Politics by Anthony Kemmer
0 view | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Anthony Kemmer

US airstrikes helping Kurdish, Iraqi forces retake Mosul dam from Islamic State

US airstrikes helping Kurdish, Iraqi forces retake Mosul dam from Islamic State | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
The U.S. military increased its air attack Sunday on Islamic State near the Iraqi city of Irbil and the Mosul Dam -- launching 14 strikes as part of a joint military effort that help force retake from the militant group at least partial control of...
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article talks about US air strikes helping the Kurdish. The US launched 14 military strikes on Islamic state near Irbil in effort to retake the critical dam from the militant group. Drones and fighter plans launched 23 air strikes near the dam. 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Littlebytesnews Current Events

Selling the Obama Presidency

Selling the Obama Presidency | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it

Candidate Obama in 2007/08 railed against lobbyists and influence peddlers in Washington, D.C. claiming that they have corrupted government and led to a lack of transparency and confidence in our government officials and institutions. 

This is what he promised:

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."

Well apparently Obama’s lobbying rules do not apply when former senior White House officials and campaign officials band together under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee to form a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to becoming the clearing house for White House lobbying and gate keepers for those wishing to gain access to the president and his White House.

The New York Times is reporting that former Obama officials have morphed their campaign machine into a powerful “advocacy” effort called “Organizing for Action.” The people behind this group are the who’s who in Obama’s world. 

The list of former senior Obama White House officials and senior Obama campaign personnel who are intimately involved in OAF reads like the inner circle of the president’s administration and campaign:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz — DNC Chair and current member of the U.S. House.Jon Carson, OAF Executive Director — headed up the White House Office of Public Engagement.Jim Messina, national chairman – served as the president’s 2012 campaign managerStephanie Cutter, senior communications –served as Obama’s 2012 deputy campaign managerRobert Gibbs, senior advisor — was Obama’s chief White House spokesman.David Plouffe, senior advisor — was Obama’s 2008 campaign nanager and Obama White House senior advisor

The announcement and launch of OAF was done by first lady Michelle Obama in a YouTube video calling OAF, “the next phase in our movement for change.” She went on to state that OAF “have given ordinary people a place in our democratic process again.”

The organization’s first mission as a “start-up” is to raise capital to the tune of $50 million dollars. Its efforts are not geared towards donations of $1, $2 or even $10.

Big fish need only apply. The very people being targeted are the ones Obama once demonized.

The president himself said this to OAF supporters recently: “You’ll have questions about what exactly Organizing for Action will look like — and over the next few months, you will be the ones to come up with many of those answers.” 

This is how The New York Times describes Organizing for Action:

“Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt ‘social welfare group.' That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

“The goal is to harness those resources in support of Mr. Obama’s second-term policy priorities, including efforts to curb gun violence and climate change and overhaul immigration procedures.”

Sounds harmless enough?

The “marketing materials” for OFA entices donors with promises to access to the president and White House officials at the White House. The New York Times is reporting that this is what high-level donors to OFA are promised:

“Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.”

You do not need a law degree to understand that a third-party organization that promises access to the president and high government officials for a donation of money or anything of value is immoral, unethical and illegal.


In light of The New York Times article blowing the whistle on this White House shakedown effort, left leaning watchdog groups are calling for the president to shut down OAF. 

This is what Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, had to say about OAF:

“If President Obama is serious about his often-expressed desire to rein in big money in politics, he should shut down Organizing for Action and disavow any plan to schedule regular meetings with its major donors . . . access to the president should never be for sale.”

The former Democratic congressman went on to make the case for OAF to disband — a case that I could not have made any better:

“With its reported promise of quarterly presidential meetings for donors and ‘bundlers’ who raise $500,000, Organizing For Action apparently intends to extend and deepen the pay-to-play Washington culture that Barack Obama came to prominence pledging to end. The White House’s suggestion this week that this group will somehow be independent is laughable.

“Organizing for Action’s organizers has indicated the group will accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations alike. The group has promised to disclose its donors but will release only limited information about their gifts, placing their donations within dollar ranges rather than revealing specific amounts.

