News For Liberty

Ron Paul: Bill To Audit Fed Would Pass Tomorrow If It Was Given The Opportunity

2009-11-13T14:34:00.000-08:00

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Nov 13, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning, cramming a mountain of information into a ten minute interview during which he was given the floor.

The CNBC analysts were so enamored with the Congressman’s analysis that they invited him back to talk for two hours, to which he quipped, “I don’t know if I could stand you guys for two hours!”

Watch the 10 min interview here

Obama to Discuss More Troops for Afghanistan

2009-11-13T14:26:00.000-08:00

I am greatly troubled by this potential increase in troops. From a Christian perspective, I am appalled by warfare; let us not forget that the message of Christ is one of peace and love. But beyond this, and perhaps this illustrates my ignorance, I am not yet convinced that we need to continue this fight. This is a war that we can't win, and thus, this is a war that will never end.

I finish by simply stating, that a continual interference in the affairs of others, falls in stark contradiction to Washington's farewell address as well as the Monroe Doctrine.

Roger Runningen
Bloomberg
November 10, 2009

President Barack Obama will discuss four options for a buildup of U.S. forces in Afghanistan when he meets tomorrow with his national security team, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Gibbs, speaking to reporters traveling with the president to Fort Hood, Texas, declined to give details on those options.

Obama is under pressure to make a decision on whether to grant a request by his top commander in the field, General Stanley McChrystal, to send 40,000 more troops. That would expand the 68,000-strong U.S. force that will be in Afghanistanby the end of the year, including 21,000 that Obama authorized earlier this year.

Obama and Health Insurance

2009-11-10T17:30:00.000-08:00

I want to apologize to the select few who actually might try and see if I still post here. This year has been very busy, and I have been unable to post.

Tonight, however, I had some free time and I came across an article which peaked my interest. (you can read it here)

In essence, Obama would like to penalize any person(s) unable to purchase health care. His stance is as foll owes: Since there is a penalty against not having car insurance, should there not also be a penalty for not having health insurance.

I am not sure what I think about this, but I am inclined to straddle the fence on this one. I do believe that all people have the right to their own health care, but at the same time, I also believe that we as tax payers should not have to front the bill. "What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty." (Obama)

I need more time to think through this one, but I wanted to put it out there and see what others thought as well.

President Obama declares national emergency over swine flu pandemic, but why?

2009-10-25T17:25:00.000-07:00

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 24, 2009

According to the CDC, swine flu infections have already peaked, and the pandemic is on its way out. Peak infection time was the middle of October, where one in five U.S. children experienced the flu, says the CDC. Out of nearly 14,000 suspected flu cases tested during the week ending on October 10, 2009, 99.6% of those were influenza A, and the vast majority of those were confirmed as H1N1 swine flu infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/)

Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, U.S. President Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections. The reasoning behind such a declaration? According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.
Emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights
That’s the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister. Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including:

The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population.
• The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination.
• The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city.
• The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health.
• The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.

None of this means that federal agents are going to march door to door arresting people at gunpoint if they refuse the vaccine, but they could if they wanted to. Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
What emergency?

The declaration of this national emergency seems suspicious from the start. Where’s the emergency? The number of people killed by swine flu in the United States is far smaller than the number of people killed each year from seasonal flu, according to CDC statistics. People obviously aren’t dropping dead by the millions from H1N1 influenza. Most people are just getting mild flu symptoms and a few days later they’re fine.
So where’s the emergency?

The only emergency I can see is the emergency fabricated by Big Pharma to sell more vaccines. By declaring a national emergency over the H1N1 pandemic, Obama is playing right into their hands.

I find the timing of all this curious. Two days ago, New York gave up on its efforts to require mandatory vaccinations of health care workers. This was designed to defuse a large number of planned protests from health freedom-conscious people who don’t want government-mandated chemicals pumped into their veins.

The planned protests in New York would have fueled yet more resistance among health care workers across the country, and had it been allowed to continue, it could have resulted in a huge nationwide backlash against swine flu vaccines. By backing off the vaccine mandate and blaming it on a vaccine shortage (http://www.naturalnews.com/027313_N…), and then having Obama declare a national emergency, our state and national leaders have halted the protests and put in place a pro-vaccine Big Brother mandate that can be enforced at gunpoint.
Big Pharma must be pleased with all this. With these emergency powers in place, all that’s necessary to force vaccinations upon the entire population is a larger supply of the vaccines — and that’s coming in November

TOO LONG

2009-10-25T17:23:00.001-07:00

I want to apologize to those small few who might follow this blog. I have been very busy, and have had no time to upload news and comment. For this, I am sorry

Alex Jones: Fall of the Republic

2009-10-08T18:46:00.001-07:00

A new film by Alex Jones. Coming October 21

Obama Supports Speech Limits at United Nations

2009-10-08T18:41:00.000-07:00

HERE WE GO AGIAN: FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION DOWN THE DRAIN

Anne Bayefsky
The Weekly Standard
October 7, 2009

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the “reformed” Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN’s lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an “abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”

General wants 40,000 more U.S. troops for Afghan

2009-10-08T18:33:00.000-07:00

I am not sure I understand this. The Obama administration had a platform of removing soldiers from war. Oh yes, this was from Iraq, not Afghanistan; what was I thinking. I myself am a little tired of this constant fighting, and see no need to continue. Indeed, there is the idea that "we are making America safe from terror, and, in the end, a more free nation"

Perhaps I am a bit disillusioned, but could someone please explain to me how this is making me more free? The argument is that "we are keeping terrorists at bay; by engaging them in war we are keeping them from attacking us." There is some truth to this claim, but when will the fighting stop? It's amazing to me that we are always looking for a way to gain peace, but then we make arguments such as this.

Maybe I am a bit uninformed, or simply a bit "out of touch" with the reality of this war, but sending more troops in Afghanistan not only goes against what Obama promised us, but simply does nothing to promote peace

WASHINGTON
(Reuters)

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has recommended an increase of 40,000 troops as the minimum necessary to prevail, two sources familiar with his recommendations said on Thursday.

General Stanley McChrystal also gave President Barack Obama an option of sending more than 40,000 troops, the sources said, which could be politically risky given deep doubts among Obama's fellow Democrats about the eight-year-old war.
One of the sources, both of whom spoke on condition that they not be identified because of the sensitivity of talking about recommendations to the president, said McChrystal also gave a third high-risk option of sending no more troops.

The sources spoke as a heated debate played out in Washington over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to try to put down the Taliban insurgency or to scale back the U.S. mission and focus on striking al Qaeda cells.
There are now more than 100,000 Western troops serving in Afghanistan, of whom 65,000 are U.S. troops. The number of U.S. troops already is due to increase to 68,000 later this year.

A Thought of My Own: A Moment With Thomas Jefferson

2009-09-27T15:18:00.000-07:00

It seems all together fitting that at this time, and in this age, we, as a collective generation, reexamine the thoughts and ideas of Thomas Jefferson. This is done not in an attempt to hail him as the "Greatest American", or even to fame him as the ideal "say all" of American policy, but rather, it is my attempt at reevaluating Jeffersonian ideas which have, since the inception of this nation, and over the many generations, been lost which, as a result of their disappearance, have had a clear negative impact upon the overall scope and direction of this Great American Experiment.

Thomas Jefferson: "We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. "

One of Jefferson's least popular quotes, it is most appropriate for this day and time, and I think its applicability can best be seen in the economic disaster we are presently facing.

During his time as Secretary of State, during Washington's administration, Jefferson sought to maintain a small federal government, one which would look to defend the rights of its people, and as economics was concerned, Jefferson sought to leave much of this work to the states.

Contrasting him was Alexander Hamilton. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton wanted a large Federal Government, and as we see today, he won. He successfully created a national bank and assumed a national debt. This he did under the premise that the Constitution supplied "Implied Powers": aka, powers not listed in the Constitution, but powers Hamilton needed in order to justify his economic desires.

Today, we are experiencing the ills of Hamiltonian economics, and its failures are now the problems of the next generation. Today, we call Hamilton's national bank the Fed and Wall Street, and that debt, which Hamilton said would be good so long as it was not excessive, now reaches so far that it is likely that it will never be paid off.

The point is clear: Jefferson wanted to ensure that the "posterity" of this country not suffer the ills of any who came before. This, however, is not the ideology we practice today. We spend large sums of money, never thinking how it will influence the next generation. We are called to be good to mother earth so as to ensure that our children and grandchildren have a good and clean environment to grow up in; but how about the debt? Why don't we start acting "good" towards our massive debt so that our posterity will not have to bear the burden of paying it off. Let's begin to think of each generation as its own nation, understanding that they will have their own problems to deal with. We don't need to compound those with problems of 50 years ago.

Military and Riot Thugs Detain, Dehumanize and TORTURE American Citizens

2009-09-27T11:29:00.000-07:00

This might just confirm that unessasary violence is being enacted aginst protestors in this American society we currentley live in. Two questions: Why is this being done, and why are auhorities allowing suvh things to be done.

Jason Bermas

Prison Planet.com

Sunday, September 27, 2009

In what was possibly the most surreal, horrific, and unimaginable thing I have ever witnessed in my life, 1200 Riot Police and Military Personal rabidly attacked a group of well under 300 American citizens, many of them just students that were unaware there was even a protest going on. They then expanded their perimeter and shut large areas of Oakland down. This is how my last experience at the G20 in Pittsburgh went down, out of control authorities mercilessly attacking an unarmed crowd with batons, tear gas, pepper spray, sound weapons, and rubber bullets. Around 10pm on Friday night, long after the vast majority of dignitaries and protesters had left, it became evident that the outrageous show of force by the Military and Police was not enough to stave off their thirst for blood.

When I first arrived on the scene Luke Rudowski of We Are Change and a small group of protesters were peaceably assembling among a much larger number of college students just out for another weekend of fun in Schenley Plaza. Around ten minutes later Rob Dew arrived and we began filming the entire scene, it was evident that the number of police already in the area and the amount who were massing and surrounding the perimeter was extremely alarming.
As Luke bull horned that the people in this park meant the police no physical harm, and that they were simply exercising their right to free speech, a couple of masked individuals began to scream “He doesn’t speak for us”. These few provocateurs and well meaning idiots could have been easily dealt with by a handful of regular police officers dressed in their standard uniform, however that solution does not offer the pretext for over a thousand heavily armed psychotics to encircle and engage the American people.

I began to become extremely frightened as to what the outcome of the situation was going to be as I began to witness LRAD weapons showing up, dogs beginning to circle the perimeter, and then everyone putting on their gas masks. During all of this I was threatened with arrest three times and physically charged and chased by one of the officers. At that point I realized they were about to attack, and they did. Hundreds of armed to the teeth trained professionals began their march towards innocent young men and women, and then took it much further by launching tear gas canisters, battening people trying to leave, and firing rubber bullets randomly into the crowd. Luckily I was able to slip through the cracks of a blockade of only 6 or so riot thugs as they tried to amass more in that area and form another brutal line.

I personally witnessed a young man on a bike being beaten for no reason whatsoever and as he fled the officers then beat his bike. When the young man tried to retrieve his bike his knuckle was broken. Another man was gassed so badly he had to be taken to the hospital. This is how “Peace Officers” treat us?

During the very quick first burst of the madness I lost touch with Infowars Producer and Cameraman Rob Dew, I immediately thought he had been arrested, and I was correct. He was illegally detained and digitally fingerprinted in a separate process for “protesters”. Rob was cuffed all evening in a room full of other detainees, and was not released until 10:20 am the next morning with no charges being brought against him. Military and Police mocked them as Americans were being detained and processed often laughing at college students that had been beaten for no other reason for being in the wrong place around their campus that evening.
Luke Rudowski received multiple battens to his back and legs as the jackals descended on him with force, even though he had made it clear to all of them he wished them no violence. For his peaceful efforts Luke and Lee from We Are Change were separated from the rest of the more than one hundred detainees and sent to State Prison. Luke was strip searched, mocked, and charged with Disorderly Conduct and Unlawful Assembly, and will have to go back to Pittsburgh Wednesday to face charges. The Military and Police laughed as they took note of the

“Superstar” that had been all over the news on channel 11 and even National NBC, taking a sick pleasure in the torture of another human being.

Welcome to the New Amerika

G20 Summit Arrest: Update

2009-09-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

The other day I posted a video showing two men taking a protester at the G20 Summit, shove him in a car, and drive away. At the time, I was not sure what had happend, and even now I am not too sure. Nonetheless, below is an article discussing the situation.

To see the video in question, click here

Raw Story
Saturday, September 26, 2009

G20 security officials took responsibility Friday afternoon for a video that seemed to depict US troops ‘kidnapping’ a protester.

The military was not involved in the incident, but G20 security did acknowledge that “law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team” had detained a protester they said was believed to be vandalizing a store.

