British Prime Minister "Devalued"

This video blew my mind. Here we have Daniel Hannan, presumably part of the British Parliament, speaking frankly to the British Prime Minister about the state of Britain, and how much of the problem is the result of his careless spending, and placing his won desires before the nation. Will the United States ever have a Daniel Hannan to stand up to our own present administration?

For Clarities Sake

It has come to my attention, as of late, and from a variety of sources, that this blog is my attempt to bash Obama. I want to make clear that this is not my intention; rather, I am looking only to report what I have seen to be abuses of power by this administration, and to illustrate the move this nation is taking towards Fascism. I understand, however, that up to this point every post I have made has been about Obama. Thus, I will broaden my posts and start evaluating other news.

That stated, I must stand firm in my execution of news that clearly illustrates abuse of power; my conscious and dedication to liberty and the Constitution dictate me to do so. In fact, I do so out of a desire to adhere to Romans 13's requirement that Christians submit to the government. And because, in America, the Constitution is the government. We have a system of government, where the law IS the government. So, to the extent that Obama obeys the Constitution, we need not criticize him, but to the extent that he violates the Constitution, we are required by Romans 13 to keep our public servants in submission to the Constitution, which is the government.

Romans: 13 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

"St. Obama"

What do these pictures represent? What is the photographer trying to tell us, and do we, as Americans, truly think this way? I have, as of late, become increasingly uneasy about the worship of this president; a mere man whom many Americans are placing their trust in. Man is fallible, and we can see that he has already back peddled on some of the "changes" he promised. (Many of his lies are documented in the Obama Deception conveniently located on this web page under Political Films) In John, chapter 14 verse 6 it states "I am the way the Truth, and the Life" Why do we put stock in a mere mortal; a man who will one day die as all humanity does. Why do we worship a man who has habitually lied to this nation. America wake up!!!

GIVE Mandatory Service Act Strips First Amendment of “Volunteers”

Kurt NimmoInfowarsMarch 24, 2009

On March 18, Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, tacked an amendment on H.R. 1388, entitled “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” or GIVE (to government), Obama’s plan to require mandatory service for all able young people. Miller’s amendment will “prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing,” according to GovTrack.us, a site that tracks Congress.
Obama’s call for a “Civilian Security Force” during a campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

In other words, Obama’s “volunteer corps” act, passed by the House with a 321-105 margin and requiring the government to develop a plan for indentured servitude, would deny millions of people their right to oppose and organize against government legistation under the First Amendment. “This is as close to a sedition act, a violation of 1st Amendment rights, as has been proposed in recent history. A basic right as a part of our natural, inalienable rights, is to resist government. Our founders not only knew it was a right but it was a responsibility. This legislation begins to break that down significantly,” writes Gary Wood for the Examiner.
GIVE (up your rights) will conscript millions of young people, put them in uniforms and send them packing to 4-year “public service” academies where they will be indoctrinated and trained to become “public sector leaders.”

GIVE was passed by the House on March 18 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321 to 105. “At this moment of economic crisis, when so many people are in need of help and so much needs to be done, this could not be more urgent,” said Obama. “It is up to every one of us to do his or her small part to make the world a better place.”

Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

Section 120 of the bill addresses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

H.R. 1388 not only reauthorizes programs under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, but also includes “new programs and studies” and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, explains Bob Unruh for WND.

“Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 ‘volunteers,’ is the beginning of what President Obama called his ‘National Civilian Security Force’ in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate,” Unruh adds.
It appears Miller’s amendment is designed to strip members of this emerging “National Civilian Security Force” of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

According to GovTrack.us, the addition of the Miller amendment to GIVE was agreed to by voice vote.

On March 23, a similar bill was passed by the Senate on a 74 to 14 vote. “From President Kennedy’s days to the creation of Americorps by then President Bill Clinton, the notion of public service has become a rallying cry. Tonight’s vote, propelled by President Obama’s urging of an expansion, would mean a growth in such work from 75,000 community service jobs to 250,000,” reported the New York Times.

Christain's Ban Obama Deception: Check This Story Out

"Christians" run defense for the violent, criminal state

Ter·ror·ist (noun): Anyone Who Disagrees with the Government

The first amendment to the constitution states as follows, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I think, if you read the following story, you will find that at least two of these "natural rights" are being trampled on.

