Amnesty Costs Jobs

By Rep. Lamar Smith 
(R-Texas) - 07/25/11 06:38 PM ET

Millions of Americans are looking for work. The federal government is borrowing 43 cents on every dollar it spends. And the economy is dragging along the bottom. Incredibly, and contrary to common sense, some argue that granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants will solve all our problems and create jobs, increase revenues and boost the economy. But their claims are built on a foundation of sand.

Caught in a flimsy web of fiction, amnesty supporters confuse illegal immigrants with legal immigrants. We should encourage immigration by highly skilled legal immigrants. But those highly skilled workers aren’t illegal immigrants. They have played by the rules, waited their turn in line and came to the U.S. legally on visas.

While highly skilled legal immigrants contribute to the American economy, illegal immigrants do the opposite. Nonpartisan economists have determined that illegal immigrants are a fiscal drain on American taxpayers. That’s because a majority of illegal immigrants have less than a high school education and earn well below average incomes.

The Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an immigrant without a high-school degree receives more than $19,000 more in total government benefits each year than it pays in federal, state and local taxes. And the National Research Council found that an illegal immigrant without a high school degree will impose a net cost on taxpayers of $89,000 over their lifetime.

Most low-skilled illegal immigrants who are paid on the books do not pay federal income taxes. In fact, low-skilled workers often receive a check from the Internal Revenue Service. Putting illegal immigrants on the IRS rolls will actually cost the federal government money.

Illegal immigrants also receive huge amounts of taxpayer-funded benefits. The Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that all illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $113 billion each year. Many states face a fiscal crisis due to costs related to illegal immigration, such as education, healthcare and incarceration of criminal illegal immigrants.

The single largest cause of the fiscal drain of illegal immigrants is the cost of educating their children. FAIR has estimated that the total cost of K-12 education for illegal-immigrant children and the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is nearly $29 billion a year.

Healthcare is another big hit on taxpayers. About 7 million illegal immigrants do not have health insurance. The hospitals in the 24 Southwest border counties in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California alone incur $190 million in annual costs for emergency medical treatment of illegal immigrants.

 Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will further deplete taxpayer dollars. If millions of illegal immigrants are legalized, they will become eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits and will further deplete our entitlement programs, which are already on the verge of insolvency.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that if illegal immigrants receive amnesty, the outlay in retirement costs — including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income — would be at least $2.6 trillion. That is a huge fiscal burden for American taxpayers and equals.

In addition, illegal workers take jobs that rightly belong to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. More than 24 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Meanwhile, 
7 million individuals are working illegally in the U.S. These jobs should go to legal workers.

Congress has the opportunity to open up millions of jobs for Americans by passing legislation to require all U.S. employers to use E-Verify. This program quickly identifies individuals working illegally in the United States and protects jobs for legal workers by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. And it helps turn off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration.

Amnesty, on the other hand, doesn’t put Americans back to work, nor does it stop illegal immigration — it does the opposite. Amnesty encourages more illegal immigration, forces unemployed Americans to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs and eats up taxpayer dollars.

Our national debt and unemployment rate are at record highs. Amnesty will only make these problems worse.

Smith is chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Megalomania in Politics

Does our president have megalomania. Do many in DC suffer from it? 

Megalomania is defined as an unrealistic belief in one's superiority, grandiose abilities, and even omnipotence. It is characterized by a need for total power and control over others, and is marked by a lack of empathy for anything that is perceived as not feeding the self.

Megalomania is associated with narcissism. Narcissism causes someone to love himself beyond all else and beyond any others.

Posted via email from Global Politics

The Earth Charter (The Green Agenda)

“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will
in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
- Maurice Strong

The Earth Charter – Humanity’s Covenant with the Earth

In 1992 Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the historic United Nations Earth Summit in Rio. In order to ensure the success of the Summit, Strong’s wife, Hanne, held a vigil with the Wisdom-keepers, a group of "global transformationalists." Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat, and meditation, the group “held the energy pattern" for the duration of the gathering. As described in my previous article Agenda 21 was the primary output of the Summit. It was stated at the time that this ‘blueprint for the 21st century’ would lay the necessary foundation for a subsequent “new global covenant between humanity and the Earth.”

Shortly after the Earth Summit concluded Strong formed the Earth Council, a group of “environmental visionaries and philosophers”, and set about drafting this “new global covenant”. Various draft versions were formulated but the radical and transformative nature of the document met with resistance from more conservative members of the UN bureaucracy. In 1997, the Earth Council and Green Cross International, founded by Mikhail Gorbachev, joined forces to form the Earth Charter Commission. The Commission, co-chaired by Strong and Gorbachev, claims to have consulted more than 100,000 “concerned world citizens” around the globe. The twenty-three members of the Commission, which includes nine Club of Rome members, claim to have “mediated prayerfully over every word and comma”. I wonder who they were praying too?

The Earth Charter Commission approved the final text of the Earth Charter in 2000, and it has since been embraced by the United Nations, many religious leaders around the world, the majority of world governments and countless Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) and activist groups. Following the release of the Charter a series of international forums, called The Earth Dialogues were held at the United Nations to discuss how the general public could be convinced to adopt the “covenant with the Earth” in a real and personal way.

Perhaps most revealing was the forum for Inter-Religious Groups and Spiritual Leaders. As stated in the forums official meeting minutes, the intent was to deal with "the ethics of intolerant righteousness and the greed of short term gain, as these cannot lead us to sustainable development. It is clear that our religious institutions have barely begun to articulate the core values of sustainable development. In their fundamentalist - fanatical forms, religions throughout history have justified terrorism, jihads and crusades against people who hold different beliefs and against the Earth itself." So we can clearly see who they consider their enemy to be.