Video posted at YouTube shows onlookers calling out “what the fuck” and “what the fuck is wrong with you?” as people in camo uniforms haul a protester along by his collar, shove him into the back seat of a car, and rapidly drive off.
Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:

“Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest which has appeared online are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.

Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”
The video was featured this morning at the Drudge Report under the heading, “SEE U.S. MILITARY SNATCH PROTESTER… .”

At the liberal website Democratic Underground, one commenter asserted, “This is staged” and then claimed, “Those were not the uniforms National Guard/military were wearing yesterday. Neither was that the vehicles they were driving. This was just a bunch of idiots trying to make

Read Full Article Here

'Ahmadinejad has enough uranium to go whole way'

2009-09-26T18:09:00.000-07:00

Senior US official says secret facility is right size to make 'bomb or two a year'
By David Usborne and Andrew Grice in Pittsburgh
Saturday, 26 September 2009

The crisis in relations with Iran escalated ominously yesterday after the leaders of the US, Britain and France accused the regime in Tehran of operating a secret uranium enrichment facility buried deep in a mountain bunker near the ancient religious city of Qom. Barack Obama called Iran's activity "a direct challenge" to the international community.

The accusations were made public in an extraordinary joint statement by the US President, flanked by Gordon Brown and the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy before the start of the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh.

Iran had previously insisted that its plant at Natanz, which is open to international inspection, was the only one involved in enrichment. The new revelation sharply raises the stakes at a time when Israel has been signalling that military strikes against Iran are on the table.

Read Full Article Here

G20 Summit Arrest

2009-09-25T07:28:00.000-07:00

The G20 Summit discussions have been, and continue to be, a controversial event, and as such, a number of protesters frequently arrive. Protected under the Constitution, men and women in this country have the right to engage in such peaceful protests. The first amendment states:

"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"

With that stated, I post the following clip. In all fairness, I am not sure what took place prior to this particular point in time, but what I do know, is that the US military was acting with force against a group of, what appears to be, people who have goatherd to peaceably assemble at the G20 Summit

‘Sneak-and-peek’ searches being used for regular crimes

2009-09-24T07:18:00.000-07:00

I have always said that the Patriot Act was one of the worst acts that ever came out of the Bush administration, and my opposition to it comes directly from the fact that it gave right to authorities to search people expected of terrorism via wiretapping and sneak-and-peak searches.In effect, these "searches" were preemptive strikes against those the government thought to be terrorists. Now, while I am not surprised, it has come out that such power was actually used against all people, and in 2008, only a handful of people actually searched were terrorists.

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Thursday, Sept 24th, 2009

The Justice Department made 763 requests for “sneak-and-peek” warrants in 2008, but only three of those had to with terrorism investigations, Sen. Russ Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.

“Sneak-and-peek” warrants allow law enforcement officials to break into homes and businesses and search the premises without the investigated party knowing. The authority for them was passed as part of the USA Patriot Act in late 2001, ostensibly as a counter-terrorism measure.
Sen. Feingold (D-WI) said that 65 percent of the cases for which sneak-and-peek warrants were used were drug investigations. And Assistant Attorney General David Kris told Feingold that, in most terrorism cases, surveillance methods are “generally covert altogether,” and do not use sneak-and-peek warrants.

The revelations strengthen the arguments of opponents of the Patriot Act, who have long said that the powers granted the government to fight terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would end up being used for other purposes. Now, it appears that one of those powers — sneak-and-peek searches — was never meant for terrorism investigations in the first place.
“It’s not meant for intelligence, it’s for criminal cases,” Kris told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “So I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”

“That’s not how this was sold to the American people,” Feingold responded. “It was sold — as stated on the DoJ’s Web site in 2005 — as being necessary ‘to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.’”

Both Kris and Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine agreed that “additional vigilance” is needed in monitoring the way the government uses surveillance powers.
Feingold is spearheading an effort to reform laws on surveillance powers ahead of the expiry of parts of the Patriot Act later this year. The Obama administration has announced it would like to see three key elements of the Patriot Act renewed. Those elements include allowing authorities to collect a wide range of financial and personal information on targets, as well as allowing “roving wiretaps” to follow suspects around.

But last week Feingold and seven other Democratic senators unveiled the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act, which aims to “fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens” without damaging the government’s ability to monitor suspected terrorists, the senators said in a joint statement.
The bill’s reforms “include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the ’sneak and peek’ search provision of the PATRIOT Act, ‘John Doe’ roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities,” the statement said.

The bill would also repeal the Bush-era law that grants immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that participated in the federal government’s warrantless wiretapping program. The immunity measure was supported by then-Senator Barack Obama, but not by Vice-President Joe Biden, or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who as senators voted against it.

Kids Taught to Sing "Obama"

2009-09-24T07:11:00.000-07:00

Does anyone remember the little song that goes something like "yellow, black, red, or white, they are precious in his sight, we are God's childrn of the world". Ya, listen carfully to the film below, its hard to hear, but just listen. WHAT ARE WE TEACHING ARE CHILDREN?

A Thought of My Own: H1NI Flue Shot

2009-09-22T17:11:00.000-07:00

I have done my utmost to keep my thoughts about this topic to myself, in large part because I really did not think that it was as big a problem as I know see it might be. I don't want to come across as a consiracy theorist, but perhaps recent events ultimatly prove true the claim that the US Government has plans to to force its own citzenry to take vaccinations against their will for some unknown reason.

If this is true, and there seems to be enough evidence to support such an argument, then I can only guess that this country is no longer on the road to facism/socialism, but rather, that we have arrived. When Americans no longer have the right to their own person, a principle clearly set forth in the Decleration of Independence, then it must be assumed that WE THE PEOPLE no longer are Independent.

Unless we act as Jefferson instructed us to, that is, to havge a revolution every 20 years, then I see very little hope for the American Dream, and this great American Experiment began so long ago, would appear, to have no future.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Albany nurses and other health professionals are planning to stage a rally next week to protest a state regulation that mandates they will lose their jobs if they refuse to take the swine flu shot, as fears grow about the vaccine’s dangerous ingredients and government plans to forcibly inoculate whole populations with the H1N1 jab.

Earlier today we reported on the case of “Clare,” a daycare worker in Albany who, despite having minimal contact with hospital staff who work in a separate building, an exemption allowed in the official decree, was ordered to take the seasonal flu shot on the spot or be fired. She was also advised that the same procedure would be in place for the swine flu shot, as is outlined in the New York State Department of Health’s emergency regulation issued in August.

Now nurses across the state are standing up against government intimidation to take the shot, pointing out that the vaccine has not been properly tested and contains mercury, squalene and other dangerous additives.

The New York State Nurses Association is supporting a demonstration on behalf of nurses set to take place next week, reports Newsday.
“This vaccine has not been clinically tested to the same degree as the regular flu vaccine,” said Tara Accavallo, a registered nurse in Stony Brook’s neonatal intensive care unit, the division that has produced a number of protesters. “If something happens to me, if I get seriously injured from this vaccine, who’s going to help me?”

Accavallo says she is willing to lose her job if need be, which is exactly what will happen to thousands of other health professionals on November 30 if the government refuses to back down.

Rob Kozik, another registered nurse in Stony Brook’s neonatal intensive care unit, said he has no problems with a seasonal vaccine but he has deep concerns about being immunized against H1N1. “I usually get vaccinated against the flu, but they are mandating an untested and unproven vaccine,” Kozik told Newsday

“The H1N1 vaccine already has a poor track record,” he added. “Back in 1976 there was vaccine [to protect against swine flu] that caused death and Guillain-Barre syndrome,” said Kozik, referring to a nerve-damaging disorder that some people linked to the vaccine. He said he also worries about the vaccine additive thimerosal, which is used as a preservative in some doses of the vaccine.

According to Dr. Steven Walerstein, medical director of Nassau University Medical Center where H1N1 vaccinations have already started, 25 workers at the institution refused to take the shot and were later “referred to human resources and counseling.”

Ron Paul: End the Fed, Save the Dollar

2009-09-17T17:28:00.000-07:00

“Nothing good can come from the Federal Reserve,” writes Texas Congressman Ron Paul in his latest book hitting shelves this week, titled “End the Fed.”

“It is the biggest taxer of them all. Diluting the value of the dollar by increasing its supply is a vicious, sinister tax on the poor and middle class.”

Paul makes the case that the Fed is the main culprit responsible for the current economic mess the country faces through the destructive policies of cheap credit and excessive money printing.

“Prosperity can never be achieved by cheap credit,” says Paul. “If that were so, no one would have to work for a living. Inflated prices only deceive one into believing that real wealth has been created.”

The Federal Reserve, created in 1913, has been acting as the main central bank of the United States for nearly one hundred years. Many Americans are either not sure or not interested in what role the Fed plays in managing the economy. “The economic crisis has changed everything,” writes Congressman Paul.

Judge Napolitano: Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

2009-09-17T17:19:00.000-07:00

As an American citizen this article should get your blood boiling. It is clear that the Constitution means, and is actually, nothing to modern politicians and government officials. They want to suggest that they are acting on behalf of the people, and are upholding the values set-forth by our founding fathers; this is a load of crap. If our founding fathers, with the excepting of perhaps Alexander Hamilton, could read this article, they would grow white in the face, and fear that the American Revolution, and the Great American Experiment, have come to nothing. Where is reason, and where has the American ideal gone?

Andrew P. Napolitano
The Wall Street Journa
lSeptember 16, 2009

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” Then he shot back: “How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress’s powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison’s understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept “regular.”

Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T

2009-09-08T17:30:00.000-07:00

The Senate must move legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, a move viewed as necessary despite protests about the record levels of red ink.

The move will highlight the nation’s record debt, which has been central to Republican attacks against Democratic congressional leaders and President Barack Obama. The year’s deficit is expected to hit a record $1.6 trillion.

Democrats in control of Congress, including then-Sen. Obama (Ill.), blasted President George W. Bush for failing to contain spending when he oversaw increased deficits and raised the debt ceiling.

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.

Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.

Read Full Story Here

A Move Toward Tyranny

2009-09-06T10:50:00.000-07:00

The films below can be found at Youtube.com, but I got them from civicsnews.blogspot.com, another great online news blog which deals with topics discussed in the following videos, plus much more.

A Thought of My Own:Where Have all the Parents Gone

2009-09-06T10:13:00.000-07:00

As the controversy over the "Obama Elementary Talk" wages, I begin to wonder what the driving force behind this is? Never in American history has the president ever addressed our young children in such a manner.

Therefore, I am led to ask why? Why is he addressing young students who, for the most part, have no sense of politics and government, nor do they posses the ability to logically asses that which they take in. Rather, students K-6 tend to ad hear to whatever they hear. The conclusion I draw then, is that this administration is looking to do more then have a simple "talk"

What then are they trying to do? To this no one can know for sure, but the entire Obama presidency as been hell bent on creating national unity, and a sense of state pride, not only for the nation, but for the state. I have said it once, and I will say it again: Fascism. It almost seems that this administration will try to raise a generation of youth who look to the state as a form of protection and comfort, and in so doing, will exchange their liberties for a "real sense of security and progress"

Of course, this can all be averted if the parents simply step in, and act on their children's behalf, right? Wrong, according to journalist John Ozberkmen, of the National Expositor, many parents are being told that they do not have the right to control their own children:

At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama’s speech." “I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president’s message on Tuesday,” Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. “In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president’s message, since this is a purely educational event.”

Not only is this a violation of parental right, but the outcome of it is requiring students to watch and listen to our president, even if it is against the will of their parents, who, at this stage in life, must act on their children's behalf. More startling still is the assignment these students were supposed to do after watching Mr. Obama:

According to Fox News, concern arose when one of the lesson plans was released. The lesson plans stated, students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, are suggested to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” After the speech students are supossed to discuss what, ”the president wants us to do.”

They are supposed to ask what the president wants them to do! Is not the president's job to ask what we want him to do? I find this altogether disturbing in light of the numerous other issues that have taken place over the past 8 months or so. I can but only fear that this splendid experiment began in 1776, is about to end, and fail.

Job Losses Weigh on Recovery

2009-09-05T09:07:00.000-07:00

Employers cut jobs in August at the slowest pace in a year, but a jump in the unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 9.7% reinforced worries that a weak labor market could weigh on consumer spending and the vigor of the economic recovery

Nonfarm payrolls fell by 216,000 jobs in the month, fewer than the 276,000 lost in July, the Labor Department said Friday. The economy has shed 6.9 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007. The data reinforced expectations that employers will begin adding jobs by early next year, though the pace of job creation remains uncertain.

The latest figures are consistent with an economy pulling out of the deepest downturn since the Great Depression. But rising unemployment portends persistent weakness in consumer confidence, income and spending, even as manufacturers start bouncing back and stocks revive. The construction and manufacturing sectors together accounted for more than half of August's job losses. Losses in retail and business services narrowed. The biggest gains came in health care.