George Washington’s Blog - Saturday, March 21, 2009The Department of Homeland Security and police forces label anyone who they disagree with - or who disagrees with government policies - as “terrorists”.

Don’t believe me?

Well, according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act, “Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.”

And according to an FBI memo, peace protesters are being labeled as “terrorists”. Indeed, police have been terrorizing children, little old ladies and other “dangerous” people who attempted to peacefully protest.

And a 2003 FBI memo describes protesters’ use of videotaping as an “intimidation” technique, even though - as the ACLU points out - “Most mainstream demonstrators often use videotape during protests to document law enforcement activity and, more importantly, deter police from acting outside the law.” The FBI appears to be objecting to the use of cameras to document unlawful behavior by law enforcement itself.

And the Internet has been labeled as a breeding ground for terrorists, with anyone who questions the government’s versions of history being especially equated with terrorists.

Now, the state of Missouri has labeled as terrorists current Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters, former Congressman Bob Barr, libertarians in general, anyone who holds gold, and a host of other people.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with the “acceptable” way of looking at things is a terrorist.

How is this different from Stalin or Mao’s use of labels such as “enemy of the state”?

Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration's latest attempt to tackle the banking crisis and get loans flowing to families and businesses will create a new government entity, the Public-Private Investment Program, to help purchase as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets on banks' books.

The new effort, to be unveiled Monday, will be followed the next day with release of the administration's broad framework for overhauling the financial system to ensure that the current crisis - the worst in seven decades - is not repeated.
A key part of that regulatory framework will give the government new resolution authority to take over troubled institutions that would pose a threat to the entire financial system if they failed.

Administration officials believe this new power will save taxpayers money and avoid the type of controversy that erupted last week when insurance giant American International Group paid employees of its troubled financial products unit $165 million in bonuses even though the company had received more than $170 billion in support from the federal government.
Under the new powers being sought by the administration, the treasury secretary could only seize a firm with the agreement of the president and the Federal Reserve.
Once in the equivalent of a conservatorship, the treasury secretary would have the power to limit payments to creditors and to break contracts governing executive compensation, a power that was lacking in the AIG case.

The plan on toxic assets will use the resources of the $700 billion bank bailout fund, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
The initiative will seek to entice private investors, including big hedge funds, to participate by offering billions of dollars in low-interest loans to finance the purchases. The government will share the risks if the assets fall further in price.

When Geithner released the initial outlines of the administration's overhaul of the bank rescue program on Feb. 10, the markets took a nosedive. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged by 380 points as investors expressed disappointment about a lack of details.
Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said Sunday that it's important for investors to know that the administration is bringing a full array of programs to confront the problem.

"I don't think Wall Street is expecting the silver bullet," she said on CNN's "State of the Union.""This is one more piece. It's a crucial piece to get these toxic assets off, but it is just part of it and there will be more to come."

But private economists said investors may still have doubts about whether the government has adequate resources to properly fund the plan and whether private investors will be attracted to participate, especially after last week's uproar concerning the AIG bonuses, which has added to the anti-Wall Street feelings in the country.

Romer said the new toxic asset program would utilize around $100 billion from the $700 billion bailout fund, leaving the fund close to being tapped out.
Mark Zandi, an economist at Moody's Economy.com, estimated that the government will need an additional $400 billion to adequately deal with the toxic asset problem, seen by many analysts as key to finally resolving the banking crisis.

Zandi said the administration has no choice but to rely heavily on government resources because of the urgency of getting soured real estate loans and troubled asset-backed securities off the books of banks so that they can resume more normal lending to consumers and businesses.
"This is a start and we will see how far it goes, but I believe they will have to go back to Congress for more money," he said.

The Public-Private Investment Program that will be created was viewed as performing the same functions - selling bonds to finance purchases of bad assets - as a similar organization did for the Resolution Trust Corp., which was created to dispose of bad real estate assets in the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.
According to administration and industry officials, the toxic asset program will have three major parts:

A public-private partnership to back private investors' purchases of bad assets, with government support coming from the $700 billion bailout fund. The government would match private investors dollar for dollar and share any profits equally.

Expansion of a recently launched Fed program that provides loans for investors to buy securities backed by consumer debt as a way to increase the availability of auto loans, student loans and credit card debt. Under Geithner's plan for the toxic assets, that $1 trillion program would be expanded to support purchases of toxic assets.