“President Obama’s backers should go back to the drawing board. The president may feel that he needs help from an advocacy organization outside the White House and the Democratic Party, but any group he creates should be fundamentally different from what we now see in Organizing for Action.

“At a minimum, any outside advocacy organization tied to the president should live by the ground rules the president has adopted for his administration and the anti-corruption laws that apply to political parties. That means any group associated with the president should refuse all donations from lobbyists, corporations and unions, provide complete and prompt disclosure of all its donors and the amounts they contribute, and impose an annual limit of $32,400 on the amount of money it will accept from any individual or political action committee.”

I would take this even further: 

The U.S. Justice Department/F.B.I. should open an immediate investigation into the unethical fundraising activities of OAF.The IRS should open an immediate investigation into the “not for profit” 501 c4 status of OAF.The White House Counsel should institute an immediate investigation into the activities of President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and White House staff with regard to OAF fundraising and coordination.The House Ethics Committee should open an immediate investigation into the activities of Rep. Wasserman Schultz and her OAF interaction as a member and as DNC chair.

I join with Common Cause and others who call for OAF to shut down ASAP and for those responsible for the selling of the presidency to be brought to justice.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/BradleyBlakeman/Selling-Obama-Presidency-OAF/2013/02/26/id/492174#ixzz2M82JRIID 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Via littlebytesnews
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article is about selling the Obama Administration. It goes on to talk about Obama's powerful "advocacy" effect. The administration is on a mission to "change." Their first step is to raise capital. The article is confident that Obama's view will change the public's opinion about him and the administration in a positive way. 

littlebytesnews's curator insight, February 27, 2013 2:23 PM

It's time to disband this group...this is unethical and illegal and of course OFA is now saying they are not selling access to the President, which is untrue.


Bob Edgar of Common Cause, a left leaning group is calling on Obama to shut down 'Organizing for Action'. Obama opposed public financing and now his group is seeking billions of dollars to get access and special privileges to private interest groups. 


Obama opposed Citizens United but once the SCOTUS ruled in favor of it he started accepting more lobbying group donations. Now his group Organizing for Action is doing the same as the Super PACs did and he's allowing money to dictate/influence Obama's policies, despite saying he opposed it. 


Bob Edgar of Common Cause says Obama has made promises to limit corporate interest money for the Democratic Convention and Inauguration and then lifted those limits...everything he said he opposed he turned around and allowed.


The organization claims to be independent of Obama's influence, despite Michelle Obama announcing the initiative and now even the left are opposed to Obama using this group and tactics. Bob Edgar claims the group Common Cause was founded by Republicans despite the NYTs describing them as a leading liberal group. He spoke with Megyn Kelly today on America Live...check back for the video clip segment.

Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Trade unions and social activism

Hunger Strike in the Empire of Dungeons

Hunger Strike in the Empire of Dungeons | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it

Thousands of inmates are pitting their bodies against the State of California, which is determined to reduce them to “non-persons, groveling masses of flesh.” But the Incarceration State “is not in the habit of acting in good faith, even with the judicial branch of government, on prison matters, much less negotiating with inmates.”


Via Leicester Worker
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

Prisoners of many prisons are on a hunger strike. There are roughly 2500 prisoners at 17 different prisons. The inmates insist that they won’t stop striking until they have a signed agreement with the force of law, addressing their core demands. 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Littlebytesnews Current Events

BREAKING: White House Using “Behavioral Insights Scientists” to Help ‘Nudge’ Citizen Behavior

BREAKING: White House Using “Behavioral Insights Scientists”  to Help ‘Nudge’ Citizen Behavior | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
The Obama administration is currently hiring a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will help shape people's behavior.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

“Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,” reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team.

The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the team would “experiment” with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more in energy costs.

The Obama Administration already has behavioral teams working with over a dozen federal departments and agencies on newly-designed behavioral insights projects,


** Department of Labor
** Department of Health and Human Services
** Department of Education, Veterans Administration
** Department of Treasury
** Social Security Administration
** Department of Housing and Urban Development
** United States Department of Agriculture

And, the White House is recruiting more scientists.