While supporters of the Earth Charter consider traditional mono-theistic religions to be the main obstacle to peaceful coexistence and sustainable life on Earth, they do not propose doing away with spirituality. The Earth Charter goes into detail about the need for faith and spirituality in human life. The preamble of the charter states "the spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature."

So what exactly does this Earth Charter contain? Compared to most UN publications it is very short, only four pages long, direct, and to the point. It clearly lays out the Constitution for a New Green Order. "The choice is ours," it states, "form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living."

The Charter can be read at the official Earth Charter website. The site describes the Charter as “a declaration of fundamental values and principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. Created by the largest global consultation process ever associated with an international declaration, endorsed by thousands of organizations representing millions of individuals, the Earth Charter seeks to inspire in all peoples a sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family and the larger living world. It is an expression of hope and a call to help create a global partnership at a critical juncture in history.”

The document begins with a preamble which summarises the problems with the “global situation”, why an Earth Charter is needed to address these problems and the solutions the Charter will provide. It then lists 16 overarching principles that it claims should govern life on this planet. The Charter concludes with a series of closing statement entitled The Way Forward. Rather than going through the whole document line by line I will just provide the reader with the preamble and closing statement which, in effect, summarise the other parts of the Charter. Keep in mind as you read the following text, this is not the ramblings of some idealistic environmental group. It is a covenant that has been officially endorsed by the UNCED, UNESCO, UNEP, many governments, and thousands of smaller organisations.

PREAMBLE
We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

Earth, Our Home
Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life's evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

The Global Situation
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

The Challenges Ahead
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

Universal Responsibility
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature. We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

THE WAY FORWARD
As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.

Now you may be thinking this all sounds very nice and reasonable. Why not join together in a joyful celebration of life. But the real intent behind the Earth Charter, and the Global Green Agenda in general, is to eliminate national sovereignty and place all humanity under the control of a single 'Earth Government.' They clearly and explicitly state that this is their goal:

"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government ... There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems - if systems they are - are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways. The less we lose time, the less species' and nature will be destroyed.

Since the United Nations is the only world-wide, universal organization that is presently available, since it had fifty years of valuable experience and many successes, since it paved the way to proper Earth government, instead of putting it on the defensive, unjustified attacks and criticism, reduction of resources and non-payment of obligatory contributions, governments should honestly ask themselves if a better way would not be to consider a second generation United Nations upgraded by a true quantum jump into a proper Earth preserving and human well-being and justice ensuring organization of our planet.

The continental approach to a world union remains an important avenue. One could conceive five continental unions: the European Union, an American, an African, an Asian, and an Australian Union. A World Union could be constructed as a super-structure and common political, economic and environmental instrument to achieve these objectives."
from - The Earth Charter in Action

Unlike Agenda 21, which is a hard law document, the Earth Charter lays out the principles which laws and regulations will have to promote and enforce. The Charter "was drafted in coordination with a hard law treaty that is designed to provide an integrated legal framework for all environment development law and policy." This hard law treaty is called the International Covenant on Environment and Development and is being prepared by the Commission on Environmental Law at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a behemoth agency which oversees 700+ governmental agencies worldwide. Interestingly, Maurice Strong (busy man!) is on the IUCN's Board of Directors.

Again, unlike Agenda 21, the Earth Charter is not being forced on local communities from above. The United Nations is quietly fostering a grass-roots mainstream movement where people personally commit themselves to the Charter. They believe that this personal commitment will be necessary to bring about the societal transformation that the Charter requires. The primary tool being used to permeate society with awareness and acceptance of the Charter is the Earth Charter Initiative. This is another brain-child of Strong and Gorbachev.

According to their own description “The Earth Charter Initiative is the collective name for an extraordinarily diverse, global network of people, organizations, and institutions who participate in promoting the Earth Charter, and in implementing its principles in practice. The Initiative is a broad-based, voluntary, civil society effort, but participants include leading international institutions, national governments, university associations, NGOs, cities, faith groups, and many well-known leaders in sustainable development.”

The Earth Charter Initiative is located in, and managed by, the United Nations University of Peace. The governing council of this University contains some very interesting names. Many of its top academics are members of the Club of Rome. In fact the infamous Maurice Strong is the President of the University and its Rector, Martin Lees, is the Secretary General of the CoR! The founder and current Chancellor of the University is Robert Muller, former Assistant-Secretary of the United Nations, and its #2 ranked official. I strongly urge the reader to research Mr Muller’s vision for the world as outlined on his websites http://www.robertmuller.org/ and http://www.goodmorningworld.org/. Here are some snippets to whet your appetite:

"Little by little a planetary prayer book is
thus being composed by an increasingly united
humanity seeking its oneness. Once again,
but this time on a universal scale, humankind is
seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,'
its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus
call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly
see no difference between our earth and the divine.
This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon
humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age
and become what we were always meant to be:
the planet of god."
- Robert Muller,
former UN Assistant Secretary General
and Chancellor of the UN University for Peace

“What an incredible planet in the universe this will be
when we will be one human family living in justice,
peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth,
with each other and with the heavens.”
- Robert Muller,
former UN Assistant Secretary General

As a final insult, and perhaps to make clear the true intent of their agenda, the original copy of the Earth Charter has been placed in a specially constructed Ark of Hope. Placed within the Ark, along with the Earth Charter, were various items called 'Temenos Books' and 'Temenos Earth Masks.' Temenos is a concept adopted by Carl Jung to denote a magic circle, a sacred space where special rules and energies apply. Some of the Temenos Books were created within this magic circle by children, who filled them with visual affirmations for Mother Earth. Fashioned with the "earth elements", the Temenos Earth Masks were also worn and created by children. The outside of the Ark is covered with images depicting native spirits of fire, earth, air and water. If you wish you can read more here. This Ark forms a major part of ‘the Earth Charter outreach programme’ and visits hundreds of schools and universities around the world each year.