Stephen Stanley of RBS Securities said the report "strengthens our conviction of a relatively upbeat economic outlook," but added that "it was not far enough away from expectations to change the views of either optimists or pessimists."

Rising joblessness is likely to heat up the debate in Washington about the efficacy of the $787 billion fiscal stimulus. Government payrolls declined only 18,000 in August. If not for federal support for state and local budgets, they probably would have fallen further. On the other hand, stimulus funds are flowing too slowly to offset continuing cuts by private employers.
"I want to be clear about something: Less bad is not good," Vice President Joe Biden said. "That's not how President Obama and I measure success."

The rise in unemployment, after dipping to 9.4% in July, came as more Americans returned to the work force. Teenage unemployment hit 25.5%, the highest since the government began keeping records in 1948. Most economists expect the rate to top 10% in coming months and stay over 9% through 2010.

IRS: Health Care Reform

2009-09-03T17:38:00.000-07:00

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 2, 2009

There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

‘Freedom lover’ behind ‘Obama Joker’ posters

2009-08-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

Danielle Wong
Toronto Star
Sunday, August 30, 2009

If you’re offended by the startling images of U.S. President Barack Obama smeared with clown makeup posted around Toronto, American libertarian radio talk show host and “alternative news” blogger Alex Jones says brace yourself.

“People are getting more aggressive because they realize being nice isn’t getting them anywhere,” said Jones, 35. “This is just the beginning.”

The self-proclaimed “freedom lover” from Austin, Tex., who runs American website infowars.com, launched a viral “Obama Joker” poster campaign last month, calling for people to put up as many posters of Obama as Heath Ledger’s villainous character from the Batman epic The Dark Knight as possible and to post videos on YouTube.

While Canadians have been known to be more moderate in critiquing their political leaders, the in-your-face poster campaign appears to have caught on around the city, with the placards plastered along University Ave.

Read Full Article Here

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

2009-08-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

This should alarm those Americans who love liberty and freedom, which should be all of us.

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

Read all article here

Federal Reserve Says Disclosing Loans Will Hurt Banks

2009-08-27T07:49:00.000-07:00

It seems as if the Fed is fighting the law; it seems that the fed feels as though they are above the law. If such was not true, then why are they making demands as they are, and refusing to show "WE THE PEOPLE" where the money is going, and for what purpose. What do they have to hide, what don't they want us to find out? Their entire goal of a new world order is largely based upon bankers remaining aloof; this begins to chip away at that aloofness.

Mark Pittman
Bloomberg
Thursday, August 27, 2009

The Federal Reserve argued yesterday that identifying the financial institutions that benefited from its emergency loans would harm the companies and render the central bank’s planned appeal of a court ruling moot.

The Fed’s board of governors asked Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska to delay enforcement of her Aug. 24 decision that the identities of borrowers in 11 lending programs must be made public by Aug. 31. The central bank wants Preska to stay her order until the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York can hear the case.

“The immediate release of these documents will destroy the board’s claims of exemption and right of appellate review,” the motion said. “The institutions whose names and information would be disclosed will also suffer irreparable harm.”

The Fed’s “ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis” would be impaired, according to the motion. It said “significant harms” could befall the U.S. economy as well.

The central bank didn’t say when it would file its appeal

Full Article Here

Fall Of The Republic Exposes How Brand Obama Is Destroying America

2009-08-25T11:08:00.000-07:00

Alex Jones’ highly anticipated upcoming documentary Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama boldly lifts the lid and unveils the fraud behind Brand Obama and how the globalists are using their newest, and slickest ever puppet to destroy the last vestiges of America’s freedom, Constitution and economy, all while helping the bankers loot the country clean.

The film exposes the agenda that Obama was put in place to accomplish, a world government allied with a bank of the world run by globalist eugenicists hell-bent on destroying America’s first world status and replacing it with a hollow shell of tyranny.

The mind control, the television programming, and all the media talking points that serve to reinforce the image of Brand Obama are laid bare, unveiling the naked ruth, as legendary author and documentary film maker John Pilger recently discussed, that Obama is nothing more than a corporate marketing creation, a skilled hypnotist using seductive tools of propaganda – race, gender and class – to hoodwink the masses into accepting his rhetoric while ignoring the contradiction of his actions.

The film exposes how Brand Obama says one thing – to make people buy into the brand – and then the real Obama does another.

The burgeoning police state, warrantless wiretapping, secret arrests, indefinite detention of citizens, torture, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, have all been expanded under Brand Obama despite his promises to reverse them all.

The real question to ask is not which class Obama claims to represent or fight for, but which class Obama serves. Fall of the Republic leaves no room for doubt that the class Obama serves is the elite and it is their agenda he is diligently following

Judge Orders Fed To Disclose Who Received Bailout Trillions

2009-08-25T11:02:00.000-07:00

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

A New York District Judge has ordered the Federal Reserve to disclose the destination of around $2 trillion dollars in bailout funds after the Fed failed to convince the Judge that the records should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

“Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling,” reports Bloomberg, the news outlet that originally filed the lawsuit.

Citing the fact that the US taxpayer is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks, Bloomberg argued that the risks behind the $2 trillion in lending needed to be made public.

“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

The Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke in particular have attempted to hide the destination of the bailout funds at every step of the way since Bloomberg first filed the lawsuit over nine months

During a hearing on Capitol Hill last month, Congressman Alan Grayson confronted Bernanke on which foreign banks had received around half a trillion dollars in credit swaps.

Bernanke responded, “I don’t know.”

“Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?” asked Grayson.

It’s no surprise that the Fed is reticent to disclose who got the bailout funds, since the man appointed by Henry Paulson to dole out the ill-gotten gains was none other than his fellow ex-Goldman Sachs executive Neel Kashkari. This level of cronyism undoubtedly ensured that Bernanke and Paulson’s bankster gangster friends were well looked after.

“President elect Barack Obama, who in a September 22 campaign speech promised to “Make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s business,” refused to comment on the story when contacted by Bloomberg, which is no surprise considering the fact that the man who guaranteed “change” has indicated he will not only follow the Bush administration policy of a socialized financial system, but radically expand it,” we wrote in our original story on the lawsuit back in November.

That foresight has now manifested itself again today, with Obama set to nominate Ben Bernanke, one of the main architects of the bailout under Bush, as Fed chief for a second term

Power Elite: Influence v Reality

2009-08-24T08:14:00.000-07:00

Szandor Blestman
The American Chronicle

The power elite are also in the business of creating illusions. They use their politicians and the mass media to try to create a perception of reality they would like us to see.

I’m getting very upset by what I’ve been seeing since this health care issue has come to the fore. I’m becoming really angry by how much my intelligence has been insulted. I’m beginning to feel like the man who has to explain to his friends that Criss Angel is not really defying the laws of physics. He’s in the business of creating illusions. He does not really float above buildings, pull ladies in half, climb through closed, solid windows without breaking the glass, walk on water, or do any of the things one might see him do. These are illusions. They are parlor tricks. They are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed, likely expensive illusions, but they are nothing but illusions nonetheless.

The power elite are also in the business of creating illusions. They use their politicians and the mass media to try to create a perception of reality they would like us to see. The illusions they create are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed and likely expensive, but they are illusions nonetheless. The difference between the illusions the power elite create and those of Criss Angel is that Mr. Angel creates his illusions strictly for entertainment purposes, the power elite are creating theirs so that they can control mass consciousness and hence make it easier to control the population in general. The problem for them is that many people are beginning to realize exactly what’s been happening.

One of the ways to create a good illusion is to get the audience to look over there while something is happening over here. Another is to keep things hidden and produce them when you want them seen. Still another way is to make the audience believe something isn’t what it appears to be, or that something is what it doesn’t appear to be. Or any combination of these things can help produce a good illusion. Of course, if the audience looks where the action is and detects the slight of hand, or if they see the hidden element before it is produced, or if they are not convinced that something is or is not something else, then the illusion is ruined.

A Thought of My Own: Liberty V Tyranny

2009-08-19T09:19:00.000-07:00

I know that this story is a few days old, but I think it, and the response of Hardball, is one which need not die.

The fundamental question here is do we, under the 2nd amendment, have a right to bear arms, even at a presidential event? My own position on this issue is yes! I understand the counter argument here, and it is a legitimate one, but where do we begin to draw the line where our rights begin and where they end. If I have a right to bear arms, as it says in the Constitution, then don't I have that right wherever I am, or do my rights have boundary lines? If so, where must I stop practicing my religion, where do I no longer have the right to due process, and is there a court somewhere where I can be held for double jeopardy or forced to incriminate myself?

Obviously the answer to these questions is no; there are no lines which exist where I must stop practising my right to free religion or to due process. If this is true for these rights, then why are there restriction upon other rights, not just the 2nd amendment, but even my right to peacefully protest, which is what this man was doing. Owning and carrying a gun does not make a person a terrorist; if such is true then there are many rednecks and hunters who, by that shere logic, are terrorists.

I am not saying we all bring semi-automatic weapons to presidential events, but the shere fact that he was carrying a gun, and if legally registers, is protected by the Constitution, and to remove that right only opens up opportunities to remove other rights. We might say that it is unsafe to bring a loaded weapon to an event like this, but isn't it much more unsafe to stand by and allow the rights we have to be stripped away. If we do that long enough this discussion will be moot, for there will be no right to bear arms, no right to free speech or the like.

Details of Clinton's visit to North Korea begin to emerge

2009-08-19T09:09:00.000-07:00

By Mark Landler and Mark Mazzetti
New York Times

WASHINGTON — When former President Bill Clinton landed in Pyongyang on Aug. 4 to win the release of two imprisoned American journalists, senior officials said, he met an unexpectedly spry North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, who feted him over a long dinner that night, even proposing to stay up afterward.

Kim was flanked by two longtime aides — a surprise to Americans who had suspected that both men had been pushed aside — and he gave no hint that North Korea was in the throes of a succession struggle, despite the widespread questions over how long he might live.

Clinton was determined not to extend a public relations coup to Kim, who expressed a desire for better relations with the United States. Clinton did not ask to see the North Korean leader, requesting instead a meeting with "an appropriate official."

To ensure he would not leave empty-handed, Clinton asked that a member of his entourage meet with the journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, shortly after he landed to make sure they were safe, said a senior administration official.

For all the billions of dollars a year that the United States spends on intelligence gathering about mysterious and unpredictable countries like North Korea, it took just 20 hours in Pyongyang by an ex-president to give the Obama administration its first detailed look into a nuclear-armed regime that looms as one of its greatest foreign threats.

Tuesday, Clinton went to the White House to brief Obama and his top aides about the trip. Even before the 40-minute session in the Situation Room, Clinton had spoken to the president by phone and briefed his national security adviser, Gen. James Jones. But the meeting was rich in symbolism, and the president invited Clinton to the Oval Office to talk further.

Joseph DeTrani, the government's senior officer responsible for collecting and analyzing intelligence on North Korea, played a key role in arranging the visit.

Officials said Clinton's visit cleared up some of the shadows surrounding Kim's health. After a stroke last year, he looked frail in photos and missed important meetings, spurring questions about who might replace him — and when. Those questions have not gone away, officials said, but they may recede a bit in the wake of Clinton's visit.

Clinton did not engage in a wide-ranging discussion about North Korea's nuclear program. Nor did Kim give Clinton any indication that Pyongyang would relinquish its nuclear ambitions — a condition the United States has set for resuming negotiations, officials said.

"We didn't hear things that altered our perception on the North Korean attitude," one official said.

Clinton's visit was valuable, analysts said, largely because North Korea is so opaque.

It is perhaps the hardest spying target, more difficult even than Iran, according to current and former officials. Its political and military structure is nearly impenetrable, and Western intelligence services have had to rely on information from defectors who cross the border into South Korea.

"The Clinton trip has got a lot of people rethinking and reassessing," said Victor Cha, a top North Korea adviser in the Bush administration.

Former Gov. Dean calls public option indispensable

2009-08-17T10:34:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON – Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, a leading figure in the liberal wing of his party, said Monday he doubts there can be meaningful health care reform without a direct government role.

Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change, saying that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are "two very good programs that have been around for a long time."

Dean appeared on morning news shows Monday amid increasing indications the Obama White House is retreating from the public option in the face of vocal opposition from Republicans and some vocal participants at a town-hall-style meetings around the country.

The former Vermont governor was asked on NBC's "Today" show about President Barack Obama's statement over the weekend that the public option for insurance coverage was "just a sliver" of the overall proposal. Obama's health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, advanced that line, telling CNN Sunday that a direct government role in a system intended to provide virtually universal coverage was "not the essential element."

Dean, a physician, argued that a public option is fair and said there must be such a choice in any genuine shake up of the existing system.

"You can't really do health reform without it," he said. Dean maintained that the health insurance industry has "put enormous pressure on patients and doctors" in recent years.

He called a direct government role "the entirety of health care reform. It isn't the entirety of insurance reform ... We shouldn't spend $60 billion a year subsidizing the insurance industry."