Dear Colleagues,

Maya Shankar is a new Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House. Her goal is to help bring more insights from behavioral science research into policy making in America through the executive branch. Following success of the Behavioral Insights Team in the U.K. (aka the “nudge unit”), Dr. Shankar is helping recruit behavioral scientists to participate in a similar group in the U.S.. She is also looking to help place behavioral researchers within several government agencies.

For more information please see below.


Here’s the job description.

Research to Results:
Strengthening Federal Capacity for Behavioral Insights


A growing body of evidence suggests that insights from the social and behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals. The practice of using behavioral insights to inform policy has seen success overseas. In 2010, UK Prime Minister David Cameron commissioned the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/behavioural-insights-team), which through a process of rapid, iterative experimentation (“Test, Learn, Adapt”), has successfully identified and tested interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government, while saving the government at least £1 billion within the next five years (see previous Annual Reports 2010-11 and 2011-12). The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help build federal capacity to experiment with these approaches, and to scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials. The team will be staffed by 4-5 experts in behavioral science and experimental design and evaluation. It is likely that selected individuals will serve on a temporary detail under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act before returning to their home organization, which can be a university, non-profit, or state and local government. Our preference is for individuals who are willing to serve full time but we will also consider people who are only in a position to serve part-time. Moreover, several agencies are looking to recruit expert academics to sit directly within their agencies and to help inspire, design, and execute on specific policy projects, and so it is possible to serve in this capacity as well.

If you are aware of individuals with strong analytic skills, experience designing, testing, and evaluating rigorous randomized control trials, and a strong research background in fields such as social psychology, cognitive psychology, or behavioral economics, please encourage them send a CV and contact information to mshankar2 at ostp.eop.gov, which will be sent to the relevant parties for consideration.

Job Responsibilities for Central Team:

* Build Capacity: Work with a broad range of federal agencies to identify new program areas that could benefit from the application of behavioral insights. Help to design, implement, and test the relevant interventions using rigorous experimental methods.

* Enhance Capacity: Provide conceptual and technical support to agencies with specific behavioral insights efforts already underway.

* Convene: Lead a multi-agency “community of practice” to identify and share promising practices and common challenges.

* Create and Provide Resources: Generate tutorials and other “how to” documents to help accelerate these efforts within agencies. Manage online library of relevant documents and media.

* Help inspire new ideas: Work with external partners to identify research findings that can inform policy and practice.

We are already working with over a dozen federal departments and agencies on newly-designed behavioral insights projects, including the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Veterans Administration, Department of Treasury, Social Security Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the United States Department of Agriculture.

Below are some examples of U.S. and international policy initiatives that have benefited from the implementation of behavioral insights:

* Increasing college enrollment and retention: Providing streamlined personal assistance on the FAFSA form (e.g., pre-populating forms using tax return data and following up with a personal call) to low or moderate income individuals resulted in a 29% greater likelihood of their attending college for two consecutive years.

* Getting people back to work: Asking unemployed individuals to create a concrete plan for immediate implementation regarding how, when, and where they would pursue reemployment efforts led to a15-20% decrease in their likelihood of claiming unemployment benefits just 13 weeks later.

* Improving academic performance: Students taught to view their intelligence as a “muscle” that can grow with hard work and perseverance (as compared to a “fixed trait”, such as eye-color) experienced academic boosts of ó a letter grade, with the largest effects often seen for low-performing students, students of color, or females in STEM-related courses.

* Increasing retirement savings: The Save More Tomorrow program 1) invites employees to pledge now to increase their savings rate later, since self-control is easier to exert for future events; 2) links planned increases in the savings rate to pay raises, in order to diminish loss aversion; and 3) leverages the power of inertia by keeping members enrolled until they reach a preset limit or elect to opt. Adoption of these auto-escalation plans has boosted annual savings by an estimated $7.4 billion.