The Earth Charter stresses that man is his own saviour. By saving 'Mother Earth' we will once again return to an idyllic Garden of Eden and redeem our tarnished souls. But instead of worshipping the true Creator, the Global Green Agenda seeks to plunge us headlong into an earth-worship new world religion. They are only waiting for “the right crisis” after which they surmise that humanity will gladly sell their souls for the kind of world that the Earth Charter Promises.

“Do not do unto the environment of others what
you do not want done to your own environment..
My hope is that this Charter will be a kind of
Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount',
that provides a guide for human behavior toward the
environment in the next century.”
- Mikhail Gorbachev

Obama Signs Agenda 21-Related Executive Order

President Obama signed his 86th executive order (13575) on June 9, which established the White House Rural Council (WHRC). According to The Blaze, the Executive Order seems to be in line with the United Nations radical Agenda 21, as it is designed “to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people.”

Evidence of this can be found in Section One of the Executive Order, which reads:

Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

As the Executive Order references “sustainable rural communities,” it raises a few eyebrows, since that is one of the key phrases found in the UN plan for sustainable development known as Agenda 21. The order admits that it intends to seize greater power over “food, fiber, and energy,” items that are key to human sustenance.

The mission and function of the White House Rural Council, according to the Executive Order, is as follows: “The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.”

The order doesn't at all camouflage the levels of authority it will achieve. In order to reach the mission set out, the Executive Order states that the council will “make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.”

Analyzing the language of the document, The Blaze questions, “is there a hint that a ‘rural stimulus plan’ might be in the making? Will the Federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating ‘economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America?’ ”

The order also states that the WHRC will “coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, healthcare providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.”

In other words, the federal government will seemingly control every aspect of rural America.

The order’s mention of “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) should be disconcerting, as NGOs are unelected, often government-funded organizations that are key to Agenda 21.

Executive Order 13575 asserts that the WHRC will “coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas, and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation-related activities.”

As observed by The Blaze, “When did outdoor recreation become a conservation-related activity?”

So who will be heading these opportunistic efforts? The following is a list of members who will be serving on the new council, which will be headed by Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of Agriculture:

(1) the Department of the Treasury; Timothy Geithner

(2) the Department of Defense; Robert Gates

(3) the Department of Justice; Eric Holder

(4) the Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar

(5) the Department of Commerce; Gary Locke

(6) the Department of Labor; Hilda Solis

(7) the Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius

(8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Shaun Donovan

(9) the Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood

(10) the Department of Energy; Dr. Steven Chu

(11) the Department of Education; Arne Duncan

(12) the Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric Shinseki

(13) the Department of Homeland Security; Janet Napolitano

(14) the Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson

(15) the Federal Communications Commission; Michael Copps

(16) the Office of Management and Budget; Peter Orszag

(17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; John Holdren

(18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; R. Gil Kerlikowske

(19) the Council of Economic Advisers; Austan Goolsbee

(20) the Domestic Policy Council; Melody Barnes (former VP at Center for American Progress)

(21) the National Economic Council; Gene B. Sperling

(22) the Small Business Administration; Karen Mills

(23) the Council on Environmental Quality; Nancy Sutley

(24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Valerie Jarrett

(25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate. Chris Lu (or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above).

The Blaze says of the list, “It appears that not a single department in the federal government has excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild card option in number 25 gives the president and the agricultural secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.”

Even more notable than the levels of power being achieved by the creation of this new council is the various connections to Agenda 21.

For example, Valerie Jarrett served as a member on the board of the Local Initiatives Support Coalition (LISC), which uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI [International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives] as their webpage descriptively explains the organization’s work to build “sustainable communities.”

Likewise, Melody Barnes is the former Vice President of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Soros is a prime advocate of Agenda 21 and in fact, his Open Society provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI.

Additionally, Hilda Solis and Nancy Sutley, through their environmental endeavors, appear to be connected to Agenda 21. In 2000, Solis received an award for her work on “Environmental Justice.” Sutley served on the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and supported the low-flow toilets, which are now being revealed as costing more money and creating an odor problem in the city of San Francisco.

Finally, the timing of the Executive Order is a bit suspicious, since the administration is meeting with a number of Agenda 21 operatives at the end of the month. ICLEI reports:

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Seriesto be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.

Fortunately, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the radical agenda being pushed by the U.N. and supported by this government, and have hosted a number of anti-ICLEI rallies this week, with more planned in the future.

Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden)

What is Agenda 21?  If you do not know about it, you should.

Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.

‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right?  It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.

At risk from Agenda 21;

• Private Property ownership
• Single-Family homes
• Private car ownership and individual travel choices
• Privately owned farms

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property.  For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;

Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

Best Breakfast Choice

The Best Breakfast

• 1 egg white omelet: 16 calories, 0.1 grams of fat, 0.2 carbs
• 1 slice mixed grain toast: 75 calories, 1.2 grams of fat, 12.3 carbs
• 1 slice of ham: 46 calories, 2.4 grams of fat, 1.1 carbs

This breakfast adds up to 137 calories, 3.7 grams of fat, 13.6 carbs.