Use of the FDIC, which insures bank deposits, to support purchases of toxic assets, tapping into this agency's expertise in closing down failed banks and disposing of bad assets.
Some industry officials said hedge funds and other big investors are likely to be more leery of accepting the government's enticements to purchase these assets, fearing tighter government restraints in such areas as executive compensation.

Administration officials, however, insisted Sunday that a distinction needed to be made between companies getting heavy support from the bailout programs and investors who are being asked to help dispose of troubled assets.

Romer said the partnership with the private sector will help ensure that the government doesn't overpay for the toxic assets that it will be purchasing.
"This isn't just another handout to banks," she said on CNN. "We very much have the taxpayers' interest in mind."

The administration's revamped program for toxic assets is the latest in a string of banking initiatives which have also included efforts to deal with mortgage foreclosures, boost lending to small businesses and unfreeze the market for many types of consumer loans.
In addition, the nation's 19 biggest banks are undergoing intensive examinations by regulators that are due to be completed by the end of April to determine whether they have sufficient capital reserves to withstand an even more severe recession. Those that do not will be able to get more support from the government.

The overhaul of financial regulation will be revealed by Geithner in testimony he is scheduled to give Tuesday and Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee.
In addition to the expanded authority to seize big institutions that pose a risk to the entire system, the administration is also expected to offer more general proposals on limiting excesses seen in executive compensation in recent years, where the rewards prodded extreme risk-taking.

The regulatory plan is also expected to include a major change that gives the Federal Reserve more powers to oversee systemic risks to the entire financial system.
The administration is working to unveil its proposed regulatory changes in advance of a meeting of the Group of 20 economic leaders, which Obama will attend on April 2 in London. European nations have complained that lax financial regulations in the United States set the stage for the current financial crisis.

"Conspiracy" and the Bilderberg Group"

Mainstream news outlet, Politico, published an interesting analysis of the Bilderberg Group--a subject that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Read the article. (Watch a few excellent clips on the subject of the Bilderberg Group here.)Discussing the subject of the Bilderberg Group (a group of elites who exercise a considerable amount of control over world events) inevitably invites the "c"-word: conspiracy. Unfortunately, this is a term that tends to turn off the thinking process: "oh that's a conspiracy theory, so it must be made up." I previously posted on the strange nature of the word conspiracy...why does it have negative connotations?Also, here is another fair treatment of the subject of "conspiracy" out of the London Guardian.Watch the film, The Obama Deception yourself, and check out Alex Jones' claims, which he invites the viewer to do. See for yourself that there is a global elite. They do exist, and they are powerful people. Why is this surprising to people?

Constitutionalists, Ron Paul Supporters and Real Terrorists

I found this article intriguing, and it relates directly to a post I made earlier entitled" Police trained Nationwide that Informed Americans are Terrorists" If you have not yet looked at this post, I would encourage you too prior to reading this. It will help provide some context. Just follow the link provided above.

Szandor BlestmanAmerican Chronicle Friday, March 20, 2009
By now many of you have probably heard about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that labeled constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters and others as possible domestic terrorists. When I first heard about it my first thought was something like, “Oh no, here we go again. The government propaganda machine is at work again. They are trying to equate ordinary folk and peace loving activists with violent extremists.” Indeed, from my point of view this seems correct.

But, alas, I am a man who can´t just scratch the surface of an issue and leave it at that. I must try to dig deeper into the heart of the matter and try to sort through the implications. This is not to say that my initial gut reaction wasn´t correct. Indeed, often times it is. Yet there is often more to such reports than meets the eye and words are often misused or misinterpreted. I began to wonder why such a report would even be considered warranted. It seems clear to me that the language being used in the report was chosen to discourage dissent and incite violence rather than protect officers.

To begin with, we can examine the word terrorist. The word invokes images of hate filled, spiteful people plotting in a secretive fashion to plant bombs in public areas meant to kill and maim as many innocents as possible. Yet that is not what a terrorist is in the strictest sense of the word. A terrorist is one who terrorizes. A terrorist simply creates an atmosphere of fear. One could make the argument that I am a terrorist based on the fact that I write horror novels designed to make the reader feel the tingle of fright run down his spine. To label me as such would be an attempt to misinform and mis-associate in my opinion and the same can be said for the MIAC report. It wouldn´t, however, be totally false as the label was based on a plausible truth.