* Increasing adoption of energy efficient measures: Offering an attic-clearance service (at full cost) to people led to a five-fold increase in their subsequent adoption of attic-insulation. Interestingly, providing additional government subsidies on attic insulation services had no such effect.

* Increasing tax compliance: Sending letters to late taxpayers that indicated a social norm –i.e., that “9 out of 10 people in Britain paid their taxes on time” – resulted in a 15 percent increase in response rates over a three-month period, rolling out to £30 million of extra annual revenue.

Craig R. Fox
Ho-Su Wu Term Chair in Management
Professor of Strategy, Psychology, and Medicine
Co-director, Behavioral Decision Making Research Group

Via littlebytesnews
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

The Obama administration is hiring a Behavioral Insights Team of scientists to “nudge” or “help shape people’s behavior.” The program in still in it’s early stages, but their goal is to make society more efficient. The article reads: “Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals.”

littlebytesnews's curator insight, July 30, 2013 5:34 PM

Sounds like George Orwell's 1984 is definitely here....mind control, people control, entering fascism.

Ponnappa NC's curator insight, August 4, 2015 9:54 PM

Sounds like George Orwell's 1984 is definitely here....mind control, people control, entering fascism.

Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Littlebytesnews Current Events

Passing a shield law would give the govt power to determine who has right to free speech

Passing a shield law would give the govt power to determine who has right to free speech | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
With the discovery that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained phone records from the Associated Press, members of Congress have suggested enacting a shield law for the media.


A shield law would open the door to more government abuse of power. In the last few years, the executive branch has attempted to dismantle the rule of law by unilaterally deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore. If the federal government were to seize the ability to determine which rights the American people can exercise and which rights they cannot, the American way of life would cease to exist.
What is truly disheartening, is that this subject matter should not even be needing to be discussed in Congress or anywhere else. The Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom of speech ,and the freedom of the press.
Any American has the right to print, broadcast or make any statement they wish. The reason congress is talking about a shield law is because it will give them another way to infringe on our rights.
Passing a shield law would give the government the power to determine whether certain types of speech were acceptable as media or unacceptable because it wasn’t in line with the narrative of the day. The shield law is designed to give the politicians a shield from criticism by giving them the authority to define speech in a way that protects them.

Via littlebytesnews
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article talks about a shield law. There has been a discovery that the government hacked into phone records and members of congress have suggested enacting a shield law. 

littlebytesnews's curator insight, June 3, 2013 3:57 AM

Great...so this would give them more powers....figures...

yongyee yang's curator insight, September 25, 2013 12:31 PM

I think that this article is very important. It talks about a shield law that would "protect" politicians from criticism. Something interesting about this though is that the government could easily abuse this by determining which rights that the americans could use. They could determine certain types of speech unacceptable. I honestly don't agree with this law because we the people have the freedom to speech.

Joe Blauw's comment, October 3, 2013 10:57 AM
If people are afraid of being criticized for something by the people then they should re think what they're doing. Not make a law against criticism.
Scooped by Anthony Kemmer

US Military Relaxes Hairstyle Policy 

US Military Relaxes Hairstyle Policy  | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a letter this week that addresses the concerns of black recruits who felt unjustly targeted.
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article talks about the military relaxing on hairstyles. The article says,”Each service reviewed its hairstyle policies to ensure standards are fair and respectful while also meeting our military requirements ... informed by a panel of military personnel of mixed demographics reflective of our diverse force.” This gives more women freedom to have certain hairstyles. 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Anthony Kemmer

Court directs Goa Crime Branch to file status report every 15 days

Court directs Goa Crime Branch to file status report every 15 days | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
#OtherStates Court directs Goa Crime Branch to file status report every 15 days: The Mapusa Judicial Magistrate... http://t.co/saR8b5NDLi
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article is about the Goa Crime. The Mapusa Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), directed the Goa police to file status reports on the investigation of an FIR cheating problem against one of the Goa tour ministers, every 15 days. The minister is currently facing charges of conniving with office-bearers. 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Anthony Kemmer

Don't let politics, ads influence your risk tolerance - Shreveport Times

Don't let politics, ads influence your risk tolerance - Shreveport Times | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
Don't let politics, ads influence your risk tolerance
Shreveport Times
Based on comments or questions injected into the discussion about their investment needs, I can usually identify a person's sources of information.
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article wants to warn us in to give in to politics and believe the first things we hear on the media. It goes on to say that people may give false news to be “famous.” These individuals are targeting investors’ emotions instead of logic and reason. They give tips on how to avoid these people and their tricks. 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Palestine

Enough is Enough

Enough is Enough | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it

The Republicans are at it again.