Posted via email from WellCare

The Bilderbergers (History)

The Bilderbergers are an international group composed of European Royalty, Wall Street investors, politicians, international bankers, prominent businessmen, media executives, and military leaders from around the planet. "Those in attendance include leading political and financial figures from the United States and Western Europe," proclaimed Allen. Allen also says that it is probably "not accidental," that less than one person in 5,000 is aware of this group. Jim Marrs wrote, "The Bilderbergers are a group of powerful men and woman-many of them European royalty--who meet in secret each year to discuss the issues of the day."

The first official meeting of the Bilderbergers took place at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Holland in May 1954. It was formed in part by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a former Nazi. "The primary impetus for the Bilderberger meetings came from Dutch Prince Bernhard," wrote author Marrs, "a former member of the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS) and an employee of Germany's I.G. Farben in Paris." The Rockefellers and Rothschilds are said to have played an important part in its inception also. Pictured right is the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Holland.(*)

Veteran journalist James P. Tucker has investigated the Bilderbergers nearly 30 years. His book, The Bilderberg Diary, which includes photographic evidence, is a well-documented account of the results of his investigation. In it he writes, "The Bilderberg group is an organization of political leaders and international financers that meets secretly every spring to make global policy. There are about 110 regulars," he says, including, "Rockefellers, Rothschilds, bankers, heads of international corporations and high government officials from Europe and North America." These people meet at varying locations around the planet.

Referring to the financial elite's various fronts, Professor Marrs wrote, "Comprising themselves in the form of the Bilderberger Group, they have met at least annually since 1954." Their meetings are by invitation only, and according to Gaylon Ross, of the three interlocking Think Tanks, they are the most secretive. They are also the most influential. Their meetings are financed by the Tax-exempt Foundations. Allen asked, "Why do the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations finance the meetings if they are not important?"

In 1964, Dan Smoot acknowledged this elite group when he wrote, "The 'Bilderbergers' are another powerful group involved in the internationalist web." Speaking of the interlocking membership, he proclaimed, "American firms associated with the society are said to be among the large corporations whose officers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and related organizations."

The Bilderbergers have close ties to Europe's nobility such as the British royal family, as well as royalty from Holland, Sweden and Spain. They also contain the same representatives in finance and industry as their counterparts, The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. There is also a heavy cross-membership with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

"As with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers often carry cross-membership in two or more of these three groups, commented Marrs." Allen remarked, "Those who adhere to the accidental theory of history will claim that it is sheer coincidence that every single one of those named as past and present members of the Bilderberger Steering Committee is or was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations."

The Bilderbergers are said to be the organization that sets global policy which is then passed on to the CFR and TC to implement. While the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations both publish their membership rolls, the Bilderbergers keep the meetings, goals, and membership lists secret. "Bilderberg does not publish membership lists but they have been obtained by investigative reporters working for The Spotlight," wrote Ross.

Each year the hosting government is responsible for providing heavy security for three days, which includes: the military, the secret service, federal and local police, and private security firms. Allen explains, "The participants are housed in one location and are protected by a thorough security network. Decisions are reached, resolutions adopted, plans of action initiated..." A Swedish SWAT team member confronts Tucker during the 2001 Bilderberg meeting in Gothenburg Sweden.

"When they meet, they clear out all the guests, and employees in the building in which they are to meet," Ross said, and added "they completely de-bug all the rooms, bring in their own cooks, waiters, housekeepers, heavily armed security guards, etc. and do not allow 'outsiders' anywhere near the meeting place just before, during and immediately after they meet."

Continuing he explained, "Each time they have met on US soil, the meetings were held on Rockefeller owned property." According to veteran journalist Tucker, some hotel staff is allowed to stay but are given strict orders to never to speak to a Bilderberger unless spoken to, or look them in the eyes. The picture on the right was taken during the 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles, France, where Bilderberg attendees received police escorts.

The German police vehicles on the left are escorting Bilderberg members during the 2005 meeting in Rottach-Egern, Germany. And below that is a Swedish police officer with a guard dog patrolling the woods outside the 2001 Bilderberg meeting in Gothenburg Sweden.

The Rutland Vermont Herald apparently received notice of a Bilderberg meeting when local officials were given instructions on how to prepare for it. It declared on April 20, 1971, "A rather tight lid of secrecy was being kept on the [Bilderberg] conference." "A closed-door meeting," it described, "was held in Woodstock last week to brief a handful of local officials on some phases of the [future] conference. ... The Woodstock Inn will apparently be sealed up like Fort Knox. ... No press coverage will be allowed."

Referring to the same meeting which took place on April 23, 1971 in Woodstock, Vermont, Allen wrote, "When Prince Bernhard arrived at Boston's Logan Airport, he did admit to reporters that the subject of the conference would be the "change in the world-role of the United States." Allen remarked, "Isn't it nice to have changes in America's role in the world decided upon by Bernhard, Rothschild and Rockefeller?"

The mainstream news will normally not report on these meetings. Speaking of the media blackout Tucker said, "Bilderberg has, at one time or another, had representatives of all major U.S. newspapers and network news outlets attend. They do so on their promise to report nothing. This is how Bilderberg keeps its news blackout virtually complete in the United States." According to Tucker, as part of a disinformation strategy, mainstream newspapers in the United States may even portray these meetings as harmless talk-sessions of little importance.

