Phil

I took photos within a cave and they kind of look like animals to me. One looks like a Chinese monk riding a lion. The images are posted on National Geographic.

http://m.yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/1...

I took and posted on National Geograpic the photo. What is under the bat?

http://m.yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/1...

On May 24, 2012 the FEC in a carefully worded document admitted it was wrong.

Actions by the Federal Election Commission that removed controls on individual campaign spending were illegal and they are finally admitting they know it:

1. Congress intended individual Federal campaign contribution limits.

2. The FEC cannot pass laws or go against the intention of Congress.

3. The FEC is part of Executive Branch and cannot make formal legal rulings.

4. They can issue “advisories”. These are opinions only.

5. Actions of the FEC must pass the Chevron test.

6. According to Chevron test, the FEC can't pass new laws, nor go against the intention of Congress.

7. Facts 1-6 were just proven yet again when the FEC lost in a case filed by Chris Van Hollen Jr.. Changes the FEC made regarding disclosure were deemed illegal.

8. In 2010, the FEC in a similar rule making modified 3 key statutes in the wake of a ruling by the Court in a case called EMILY's List.

9. A careful reading of EMILY's List, will show the Court merely intended the FEC to modify the rules so that the FEC stuck to controlling only Federal election monies.

10. Rather then adhering to the intention of the Court and Congress, the FEC completely deleted three key statutes in 2010.

11. The action by the FEC in that 2010 rule making in the wake of EMILY's List was the true “birth” of super PACs and unlimited funds flowing from individuals.

12. The FEC has finally realized their actions after EMILY's List will also be deemed illegal. The U.S. Courts have restated again and again that the true test to evaluate if a contribution is made to influence a Federal Election is the reasonable person test. The FEC itself used this principle when charging the Texas billionaires that gave to operation Swift Boat for Veterans. Rather than face Federal charges, the group accepted a pat on the wrist and small fine.

You will find the current admission in an FEC document called Rulemaking Priorities for 2012 issued on May 24, 2012.

Notice the paragaraph:

Political Committees That Engage in Independent Spending

Several cases, including two cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -SpeechNow.org v. FEC and EMILY's List v. FECaffect portions ofthe Commission's regulations regarding contributions to, and disbursements by, certain committees not authorized by candidates. The proposed rulemaking would provide guidance to these committees on how to establish and maintain a separate account for their independent spending, how to allocate their administrative and fundraising expenses, and how to report their receipts and disbursements.

What is about to happen is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Full story at:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/28/1095474/-...

Do you think this story in Washington post will effect Romney and were you bullied?

New page created on Facebook to talk about Mitt Romney and his bully days in high school.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cranbrook-incident-...

Does being a bully in high school mean you can't be president?

You can also share thoughts on facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cranbrook-incident-...

Mitt Romney is doing great job bringing up the fact that many LGBT students are bullied in school. I started a facebook page called Cranbrook incident.

If you were bullied in school, or don't believe in bullying...please post a comment to the page so everyone knows that being a bully is not acceptable.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cranbrook-incident-...

Below is an article I found circulating on the web.

If anyone sitting at home thinks it is a good idea to find the truth of the matter.

#1 Cranbrook is still around and it is easy to find Romney's classmates using a yearbook.

#2 Check up with the classmates if the story is true. Cranbrook is in Bloomfield Hills Michigan

#3 If the story is true build your evidence and make it known.

If Romney is really a bully against gays...I think it is important that this be known...do you?

ARTICLE

One day after President Obama announced his support for marriage equality, the Washington Post reports on the early days of Mitt Romney's evolution on equal rights:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. [...]

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”

This article is circulating on the web. Has anyone tracked down Romney's classmates?

Cranbrook is still around and there is obviously a yearbook you can cross check if anyone wants to bother with it.

One day after President Obama announced his support for marriage equality, the Washington Post reports on the early days of Mitt Romney's evolution on equal rights:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. [...]

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”

Very few community members know a few billionaires that were trying to make unlimited contributions to stop same-sex marriage got the ball rolling that ultimately became super PACs.

I see it. I know exactly who these billionaires are. I know the Court cases, and I know why super PACs are illegal. I even started a class action lawsuit against all super PAC donors.