They continue to block a vote President Obama’s qualified nominees for executive branch and judicial positions—including three nominees for the DC Court of Appeals, the court that reviews all agency decisions


It’s the same old tactics, the same old nonsense we’ve seen too many times: blocking votes on nominees not because they’re unqualified, but because of partisan politics.


It’s time for Senator Reid to make good on his threat to change the Senate rules. But he will only do that if members of the Democratic caucus support a rules change.


Tell your Senators enough is enough: it’s time to put an end to the obstruction.

Via Ramy Jabbar رامي
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article wants to spread awareness that the senate needs to be fixed now. The republicans continue to block a vote President Obama’s nominees for executive branch. The article claims that this is “the same old nonsense and tactics we’ve seen too many times.” It’s time for Senator Reid to threaten change in senate rules. 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Surfing the Broadband Bit Stream

Stop Congress From Taking the Fast Track to One-Sided Copyright Laws | EFF.org

Stop Congress From Taking the Fast Track to One-Sided Copyright Laws | EFF.org | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it

Copyright policies do not belong in trade agreements­—period. Negotiated without a trace of transparency or democratic oversight, these secret diplomatic processes are the worst venues to enact digital policy. Not only has the public been completely shut out, U.S. Congress members have extremely limited access to agreement texts even as they’re being negotiated. 


It gets worse: lawmakers themselves may soon pass a bill that severely limits their own ability to improve or remove language in agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). That includes any copyright or Internet control provisions that have been smuggled in by special interest groups.


Fast Track, also called Trade Promotion Authority, is a process that hands away Congress’ constitutional power to set the terms of U.S. trade policy, and gives the executive branch concentrated authority to negotiate and finalize trade agreements. Under Fast Track, the White House would have the power to sign off on treaties, after which Congress will only have the power to have an up or down, Yes or No vote to ratify the deal.


All signs point to the White House’s intention to use it to override any remaining hope for Congressional oversight in these trade deals.


The core of the problem is that corporate advisors, like the copyright industries, have easy and ongoing access to negotiations. In the case of TPP, they can log-in from any computer and see and comment on draft text. Meanwhile, Congress members have to go to a special room at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative where they can only view the text on a “read and retain” basis. That means they can’t take notes, make no copies, and bring no supporting staff—even those who have proper security clearance and have the expertise to make sense of the language in trade agreements.


Now that the TPP is nearing the U.S.’ self-imposed deadline, delegates are being rushed to wrap up negotiations. What remains unfinished are the most controversial terms of the deal, provisions that countries have resisted making compromises on. Among those controversial terms include…you guessed it: copyright enforcement.


Click headline to read more--

Via Chuck Sherwood, Senior Associate, TeleDimensions, Inc
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article is bringing awareness to people to stop congress from taking the fast track to one sided copyright laws. “Fast track” aka “Trade promotion” is a process that hands away congress’s constitutional power to set the terms of U.S trade policy. If fast track becomes approved, the white house would have the power to sign off on treaties without any other opinion. 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Anthony Kemmer from Gold and What Moves it.

The Sequester ‘Crisis’ And What Should Be Done - Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk

Despite what the media and politicians would have us believe, the United States did not collapse last Friday when the package of spending reductions known as “sequestration” went into effect. The financial markets hardly blinked, as they have come to be more skeptical about these periodic government-hyped “crises.”


What had been portrayed as a drastic reduction in government spending was merely a decrease in the projected rate of increase in government spending over the next decade. Under sequestration, government spending increases by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion without it.