Marrs commented, "Unlike their American counterparts, some members of Scotland's news media found their voice. Under the headline, Whole World in their Hands, Jim McBeth of The Scotsman described the tight security surrounding the [1998] meeting [at the Turnberry Hotel near Glasgow, Scotland], commenting, 'Anyone approaching the hotel who did not have a stake in controlling the planet was turned back.'"

"The press, naturally, is not allowed to be present, although occasionally a brief press conference is held at the end of the meeting at which time the news media are given in very general terms the Bilderberger version of what was discussed," observed Allen. Reporters that are not invited and attempt to document these meetings have been arrested. Marrs added, "Despite the fact that many highly regarded American media members meet with the Bilderbergers, little or nothing gets reported on the group or its activities..."

Although there is a media blackout concerning these meetings, the news media are always present, agreed Ross. He lists past attendees, "such as: Peter Jennings (BB, and Anchor and Senior Editor of ABC News, World News Tonight), Joseph C. Harsch (BB, CFR, and former Commentator for NBC, Inc.), Bill D. Moyers (BB, and Executive Director of Public Affairs TV, Inc., and former Director of the CFR), [and] William F. Buckley, Jr. (BB, CFR, and Editor-in-Chief of National Review, and host of PBS's Firing Line)."

Ross says other media personnel which have attended include, "Gerald Piel (BB, CFR, and former Chairman of Scientific America, Inc.), Henry Anatole Grunwald (BB, CFR, and former Editor-in-Chief of Time, Inc.), Mortimer B. Zuckerman (BB, CFR, and Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of the US News and World Report, New York Daily News, and Atlantic Monthly), Robert L. Bartley (BB CFR, TC, and Vice President of the Wall Street Journal)."

More media attendees, according to Ross, are Peter Robert Kann (BB, CFR) of Dow Jones and Company, Donald C. Cook of the Los Angeles Times, Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, and Katherine Graham owner of The Washington Post. Most of these attendees have cross memberships in the CFR and TC. Here to the right we see Washington Post publisher Donald Graham (center) during the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy.

Tucker commented that mainstream media apparently doesn't think these meetings are newsworthy. Evidently, for decades the Post and most other major media outlets didn't think the public would be interested in learning about these world leaders meeting to shape world events. Is it possible that there's something else of major significance they're not reporting or are being used to cover-up?

On May 26, 1995 the Swiss newspaper, Tagesschau, ran a story entitled, The Swiss Military to Protect International and Leading Economists and Statesmen. The article explained, "Prominent leaders from the world of politics and economics will be meeting at Nidwalden on Mt. Bergenstock, Switzerland, for the very secretive Bilderberg conference. ... [A]mong the participants are Leading Bankers, politicians and industrialists from Europe and North America. The Luminaries from the 1995 meeting include Kurt Furgler, Walter Scheel, Henry Kissinger, Helmut Kohl, Fiat Chairman Giovanni Agnelli, shipping magnate Stavos Niarchos, David Rockefeller and Prince Claus of the Netherlands."

The 1994 meeting in Helsinki, Finland, Tucker wrote, included, "In addition to Rockefeller and Kissinger, other familiar faces ... [such as] Lord Peter Carrington, Queen Beatrix of Holland, NATO chief Woerner, President Ahtisaari and Prime Minister Esko Aho of Finland, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, German central banker Hans-Otto Pohl and Atos Erkko, a well known Finnish publisher."

To the top left we see David Rockefeller at the 2004 Stresa Italy Bilderberg meeting. Below it we see him again (seated right) next to Vernon Jordan. Standing is Richard Perle (far right), and Jessica Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Also in attendance says Tucker, were, "Franz Vranitsky, President of Austria; Percy Barnevik, President of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.) of Sweden; Giovanni Agnelli, head of the giant Fiat firm in Italy; Max Jacobson and Jaakko Illoniemi of Finland; Rozanne Ridgway, Assistant Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget; and Volker Ruhe of Germany." Tucker lists other attendees as, "Katherine Gram, owner of The Washington Post Co.; Louis Gerstner of IBM; Thomas Pickering, U.S. Ambassador to Russia; Brent Scowcroft, Adviser to Bush; Paul Allaire of Xerox; Peter Sutherland of Britain; [and] Queen Sofia of Spain."

Referring to the meeting in Versailles, France in 2003, Tucker announced, "The following have been positively identified as participating: Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands; Ali Babacan, Minister of the Economy in Turkey; King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia of Spain; Jacques Chirac, President of France, Kenneth Clark, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer and member of the Parliament; Etienne D'avignon, Societe General of Belgium; Jean Louis Debre, President of the French National Assembly; Kermal Dervis, Turkey; Sevein Gjerem, CEO of the National Bank of Norway."

Gerald Ford attended Bilderberg meetings 1964 and 1966, and in 1974 became President. And while Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton attended a 1991 meeting before becoming President in 1992. Regarding Clinton's Bilderberg connection, Marrs wrote, "In 1991, then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was honored as a Bilderberg guest. The next year he ran for and won the presidency of United States."

The plan for a common European currency, the Euro, is said to have been formulated by the Bilderbergers. Tucker claims that the plan for a "European super-state" and the "euro" had been on the Bilderberg agenda for years. "It was viewed as a major step toward their goal of a world government and creates a favorable climate for the huge banks to consume the small ones and for the huge, international conglomerates to absorb the small firms," he observed.