Yet all I see is community members carrying signs and making cute websites and facebook pages.

If you are not learning about super PACs and spreading the word they are illegal...you are endorsing their behavior. How do I get the word out to the community to do this.

I posted a Facebook page..however, after a month just 7 people looked at what is perhaps the greatest issue of all.

Do you know Romney took a pledge to a super PAC to work towards a federal ban on same-sex marriage and adoption?

www.facebook.com/SuperPacFederalLawsuit

The defendant class action suit against super PACs and their donors for violation of campaign law calls for both civil fines and ability to transfer defendants into criminal court.

Do you feel super PAC donors should be allowed to pay only civil fines? or

Should criminal charges be pressed including jail terms....and if so what is the cutoff point.

I.E. a donation 100% over maximum individual limit? 500% over maximum limit etc.

A federal court received an injunction request to rule that until a court case confirms funds are not excessive and not prohibited that they should be deemed questionable. Good idea or bad?

If court grants injunction then contributors are protected. If court denies then contributors may find themselves on wrong side of law if case rules funds illegal.

Hi everyone...I've noticed most contributions are tiny.

I've been presented with a great win win...Is this a good idea?

Here is the situation

I'm in Country X, and the locals have approached me with a problem. They have a great port and cheaper fuel prices that Country Y. The US Navy fills up there not here.

They say they have asked many times, without reply. As a US Citizen and yacht owner, they came up with an idea. Used yacht prices are very subjective and lets just say..

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

All they want is a word from above to listen to their proposal.

Regards

Yacht Owner

Super pacs are illegal, super pacs are bad, are super pacs legal, tax deductible, super pacs invite corruption, influence peddling

Fancy loud Billionaires are going to PRISON for all these illegal super pacs

Which Billionaire do you want to see in prison first and ... who do you suggest for his/her bunk mate?

Super PACs are like super cars. Both legal to own and build.

However, both illegal to operate.

On January 31 2012..a federal ruling spelled the doom for all super PACs and their donors. It essentially ruled..

If it walks like a DUCK and quacks like a DUCK its a ...... DUCK.

Super PACs act no different than giving money directly to the candidate. Big money to candidates=ILLEGAL

Like the POLICE stopping the super car from SPEEDING....the owner and driver face felony charges and jail time.

Cool...we are going to have a lot of Billionaires in prison. Yachts are going to be on the market cheap!

See wikipedia page to learn more. Kind of technical stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_comm...

Oh candidates can get tossed in jail too...

Now for the question.

Which Billionaire do you want to see in prison first and ... who do you suggest for his/her bunk mate?

Spread the word

super pacs are breaking the law A seven year-old could have told you that!

super pacs are illegal When they are speeding..and they always are!

donor are going to jail share the JOY

are super pacs illegal share good new!

Which Billionaire do you want to see in prison first and ... who do you suggest for his/her bunk mate?

Super PACs are like super cars. Both legal to own and build.

However, both illegal to operate.

On January 31 2012..a federal ruling spelled the doom for all super PACs and their donors. It essentially ruled..

If it walks like a DUCK and quacks like a DUCK its a ...... DUCK.

Super PACs act no different than giving money directly to the candidate. Big money to candidates=ILLEGAL

Like the POLICE stopping the super car from SPEEDING....the owner and driver face felony charges and jail time.

Cool...we are going to have a lot of Billionaires in prison. Yachts are going to be on the market cheap!

See wikipedia page to learn more. Kind of technical stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_comm...

Oh candidates can get tossed in jail too...

Now for the question.

Which Billionaire do you want to see in prison first and ... who do you suggest for his/her bunk mate?

Spread the word

super pacs are breaking the law A seven year-old could have told you that!

super pacs are illegal When they are speeding..and they always are!

donor are going to jail share the JOY

are super pacs illegal share good new!

Which Billionaire do you want to see in prison first and ... who do you suggest for his/her bunk mate?

Super PACs are like super cars. Both legal to own and build.

However, both illegal to operate.

On January 31 2012..a federal ruling spelled the doom for all super PACs and their donors. It essentially ruled..

If it walks like a DUCK and quacks like a DUCK its a ...... DUCK.