Dean also said he doesn't foresee any Republican support for a public option. "I don't think the Republicans are interested and in order to have a bipartisan bill, you've got to have both sides interested," he said.

The shift in the administration's stance on a government-run insurance program leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who is co-chairman of the Middle Class Caucus, said that "leaving private insurance companies the job of controlling the costs of health care is like making a pyromaniac the fire chief."

But Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., told reporters in Philadelphia on Monday that the success of health care overhaul doesn't hinge on any one element and co-ops might provide the same results under a different name.

"I believe that the president has to make the evaluation as a matter of leadership as to what the administration wants to do. There is an alternative to the so-called public option by having co-ops. I think these matters are subject to exploration," Specter said.

Officials from both political parties are looking for concessions while Congress is on an August recess. Facing tough audiences, lawmakers and the White House are looking for a way to cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured while maintaining political standing.

Emanuel Wields Power Freely, and Faces the Risks

2009-08-15T17:25:00.001-07:00

I appologize to my readers for not posting in a while. This is the result of LIFE, and it has been LIFE that has kept me from doing my job as an informed American. That said, I have time today, for LIFE has slowed down, and I find that this rticle does much to explain, on some level, the problems with the current administration.

By PETER BAKER

As White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel was the one to bring the hammer down on Sidney Blumenthal.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” more than a decade ago. But President Obama’s campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year.

So Mr. Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton, said Democrats informed about the situation, and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go. The bad blood among his colleagues was too deep, and the last thing the administration needed, he concluded, was dissension and drama in the ranks. In short, Mr. Blumenthal was out.

Perhaps nothing illustrates how far Mr. Emanuel has come than that conversation last month. Sixteen years ago, it was Mrs. Clinton, then first lady, who helped have Mr. Emanuel demoted as a senior official in Bill Clinton’s White House after he ruffled feathers with his aggressive style. Now all these years later, it is Mr. Emanuel telling Mrs. Clinton what she cannot do as a member of the cabinet.

Seven months after moving into his office in the West Wing, Mr. Emanuel is emerging as perhaps the most influential White House chief of staff in a generation. But with his prominence in almost everything important going on in Washington comes a high degree of risk.

As the principal author of Mr. Obama’s do-everything-at-once strategy, he stands to become a figure of consequence in his own right if the administration stabilizes the economy and financial markets, overhauls the health care system and winds down one war while successfully prosecuting another.

If things do not go well — and right now Mr. Obama’s political popularity is declining, his health care legislation is under conservative assault, the budget deficit is at an eye-popping level and Afghanistan remains volatile — it is Mr. Emanuel whose job will be on the line before Mr. Obama’s.

Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress

2009-08-09T08:28:00.000-07:00

CHARLIE SAVAGE
NY Times
Sunday, August 9, 2009

President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

What does a Christian look like?

2009-08-01T11:10:00.000-07:00

This is not written by me, but by a friend of mine who runs another news blog entitled civicsnews.blogspot.com. I hope you enjoy both this article, and his web page.

For the 2,000th post since the inception of CIVICS NEWS in early 2008 (when it functioned as a current events log for my high school classes!), it is fitting that the honor go to...drum roll...Greg Boyd.

Boyd's book The Myth of a Christian Nation is a MUST-read, and this audio file that I just finished listening to should not be missed by anybody who wants to take seriously what it means to be a Christian.

The title of his message is, "What Does a Christian Look Like?" Download the audio here and enjoy on your iPod or your lap top. Boyd wrestles with issues such as nationalism & the kingdom of God, how to look at every human being as loved by God (and how this impacts our politics and militarism), and much, much more. Boyd confronts the issue of the relation of Christians to human governments in an up-front and Christ-centered manner. His message is unquestionably biblical. He will make us uncomfortable (as I'm sure his articles previously posted did), but that's a good thing.

CIVICS NEWS has by and large been devoted to chronicling the evils of the state in order to wake people up to the fact that we should not put our trust in princes (politicians), but instead in Christ. I want to make an effort beginning with this post, the 2,000th post, to bring in more material that points us to Christ and his Kingdom, in addition to pointing us away from Satan and his kingdoms.

What does "Christ and his Kingdom" mean, exactly? Perhaps you are not particularly religious and you don't look forward to a bunch of religious jargon and Christian cliches. Well, start by listening to Boyd's "What does a Christian Look Like?" Much more will come, but the simple principle is love. We believe not only that there is a Creator God, but that this God IS LOVE, a concept that I'm sure most Christians don't grasp, as I myself have not actually understood it until recently, and even now, dimly so. If you're typically offended or annoyed by religion, this will be one message that I'm confident you can buy into and agree with. Stick around and see what you think.

The news coverage will continue in the same libertarian, watch-dog posture, since governments will continue to oppress and steal and kill, and we Christians should be out front calling it what it is, disassociating Christ from those evils, and even being non-violently politically active to help to roll back the violent oppression of the state. These aims will still remain, but I hope to bring in more material about the Kingdom of Love and the character of our Lord in addition to the news coverage. Enjoy Boyd's audio message.

House votes to clamp limits on Wall Street bonuses

2009-08-01T11:04:00.000-07:00

By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Bowing to populist anger, the House voted Friday to prohibit pay and bonus packages that encourage bankers and traders to take risks so big they could bring down the entire economy.

Passage of the bill on a 237-185 vote followed the disclosure a day earlier that nine of the nation's biggest banks, which are receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout aid, paid individual bonuses of $1 million or more to nearly 5,000 employees.

"This is not the government taking over the corporate sector," Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C, said of the House action. "It is a statement by the American people that it is time for us to straighten up the ship."

Aware of voter outrage about the bonuses, Republicans were reluctant in Friday's debate to push back, even though they voted overwhelmingly against the bill. They said severe restrictions should apply only to banks that accept government aid. The legislation's ban on risky compensation would apply to any firm with more than $1 billion in assets, including bank holding companies, broker-dealers, credit unions, investment advisers and mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The White House and Senate Democrats haven't endorsed the measure, leaving its prospects uncertain. The Senate Banking Committee planned to take up the proposal in the fall as part of a broader bill overhauling financial regulations.

"Obviously it has some important things that we think need to become law, and we'll take a look at the full bill," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday.

The legislation includes President Barack Obama's suggestion that shareholders get a nonbinding vote on compensation packages. It also would prohibit members of compensation committees from having financial ties to the company and its executives, as Obama wanted.

But House Democrats added a provision that would require regulators to issue new guidelines prohibiting pay packages that encourage "inappropriate risks" that could "threaten the safety and soundness" of the institution or "have serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability."

Read full article here

Police Use Force AGAIN

2009-07-28T19:26:00.000-07:00

Does anyone remember the story of police brutality against a pastor and an old women? Well, if you don't think they use unnecessary force, look at the video below.

Gallup Poll: Americans Turning Against Federal Reserve

2009-07-28T19:18:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it is not clear the dangers of the Federal Reserve, at least for the majority of uninformed Americans, but it is true that they are running this nation, and as Greenspan once said, they are, for the most part, above the law. How is it that a nation of people bent on the idea of liberty could so casually allow the federal reserve to run the nation without any checks? It is really to this question that Ron Paul has been trying to deal with. Audit the feds! It seems, thank the Lord, that more and more people are beginning to see the Fed for what it is.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, July 28, 2009

As momentum builds for Ron Paul’s efforts to audit the Fed, a new Gallup poll shows that Americans are turning against the Federal Reserve, with just 30 per cent saying the agency is doing a good job.

35 per cent rate the job the Fed is doing as “only fair” and 22 per cent say it is doing a “poor” job.

The contrast compared with when the question was last asked in 2003 is clear. Six years ago, just 5 per cent thought the Fed was doing a “poor” job, while 53% thought it was doing a “good/excellent” job.

The Fed is bottom of the pile when compared to the ratings received by other agencies in the poll (we hesitate to call the Fed a “government agency” because it isn’t). The IRS and the FDA are the other two least popular agencies.

According to Gallup editor in chief Dr. Frank Newport, “Americans are blaming to some degree the actions or inactions of the Federal Reserve board” for the economic turmoil.

Increasing skepticism towards the role of the Federal Reserve arrives alongside efforts on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul to audit the Fed with his widely supported H.R.1207 bill.

The legislation would amend existing law to allow the Comptroller General to audit the Federal Reserve Board and its member banks.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke seems frightened to death at what might be revealed if the Federal Reserve were forced to open its books and has been busy scuttling around lying about the bill in order to try and shoot it down

Obama's Health Care: Can it Pass?

2009-07-27T10:58:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push to overhaul health care needs Republican votes, lawmakers from both parties say.

Democratic and GOP officials acknowledged Sunday that Obama's ambitious plan would not pass without the aid of a doubtful GOP, whose members are almost united against the White House effort.

"Look, there are not the votes for Democrats to do this just on our side of the aisle," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the budget committee.

Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat and a member of the fiscally conservative "Blue Dogs," said he doubts the Democratic-controlled House could pass a proposal as it's drafted now.

"We have a long way to go," Cooper said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, insisted she has the votes to move forward with the plan despite concerns among fiscally conservative fellow Democrats.

"When I take this bill to the floor, it will win. We will move forward, it will happen," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Not so fast, Republicans said. Sensing a public uneasiness over the pace and price tag of the overhaul, Republicans said the longer the delay, the more the public understands the stakes of a policy that has vexed lawmakers for decades.

"We could have a plan in a few weeks if the goal is not a government takeover," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "We've never seen the government operate a plan of any kind effectively and at the budgets we talked about."

Democrats countered that their plans — and there are many iterations on Capitol Hill, as committees in the House and Senate work on versions — would expand coverage without adding to the deficit. Even so, they are likely to leave for an August recess without a vote.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said they are "80 percent" in agreement on what a final version will include and are making progress.

Obama adviser David Axelrod said, "Now, we're at the final 20 percent and we're trying to work through those details."

That final piece, however, will require GOP backing — something Sen. Mitch McConnell said was unlikely. The Senate minority leader said congressional Democrats are having difficulty selling a health care bill to their own members.

"The only thing bipartisan about the measure so far is the opposition to it," said McConnell, R-Ky.

Conrad and DeMint spoke with ABC's "This Week." Cooper appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Pelosi and McConnell were interviewed for CNN's "State of the Union." Gibbs spoke on "Fox News Sunday." Axelrod appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and CNN's "State of the Union."

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

2009-07-27T10:53:00.000-07:00

Monday, July 27, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10. Yesterday and today are the only time that Obama's Approval Index ratings have fallen to double digits in negative territory (see trends).

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats Strongly Approve of his performance while 72% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. See other recent demographic highlights.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Obama is now seen as politically liberal by 76%. That's up six points from a month ago, 11 points since he was elected, and the highest total to date. Forty-eight percent (48%) now see him as Very Liberal, up 20 points since he was elected (Premium Members can see trends and crosstabs).

The President received generally poor grades for his response to a question about a Cambridge police incident involving a black Harvard professor. However, the results show a huge divide between black Americans and white Americans on all questions.

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

Obama To Attend North American Union Meeting

2009-07-21T13:00:00.000-07:00

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, July 20, 2009

President Obama will attend the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper next month, it has been revealed.

The White House had not responded to requests to verify Obama’s schedule during the second week of August, however, a statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs titled “Upcoming Travel by the President,” confirms that Obama will attend the recently re-branded
“North American Leader’s Summit” in Mexico.

“The president will travel to Guadalajara, Mexico, August 9-10 to attend the North American Leaders Summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,” the announcement, reported by World Net Daily, states.

“The summit meeting will provide an opportunity for the United States, Mexico, and Canada to engage on a broad range of issues, including economic recovery and competitiveness in North America, our shared interest in energy and the environment, and cooperation among our governments to promote the safety and welfare of our citizens, including continued close cooperation to counter the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic.” the statement continues.

U.S. Budget Gap Exceeds $1 Trillion

2009-07-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

Vincent Del Giudice
Bloomberg
July 14, 2009

The U.S. budget deficit topped $1 trillion for the first nine months of the fiscal year and broke a monthly record for June as the recession subtracted from revenue and the government spent to rejuvenate the economy.

The shortfall for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 totaled $1.1 trillion, the first time that the gap for the period surpassed $1 trillion, Treasury figures showed today in Washington. The excess of spending over revenue for June was $94.3 billion, the first deficit for that month since 1991, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Individual and corporate tax receipts are sliding even as the worst recession in five decades shows signs of easing because the jobless rate continues to rise — reaching a 26-year high in June — and companies have yet to see a sustained increase in demand. The shortfall is also widening as the government ramps up spending from the $787 billion stimulus program President Barack Obama signed into law in February.