Quoting a Bilderberger, Marrs added that, "Jack Sheinkman, Chairman of Amalgamated Bank and a Bilderberger member, stated in 1996, 'In some cases discussions do have an impact and become policy. The idea of a common European currency was discussed several years back before it became policy. We had a discussion about the U.S. establishing formal relations with China before Nixon actually did it.'"

"Bilderberg has had a direct influence on the White House since President Dwight Eisenhower's years," wrote Tucker. "They are accustomed to owning the president-whoever he is and whatever party is in control of the White House. A look back: Clinton, Trilateral and Bilderberg; Bush, Trilateral; Regan, received the Trilateralists at the White House and had his Vice President (Bush) address their meeting; Carter [Trilateralist] and his Vice President, Walter Mondale, both Bilderberg; Jerry Ford and his Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, both Bilderberg..."

Tucker further proclaimed that "Most presidents have been members of at least one of these two groups [Bilderberg or Trilateral Commission], and all have had representatives attend Bilderberg meetings to receive their orders." Allen observed the same pattern; he stated, "While the 'new world order' is being built, the Bilderbergers coordinate the efforts of the European and American power elites." So according to this information the leaders of the NATO nations are covertly controlled by this elite group of financial elitists.

A single currency is said to be in the planning for the entire Western Hemisphere by the Bilderbergers, which will eventually be followed by a world currency. The Bilderbergers, according to Tucker, are also in the process of implementing a global citizens' tax which will be payable to the United Nations. He wrote, "Like the federal income tax, a UN levy would be so small at the outset the consumer would hardly notice. But establishing the principle that the UN can directly tax citizens of the world is important to Bilderberg. It is another giant step toward world government. It is openly discussed with little public notice or objection..."

The objective of the Bilderberg Group appears to be the same as its interlocking Think Tanks, which is a one-world dictatorship, dominated by the financial elite. Journalist Tucker asserts, "Leaders of Bilderberg and its brother group, the Trilateral Commission ... together make up the word shadow government." Tucker informs us that what the Bilderbergers really intend is "a global army at the disposal of the United Nations." And that "it has been a long standing goal of Bilderberg for the UN to become the world government to which all nations will be subservient."

To the right we see Honorary Bilderberg Chairman Etienne Davignon (left) with Paul Wolfowitz, former Secretary of Defense and current head of the World Bank, at the Bilderberg meeting in Rottach-Ergen, Germany in 2005. Professor Texe Marrs, has lectured at the University of Texas, authored over 25 books, and has retired from the USAF as an officer with numerous decorations. Writing with authority, backed by careful research, he concludes, "The goal of the Bilderbergers is to create a pretense [fake] democratic World Government, controlled by them."

Author Marrs noted that Bilderberg members that are not part of the inner-core, may not be aware of the true intentions or objectives of the group, and may be convinced that world government is the only way to peace. This also appears to be the situation with its interlocking Think Tanks, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.(*) "Not everyone who attends one of the Bilderbergers' secret meetings is an Insider," agreed Allen. "Bilderberg policy is not planned by those who attend the conferences, but by the elite steering committee of Insiders."

"Remember, the Bilderbergers are philosophically neither Republican nor Democrat, declared Professor Marrs. "Their only 'party' is filthy lucre. ... Money, in turn, brings them power, and these folks have a never satisfied appetite for raw power." Apparently Gorbachev was influenced by the Bilderbergers and talked about a global union during a speaking tour in the United States. "Gorbachev's speeches could have been dictated by Kissinger after being drafted by Rockefeller ... as content was concerned," charged Tucker. "Gorbachev held out the Bilderberg-Trilateral vision of a UN military force that could invade once-sovereign nations to enforce 'human rights.'" "The New World Order means a new kind of civilization," Gorbachev told the Chicago CFR on May 8, 1991.

Regarding how President Clinton pushed the Bilderberger objective in 1999, Tucker wrote, "It appeared in daily newspapers for all to read, but too many sleep. The developments were celebrated by The Washington Post's Bilderberg representative Jimmy Lee Hoagland in a column on June 27, 1999 ... [When he proclaimed], 'The president promises a future in which Americans stand ready to intervene militarily if they can stop wholesale racial or ethnic slaughter "within or beyond other nations' borders" ... He promises a new world order.'" The first American woman to attend a Bilderberg meeting was Hilary Clinton in 1997. Author Marrs senses they may have plans for her in the following years.

Summary

Presidents and prime ministers are selected by the Bilderbergers and controlled like puppets. Bilderberg meetings are guarded by the military, SWAT teams, local police and private security firms. Like the CFR, their policy is passed without public approval. Their goal is to create a world government under their control, which will have the illusion of freedom.

Their motives for establishing a global dictatorship using a fake democracy will be expanded upon when we examine a future chapter on psychopathy. Most are unaware of their existence due to a media blackout. Despite attending Bilderberg meetings, mainstream media owners have reported little on this group for over fifty years.

[Footnotes]
* All Bilderberg Photos were taken from Jim Tucker's Bilderberg Diary.
** Authors, Allen, Ross, and Sutton, all agree there is an inner-core.

Party Animals: the Donkey and the Elephant

---by Ilona Nickels (Congressional and Pubic Policy Expert)

How did Republicans pick the elephant, and Democrats the donkey, to represent their parties?

