“The longer in Congress, the more corrupt they become! And, between the money and power of the parties, they’ve broken the voting system!”
IT’S NOT A PARTY THING! IT’S A CORRUPTION THING! NOW IT’S UP TO US TO FIX IT AND HERE’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO!
With the second option of Article 5, the people and the States can supersede the authority of Congress; adding a Term Limits Amendment to the Constitution; and Congress has no authority to stop it.
Become involved! Sign the petition!
The military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex, comprises the policy and monetary relationships which exist between legislators, national armed forces, and the arms industry that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry.
It is a type of iron triangle.
The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure. In 2011, the United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined.
The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, the Congress and executive branch.
President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction …
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The Danger of Ignoring Eisenhower’s Warning about the Military Industrial Complex
~Published on Jan 21, 2014~
Abby Martin remarks on the anniversary of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, citing his warning to the American people of the danger of the military industrial complex.
WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE, IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER, RIGHT?
One thing is certain about the bevy of legislation targeting women being introduced by conservative men. Women are mad and they aren’t taking it anymore.
One female lawmaker in Ohio has introduced bill that would regulate men’s reproductive health.
According to the Dayton Daily News, State Senator Nina Turner introduced SB 307, which requires men to visit a sex therapist, undergo a cardiac stress test, and get their sexual partner to sign a notarized affidavit confirming impotency in order to get a prescription for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs.
The bill also requires men who take the drugs to be continually “tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.””
The bill is a response to the Republican effort to pass House Bill 125, which would ban abortion if the fetus has a heartbeat, which is about six weeks after conception. Turner, an opponent of the bill, says if Republicans are allowed to legislate women’s health, men’s health should also be regulated.
“I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb,” Turner said.
Turner isn’t the first female politician to fight back against the Republican effort to regulate what women can decide about their own health. In Georgia, eight female legislators walked out of the Georgia Senate in protest of two bills restricting access to abortion and contraception.
In Oklahoma, female lawmaker Constance Johnson tacked an amendment to a personhood bill stating that, “…any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”
Female politicians have also introduced measures to ban vasectomies and mandating rectal exams for men seeking Viagra. Clearly, women are mad as hell and they are fighting back. All I can say is good for them and keep up the fight. These conservative men should reassess their war on women before it really comes back to strike them where it hurts. In their pants.
It’s time for marriage equality to become a reality across the US
Hillary Clinton has written an open letter calling for the Supreme Court to finally rule in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
Friends,
Not long ago, I received a letter from a man named Kevin in Georgia whose marriage is recognized in 37 states and DC, but not his own.
“Our marriage is special and real, functional and worthy of respect,” he wrote.
Any day now, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to recognize marriages across the country. Like millions of people, I’m waiting and hoping.
And I’m thinking of families like Kevin’s. LGBT couples should not have to make a case for their relationship. Every family deserves to be recognized under the law and treated equally in our society — not just in some states, but in every state.
Just like marriage is a fundamental building block of our society, marriage equality is a core part of our mission to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans.
The progress our country has made on this issue is inspiring, and the pace with which it has happened is breathtaking. Nearly three quarters of Americans now live in states with marriage equality.
But that progress didn’t happen on its own.
From Stonewall to City Hall to the courthouse to the ballot box, the courage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocates has changed minds and changed laws.
Each incremental victory is a promise to the next generation that yes, it does get better.
That promise is ours to keep.
When you’re headed in the right direction, as we are, you don’t turn back or throw up your hands and say, “good enough.”
You keep charging forward. No future generation of LGBT Americans should live in a country that doesn’t embrace their full and equal rights.
We should stand with loving couples in all states, and commit to building an America where every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender person can live, work, learn, raise a family, and marry free from discrimination or prejudice. We should refuse to settle for anything less.
“I’d like to address our state of affairs about our U.S. congressmen and the multitude of people running for our president’s job in our next election in the USA.
None of them has the backbone to address term limits for all congressmen. It was the best thing we ever did when we made a two-term limit for the president of the United States.
The only thing the congressmen think about, who have been in over two terms, is what do I need to do to be sure I have a secure retirement and a medical plan for the rest of my life for doing nothing.
If we kicked out all the congressmen that have exceeded two terms, the new blood that would take their place could not possibly be any worse than what we have now.
I think anyone running for president who would put two-term limits on his agenda and mean it would be our next president of the United States.”
unprecedented breach of foreign policy protocol both in its form and its boldness
Now that the letter has blown up in their faces, Republicans like John McCain are pretending they didn’t even mean to sign it. One thing is clear: Republicans are a clear and present danger to world peace.
IMHO … again they are showing disrespect and total disregard to POTUS
WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday, March 9, as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.
While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash.
Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.
Nearly two weeks after Congress approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama has officially vetoed the bill calling for its construction, stating that the project is not in the national interest. The decision follows a clear statement from the White House last month saying the president would not sign the bill into law if Congress, currently controlled by Republican lawmakers, passed it.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is a 1,179-mile pipe that would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil from Canadian oil sands to oil refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The cost of the project has ballooned to $8 billion since it was first proposed in 2008, and though an earlier Keystone bill died in the Senate last year, the Republican-controlled Congress passed it this January.
Supporters say that the pipeline would create jobs and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.
(NOT)
Obama has previously stated that he wants a complete review of the pipeline from his administration rather than have Congress force his hand and says that the White House has “no final disposition” on the subject. However, the proposal has met with staunch protests from scientists and environmentalist groups.
Earlier this month, a group of more than 90 scientists and economists sent a letter to Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry urging them to reject the pipeline. “The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada’s Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions,” they wrote. “Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction.
Now that the bill has been vetoed, Congress will need to muster a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to override the president’s decision.
However, the bill’s chief sponsor Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) stated on Fox News Sunday last month that it may fall short in terms of support.
Why on earth would anyone think it was a good idea to arrange for Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress without telling Obama or anyone in his administration about the invitation? Inviting a foreign leader to speak at the Capitol without even informing the president, let alone consulting him, is a bald-faced usurpation for which there is no recent precedent.
There’s an interesting debate underway about whose screw-up was more severe: Boehner’s or Netanyahu’s. To my mind, it’s a close call – on the one hand, the Speaker took deliberate steps to undermine American foreign policy at a delicate time, siding with a foreign government over his own president, while arguably taking steps to intervene in a foreign election.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister needlessly undermined his frayed relationship with the White House, risked damaging Israel’s standing in the U.S., and probably strengthened the diplomatic talks he hoped to ruin.
Born in 1941 in Brooklyn, Bernie was the younger of two sons in a modest-income family. After graduation from the University of Chicago in 1964, he moved to Vermont. Early in his career, Sanders was director of the American People’s Historical Society. Elected Mayor of Burlington by 10 votes in 1981, he served four terms.
Before his 1990 election as Vermont’s at-large member in Congress, Sanders lectured at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Hamilton College in upstate New York.
It Is What It Is 