Or I could simply be looking at this from the wrong point of view. Perhaps from the point of view of those in politics and law enforcement, people in the freedom movement really are terrorists. After all, they have a tendency to not simply submit because someone claiming to have authority over them tells them to. They have a tendency to know their rights and to exercise them. They have a tendency to expect the police officers and government personnel to operate within the bounds of the law written down and codified in the Constitution. What could be more terrifying to a bully on a power trip who insists on being obeyed without question? What could be more frightening to a bureaucrat than someone who insists on the freedom and ability to run his own life rather than depending on the system?

Those of us who have awakened and wish to move forward with a liberty agenda confound the sensibilities of those who insist on regulating every aspect of our lives. We in the freedom movement see ourselves and everyone else as individuals while those with a collectivist point of view have a tendency to lump people together into groups. It could therefore be very logical for those with a collectivist mindset (as many in the government seem to have) to conclude that if one individual involved in the freedom movement becomes violent while defending his rights, all of them are potentially violent. Many of us who are liberty oriented believe that individuals should be punished individually for any harm they may cause to another individual. Those with a collectivist mindset, which is apparently the mindset of the people involved with writing the MIAC report, believe it is ok to punish a group for the actions of an individual, or worse yet to prevent some imaginary incident from possibly happening. It doesn´t matter to them how many innocent people will be hurt or implicated, nor does it matter what principles of human dignity are ignored, it only matters that they are obeyed and that their power, their control and their point of view are all maintained, by force if necessary.It appears to me as if those currently in control of the mechanisms of power in this nation are, indeed, afraid and perhaps even terrified of those involved with the freedom movement. But I doubt very much that has anything to do with the people involved. The ideas of freedom and liberty are powerful. These ideas make wonderful allies when you side with them and frightening adversaries to fight against. They are ideas that most everyone understands and that just make good sense. Indeed, they seem to be ideas that have been interwoven into the fabric of the human spirit. So as those in control of the mechanisms of power see more and more people begin to question their authority they lash out at those who spread the message. As more ordinary people begin to demand accountability and insist on personal responsibility for the decisions that impact their lives, those who wish to remain in power may find themselves turning to even more tyrannical and devious methods to maintain control.

And so I am also afraid. I am terrified of that the men dressed in blue, or more often black these day, will one day kick down my door, drag me away and lock me in some cold prison cell simply because I choose to embrace the ideals that make men truly free as they go about their day to day lives. I am afraid that one day I will be accused of being a terrorist despite the fact that I abhor violence and do not advocate it, and that I will be forced to defend myself in front of a state owned court more concerned with its own self interests than with truth, justice or preserving the rights of the individual. I´m afraid that such a proceeding could cost me dearly in terms of time and wealth regardless of its outcome. I am afraid because the real terrorists have done their job well and given those who would dissent reason to be afraid. Yet I refuse to let fear silence me and will continue to support Ron Paul, The Campaign for Liberty, The Free State Project, tax protestors, constitutionalists and any other peaceful, freedom advocate I might come across. The more of us that feel this way and speak out about it, the better off we´ll all be.
If you want to know who the real terrorists are, type police brutality into a youtube search and watch the videos. If you want to know how real terrorism works, you only need to watch video of otherwise peaceful protests turned violent not by the protestors, but by those men dressed in black with riot gear and helmets who were supposedly there to keep the peace. Government forces have a history of violence that is far more insidious than any action any private organization has ever taken. Yet despite that they are still so afraid of some peaceful activists that they feel the need to label them and put out propaganda against certain organizations. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they cling to their delusions that it is for the greater good. Freedom and liberty are the ideals that will lead to greater societal good. Those in government would do well to realize and embrace these ideals before popular opinion forces them into an awkward and uncomfortable position they will have trouble defending.

What a difference Definitions Make

O Bomb A

An anti-war demonstrator shows her skepticism for President Obama's plan to leave Iraq. A small group of protesters gathered yesterday in New York on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the Iraq War

Obama Considers Expanding Afghanistan Troop Level to 400,000

U.S. President Barack Obama is considering a plan that would double the size of Afghanistan’s security force to about 400,000 troops and police officer to stabilize the nation, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Obama was expected to approve a version of the plan in coming days as part of a broader Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, the report said, citing senior administration and Pentagon officials.

Afghanistan now has about 90,000 troops and the Afghan National Police numbers about 80,000 officers, the newspaper said.