They didn't pick these labels – they got stuck with them! Their origin as symbols for the parties is attributed to a political cartoonist, Thomas Nast, who used the donkey and the elephant in cartoons drawn for Harper's Weekly in the 1870's. Why Nast chose the donkey and the elephant is a pretty complicated story – see below.*

There are a couple of explanations for the use of the donkey as a political symbol for Democrats. Its origins are in the 1828 presidential campaign -- during which Andrew Jackson was labeled a "jackass," for his populist views. Jackson proudly seized the label and began using donkeys on his campaign posters. During his presidency, cartoonists sometimes used the donkey to illustrate President Jackson's stubbornness on certain issues. After Jackson, the donkey symbol largely faded, to be revived again by Thomas Nast in his 1870's cartoons.

Another explanation is simply the influence of cartoonist Thomas Nast. His original interpretation used the donkey to stand in for a Democrat-leaning newspaper scaring away Republican voters. In his cartoons a duplicitous donkey attacks a timid and clumsy behemoth elephant. The donkey and elephant became handy symbols for other cartoonists. Popular recognition and acceptance of those images overrode the parties’ own wishes.
The Democrat and Republican parties came to accept the reality that the symbols had stuck, like it or not. So, over time, Republicans came to portray the elephant emblem as a sign of strength and intelligence. Democrats seized the "jackass" label, and transformed the figure into a clever and courageous donkey. As is still true today, it's all in the spin!

* Thomas Nast and the "Central Park Menagerie Scare of 1874."

In 1874, a hoax was foisted on its readers by the New York Herald newspaper. The Herald ran a deliberately false story about animals breaking out of the zoo and foraging for food throughout Central Park. Around the same time, the Herald was running a series of editorials against a 3rd term for President Ulysses S. Grant, calling the possibility "Caesarism."

Nast combined these two elements together for the first time in an 1874 cartoon for Harper's Weekly. He had a donkey disguised as a lion trying to scare away the animals in a forest. The donkey was a symbol for the New York Herald; the lion-skin costume was a symbol for a scare tactic [the paper crying wolf with "Caesarism"], and the animals in the forest were the symbol for the newspaper's hoax about zoo animals in Central Park.

One of the animals frightened by the donkey's roar of Caesarism was an elephant – a symbol for Republican voters, who were abandoning President Grant, and in Nast's view, about to fall into the Democrats' trap.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Conference Committees: Procedures

---by Ilona Nickels (Congressional and Pubic Policy Expert)

How do conference committees work?

There are no formal rules governing conference committee procedures. Because they are intended to be flexible negotiating sessions to iron out differences between House and Senate versions of a bill, conferences may adopt any rules they wish - or none at all. Each conference has a different "climate" depending on the politics and the personalities involved in the particular issue on the table. Some conferences trade proposals in structured debate with formal votes on each one, while others engage in free-form discussions culminating in someone stating a consensus proposition and putting the idea to a straw vote.

Conference Committee Procedures

Congress can send the President only one bill for enactment into law. The House and Senate therefore need to reconcile the differences between their two versions through negotiation, and then formally agree to one final version to send forward.

The influence of the President is strong during conference committee negotiations: conferees want to avoid a veto of the final bill. The White House becomes part of the negotiations behind the scenes.

Conference committees are a tremendously important stage of the legislative process because they become the final opportunity to take existing language out of a bill, or put new language in. Conference reports cannot be amended on the House or Senate floor. The full body can only vote them up or down. So, whatever the conferees do to the language is the final word.

Conference reports consist of two documents: the final compromise version of the bill and the Statement of Managers, explaining their decisions (e.g. “the House receded from its position on Title II, the Senate concurred in the House language on Title V, etc.”)

Conference committees are temporary panels. They are convened for the purposes of settling differences on a single bill and then are dissolved when the work they produce – the final version of a particular bill – has been debated by the full House and Senate and adopted or rejected. The final compromise text they produce, known as the conference report, must be adopted by a majority vote in both chambers before it can be sent to the President. The President’s options are: to sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature [if the Congress is still in session. It is considered “pocket-vetoed” if the Congress is out of session.]

How Conferees Are Chosen

Conference committees are made up of House and Senate Members known informally as "conferees," and formally as “managers.”

House conferees are chosen by the chairs of the committee[s] going to conference, but the Speaker does the final appointing, so there is room to appeal to the Speaker if a committee chairman decides to leave someone out. Speakers have, at times, granted Members “limited conferee” status. Limited conferees can be at the negotiating table for parts of the bill that directly concern them, but not for the entire measure.

Senate conferees are also chosen by the committee chairs – the President pro tem formally appoints them, but it is a purely symbolic authority. The leaders play no role in conferee selection, and there is no appealing a chairman’s choice of which Senators he/she wishes to take to conference. However, Senate committee chairs tend to bend over backwards to include those that wish to be appointed. This is because the Senate’s rules give individual Senators lots of opportunities for “procedural payback,” should they be disappointed.

Given the obvious size difference between the chambers, the House always has more conferees than the Senate. However, each chamber's delegation has only a single vote. So, the two delegations have equal weight at the table, regardless of their respective sizes. The head of the House delegation can take a straw poll or a head count, or gather the opinion of his team any way he/she wants, but the House can only vote “yes” or “no” as a unit on any proposal on the table. The same is true of the Senate delegation.

When negotiations are completed, and a final text has been produced, a majority of the House delegation, and a majority of the Senate delegation, must sign the conference report to connote their approval. Not all conferees have to be in agreement. If a majority of the conferees from each chamber have signed the measure, it can then be brought forward for debate on the House and Senate floor.

