ledeagenda.com

From the NYPost:

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.
What’s worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.

And it should be no surprise that the city — and Manhattan in particular — suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.

The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.

That’s a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the “migration flow” out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion.

While we are on the subject, don’t forget to take your own John Galt Oath here.

From the LATimes:

This morning comes word from a new ABC News/Washington Post poll that almost four parents out of 10 do not believe the vaccine is safe and have no intention of allowing their children to receive it.

More than 60% of adults say they have no intention of getting the vaccine either.

Using an open-ended question, the poll also found the overwhelming reason for rejecting the vaccine this year despite federal warnings and mounting concern about the illness’ seriousness was concern about side effects and disbelief in its safety, especially suspicions that it has been inadequately tested. Other reasons included general ignorance and a belief the illness was probably less serious than the danger of the vaccine.

So much for the persuasive powers of the U.S. federal government. Think about that for a minute: A whopping majority of Americans (62%) would rather risk illness than believe in their government’s urgings of necessity and safety.

This, of course, is great news. Numerous sources are reporting that the Swine Flu Vaccine is untested, skipped over numerous safety tests, and is vaccinating against a relatively minor flu bug. No wonder the State felt the need to grant the Vaccine makers legal immunity from their product. Given the dubious origins of the Swine Flu, it is refreshing to see skepticism of this virus.

Government Propaganda- 0

The People- 1

For more coverage on the Swine Flu click here.

Update 2:56 pm

Do as I say, not as I do? The President’s own daughter’s have not received the H1N1 vaccine.

VACCINE AWARENESS SEMINAR

Columbia, SCSaturday, October 24, 2009 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM

The River Center at Saluda Shoals Park

5605 Bush River Rd., Columbia 29212

Featuring Mary Tocco

Mary has been independently researching the vaccine issue and many other health care issues that face the American Family for over 29 years. She has been publicly speaking for the last 15 years and has spoken to thousands of parents across the country. Her goal is to reach every parent with this information. Her DVD”Are Vaccines Safe?” is now available on many websites. She exposes the deception and greed that fuels the vaccine industry and helps parents to understand what they must do to promote their family’s health without toxic vaccines or drugs.

The Seminar topics will include:

Childhood Vaccines and their ingredients

What are your vaccination rights?What are the risks associated with

Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccine?

What are your Natural Alternatives?

The Event is Sponsored by:The South Carolina Vaccine Awareness Coalition 

From Gary North, as seen on LewRockwell.com:

Gold does not have intrinsic economic value. No resource in history does. History is the realm of change. In such a world, there is no intrinsic economic value.

There is imputed economic value. There is historic economic value. Neither of these concepts of economic value rests on a theory of the supposed autonomy from free market pricing.

In a free society, final users of any asset have authority over its free market pricing. Owners of gold possess uncommon authority, for gold allows people to invest on the assumption that the larceny in men’s hearts focuses on money, and central banks in turn control the supply of money. Those who do not trust the wisdom, motivation, and tools of central bankers have a way to express their lack of trust. They can buy some gold coins.

This upsets politicians. It also upsets court economists, who are well-paid sycophants of central bankers. The more unreliable the decisions of the central bankers, the more upset the economists are with owners of gold. They do not want the price of gold to rise. Such an increase would signal a voice of protest by a small group of private citizens.

If you would like to protest the extension of centralized government power over your life and society in general, buy a few gold coins. I like protests that can turn a profit. This is such a protest.

From WSJ:

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday approved a much-anticipated open Internet proposal despite concerns of commission Republicans and big cable and phone companies that the rules aren’t necessary.

Supporters of the proposal, including Internet giants like Google Inc., say the rules are needed to ensure entrepreneurs’ Web products aren’t hampered by providers that supply the on-ramps to the Internet.

The proposed FCC rules would prevent Internet companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. from selectively blocking or slowing certain Web content and would require providers to disclose how they manage their networks.

The FCC now will seek public comment, with the goal of finalizing the proposal sometime next year. The rules almost certainly will be challenged in court.

AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast worry that the new rules apply only to service providers like them and not Internet firms like Google and Amazon.com Inc.

Advocates like Google say broader rules would amount to unprecedented regulation of the now free Internet.

The rules are tailored toward ISPs. They say Internet access providers can’t deprive users of competition “among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.”

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the draft rules are designed to protect consumers’ right to access lawful content, applications, and services. “Government should not be in the business of running or regulating the Internet,” he said.

This just came from the Campaign for Liberty:

October 20, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,
 
Earlier today, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced “The Federal Reserve Accountability Act,” an attempt to kill HR 1207/S 604 by passing a bill that prevents a full audit and full transparency from America’s secretive central bank.
 
While language in this bill would permit a limited audit of the Fed’s actions in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and similar high profile bailouts, it would not allow an audit to review the Fed’s inflation of the money supply or its agreements with foreign central banks, among other shortcomings.
 
Additionally, the names of the institutions who received the funds would not be available until one year after each “emergency” program ended, and you know how quickly the federal government likes to end programs.
 
Click here to get the contact information for your senators and urge them not to support this attempt at stopping our historic effort to force the Fed into a full scale audit.
 
You see, you and I have the FED and their internationalist supporters in the Senate running scared.
 
We’ve seen it time and time again in recent months.
 
Now, this is how they will fight back — by having establishment senators who oppose a full audit the Fed, proposing watered down compromises in an attempt to sabotage our real goal.
 
We knew this moment would come.  Now you and I must fight back.
 
Seventy-five percent of the American people, over two thirds of the House of Representatives, and over a quarter of the Senate support Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed legislation.
 
With those historic levels of support, there is no excuse for settling for anthing less than a full Audit the Fed bill.  Anything less is merely an attempt to stop our efforts as we get closer to passage of a real bill.
 
The freedom movement will not back down on requiring transparency and accountability from an institution that has helped to destroy our economy.  This is another test of our strength and will.
 
Let’s finish what we’ve started.  Take action to stop this dangerous attempt to stop the real Audit the Fed bill TODAY!
 
Find contact information for your senators here and read more at CampaignforLiberty.com.
 
Let your senators know you expect them to support the American people’s demand for full transparency, not some watered down measure designed to stop a full audit!

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

From WaPo, of all places:

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there’s a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the Emolument Clause, clearly stipulates: “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The award of the peace prize to a sitting President is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt’s efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War and Wilson’s work in establishing establish the League of Nations. Obama’s award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the Prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months — questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the Parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an “emolument” (”gain from employment or position,” according to Webster).

An opinion of the U.S. Attorney General advised, in 1902 that “a simple remembrance,” even “if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of ‘any present of any kind whatever.’ ” President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit “its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns.” This opinion went on to say that the Emolument Clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.