Super PACs act no different than giving money directly to the candidate. Big money to candidates=ILLEGAL

Like the POLICE stopping the super car from SPEEDING....the owner and driver face felony charges and jail time.

Cool...we are going to have a lot of Billionaires in prison. Yachts are going to be on the market cheap!

See wikipedia page to learn more. Kind of technical stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_comm...

Oh candidates can get tossed in jail too...

Now for the question.

Which Billionaire do you want to see in prison first and ... who do you suggest for his/her bunk mate?

Spread the word

super pacs are breaking the law A seven year-old could have told you that!

super pacs are illegal When they are speeding..and they always are!

donor are going to jail share the JOY

are super pacs illegal share good new!

are super pacs tax deductible NO.. but you get free prison uniform

If millions in PAC money is stopping your choice candidate or special interest groups are spending on single interests issues....you need to now about January 31th, 2012

In National Organization For Marriage v. Walter McKee (Maine), the Court included an interesting topic:

"Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating or influencing a campaign when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a campaign"

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/geto%E2%80%A6

From this opinion, and based upon how the press and press from the PACs themselves, a reasonable person would conclude monies donated to a specific PAC will be earmarked to promote a specific candidate or cause. This in turn means most monies directed towards these PACs are essentially monies directed towards the candidates themselves.

Spread the word...see more details on Wikipedia's page for

political action committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_comm...

You now have the power to stop millions of PAC dollars..all you have to do is object to the election board and point at the law.

As of February 2012, Voters are still in the dark in Maine regarding who financed a 2009 campaign that reversed the rights of gays to marry.[41] Despite two Federal Court decisions upholding Maine's disclosure laws, attorney Bopp on the behalf of National Organization for Marriage vowed to immediately appeal a January 31st, 2012 ruling against his client to the US Supreme Court so donors can remain anonymous. [42]

Of the two US Circuit Court of Appeal rulings, it is the second one in Boston that perhaps contains the seeds of doing for PACs that accepted big contributions. In National Organization For Marriage v. Walter McKee (Maine), the Court included an interesting topic:

"Funds that can reasonably be determined to have been provided by the contributor for the purpose of initiating or influencing a campaign when viewed in the context of the contribution and the recipient's activities regarding a campaign"

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPIN...

From this opinion, and based upon how the press and press from the PACs themselves, a reasonable person would conclude monies donated to a specific PAC will be earmarked to promote a specific candidate or cause. This in turn means most monies directed towards these PACs are essentially monies directed towards the candidates themselves.

The second edge of the legal sword available to those harmed by spending, now up as much as 1600% for 2012, is to contest anonymous donors and PACs working towards specific candidates that have resulted in past elections and ballots initiatives.[44] Even before an election takes place formal complaints can be filed against clients depending on circumstances. For example Louisiana law states "Anonymous contributions must be transmitted to the State.....Violations of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act by a PAC can subject the chairman and treasurer of the PAC to civil penalties of up to $10,000."[45] An example of a complaint like this occurred in Minnesota in the 2012 election cycle over groups spending millions of dollars to promote an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. There, a national gay rights group demanded the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board to investigate the disclosure reports. "This is part of (the National Organization for Marriage's) systematic attempt across the country to oppose public disclosure and hide its donors," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese said in a statement. [46]

This has opened the possibility that the most effective use of campaign workers is to stop an opposing side from using money against it. All that is required is to audit and file complaints when an organization directly or or indirectly benefits from spending exceeding individual limits or if it came from hidden donors.

Further, Pandora's box may be open should election boards step in, with possible court order, to invalidate voter results when extensive amounts of anonymous PAC monies were illegally used to sway voters.

Philip Maise

I keep hearing claims like...limited air strikes would take out Iran's capability to build WMD.

However, unlike Iraq (that didn't even have WMD), Iran has specifically built facilities with air strikes in mind which is why they are deep underground.

Does anyone seriously think limited air strikes would be all that is necessary to stop WMD in Iran?

Which candidate do you think is best to get us through the war in Iran to stop them from getting the bomb? Isn't this the best reason to vote for who is next President?

You are most likely not a member of the super rich and limited to giving $2,500 to a candidate..yet the billionaires can give millions at a time to fund ads to get dumb voters to vote based upon an ad campaign instead of the issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/31/us/p...