C.S. Lewis

2009-06-27T06:33:00.000-07:00

I fully embrace the maxim (which . . . borrows from a Christian) that “all power corrupts.” I would go further. The loftier the pretensions of the power, the more meddlesome, inhuman, and oppressive it will be. Theocracy is the worst of all possible governments. All political power is at best a necessary evil: but it is least evil when its sanctions are most modest and commonplace, when it claims no more than to be useful or convenient and sets itself strictly limited objectives. Anything transcendental or spiritual, or even anything very strongly ethical, in its pretensions is dangerous and encourages it to meddle with our private lives. Let the shoemaker stick to his last. Thus the Renaissance doctrine of Divine Right is for me a corruption of monarchy; Rousseau’s General Will, of democracy; racial mysticisms, of nationality. And Theocracy, I admit and even insist, is the worst corruption of all.

American Eugenics: Policy of US Government

2009-06-27T06:28:00.000-07:00

This, along with all the other areas of fascists news I have reported on, is troubling. I love the end of this where Ezekiel Emanuel leaves after the comment is made about him. No Time for questions. No time for debate. No Time for further development and explanation. He has to leave. WHY?

N. Korea threatens to shoot down Japanese planes in its air space

2009-06-27T06:14:00.000-07:00

Does this sound as though another world war is about to erupt. Imagine the magnitude of such an event. In 1919 WWI ended. This was called the Great War and the War to End All Wars. Indeed, no one could have guessed that WWII was just lurking around the corner. If history is to teach us anything, then in this case we should take threats very seriously, for as we have seen in the past, they end up, in many cases, coming true. I suppose some might argue for a preemptive strike. This is not what I am calling for. Rather, we need to figure some diplomatic way, not via the UN, to deal with this oncoming threat. I know not what, but we must take such things to heart.

USA TODAY

North Korea threatened Saturday to shoot down any Japanese planes that enter its airspace, accusing Tokyo of spying near one of its missile launch sites.
The North has designated a no-sail zone off its eastern coast from June 25 to July 10for military drills, raising concerns that it might test-fire short- or mid-range missiles in the coming days, in violation of a U.N. resolution.

North Korea's air force said Japan's E-767 surveillance aircraft conducted aerial espionage near the Musudan-ri missile site on its northeast coast Wednesday and Thursday.

The country's official Korean Central News Agency said the air force "will not tolerate even a bit the aerial espionage by the warmongers of the Japanese aggression forces but mercilessly shoot down any plane intruding into the territorial air of the (North) even 0.001 mm."

An official from Japan's defense ministry said the country's planes regularly gather information on North Korea but declined to comment on the types of planes used or the locations monitored. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing government policy.

The threat against alleged Japanese aerial espionage is rare, though the North has regularly complained of U.S. spy missions in its airspace.

Japan is very sensitive to North Korea's missile programs, as its islands lie within easy range. In 1998, a North Korean missile flew over Japan's main island. Tokyo has since spent billions of dollars on developing a missile shield with the United States and has launched a series of spy satellites primarily to watch developments in North Korea.

But in April, another rocket flew over Japan's main island, drawing a strong protest from Tokyo. Pyongyang claims it put a satellite into orbit, while the U.S. and its allies say it was really a test of the country's long-range missile technology.

The launch was one of a series of missile tests in recent months, and the communist regime further raised tensions by conducting a second underground nuclear test in May. Its actions have drawn harsh international condemnation and new U.N. sanctions.

NKorea vows nuke attack if provoked by US

2009-06-26T06:18:00.000-07:00

By KWANG-TAE KIM
Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea—Punching their fists into the air and shouting "Let's crush them!" some 100,000 North Koreans packed Pyongyang's main square Thursday for an anti-U.S. rally as the communist regime promised a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation" for any American-led attack.

Several demonstrators held up a placard depicting a pair of hands smashing a missile with "U.S." written on it, according to footage taken by APTN in Pyongyang on the anniversary of the day North Korean troops charged southward, sparking the three-year Korean War in 1950.

North Korean troops will respond to any sanctions or U.S. provocations with "an annihilating blow," one senior official vowed—a pointed threat as an American destroyer shadowed a North Korean freighter sailing off China's coast, possibly with banned goods on board.

A new U.N. Security Council resolution passed recently to punish North Korea for conducting an underground nuclear test in May requires U.N. member states to request inspections of ships suspected of carrying arms or nuclear weapons-related material.

In response to the sanctions, the North pulled out of nuclear talks and has ramped up already strident anti-American rhetoric. And the isolated regime may now be moving to openly flout the resolution by dispatching a ship suspected of carrying arms to Myanmar.

While it was not clear what was on board the North Korean-flagged Kang Nam 1, officials have mentioned artillery and other conventional weaponry. One intelligence expert suspected missiles.

The U.S. and its allies have made no decision on whether to request inspection of the ship, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday in Washington, but North Korea has said it would consider any interception an act of war.

If permission for inspection is refused, the ship must dock at a port of its choosing so local authorities can check its cargo. Vessels suspected of carrying banned goods must not be offered bunkering services at port, such as fuel, the resolution says.

A senior U.S. defense official said the ship had cleared the Taiwan Strait. He said he didn't know whether or when the Kang Nam may need to stop in some port to refuel, but that the Kang Nam has in the past stopped in Hong Kong's port.

Another U.S. defense official said he tended to doubt reports that the Kang Nam was carrying nuclear-related equipment, saying information seems to indicate the cargo is banned conventional munitions. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk about intelligence.

North Korea is suspected to have transported banned goods to Myanmar before on the Kang Nam, said Bertil Lintner, a Bangkok-based North Korea expert who has written a book about leader Kim Jong Il.

Pyongyang also has been helping the junta in Yangon build up its weapons arsenal, a South Korean intelligence expert said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The two countries have not always been on good terms. Ties were severed in 1983 after a fatal bombing during the South Korean president's visit to Myanmar blamed on North Korean commandoes.

Michael Jackson Is Dead

2009-06-25T15:23:00.001-07:00

We've just learned Michael Jackson has died. He was 50.

Michael suffered a cardiac arrest earlier this afternoon at his Holmby Hills home and paramedics were unable to revive him. We're told when paramedics arrived Jackson had no pulse and they never got a pulse back.

A source tells us Jackson was dead when paramedics arrived. A cardiologist at UCLA tells TMZ Jackson died of cardiac arrest.

Once at the hospital, the staff tried to resuscitate him but he was completely unresponsive.

We're told one of the staff members at Jackson's home called 911.

La Toya ran in the hospital sobbing after Jackson was pronounced dead.

Michael is survived by three children: Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris Michael Katherine Jackson and Prince "Blanket" Michael Jackson II.

NKorea threatens US; world anticipates missile

2009-06-24T17:01:00.000-07:00

HYUNG-JIN KIM
Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days.

Off China's coast, a U.S. destroyer was tailing a North Korean ship suspected of transporting illicit weapons to Myanmar in what could be the first test of U.N. sanctions passed to punish the nation for an underground nuclear test last month.

The Kang Nam left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago with the USS John S. McCain close behind. The ship, accused of transporting banned goods in the past, is believed bound for Myanmar, according to South Korean and U.S. officials.

The new U.N. Security Council resolution requires member states to seek permission to inspect suspicious cargo. North Korea has said it would consider interception a declaration of war and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to provoke another Korean War.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

See Full Article Here

Ron Paul: Obama’s ‘goal’ is economic collapse

2009-06-23T17:29:00.000-07:00

David Edwards and Stephen Webster
Raw Story
Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Ron Paul, the popular Republican Congressman from Texas, is ripping into the president and Congress for what he sees as their “goal” with round after round of stimulus: complete economic collapse.

“From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration,” he said in his June 22, 2009, weekly address.

He added that Democrats who voted for the president’s war funding request, which gave an additional $106 billion to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — among other, unrelated items — were actually voting in favor of the wars, not just authorization of the president’s agenda.

He called it an affront to everyone who believed a vote for Obama was a vote for a peace candidate.

The president’s insistence on including an additional $108 billion in asset exchange with the International Monetary Fund is merely “buying global oppression,” he said.

Paul added that, “this [bill sent] $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan and $420 million to Mexico; and some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called peace keeping missions.”

In other words, the latest U.S. war funding was an “International bailout,” he said.

The legislation’s provisions for the IMF included 100 billion dollars for the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), a credit instrument providing the multilateral institution with additional resources to deal with exceptional risks to the stability of the international monetary system.

They also include an expansion of the nation’s special drawing rights by five billion SDRs, adding roughly eight billion dollars to the IMF’s financial firepower.

The 100 billion dollars for the NAB acts as a credit line for the IMF in case member countries need emergency loans that exceed the institution’s resources. As such, the money is not considered an immediate budget expense.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) had proposed to strip out the IMF funds, but his measure was defeated in May by a vote of 64-30.

“Not only does sending money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help,” Paul said. “Along with IMF loans come IMF required policy changes called ’structural adjustment programs,’ which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that brought our own country to its knees.”

Alex Jones: The Fed

2009-06-20T11:40:00.000-07:00

Obama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare

2009-06-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

David Whelan

David Scheiner, an internist based in the Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park, has a diverse practice of lower-income adults from the nearby housing projects mixed with famous patients like U.S. Sen. Carol Mosely Braun, the late writer Studs Terkel and, most notably, President Barack Obama.

Scheiner, 71, was Obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House; he vouched for the then-candidate's "excellent health" in a letter last year. He's still an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but he worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care," Scheiner says.

Read full story here

Obama: Approval Levels Drop

2009-06-20T11:16:00.000-07:00

Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's job approval rating fell to 58% in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from June 16-18 -- a new low for Obama in Gallup tracking, although not dissimilar to the 59% he has received on four other occasions.

Thirty-three percent of Americans now disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president, just one point shy of his record-high 34% disapproval score from early June.

Since Obama took office in January, his approval rating in Gallup tracking has averaged 63%, and most of his three-day ratings have registered above 60%. Approval of Obama did fall to 59% in individual readings in February, March, April, and early June; however, in each case, the rating lasted only a day before rebounding to at least 60%.

The latest decline in Obama's approval score, to 58%, results from a drop in approval among political independents as well as among Republicans. Democrats remain as highly supportive of the president as ever.

Obama's approval rating was 60% from June 13-15, at which time 88% of Democrats, 60% of independents, and 25% of Republicans approved of the job he was doing. In the June 16-18 polling, Democrats' approval of him stands at 92% -- up slightly -- whereas approval is down among both independents (by seven points) and Republicans (by four points).

Since February, Obama's weekly approval ratings from Republicans have consistently averaged close to 30% and from independents, close to 60%. With Republican approval now down to 21% and independent approval down to 53%, Obama's overall job approval has dipped to a new low for his presidency.

It is not clear what's behind the decline, but two issues have received considerable play in the news this week, and could be contributing factors. On Monday, the president received bad news on healthcare reform from the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimate of the cost of one reform plan caused sticker shock on Capitol Hill. This may be feeding into public concerns about the administration's deficit spending. At the same time, the disputed Iranian presidential election has been front-page news. Obama's cautious response has sparked sharp criticism from Republican Sen. John McCain and many on the political right who are eager for him to declare the election a "fraud," and to show more solidarity with the Iranian protestors.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,504 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 16-18, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

U.S. Military Set to Intercept North Korean Ship Suspected of Proliferating Missiles, Nukes

2009-06-19T10:13:00.000-07:00

FOX News
Jennifer Griffin
Justin Fishel

The U.S. military is planning to intercept a flagged North Korean ship suspected of proliferating weapons material in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last Friday, FOX News has learned.

The USS John McCain, a navy destroyer, will intercept the ship Kang Nam as soon as it leaves the vicinity off the coast of China, according to a senior U.S. defense official. The order to inderdict has not been given yet, but the ship is getting into position.

The ship left a port in North Korea Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to a senior U.S. military source. The vessel, which the military has been tracking since its departure, could be carrying weaponry, missile parts or nuclear materials, a violation of U.N. Resolution 1874, which put sanctions in place against Pyongyang.

The USS McCain was involved in an incident with a Chinese sub last Friday - near Subic Bay off the Philippines.

The Chinese sub was shadowing the destroyer when it hit the underwater sonar array that the USS McCain was towing behind it.

That same navy destroyer that was being shadowed by the Chinese is now positioning itself for a possible interdiction of the North Korean vessel.

This is the first suspected "proliferator" that the U.S. and its allies have tracked from North Korea since the United Nations authorized the world's navies to enforce compliance with a variety of U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing North Korea for its recent nuclear test.

The ship is currently along the coast of China and being monitored around-the-clock by air.

The apparent violation raises the question of how the United States and its allies will respond, particularly since the U.N. resolution does not have a lot of teeth to it.

The resolution would not allow the United States to board the ship forcibly. Rather, U.S. military would have to request permission to board -- a request North Korea is unlikely to grant.

North Korea has said that any attempt to board its ships would be viewed as an act of war and promised "100- or 1,000-fold" retaliation if provoked.

The U.S. military may also request that the host country not provide fuel to the ship when it enters its port.