The relatively small size of the security forces has frustrated Afghan officials and American commanders who wanted to turn security over to legitimate Afghan security forces, and not local warlords, at a faster pace, the Times reported.

The White House declined comment on the report.

The administration’s goal of a 400,000-strong Afghan security force is more than three times the size that U.S. officials believed would be adequate for Afghanistan in 2002, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda appeared to have been routed, the report said.
According to the newspaper, cost projections for the program range from $10 billion to $20 billion over the next six or seven years. The annual budget for the entire Afghan government is largely provided by the United States and other international donors

House Passes Mandates Natl. Service Bill

In addition to disarming American citizens, a point well made in a previous blog, we must not forget that the Obama administration continues to strive for a national civilian security force. In plain English, Obama is going to require all Americans of a certain age to serve the country. This is unprecedented in our history. This country was voluntarily founded, and it should be voluntarily preserved. I love this country, but if I am going to die for it, I am going to make that decision. I will not allow the government, which the states created by the way, to force me to; especially not an administration I disagree with.

The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.Fears about Obama’s plans to create involuntary servitude were first stoked in July 2008, when Obama told a rally in Colorado Springs, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006.“The bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service,” reports Fox.“We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn’t emulate and probably can’t imagine,” said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. “The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative.”

Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker warns that Obama’s agenda is to, “tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda.”CFR luminary Gary Hart hit back at critics, claiming in a Huffington Post piece that, “Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy.”

The frightening prospect of Obama’s mandatory government servitude is covered in-depth in Alex Jones’ new documentary blockbuster, The Obama Deception. Subscribe to prison planet.tv now to watch the film in high-quality, watch it for free here or buy the DVD, make copies and spread the word. (You can also find this film on my blog)

There is additional information on this topic, as well as videos, on my eralier post in January titled "A New Change"

RON PAUL: WHAT IF... The American People Learn Truth!

Bailouts Are Taxation Without Representation

George Washington’s Blog Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Obama’s chief economics advisor - Larry Summers - said that AIG’s hundreds in billions of bonuses had to be paid because:
We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts.
The Revolutionary War was waged to fight taxation without representation.
What are the bailouts other than taxation without representation? Taxpayer money (directly or through inflation) will be used to pay off government debts incurred to bailout AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and everyone else.
The American people don’t want these bailouts. (See this and this).

The money is not going to help the American people, but to feather the nests of the wealthy, or to foreign banks.

The Constitution is the founding document of the United States, and all other laws are secondary to the framing document.

And as a former high-level savings and loan regulator, William Black, points out out in an email to Yves Smith:
[Treasury's bailouts of AIG are] the consequence of six things on the Treasury end of things:
…
(2) the failure to expose, and to the extent possible, remedy through restatements the massive accounting fraud that AIG was/is engaged in that triggers the bonuses
(3) the failure to bring criminal charges against the control frauds
…
(5) the weakness of Treasury’s current lawyers who, if press reports are accurate, couldn’t think of any way for the U.S. government to take effective action against what it reportedly views as a scandal….

Remember that covering up a crime committed by someone else is itself a crime:

“Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon’s apprehension, trial, or punishment.”

Are we a nation of laws, Mr. Summers?

If so, stop bailing out AIG, and Citigroup, and Bank of America and all of the other financial giants who are looting America.

If so, insist that the criminal schemes of the heads of these financial giants are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Police Trained Nationwide That Informed Americans Are Domestic Terrorists

This story blew my mind, especially as a Christian who both view the contributions of the founding fathers as important, and think it vital to be an informed citizen. In a nutshell, it asserts that informed Americans, who also support Ron Paul, as well as the founding fathers, yes Thomas Jefferson, are likened to terrorists. We are the threat to the decline of America. Here is the link to the entire story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists.html

Let's Disarm: Obama's Plan For the Future

I am a lover of the constitution, and when I find those who stomp on it I fear that the republic I so love and hold dear to is slipping away from me. This is the present state of America as the Obama administration seeks to disarm its citizens, one of the first steps in creating a fascist/dictatorial government. I assure all of America that if they succeed in this, I promise they will soon find a way to restrain other freedoms stated in the Constitution. John Locke, one of the foremost political thinkers and influences of the American Constitution, argued that if a government fails to protect the rights of its people, then the people have a right to overthrow that government. I say, and I am sure Jefferson would agree, maybe its time for a revolution, and return to the government of our founding.