So we are speeding toward collapse at only 100 miles per hour instead of 110 miles per hour.


Some in Congress are using the panic over sequestration to justify another surrender of legislative authority to the executive branch. These members want to “pass the buck” on prioritizing federal programs by giving the president, cabinet officials, and high-level bureaucrats authority to set spending priorities. However, it is Congress’s job to set priorities in federal spending.


The drafters of the Constitution give the legislature the authority over spending because they recognized it was a threat to liberty to allow this power to be concentrated in the executive branch. Congress’s willingness to cede more authority to the executive should be opposed by everyone who values liberty and limited government.

Some of the loudest objections to sequestration have come from the champions of the military-industrial complex. Yet under sequestration defense spending will still increase by 18 percent over 10 years as opposed to 20 percent without sequestration.


There are claims that the military will face a one-time real reduction back to 2007 levels of spending, before beginning to climb again next year. That remains to be seen. However, few claimed at the time that 2007 levels of military spending, occurring as they did during the huge post 9/11 build-up, were inadequate.


But despite the fact that the US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, we are told that even this modest, short-term reduction would be, in the words of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, “shameful” and “irresponsible.” A return to 1980’s levels of military spending in real dollars – a time of significant military build-up – is considered outrageous even though the US faces no Soviet Union or equivalent threat.


In fact, the entire $1.2 trillion dollars that the sequester is supposed to save could be realized by cutting one unneeded, wasteful boondoggle: the $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter program. The F-35, billed as the next generation all-purpose military fighter and bomber, has been an unmitigated disaster. Its performances in recent tests have been so bad that the Pentagon has been forced to dumb-down the criteria. It is overweight, overpriced, and unwieldy. It is also an anachronism: we no longer face the real prospect of air-to-air combat in this era of 4th generation warfare. The World War II mid-air dogfight era is long over.


As defense analyst Winslow Wheeler wrote last year:


“It's time for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the U.S. military services, and Congress to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it.”


We should not look for cancellation of the F-35 program any time soon, however. The military industrial complex understands the political necessity of spreading its military Keynesianism as widely across Congressional districts as possible.


That is why F-35 manufacturer Lockheed-Martin can boast on its website that “the F-35 provides 127,000 direct and indirect jobs in 47 states and Puerto Rico.” What is unfortunately not understood is that these 127,000 workers would be far better utilized producing needed goods and services rather than treated as a jobs program disguised as national defense.


Despite the alarm over cuts that are not real cuts, it is clear that the US government is not serious at all about changing its ways. In a recent tour of the Middle East, newly-confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the US would be sending another $60 million to the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government – in the midst of the sequester “crisis”!


Despite the rhetoric, there appears no intention on the part of the government to take our fiscal crisis seriously or abandon the idea that we should run the rest of the world.

Via Hal
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This article discusses the “Sequester ‘Crisis’” and what should be done about it. It claims that the United States did not collapse when “sequestration” went into effect. The article says, “ Under sequestration, government spending increases by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion without it.” This is a big deal. We are only speeding toward collapse at a 100mph instead of 110mph. 

Scooped by Anthony Kemmer

The Evolution of America's Major Political Parties

Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This interesting video discusses the evolution of America’s major political parties. It says that the Republican and Democratic party used to be one party. Thomas Jefferson was the main man in charge of the Democratic-Republican party, in 1792. The Democratic-Republican party wanted the central government to have as little power as possible. 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Anthony Kemmer

Branches of Government: Legislative Branch Part I – The Legislature ...

Branches of Government: Legislative Branch Part I – The Legislature ... | Politics by Anthony Kemmer | Scoop.it
This is a follow up to the Executive Branch, part of a series on the branches of government in Canada. This marks part one of three on the Legislative Branch. Note: I have been experiencing issues with getting embedding ...
Anthony Kemmer's insight:

This Prezi is about the Legislative Branch. The Legislative branch makes the laws for our country. The Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which together form the United States Congress. The House of Representatives is made up of 435 elected members, divided among the 50 states.

No comment yet.