Rules And Restrictions On Conferees

At least one open meeting is required to finalize the conference version of a bill. This one meeting may be strictly pro forma or be a substantive negotiation. Informal meetings among the staff and Members pre-conferencing issues through an exchange of emails or phone calls can settle many issues before the formal get together. These off stage negotiations can occur with all, or just some, of the conferees.

House and Senate rules restrain the negotiating room conferees technically have through a rule defining the “Scope of Differences.”  The common understanding of this principle is that conferees can forge a compromise based on the House bill language, the Senate bill language, or something in between. The “Scope of Differences,” in theory, doesn’t permit introducing brand new concepts not already in either the House or Senate bill.

However, violations of the “Scope of Differences” are common. The momentum for passage at this very last stage of the process is so strong that bringing down an entire conference report on a point of order for any technical reason is unlikely. House Members can count on their leadership getting waivers from the House Rules Committee to prevent points of order from being offered during floor consideration by the full House. Senate conferees will seek the Majority Leader’s help in getting a unanimous consent agreement covering the conference report that stipulates there will be no points of order once the conference report hits the Senate floor.

Debating And Amending A Conference Report

The House and Senate must both consider the final conference report and both must adopt it by a majority vote before this final version of the legislation can be sent to the President.

The House and Senate have different rules of procedure that govern debating a conference report. In the Senate, debate time on a conference report is unlimited, so Senators potentially can filibuster a conference report.

House Members always debate a conference report under time restrictions, usually a rule from the House Rules Committee. So a vote on final passage of the report is guaranteed. Debate rarely exceeds one hour.

Therefore, as a matter of strategy, conference reports go to the House first 99% of the time for debate and passage. Passage by the House builds momentum toward final enactment, putting pressure on the Senate to avoid a filibuster and hold a vote on final passage.

A conference report cannot be amended in either body. It’s a take it or leave it vote on final adoption.

Amendments Between The Houses – The Ping Pong Game

The rules of the House and Senate permit an alternative to holding a conference.

The process is known as “Amendments between the Houses.” It is done by trading motions back and forth: motions to concur in the language of the other body, motions to concur with amendments to the language of the other body, or motions to recede from the original language of that chamber, and concur with or without amendments to the language of the other.

This volley of motions goes back and forth until reconciliation of all differences is achieved.  The ping pong game is so complicated it puts effective control over the issue back into the hands of the respective committees of jurisdiction and the majority party leadership. The average Member doesn’t even try to keep up.

The advantage of “Amendments between the Houses” from the committee leadership’s perspective is that it generates no requirement to produce a time-consuming paper trail; it is speedier than the conference committee process; and control over the process reverts to the party and committee leadership, and out of the public eye.

The disadvantage of this process for the public is precisely that there is no access to witness the negotiating process, minimal floor debate to clarify the issues, and no paper trail, and therefore no legislative history for the courts or federal agencies, who may be need clarification of legislative intent in the future.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Five ways to make the most of Twitter

by Kim Komando

7/23/2011

With more than 200 million users worldwide, Twitter is an online powerhouse. More than 350 million messages, or tweets, are sent daily. And it has played an important role in political protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Iran.

Yet some people question the purpose of Twitter. They don't understand how it would fit into their lives. Like all social-networking sites, Twitter is about connecting with others. Unlike other sites, though, it focuses on brevity. Posts are limited to 140 characters.

Many use Twitter to give quick updates to friends and family. They share a small part of their day or say they're running late. Others use it to promote their business. You can also get customer support or ask questions. It's even a good way to keep up with the news and current events. Follow me at www.twitter.com/kimkomando.

Let's take a look at ways you can make the most of Twitter.

Hashtags

With millions sent each hour, messages can be difficult to follow. Hashtags help you overcome this. Just place a hashtag (#) directly before relevant keywords or topics. For example, you could use #computer or #job. This will help others find your tweets.

When you see a hashtag in a tweet, click it. This brings up other messages on the topic. Just remember to check how others are using a particular hashtag before using it. Some have embarrassed themselves by using a trending hashtag incorrectly.

Replies

You'll want to reply to others' tweets. Just find a message and click Reply. Enter your message and click Tweet. Replies start with @username. When you see your username, someone is replying to you. Click the tweet to see the original tweet, along with other information.

You can also insert @username to mention someone in a tweet. Mentions appear on the Mentions tab. This helps you see who is talking about you. To search for mentions on others, use @username in the search box. Mentions are a great way to build followers.

Retweets

Maybe you want to share a funny or important tweet with your followers. This is easy to do. Just click Retweet below a tweet to share it. Retweeting is a nice way to let others know you appreciate their tweets.

Retweets are easy to spot in the Timeline. You'll see the retweet icon, along with the username beside the tweet. Still, it is considerate to acknowledge the original tweeter in the message. Precede the message with "RT @username."

Direct messages

You can send direct messages to other users who are following you. While the message is private, remember that anything posted online can be made public.

To send a direct message, click the Messages button. The following page shows your message history. Click New Message. Enter the username for the recipient. Write your message and click Send.

Lists

Following others on Twitter is easy. Find the person to follow and click the Follow button. If a user has protected tweets, they must approve you. When you follow someone, their tweets appear in your Timeline.

If you follow many people, lists will help you organize your messages. For example, group coworkers or school friends together. You can then scan related messages easily.

To create a list, visit a user's profile. Click the person icon. On the Actions menu that appears, click "Add to list." Enter the information for the list and choose public or private. The user is added to the list. Add others by following these steps and selecting an existing list.