The Kang Nam is known to be a ship that has been involved in proliferation activities in the past -- it is "a repeat offender," according to one military source. The ship was detained in October 2006 by authorities in Hong Kong after the North Koreans tested their first nuclear device and the U.N. imposed a subsequent round of sanctions.

The latest tension follows a Japanese news report that North Korea may fire a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii in early July.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the military is "watching" that situation "very closely," and would have "some concerns" if North Korea launched a missile in the direction of Hawaii. But he expressed confidence in U.S. ability to handle such a launch.

Gates said he's directed the deployment of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense, a mobile missile defense system used for knocking down long- and medium-range missiles.

"The ground-based interceptors are clearly in a position to take action. So, without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say ... I think we are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect the American territory."

Ron Paul Slams Federal Reserve’s New Dictatorial Powers

2009-06-19T10:06:00.000-07:00

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, June 19, 2009

Responding to the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, which will officially hand the Federal Reserve complete dictatorial control over the U.S. economy, Congressman Ron Paul told MSNBC that the Fed was now more powerful than Congress.

Paul emphasized that no amount of regulation could compensate for a financial system created and controlled by the Federal Reserve that was completely unstable to begin with.

“The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress,” said Paul.

As we reported yesterday, the new rules would see the Fed given the authority to “regulate” any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.

Obama’s regulatory “reform” plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed.

“They’re giving a tremendous amount of more power to the Federal Reserve - the very institution that created our problem. That’s about the way Washington works,” said the Congressman

“Too much regulations to begin with, so they give it more. The Federal Reserve creates the problem, so we give them more power. It’s fiat money that’s the problem, so we allow them to double the money supply - you can’t solve the problems that way. That’s like saying you can take care of a drug addict by just giving them more drugs,” concluded Paul, adding that the lack of understanding about how the Federal Reserve created the problem and how the free market ought to work was the root of the crisis.

State Run News: ABC Turns Programming Over To Government

2009-06-16T07:31:00.000-07:00

Tell me this does not sound Fascist!

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 16, 2009

Completely dispensing with any notion of independence or impartiality, ABC News is set to mimic the likes of Communist China and North Korea by completely turning its news coverage over to the government and excluding any dissenting opinions to promote President Obama’s health care agenda.

The night of Wednesday June 24th will officially herald the open commencement of state run news, imitating similar systems in historical dictatorships such as the Soviet Union, where Pravda was the official propaganda organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party from 1912 to 1991.

In China, the vast majority of news outlets are completely owned and controlled by the Communist Party. Negative viewpoints about government policy are blocked and news developments that could reflect badly on China are ignored and censored. An almost identical system of media also exists in Stalinist North Korea.

Still, at least the Chinese and the North Koreans don’t try to hide the fact that the press is state run, unlike ABC News, owned by the corporate giant Walt Disney Company, which masquerades as an independent news outlet yet in little over a week will completely turn over its news coverage to act as enthusiastic propagandist for the government’s health care “reform” program.

The coverage will be in addition to ABC News’ regular programming, which is already vehemently pushing the government’s agenda on this issue.

“On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!,” according to the Drudge Report.

“ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.”

“The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.”
In a complaint to ABC News, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay called the decision “astonishing,” noting that ABC had rejected a request that dissenting voices from all sides of the political spectrum be represented.

ABC News’ announcement that they will openly turn over their news coverage to the government while censoring dissenting opinions goes one step further than the Bush administration, who at least made the effort to keep their fake news scandal a secret until it was exposed in 2005.

Under Bush, the government produced fake news packages and distributed them to local news networks around the country, most of which aired them without question. The fake news packages were also broadcast on a national level by CNN. Reporters and pundits were also paid off by the government to promote specific policies.

Medical Care and Socialism

2009-06-16T07:23:00.000-07:00

This is a unique story. We have heard about national helth care for years, yet here it is. I have been following this to some degree. You can see my previous post by clicking here.

Obama to propose strict new regulation of financial industry

2009-06-16T07:19:00.000-07:00

Reporting from Washington -- The Obama administration this week will propose the most significant new regulation of the financial industry since the Great Depression, including a new watchdog agency to look out for consumers' interests.

Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system. Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to banks.

But critics say the easing of the financial crisis that gripped the country last year appears to have reduced the momentum for some of the most far-reaching proposals, such as merging several banking regulatory agencies.

They're also concerned that the proposed agency whose mission would be to protect consumers against financial misconduct wouldn't have the authority to do so for a wide-enough range of products."This is too little, too late," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), based on his understanding of the plan. "It's going to be way less than it should be."

On Monday, Obama administration officials sketched the outlines of the plan the president is to unveil Wednesday. They said it would seek to reduce gaps in regulatory oversight, rein in the use of mortgage-backed securities and other complex derivatives, reduce incentives for companies to take excessive risk and give the government new power to quickly intervene during any future crises. "We had a system that proved too unstable, too fragile. . . . Those are things we have to change,"

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Monday at an economic forum in New York.The administration also is expected to propose creation of a regulatory body for financial products marketed to consumers, such as credit cards, whose oversight is now spread over several agencies.

Read full story here

Obma is God. Obama is above the law

2009-06-15T10:21:00.000-07:00

Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan

2009-06-11T08:59:00.000-07:00

ROBERT PEAR
New York Times

WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation.

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

In the presidential campaign last year and in a letter to Congress last week, Mr. Obama called for a new “public health insurance option,” which he said would compete with private insurers and keep them honest.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Wednesday that she supported that goal. “A bill will not come out of the House without a public option,” she said Wednesday on MSNBC.

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”
If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

While not the political behemoth it once was, the association probably has more influence than any other group in the health care industry. Lawmakers seek its opinion and support whenever possible. It has repeatedly persuaded Congress to cancel or postpone cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, though it has not secured a “permanent fix.”

A Thought Of My Own: Torture

2009-06-09T06:59:00.000-07:00

How is it the policy of the United States to torture people, when we ourselves would shutter at the very idea of such actions towards others? Does our own willingness to torture indicate that we as US citizens have now begun to put variant values on different people of different races and creeds? Does not Emma Lazarus best describe the mindset of this nation with her poem The New Colossus when she so poignantly stated, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door" Does this no longer apply. Did it ever?

How is it the policy of the US military to allow such treatment of others who, according to our own documents, hold natural rights which only God can remove; among those include "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Is it the official policy of the majority of Americas to be double faced. We smear at the idea of the Holocaust, and scream injustice of Saddam Housain, and yet WE HAVE GETMO!

How is it that Christians will sit back and allow, by our own inaction, such atrocities to take place, even if such actions do not meet our own definition of what torture is? 1 Peter versus 8-9 assert: "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." It matters not if we think a certain action is torture, rather, what matters is that we remain "of one mind" with the scriptures.

Torture is a violation of the sound doctrine to which this nation rests. I end with a thought from Thomas Jefferson who once said, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

N Korea nuclear crisis taken to new level

2009-06-09T06:55:00.000-07:00

Press TV
Tuesday
June 9, 2009

Stepping up its rhetoric amid growing US pressure against the country, North Korea says it could use nuclear weapons “as a merciless offensive” if provoked.

“Our nuclear deterrent will be a strong defensive means … as well as a merciless offensive means to deal a just retaliatory strike to those who touch the country’s dignity and sovereignty even a bit,” the official Korean Central News Agency quoted Pyongyang’s state-run Minju Joson newspaper as saying.

The tough talk came as the US has been pushing for tougher measures against North Korea in recent weeks in response to the communist nation carrying out nuclear and short-range missile tests.

US President Barack Obama has said that “North Korea’s actions over the last couple of months have been extraordinarily provocative”, adding that Washington was not “intending to continue a policy of rewarding provocation”.

On Sunday, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) briefed President Lee Myung-Bak on plans for a counter-attack on North Korea should Pyongyang fire missiles at ships controlled by the South.

“North Korea’s firing of ground-to-ship missiles at our navy ships would prompt counter-attacks simultaneously from surface, air and sea,” JCS chairman Kim Tae-Young said.

California contemplates ultimate reform - no welfare

2009-06-08T14:28:00.000-07:00

By Cynthia Hubert
Sacramento Bee

Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?
That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are "in shock" at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.
"It's difficult to come up with the right adjective to react to this," Wagstaff said. "It would be devastating to the people we serve."

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said California is in an unprecedented fiscal situation that has made all programs, from education to human services, vulnerable to deep and painful reductions.

"I don't wish for a moment to minimize the profound impact" that eliminating CalWORKs would have, Palmer said. "But the easy decisions are way past being in the rearview mirror for us. We face the specter of California not having cash on hand to pay its bills in July."
Wagstaff and other administrators are betting that the state will rescue the "welfare to work" program. But they are bracing for cuts that would slash benefits to the lowest levels since the late 1990s, when CalWORKs began as part of the federal government's bold reform of the welfare system.

Read the complete story

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

2009-06-08T14:27:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON
(AP)

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.
The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.

The case is Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824.

N.Korea agrees to talks with S.Korea: officials

2009-06-05T07:36:00.000-07:00

AFP
Friday, June 5, 2009

North Korea on Friday agreed to hold talks with South Korea next week, Seoul officials said, amid high tensions between the two nations. Related photos / videos

The North has accepted a proposal for working-level talks on June 11 at the Kaesong joint industrial complex just north of the border, according to South Korea's unification ministry.
South Korean and US troops have gone on heightened alert since the North staged a nuclear test in late May, renounced the armistice that ended the Korean war in the 1950s and threatened the South with possible attack.

South Korean officials say they fear the North will stage a border provocation on land or at sea.
Next week's talks will focus on operations at Kaesong.

The two sides held their first government-level talks in more than a year on April 21. The North demanded pay rises for its workers and land-use fees at the Seoul-funded estate.
Seoul said the fate of a South Korean manager at Kaesong who has been detained since March 30 must be settled before any other negotiations. Pyongyang alleges the man criticised its communist system and tried to persuade a local worker to defect.

Last month the North announced it had scrapped all wage and rent agreements in force at the estate. It told the 101 South Korean companies to pack up and leave if they cannot accept the new terms.

The announcement cast doubt on the future of the estate, opened in December 2004 as a symbol of reconciliation but frequently hit by political tensions.
The Seoul government and South Korean businesses have invested 730 billion won (548 million dollars) into the venture since construction began in 2002.

Kim Yong-Hyun, professor of North Korea studies at Seoul's Dongguk University, said the agreement to hold talks "should not be seen as a sign that North Korea is willing to ease its stance on relations with South Korea."

Kim told AFP it was expected to make specific proposals on wage rises and other matters next week. "It may deliver proposals unilaterally and shun talks on the detainee," he said.
The North would keep inter-Korean relations strained while seeking dialogue with the United States, Kim said, possibly by using two detained US journalists as bargaining chips.
The women went on trial Thursday in Pyongyang but there has been no word on their fate.
More than 38,000 North Koreans work at South Korean firms at Kaesong, producing items such as garments, kitchenware and watches.

They are paid around 75 dollars a month including insurance. The money goes directly to the North's state bodies, which return a portion to the workers.

Obama admits US involvement in Iran coup in 1953

2009-06-05T07:34:00.001-07:00

AFP
Friday, June 5, 2009

US President Barack Obama made a major gesture of conciliation to Iran on Thursday when he admitted US involvement in the 1953 coup which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

“In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government,” Obama said during his keynote speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

It is the first time a serving US president has publicly admitted American involvement in the coup.

The CIA, with British backing, masterminded the coup after Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry, run until then in by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests.

Full article here

A Thought of My Own: Fascist America

2009-06-03T07:02:00.000-07:00

I have found myself fighting a media battle which I am not sure I am winning. I believe that the alternative media is doing a great job, but I am concerned as to how many people take such claims as "Obama is Fascist" seriously. As always, I look to point out those areas where this present administration is moving the United States toward a socialist/fascist regime. We have seen them, a number of times, look to violate the 2nd amendment, we have seen police brutality against common citizens for nothing, we have seen youth corps being created, we have seen the Establishment of the National Civil Security Force,we have heard calls for US citizens to serve their president: a man elected to SERVE the people.

So clear do these acts point towards a fascists direction, I would argue that nothing more need to be added. However, less then 2 weeks ago our president argued in favor of preventative detention. In other words, a PREEMTIVE strike on POTENTIAL criminals. This is an act of terror upon people who have done nothing wrong, because the government feels they are a threat. According to Obama, these actions would be done so as to protect the founding documents; yet I argue, how does arresting "potential criminals" help to defend ones right to "life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I am sick to think of this great nation under this present administration.

Ted Rall
The State Journal Register
June 2, 2009

We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime” — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t

“Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

“Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.
Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.

What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of “detainees” the Obama administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn’t enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.
Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple of paragraphs past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime — an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime — in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

click here to read another article on this topic

Grandmother: Great Threat To PD

2009-06-02T07:01:00.000-07:00

This is an odd story! If in fact a suspect did what the police claim this grandmother did, then perhaps force would be required. However, I am hard pressed to believe that a 72 year old women would vindictively violate the law to the extent that a younger police officer would feel threatened to the point of having to use a teaser on an elderly women.

