ledeagenda.com

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.

From NaturalNews.com:

Why the swine flu vaccine doesn’t add up

So why is the justification for the swine flu so flimsy? It all comes down to these five crucial reasons being pushed by the vaccine industry… but as you’ll see below, each of these five reasons is demonstrably false!

Reason #1) The H1N1 swine flu pandemic is dangerous and deadly!

Why it’s flimsy: While the infection rate of H1N1 is currently high, the fatality rate is remarkably low. In fact, it’s no higher than a normal, seasonal flu.

Reason #2) The vaccine protects you from the virus!

Why it’s flimsy: There is absolutely no scientific evidence demonstrating that the swine flu vaccine offers real-world protection against the circulating H1N1 virus. While there is evidence showing that it produces antibodies, as people who have studied vaccine effectiveness already know, the mere existence of vaccine-induced antibodies doesn’t directly translate into functional, real-world immunity! Vaccines are often, in effect, fabricated immunity that often don’t provide practical immune defense in the real world.

Reason #3) The vaccine is perfectly safe, even for kids!

Why it’s flimsy: This reason is truly laughable. None of these vaccines have been properly safety tested by the FDA or the drug companies. They were approved by the FDA with a waiver, utterly bypassing the normal process of long-term safety testing that the public expects the FDA to enforce. In fact, according to attorney Jim Turner, the FDA’s baseless approval of these swine flu vaccines is a violation of federal law. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027205_v…)

Reason #4) There’s nothing else you can do to protect yourself from the swine flu (therefore you must take the vaccine shot).

Why it’s flimsy: This reason is an outright lie. In order to sell more vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry (and all its bureaucratic cohorts at the CDC and WHO) are intentionally keeping people ignorant of far safer and more effective options such as vitamin D and anti-viral herbal remedies.

Reason #5) If you don’t take the vaccine shot, you’re being unethical by placing the shot burden on everyone else without taking it yourself.

Why it’s flimsy: Hilarious! This is marketing by guilt — trying to arm-twist people into the vaccine shot by making them feel guilty if they don’t. The truth is that you’re being unethical if you DO get the shot because you’re financially supporting a dangerous and highly deceptive vaccine industry that’s causing tremendous harm to children, expectant mothers and other innocent vaccination victims.Hoping to improve your health by handing money to the pharmaceutical industry through the purchase of vaccines is sort of like hoping to create world peace by writing a check to weapons manufacturers.

No good reason to get the vaccine

Is there any good reason to get the swine flu vaccine? Not based on the current situation, no. Unless you have a strong desire to play Russian Roulette with your health, of course.

Of course, if things dramatically change, there could be increasingly strong reasons for considering a vaccine. If the H1N1 virus mutates into a virus with a very high fatality rate, things might be different. If the vaccine were proven safe with adequate long-term testing, that would be something working in its favor. If the vaccines were scientifically shown to actually protect you from the virus, then that would be different, too.

But to date, none of these things are verifiably true! The vaccines haven’t been properly tested at all. There’s no honest evidence demonstrating that they protect you from the swine flu. And the flu has such a low fatality rate, why does a vaccine matter in the first place?

From Breitbart:

The dollar’s position as the world’s leading reserve currency faces increased pressure as the financial crisis allows emerging economies greater influence on the world stage, analysts said.

A report last week in The Independent claiming that China, Russia and Gulf States are among nations prepared to ditch the dollar for oil trades has heightened the uncertainty surrounding the US currency’s future. The dollar slumped against rivals last week in the wake of the British daily’s controversial report.

“The US dollar is being hurt by the continued talk of a shift away from a dollar-centric world,” said Kit Juckes, an analyst at currency traders ECU Group.

“Three conclusions stand out very clearly. Firstly, the shift in economic power away from the G7 economies is continuing. “Secondly, there is a growing acceptance amongst those winners that one consequence of this power shift will be to strengthen their currencies.”

And finally, as long as the US economy is not strong enough for any rise in interest rates to be conceivable for a long time, the dollar’s underlying downtrend will remain in place,” added Juckes.

From LewRockwell.com

The following polling locations will be open from 10am to 4pm on Saturday, October 10, 2009:

Central Assembly Christian Church12000 W Fairview Ave., Boise, ID

VFW Post3308 W Chinden Blvd., Boise, ID

Harvest Design2917 E. Copper Point Dr. - Suite 150Meridian, ID (in the El Dorado Business Campus)

Caldwell Public Library1010 Dearborn St., Caldwell, ID

More info can be found at cc2009.info,  cc2009.us or wethepeoplecongress.org

Past coverage of CC2009 meeting can be found here.