Alan Korwin
Infowars
March 13, 2009

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):M1 Carbine,Sturm Ruger Mini-14,AR-15,Bushmaster XM15,Armalite M15,AR-10,Thompson 1927,Thompson M1;AK,AKM,AKS,AK-47,AK-74,ARM,MAK90,NHM 90,NHM 91,SA 85,SA 93,VEPR;Olympic Arms PCR;AR70,Calico Liberty ,Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,Fabrique National FN/FAL,FN/LAR, or FNC,Hi-Point20Carbine,HK-91,HK-93,HK-94,HK-PSG-1,Thompson 1927 Commando,Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;Saiga,SAR-8,SAR-4800,SKS with detachable magazine,SLG 95,SLR 95 or 96,Steyr AU,Tavor,Uzi,Galil and Uzi Sporter,Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).Pistols (or copies or duplicates):Calico M-110,MAC-10,MAC-11, or MPA3,Olympic Arms OA,TEC-9,TEC-DC9,TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,Uzi.Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10rounds.A semiautomatic shotgun with:(i) a folding or telescoping stock,(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacityof more than 5 rounds, and(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder. (I know this list is hard to follow, but just look at all the firearms this adminsitartion wants to ban)

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

An American foreign Presence: Obama and Foreign Policy

Despite Obama's present contention to remove troops from Iraq within the next 14 months, I, as are many libertarians, skeptical about this point. There does not appear to be any strong effort on the part of the Obama administration to end conflict, and the Shia's do not appear to be willing to stand down. It is my contention that if conflict escalates in the middle east, we will find our new "fuhrer" sending in more troops. Moreover, Obama has been quite clear that he would like to see advancement in Afghanistan; this does not seem to line up with the campaign of "peace in the Mideast", so to speak" which he campaigned on. The facade which won this man the Presidency appears to be falling away, and what we have remaining is a man, and administration, bent on dominating the American people, both abroad and at home.

Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul has slammed Barack Obama’s foreign policy, saying it is identical to that of his predecessor George W. Bush, proving once again that both parties follow the same agenda on major issues.

Paul compared Obama’s pre-election promises to those of his predecessor George W. Bush, who before his election in 2001 guaranteed that the U.S. would not be the policeman of the world or engage in nation building.

Since the inauguration, Obama has sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and and rapidly expanded the Bush-era bombing raids on Pakistan.

“Even though Obama was the so-called peace candidate and was going to bring our troops home from that war in Iraq, I’m afraid there’s evidence now that shows he’s going to pursue the same foreign policy - which was my argument during the campaign, that no matter what happens, both major parties support the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same welfare policy and there’s never really any change,” said the Congressman.

As we reported last month, Obama’s war chest for 2009 alone, when one includes the budget of the defense department, the vast majority of which is related to spending on new fighter jets and other weapons-related programs, is a whopping $805 billion dollars.

Every single component bar one of the DoD budget is up 5-10% compared to 2008, with the budget for “military construction” increasing by a mammoth 19.1%.

Meanwhile, despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force in perpetuity.

Obama swept to power on the promise that he would “immediately” withdraw troops from Iraq.

In reality, after the “withdrawal” of U.S. troops in 19 months, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,” reported the New York Times.

A senior military officer spelled it out more plainly to the Los Angeles TImes, “‘When President Obama said we were going to get out within 16 months, some people heard, ‘get out,’ and everyone’s gone. But that is not going to happen,’ the officer said.”

Ron Paul also discussed Obama’s monetary policy, noting that every time a new government initiative was announced to supposedly rescue the economy, the stock markets sink.

Paul said that he also did not hesitate to slam Obama’s policies on civil liberties, especially on liberal talk shows that were sympathetic with the new president.

“I don’t think there’s any reason for us to rejoice,” said the Congressman.

The Obama Deception

I feel as though I have done my country a disservice as of late, for being silent and not commenting on the ills which are plaguing this nation; a nation which once supported freedom and liberty. I am, for those of you who have read my last two posts, not in favor of the fascist Barack Obama; But I must admit that he is not acting alone, there is a group of people, a group acting as the oligarchy of America, who are using Barack Obama as their puppet as they seek to create a New World Order: Wall Street. I don't want to say much more, just watch the film. It is long, 2 hrs, but it clearly depicts the problems of this nation over the past 30 years, and illustrates where this country will be if we don't act soon.