My question is this, at what point do we as citizens stop taking blatant abuse, and begin to hold such actions accountable for what they are: abuse of violent power? Even if she did what she is being accused of, I cannot fathom that such drastic measures were needed to subdue her, especially after seeing how big the officer is.

As a nation of liberty and understanding, we need to come to the understanding that such actions are a clear violation of power.

North Korea’s Kim moves to anoint youngest son as heir

2009-06-02T06:54:00.001-07:00

Jon Herskovitz
Reuters
Tuesday, June 2, 2009

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has signaled the anointment of his youngest son as heir to the ruling family dynasty as the rival Koreas bolstered their militaries along a disputed sea border on Tuesday.

North Korea, whose increasingly military posturing after last week’s nuclear test has prompted U.S. and South Korean forces to raise the alert level, is readying mid-range missiles for test launches, the South’s Yonhap news agency reported a lawmaker as saying after a defense briefing.

The news rattled financial markets in Seoul, adding to worries over reports the impoverished state is preparing to test fire a long-range missile that could fly as far as U.S. territory. The main Seoul index closed slightly down.

Analysts believe that Kim Jong-il, whose power base stems from his support for the military, may be using the growing tension to give him greater leverage over power elites at home to nominate his own successor.

It has raised alarm in the region over how far iron ruler Kim, 67 and thought to have suffered a stroke last year, may be prepared to take his latest military grandstanding.

Full article here

Obama’s new war doctrine: ‘Cyber dominance’

2009-05-31T08:07:00.000-07:00

AFPSunday, May 31, 2009

The US military is moving ahead with plans to create its first “cyber command” designed to bolster America’s potential to wage digital warfare as well as defend against mounting cyber threats, officials said on Friday.
After President Barack Obama announced Friday his plans to overhaul cyber security policy,

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was expected to soon formally propose the new cyber command that will be overseen by a four-star officer, Pentagon officials told AFP.
The move reflects a shift in military strategy with “cyber dominance” now part of US war doctrine and growing alarm over the perceived threat posed by digital espionage coming from China, Russia and elsewhere.

US officials say China has built up a sophisticated cyber warfare program and that a spate of intrusions in the United States and elsewhere can be traced back to Chinese sources.

Defense officials say the cyber command would focus on security efforts for US networks along with offensive capabilities to ensure “freedom of action in cyberspace” to protect America’s interests.

The precise details of US cyber military power remain secret, but it includes technology capable of penetrating and jamming networks, including the classified Suter airborne system, analysts say.

Full article here

Ron Paul on N. Korea

2009-05-31T08:04:00.000-07:00

US ready for ‘conventional’ war with N. Korea

2009-05-31T08:01:00.000-07:00

Press TV

Friday, May 29, 2009

The US is “prepared” to engage in a ‘conventional’ war with North Korea but it requires time to adjust to the new front, says the military.

Gen. George Casey appearing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Thursday said the US was ready to enter an old-fashioned war with North Korea if necessary.
However, he said, “It would probably take us a little bit longer to shift gears” away from the type of counterinsurgency fighting that now occupies the Army. Casey was referring the US two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We’d move forces as rapidly as we could get them prepared,” Casey insisted.
The US army’s chief of staff refrained from suggesting how long it would take to redeploy the army in the new front on the Korean peninsula, but said that the US army was “combat seasoned” and could move quickly.

“The mechanical skills of artillery gunnery and tank gunnery come back very, very quickly,” he said. “The harder part is the integration - that really brigade level and above of massing fires and effects in a very constricted period of time as opposed to what you do in a counterinsurgency over a much longer extended period of time.”

Full story here.

S. Korea, US troops on alert after North's threats

2009-05-28T14:06:00.000-07:00

By ERIC TALMADGE

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korean and U.S. troops raised their alert Thursday to the highest level since 2006 after North Korea renounced its truce with the allied forces and threatened to strike any ships trying to intercept its vessels.

The move was a sign of heightened tensions on the peninsula following the North's underground nuclear test and its firing of a series of short-range missiles earlier this week.
In response, Seoul decided to join more than 90 nations that have agreed to stop and inspect vessels suspected of transporting banned weapons.

North Korea says South Korea's participation in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative is a prelude to a naval blockade and raises the prospect of a naval skirmish in its western waters.

(AP) South Korean soldiers look at the North Korean side through binoculars at Dora Observation Post in...

On Wednesday, it renounced the 1953 truce that halted fighting in the Korean War. It said Thursday through its official media that it was preparing for an American-led attack. The U.S. has repeatedly denied it is planning military action.

"The northward invasion scheme by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet regime has exceeded the alarming level," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "A minor accidental skirmish can lead to a nuclear war."

The two Koreas remain technically at war since a peace treaty has never replaced the truce.

North Korea To Use Force Against S. Korea

2009-05-27T18:59:00.000-07:00

A state of war officially exists again between North and South Korea for the first time since the end of hostilities in 1953 following North Korea’s announcement that they would henceforth refuse to abide by the terms of the peace armistice.

“The Korean People’s Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer,” the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with “prompt and strong military strikes.” South Korea’s military said it will “deal sternly with any provocation” from the North, reports Bloomberg.

As we have highlighted, any North Korean attack on South Korea will be countered by the United States, which is allied with South Korea. North Korea is allied with China, and Chinese military forces will support North Korea in any conflict just as they did in the 1950’s before the armistice was signed.

Read full report here

North Korea Threatens to Attack U.S. Warships

2009-05-27T14:02:00.000-07:00

Infowars
May 27, 2009

“Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots,” North Korea is “compelled to take a decisive measure,” the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said in a statement carried by state media.
The Stalinist regime said it could no longer promise the safety of U.S. and South Korean warships and civilian vessels in the waters near the Korea’s western maritime border, according to reports.

North Korea has bolstered its live artillery fire exercises and fighter jet training near the western sea border with South Korea since it declared an “all-out confrontational posture” against the South in January. North Korea is said to have deployed thousands of weapons hidden in mountain caves and tunnels near the inter-Korean border. The artillery puts South Korea’s capital area within target range, according to The Korea Times.

On May 25, North Korea conducted a nuclear test in violation of U.N. violation of Resolution 1718.

On March 9, South Korea and the United States kicked off their annual joint military exercises on despite strong oppositions by North Korea. According to the Chosun Daily, 26,000 U.S. troops and over 50,000 South Korean troops will participate in the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle exercise all over South Korea, according to the Xinhua News Agency.

It is unknown if the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier and a total of seven U.S. Aegis destroyers that participated in the joint exercise are still in the area.

Ruling Party Official: Japan Should Attack North Korea

2009-05-26T17:14:00.000-07:00

This seems to be the coming of something large. They mention WWIII in this, and I wonder if such could take place?

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

A ruling party lawmaker today urged Japan to break the terms of its pacifist constitution and pre-emptively attack North Korea following the Stalinist state’s nuclear bomb test.
“North Korea poses a serious and realistic threat to Japan,” stated former defense chief Gen Nakatani in Tokyo at a meeting of Liberal Democratic Party officials. “We must look at active missile defense such as attacking an enemy’s territory and bases.”

Nakatani said the attack could be accomplished by equipping navy ships with cruise missiles.
The former defense minister’s warning arrives on the heels of an LDP panel proposal that Japan should change the terms of its pacifist constitution, written by the U.S. after world war two to prevent Japan using hostile force to settle geopolitical disputes, to enable a military attack on North Korea.

“The Japanese government has built a defense network since a North Korean Taepodong-1 missile flew over Japan in 1998 that includes anti-missile batteries around Tokyo and is expanding to other major cities. Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada in March ordered the shooting down of any North Korean missile or related debris that entered Japanese territory,” reports Bloomberg.

It’s not an exaggeration to conclude that any attack on North Korea could eventually lead to world war three. North Korea and China are allies and both have nuclear weapons. If North Korea is attacked by anyone, its first course of action would be to strike South Korea, a close ally of the United States. This would obligate the U.S. to retaliate, bringing American troops to the Chinese border and any escalation from that point would be a disaster.

As we reported yesterday, if you’re wondering how North Korea got its nukes in the first place, look no further than the U.S. government itself.

Two years before North Korea was included in the “axis of evil,” former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, during his time as executive director of ABB, signed off on a $200 million dollar contract to build light water nuclear reactors in North Korea.
Rumsfeld was merely picking up the baton from the Clinton administration, who in 1994 agreed to replace North Korea’s domestically built nuclear reactors with light water nuclear reactors.

According to Henry Sokolski, head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, “These reactors are like all reactors, they have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we’re trying to prevent it acquiring.”

President George W. Bush provided another $95 million in April 2002 towards the construction of more reactors in North Korea, as well as a further $3.5 million in January 2003.
Construction of the reactors was eventually suspended, but North Korea had an alternative source through which they could obtain the nuclear secrets vital to building an atom bomb arsenal - CIA asset and international arms smuggler AQ Khan.
In 2004, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atom bomb program, admitted sharing nuclear technology via a worldwide smuggling network that included facilities in Malaysia that manufactured key parts for centrifuges.
Khan’s collaborator B.S.A. Tahir ran a front company out of Dubai that shipped centrifuge components to North Korea.

Despite Dutch authorities being deeply suspicious of Khan’s activities as far back as 1975, the CIA prevented them from arresting him on two occasions.

“The man was followed for almost ten years and obviously he was a serious problem. But again I was told that the secret services could handle it more effectively,” former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers said. “The Hague did not have the final say in the matter. Washington did.”
Lubbers stated that Khan was allowed to slip in and out of the Netherlands with the blessing of the CIA, eventually allowing him to become the “primary salesman of an extensive international network for the proliferation of nuclear technology and know-how,” according to George W. Bush himself, and sell nuclear secrets that allowed North Korea to build nuclear bombs.

“Lubbers suspects that Washington allowed Khan’s activities because Pakistan was a key ally in the fight against the Soviets,” reports CFP. “At the time, the US government funded and armed mujahideen such as Osama bin Laden. They were trained by Pakistani intelligence to fight Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Anwar Iqbal, Washington correspondent for the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, told ISN Security Watch that Lubbers’ assertions may be correct. “This was part of a long-term foolish strategy. The US knew Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons but couldn’t care less because it was not going to be used against them. It was a deterrent against India and possibly the Soviets.”

In September 2005 it emerged that the Amsterdam court which sentenced Khan to four years imprisonment in 1983 had lost the legal files pertaining to the case. The court’s vice-president, Judge Anita Leeser, accused the CIA of stealing the files. “Something is not right, we just don’t lose things like that,” she told Dutch news show NOVA. “I find it bewildering that people lose files with a political goal, especially if it is on request of the CIA. It is unheard of.”
In 2005, Pakistani President Pervez Musharaf acknowledged that Khan had provided centrifuges and their designs to North Korea.

With this history in mind, the shock, condemnation and indignation being expressed by the U.S. government in response to North Korea’s second nuclear bomb test is tinged with hypocrisy to say the least. Through their policies in aiding North Korea to build light water reactors, and via the CIA asset AQ Khan who was protected at every step of the way while he helped provide North Korea with the means to build a nuclear arsenal, the U.S. government itself is directly complicit in providing North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il with the nuclear weapons that they are now condemning him for testing.

Just For Laughs

2009-05-24T17:41:00.001-07:00

I thought this was funny!

Bill to Audit Fed Gains Serious Momentum

2009-05-23T09:05:00.000-07:00

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 22, 2009

It looks like the Federal Reserve may finally have something to worry about now that HR 1207 is finally gaining serious steam. If enacted, HR 1207 will amend title 31 of the United States Code and reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States. In other words, for the first time since 1950, the criminals at the Federal Reserve will be forced by law to open their books.

HR 1207 was sponsored and introduced by Rep. Ron Paul. On February 26, 2009, it was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. It now has 179 co-sponsors (see the list of sponsors below).

If passed, the bill will force the Fed to give a public accounting of the trillions of taxpayer “loans” handed over to the banksters. It will force Congress to audit the Fed and this will force out into the light of day the Fed practice of inflating the currency for the gain of a small number of international bankers. It will reveal the bankster practice of engineering financial crises and depressions — or scientifically created, as Congressman Charles A. Lindberg Sr. said after the Federal Reserve Act was passed in the dead of night — in order to consolidate illicit gains and eliminate competition (as the bankers are monopoly men).

On March 25, 2009, H.R. 1207 had 44 co-sponsors. “We’re making great progress because a lot of you have helped encourage your member of Congress to co-sponsor the bill,” Ron Paul said. “And to me, this is very, very important that we do this. The atmosphere in the Congress has definitely changed. It’s changed with their attitude about the Federal Reserve System, but overall there’s a tremendous push by the American people for the Congress to wake up and have more transparency… I have argued, of course, that we don’t need the Federal Reserve. It’s not part of our constitution and we should get rid of it, but it doesn’t happen that way. But if we get the audit and get the books open, make them answer the questions, I am convinced that the American people will be so outraged that then we will have reform of the monetary system.”

