's presently facing a felony rap for an incident that involved Internet porn and a University of South Carolina co-ed. Via the AP [2]:
Court records show 32-year-old Alvin Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. The felony charge carries up to five years in prison.
Greene said he had no comment when asked about the charge Wednesday and hung up on a reporter. The unemployed veteran posted bond after his arrest. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.
Records indicate Greene showed photos to a woman and talked about going to her room at a university dorm.
Greene insists that he paid the $10,400 filing fee and all other campaign expenses from his own personal funds. "It was 100 percent out of my pocket. I’m self-managed. It’s hard work, and just getting my message to supporters. I funded my campaign 100 percent out of my pocket and self-managed," said Greene, who sounded anxious and unprepared to speak to the public. But despite his lack of election funds, Greene claims to have criss-crossed the state during his campaign—though he declined to specify any of the towns or places he visited or say how much money he spent while on the road.
"It wasn’t much, I mean, just, it was—it wasn’t much. Not much, I mean, it wasn’t much," he said, when asked how much of his own money he spent in the primary. Greene frequently spoke in rapid-fire, fragmentary sentences, repeating certain phrases or interrupting himself multiple times during the same sentence while he searched for the right words. But he was emphatic about certain aspects of his candidacy, insisting that details about his campaign organization, for instance, weren't relevant. "I'm not concentrating on how I was elected—it's history. I’m the Democratic nominee—we need to get talking about America back to work, what's going on, in America."
The oddity of Greene’s candidacy has already prompted speculation from local media [2] about whether he might be a Republican plant. But Greene denies that Republicans or anyone else had approached him about running. "No, no—no one approached me. This is my decision," he said. A 13-year military veteran, he says he had originally gotten the idea in 2008 when he was serving in Korea. "I just saw the country was in bad shape two years ago…the country was declining," he says. "I wanted to make sure we continue to go up on the right track." But when asked whether there was a specific person or circumstance that precipitated his decision to jump into politics, Greene simply replied: "nothing in particular...it's just, uh, nothing in particular." South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler speculated [1] that Greene won because his name appeared first on the ballot, and voters unfamiliar with both candidates chose alphabetically.
Greene has yet to speak to any Democratic officials, either. After filing to run, his campaign went dark. According to this report, [2] he didn’t show up to the South Carolina Democratic Party convention in April and didn't file any of the required paperwork for candidates with the state or Federal Election Commission. When I spoke to him, the state’s Democrats had yet to contact him after his victory was announced.
Greene insists that he's planning to work with state and national officials to ramp up his campaign and raise money "as soon as I can." And he plans on putting his unemployment at the center of his campaign. "I’m currently one of the many unemployed in the state and this country. South Carolina has more unemployed now than at any other time," Greene says. "My campaign slogan: Let's get South Carolina back to work." He adds that he would like to see "one Korea under a democracy."
Sen. DeMint, a Tea Party darling and leader of the GOP's far-right flank, wasn't expecting a competitive challenge this election cycle. But conservative activists are already thrilled to see the Democrats' hand-picked candidate go down in flames. “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,” tweeted [3] Tea Party activist and Redstate blogger Erick Erickson after finding out about Greene’s victory.
Greene offered no volleys against DeMint, and he seemed to have more questions than attack lines when it came to the Tea Party. "What's the Tea Party’s position on wars in the Middle East? …I want to know the Tea Party's position on the wars in the Middle East?" he asked. But Greene says that he's excited about the prospect of taking on DeMint in the public arena: "I'm looking forward to the debate this September." DeMint and his supporters are no doubt looking forward to it too.
Update: Via the AP [4], Greene is facing a felony charge for allegedly showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student.
AP: Alvin Greene Facing Felony Charge
| Wed Jun. 9, 2010 12:13 PM PDT
First, Alvin Greene (who MoJo's Suzy Khimm interviewed [1] last night), shocked political observers by seemingly coming out of nowhere to win South Carolina's Democratic Senate primary. Now the unemployed vet has another surprise in store. Turns out, he's presently facing a felony rap for an incident that involved Internet porn and a University of South Carolina co-ed. Via the AP [2]:
Court records show 32-year-old Alvin Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. The felony charge carries up to five years in prison.
Greene said he had no comment when asked about the charge Wednesday and hung up on a reporter. The unemployed veteran posted bond after his arrest. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.
Records indicate Greene showed photos to a woman and talked about going to her room at a university dorm.
Lincoln's Surprise Win—And the Tough Road Ahead
The Arkansas incumbent knocks off the Left's darling—but faces a battle heading into this fall.
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 8:27 PM PDT
Despite a barrage of attack ads from labor unions, opposition from the left, and dwindling momentum in recent weeks, Sen. Blanche Lincoln bucked the year’s anti-incumbent mood and won Arkansas' Democratic US Senate run-off election Tuesday night. She claimed 51 percent of votes, while her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, fell just short with 48 percent, according to an Associated Press projection. The odds were tilted in Halter’s favor, with Lincoln trailing by 4 points in a recent R2000/Daily Kos poll before tonight’s run-off.
So what’s behind Lincoln’s surprising win? For starters, scoring the endorsement of Bill Clinton, the rock star of Arkansas politics, turned out to be a big boost for Lincoln. It also stands as a reminder of how valuable the Clinton touch remains when it comes to election season.
Lincoln was also helped by her anti-Wall Street, populist blitz on financial reform. The Arkansas senator shocked many experts, colleagues, and the banking community by producing a last-minute, surprisingly tough proposal to crack down on derivatives, the tricky financial products that helped explode the economy—and which are a cash cow for big banks. Her measures to rein in derivatives trading and force the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of American to break off their lucrative derivatives trading operations have faced attacks from all sides—Republicans, fellow Democrats, the White House, banks—yet those proposals might still make it into the final bill that lands on Obama’s desk, especially now that she’s prevailed in her primary race.
Halter wasn't the only loser in this contest—labor unions threw serious campaign muscle behind him. Indeed, as our own Suzy Khimm reported [1], labor took full advantage of slackened campaign finance laws, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, to rally behind Halter. Unions deployed "express advocacy" ads—which urge viewers to vote specifically for or against a certain candidate—using their own general funds, something they couldn’t do a year ago. And even then, they couldn’t push their man over the top. As a senior White House official told Politico's Ben Smith on Tuesday night, "Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toiled on a pointless exercise...If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."
Not that the road ahead for Lincoln is easy. Her likely opponent this fall, Republican Rep. John Boozman, commands a 20-point lead in the latest poll by R2000/Daily Kos. Other polling has put Boozman ahead of Lincoln in a hypothetical fall matchup by anywhere from 17 points to 38 points. Which is to say, Lincoln’s got her work cut out for her in the next five months to translate her surprise victory tonight into reelection.
So what’s behind Lincoln’s surprising win? For starters, scoring the endorsement of Bill Clinton, the rock star of Arkansas politics, turned out to be a big boost for Lincoln. It also stands as a reminder of how valuable the Clinton touch remains when it comes to election season.
Lincoln was also helped by her anti-Wall Street, populist blitz on financial reform. The Arkansas senator shocked many experts, colleagues, and the banking community by producing a last-minute, surprisingly tough proposal to crack down on derivatives, the tricky financial products that helped explode the economy—and which are a cash cow for big banks. Her measures to rein in derivatives trading and force the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of American to break off their lucrative derivatives trading operations have faced attacks from all sides—Republicans, fellow Democrats, the White House, banks—yet those proposals might still make it into the final bill that lands on Obama’s desk, especially now that she’s prevailed in her primary race.
Halter wasn't the only loser in this contest—labor unions threw serious campaign muscle behind him. Indeed, as our own Suzy Khimm reported [1], labor took full advantage of slackened campaign finance laws, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, to rally behind Halter. Unions deployed "express advocacy" ads—which urge viewers to vote specifically for or against a certain candidate—using their own general funds, something they couldn’t do a year ago. And even then, they couldn’t push their man over the top. As a senior White House official told Politico's Ben Smith on Tuesday night, "Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toiled on a pointless exercise...If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."
Not that the road ahead for Lincoln is easy. Her likely opponent this fall, Republican Rep. John Boozman, commands a 20-point lead in the latest poll by R2000/Daily Kos. Other polling has put Boozman ahead of Lincoln in a hypothetical fall matchup by anywhere from 17 points to 38 points. Which is to say, Lincoln’s got her work cut out for her in the next five months to translate her surprise victory tonight into reelection.
Fiorina Wins: Will She Remain a Far-Right Tea Party Corporate Insider?
The ex-HP chief rebranded herself as a conservative outsider to win the primary. Will she have to rebrand again for November?
| Tue Jun. 8, 2010 9:15 PM PDT
With the BP oil spill, the nation is currently witnessing one of the worst acts of corporate negligence—or crime—in history. This eco-nightmare is occurring during a time of economic trouble triggered by brazen corporate malfeasance in the financial sector. So it might not be a good moment for a politician to be a CEO. Yet in California, Republican voters on Tuesday flocked to two self-financing ex-corporate honchos, selecting ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman to be the party’s gubernatorial candidate (to face onetime Democratic governor and current state Attorney General Jerry Brown) and picking ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina to be the party’s senatorial candidate (to take on Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer). Whitman might make some sense as a candidate, given that she left the corporate world with a solid reputation, having presided over massive growth that brought eBay from a company of 30 employees to one of 15,000 workers (though she engaged in controversial "spinning" [1] while a member of the board of Goldman Sachs.) Yet Carly Fiorina had a controversial, if not troubled [2] tenure, at HP. Which raises the question: what are Californian GOPers (and Sarah Palin) thinking?
Fiorina, a marketing and sales expert, took over HP in 1999, as the tech boom was ending. Her solution to the company's many problems at the time was engineering a $19 billion acquisition of Compaq—a move opposed by many HP stockholders and that ultimately was not widely regarded as a slam-dunk. On her watch, HP downsized and canned almost 18,000 employees—as Fiorina joined with other corporate execs to defend outsourcing and oppose measures that would limit this practice. After six years in the job, she was pushed out, but her departure was eased by a $21 million severance package. On the day she was dumped, the company's stock price went up 7 percent. CBS News technology analyst Larry Magin noted [3],
Fiorina, a marketing and sales expert, took over HP in 1999, as the tech boom was ending. Her solution to the company's many problems at the time was engineering a $19 billion acquisition of Compaq—a move opposed by many HP stockholders and that ultimately was not widely regarded as a slam-dunk. On her watch, HP downsized and canned almost 18,000 employees—as Fiorina joined with other corporate execs to defend outsourcing and oppose measures that would limit this practice. After six years in the job, she was pushed out, but her departure was eased by a $21 million severance package. On the day she was dumped, the company's stock price went up 7 percent. CBS News technology analyst Larry Magin noted [3],
There is plenty to criticize about Fiorina's tenure at HP. At this point, the changes that Fiorina made didn't turn out so well for the thousands of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq employees that were laid off and the millions of HP stockholders who lost equity since she took over. HP stock is worth less today than it was in 1999. Dell and IBM stock has increased in value.Fiorina ended up symbolizing not one but three excesses of the corporate elite: mergers-and-acquisition mania, outsourcing, and golden parachutes. Yet during the Republican Senate campaign, this former corporate insider re-marketed [4] herself as an anti-establishment Tea Partier, even though one of her foes in the primary contest, Assemblyman Chuck Devore [5], had a stronger claim on the Tea Party label. (Fiorina was helped in the who’s-the-Tea-Partiest-of-them-all competition when Palin endorsed her.)
It is possible that by aligning herself so closely with the Tea Partiers—as she spent large sums of her own money to win the nomination—Fiorina has diminished her chances of clearing out Boxer. Fiorina has campaigned as a diehard conservative, but in the Golden State, far-right GOPers often do not win statewide contests. (Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a national voice for climate change action; Fiorina recently released a demagogic ad [6] blasting Boxer’s concern about climate change, comparing it to worrying about the weather.) Fiorina has so far played according to the basic rule of politics: in the primary, cater to the base, then in the general election move toward the center. But having veered so far to the right—she ran as a pro-lifer—she has plenty of ground to cover to reach the middle. Boxer, always a feisty campaigner, will spend much time and money in the coming months to remind California voters of Fiorina's Tea Party stylings. Also, this Senate primary suggests that the Tea Party may not be so potent in California. Were it so, DeVore, the genuine Tea Partier, could have better surfed the movement's anger, a la Rand Paul in Kentucky.
Moreover, a Washington Post/ABC poll [7] released this week shows that a growing number of Americans are not fans of the Tea Party. In March, 39 percent said they had an unfavorable impression of the Tea Party. Now, it's 50 percent. The percentage of people with no opinion of the Tea Party fell from 20 percent to 14 percent. This indicates that the more people learn about the Tea Party, the less they like it. That's no surprise. As Tea Party-fueled Republicans receive more attention—especially on issues other than President Barack Obama’s controversial health care reform initiaitve—the brew doesn’t seem so tasty. After all, Rand Paul noted he didn't support the entire 1964 Civil Rights Act and griped about Obama being too tough on BP (whining that this was un-American). Sharron Angle, the Tea Party favorite in the Nevada GOP Senate primary, called for [8] shutting down the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. (While there’s an oil spill of historic proportion?) Other Tea Partiers are urging repeal of the 17th Amendment (which mandates the direct election of senators).
Come November, the Tea Party tag might not be a winner—and a former but failed corporate titan who wrapped herself tight in its banner might not be seen by voters as the most compelling choice, even in a year of anti-incumbent fervor. Perhaps Fiorina, that onetime marketing wiz, will have to fire up one more rebranding campaign.
Moreover, a Washington Post/ABC poll [7] released this week shows that a growing number of Americans are not fans of the Tea Party. In March, 39 percent said they had an unfavorable impression of the Tea Party. Now, it's 50 percent. The percentage of people with no opinion of the Tea Party fell from 20 percent to 14 percent. This indicates that the more people learn about the Tea Party, the less they like it. That's no surprise. As Tea Party-fueled Republicans receive more attention—especially on issues other than President Barack Obama’s controversial health care reform initiaitve—the brew doesn’t seem so tasty. After all, Rand Paul noted he didn't support the entire 1964 Civil Rights Act and griped about Obama being too tough on BP (whining that this was un-American). Sharron Angle, the Tea Party favorite in the Nevada GOP Senate primary, called for [8] shutting down the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. (While there’s an oil spill of historic proportion?) Other Tea Partiers are urging repeal of the 17th Amendment (which mandates the direct election of senators).
Come November, the Tea Party tag might not be a winner—and a former but failed corporate titan who wrapped herself tight in its banner might not be seen by voters as the most compelling choice, even in a year of anti-incumbent fervor. Perhaps Fiorina, that onetime marketing wiz, will have to fire up one more rebranding campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)