Imagine Ben Bernanke, shorn of his arrogance, dragged before Congress and compelled to answer questions. In the not too distant past, this prospect was a remote dream, but now, thanks to Ron Paul and all the people who have insisted their representatives support this bill, it may become law.

Obama Youth: A Reality

2009-05-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

This nation is clearly moving in a fascist direction. The video below clearly illustrates that many youth already feel the need to serve a year for the good of the state, and are campaigning others to do the same; to feel, and be given this sense of nationalistic pride. I am not saying that nationalistic pride is wrong, for it is not, but when we are to forced to serve for the sake of nationalism, that is wrong.

Guantanamo Prisoners STILL Being Tortured Under Obama

2009-05-20T21:22:00.000-07:00

Washington’s Blog
Wednesday, May 20, 2009

While torture under the Bush administration was horrible, at least it has stopped. Right?
Wrong.

Jeremy Scahill (the reporter who broke most of the stories on Blackwater) says that a military police unit at Guantanamo regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes and dousing them with chemicals.

Specifically, whenever there is “disobedience” by the detainees - which can include praying, or having 2 styrofoam cups in their cell instead of 1, or refusing medication or failing to immediately respond when spoken to - the “Immediate Reaction Force” (IRF) is sent in.
Scahill describes what happens next:

When an IRF team is called in, its members are dressed in full riot gear, which some prisoners and their attorneys have compared to “Darth Vader” suits. Each officer is assigned a body part of the prisoner to restrain: head, right arm, left arm, left leg, right leg…

[The IRF teams then mete out brutal punishment, including] gang beating them, forcing their heads into toilets, breaking bones, gouging their eyes, squeezing their testicles, urinating on a prisoner’s head, banging their heads on concrete floors and hog-tying them — sometimes leaving prisoners tied in excruciating positions for hours on end…

[One prisoner was sprayed directly in the eyes with mace and gouged in the eyes and was then refused medical treatment, which resulted in permanent blindness in one eye. He also endured a "sexual attack".
Another prisoner had a third prisoner's feces spread on him.]

Read entire article here

Let Man Live

2009-05-19T18:17:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting clip, and I think it is a good one. There is one portion of the clip where John Piper suggests that the government pass laws, or something to that effect, reversing Roe v Wade; I think what he is looking for is to make abortion illegal in the sense that murder is illegal. I do not think that he is asking for government intervention as it pertains to passing laws to make abortion illegal in its own right.

Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Illegal Private Firearms Registration

2009-05-19T18:13:00.000-07:00

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

An alarming document sent to us by an Infantryman based out of Fort Campbell Kentucky shows that active duty military personnel are being secretly ordered to submit information to their Chain of Command on how many firearms they own privately, their location, as well of details of any Concealed Carry permits.

Though the order was apparently rescinded, the fact that active duty soldiers are being asked to submit every detail of their private firearm collection is a telltale sign that the second amendment is in dire straights. Furthermore, Alex Jones has personally confirmed that such directives are being issued all over the country.

The directive orders active duty personnel to report details of all privately-owned firearms to their Chain of Command, as well as future firearms purchases.

The memorandum was sent to us by a concerned 11B Infantryman based at Fort Campbell. In his e mail, the man expresses his shock at being ordered to comply with what amounts to a registration of privately-owned firearms.

Read entire article here

American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper

2009-05-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

Mat Rodina
May 18, 2009
Infowars.com

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite tv dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blindth the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barrack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barrack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Bilderberg Fears Losing Control In Chaos-Plagued World

2009-05-18T06:59:00.000-07:00

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
May 18, 2009

Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.

In a telephone interview, Estulin re-iterated his original points about Bilderberg’s 2009 agenda, which were released in a pre-meeting booklet to members. These include the notion that investors, whipped up into a false state of euphoria by the belief that the economy is recovering, are being suckered into ploughing their money back into the system as a set up for “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead” as the stock market reverses its uptrend and plummets to new lows.

One of Bilderberg’s main topics of conversation at this year’s meeting was whether to oversee a long period of economic stagnation or to quickly sink the economy with a rapid depression.
Estulin called the “bank stress tests” recently conducted as being “little more than a shameless hoax based on the irrational assumption that the economy wont get as bad as it already is.”
Bilderberg are also intent in pushing through the Lisbon Treaty despite it being rejected by countries in Europe who allowed their population to vote on the issue, and are prepared to manufacture demonization campaigns against anti-EU pressure groups, namely the Libertas organization fronted by Declan Ganley.

One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns according to Estulin is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.

Estulin said that the economic crisis is a vastly greater threat than a mere recession and that, as long as the present structure of the global economy remains the same, it will ultimately lead to a massive population reduction of two thirds within a generation or two.

Estulin said that such a massive crisis would bring many unknowns that “Scare and frighten some of the more savvy members of the Bilderberg inner circle who are wondering how far they have actually gone not only to destroy the world but perhaps even destroy themselves,” adding that this subject was a topic of conversation at this year’s meeting.

Estulin highlighted a phrase that he first ran across in Bilderberg documents many years ago but only came to understand more recently following the 2002 meeting in Chantilly Virginia, the term “demand destruction”.

Estulin said that a source connected to the World Bank explained to him that, “You destroy demand by destroying the world economy on purpose - which is what we’re witnessing right now,” added Estulin, “destruction of the world economy on purpose.”

America's--Hitler--Boy Scout Youth

2009-05-15T14:12:00.000-07:00

Fascism is defined as a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. (dictionary.com) Fascist leaders promote national pride, promise to restore poor economies via government sponsored programs, they call for loyalty to the state, and see each class as having its own and proper place and function.

I have been saying over the past 3 months that this nation is heading down a path of fascism. (Follow the links provided to see where I have reported on these topics) We have looked at the governments attempt to disarm its citizens, we have seen celebrities encouraging us to serve our president, and we have watched as our government has passed legislation requiring citizens to serve in a national security civilian force". All of these have aims directed towards service to the state, an attempt to create a sense of national pride for the state, and a goal to keep US citizens from bearing arms: a clear violation of our 2nd amendment right. Yet, if this was not enough, the government is presently using the Boy Scouts as a sort of "youth corps" to put down domestic terrorist as define by the Homeland security; which includes American citizens and veterans. This so resembles the Hitler Youth its not funny. Let us not forget that Hitler used the democratic system to gain political power, only to abuse it and create a totalitarian state.

Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo

Prison Planet.com

Friday, May 15, 2009

Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor,” begins a shocking New York Times article reporting on how the Boy Scouts are being trained to take on domestic terrorists, which apparently would include war veterans and American citizens if the Homeland Security definition of a terrorist is to be applied.

Homeland Security and the FBI are behind the effort to indoctrinate and train the Boy Scouts to become tomorrow’s Gestapo. “Our end goal is to create more agents,” April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent, told the Times. “Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.”

Is this the literal creation of Hitler-Jugend style youth brigades designed to act as the front line for eventual programs of mass internment and gun confiscation in the advent of a national emergency?

In Nazi Germany, the Hitler Youth succeeded the Boy Scout movement. Hitler Youth training was militarized in comparison to the Boy Scout network, which was largely based around education. Boys aged fourteen and upwards, as well as a separate branch aged 10-14, were trained at preparatory schools to become future Nazi leaders. At its height in 1940, and after it had become mandatory to join, the Hitler Youth boasted no less than 8 million members.
Apparently in a shift away from the traditional Boy Scouts activities of sports, camping, survival skills and team leadership, the government is now training children “to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence” under the banner of the Explorers program, with the aid of military-style exercises aimed at subduing insurgents.
In one scenario, boys are trained how to conduct drug raids and take out an “obstreperous lookout”.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”
In other situations, Boy Scouts are trained to disarm “suspected terrorists” and subdue them, including Iraq war veterans.

Scouts are trained to identify the enemy. In a competition in Arizona, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. “If we’re looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy in Imperial County, California, “then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don’t know, would you call that politically incorrect?”

Politically correct or not, Homeland Security and the FBI realize Arabs are not the enemy — “rightwing extremists” are.

Last month, Infowars reported on a document produced by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Coordinating Center identifying advocates of the Second Amendment, veterans, pro-life activists, and militia members as dangerous terrorists. A subsequent DHS document, entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” pinpointed “antigovernment” types “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” as possible terrorists. “Islamic groups are specifically excluded from this document,” writes Benjamin Sarlin for the Daily Beast.

The new Gestapo Boy Scouts program will train the new Hitler Youth — or Obama youth — for the challenges of a totalitarian globalist future. As the planned implosion of the economy unfolds and unemployment increases, the federal government is picking up the slack. “In the wake of the huge stimulus package to jumpstart the economy, plenty of new positions are being created by 2010. The agencies that will benefit include the Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments,” writes Judi Hasson for Fierce Government.

Gestapo Scouts will be required to combat “rightwing extremists” who will refuse to turn in their firearms after the next false flag terror attack or engineered pandemic. SWAT Scouts will be called to deal with those who refuse to participate in mandatory vaccinations. Police state Scouts will be the vanguard for Obama’s million-man Civilian National Security Corps. “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.

It’s up to the New York Times, as the premier “liberal” propaganda outfit, to sell the militarization of the Boy Scouts to the American people, using the standard bugaboos of Arab terrorists, drug cartel thugs, and marijuana cultivators as the example of why all of this is necessary.

In the real world, however, government is not primarily concerned with drug dealers — after all, the government and Wall Street run most of the drugs — they are worried about growing opposition to the destruction of the Constitution and the imposition of world government by a cabal of international bankers and their corporate fascist partners in crime.

US looking to boost military funding for ‘right war’

2009-05-13T16:16:00.000-07:00

Russia Today
Wednesday,
May 13, 2009

The US Congress is expected to pass an emergency bill on funding for the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Obama administration and Department of Defense are asking for around $95 billion of extra cash to beef up their overseas military operations, as well as humanitarian purposes.
Some of the requested funds will go towards aid purposes. For example, $1 billion is going to be spent to help countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq fight terrorism. About $2 billion will go towards stopping the global spread of swine flu.

If these figures are compared to a bigger picture, more than 19% of the bill is going towards military force, which goes against previous Obama rhetoric, as the new administration is heard constantly and insists that the US military policy in Afghanistan and Central Asia itself needs change and that this war cannot be won by military force alone.
Read more

This 19% of the bill will be spent on new machinery and new military equipment which raises the question over whether the American administration is really preparing to change anything.

In addition, despite Barack Obama promising at the beginning of his term that he will close the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention center, the appears that the American lawmakers are putting their foot on this money – all because Obama still has not presented a solid plan as to where the prisoners are going to go. Even the Democrats, who are expected to support Obama and give him this money insist that there is no way Obama’s administration could get this money before it explains what it plans to do with Gitmo inmates.

Full story here.

Southern Baptists come out against torture!

2009-05-13T16:13:00.000-07:00

Some good news posted at The Holy Cause. [A welcome encourment after reading this post about a man who was reared as a Christian militarist, but has now left the church because he began to believe in Jesus' teachings on non-violence.] But on to the good news:From the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:

There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence gathering process, in Richard Land’s view. The practice known as “waterboarding” is torture, he said.

Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said there is no circumstance in which torture should be permissible in interrogations by U.S. officials, even if the authorities believe a prisoner has information that might involve national security. (emphasis mine)… “I don’t agree with the belief that we should use any means necessary to extract information,” Land said in an interview with Religion News Service and Baptist Press May 4. “I believe there are absolutes. There are things we must never do under any circumstances.”

Furthermore, Land said, if he could not in good conscience “waterboard” someone, he would not — if he were a public official — have the right to authorize someone else to do it.“For me the ultimate test is this: Could I in good conscience do whatever I am authorizing or condoning others to do? If not, then I must oppose the action,” Land said. “If I could not waterboard someone — and I couldn’t — then I must oppose its practice.”Land said he considers waterboarding torture because included in the definition of torture is whether a procedure causes permanent physical harm, noting he is unable to “separate physical from psychological harm” in this instance.

The practice contravenes an individual’s personhood and their humanity, he said.“It violates everything we believe in as a country,” Land said, noting the Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

House No. 2: Explore Pelosi interrogation briefing

2009-05-12T20:35:00.000-07:00

By LARRY MARGASAK
Washignton Post

The House majority leader reluctantly agreed Tuesday that congressional hearings should investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that she wasn't informed, more than six years ago, that harsh interrogation methods were used on an al-Qaida leader.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi's assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding — simulated drowning — and sleep deprivation.

While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoyer, asked at a news conference whether Democrats were inviting political problems for themselves by holding hearings, said, "I think the facts need to get out.

"I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when. My response to that is, look, the issue is not what was said or what was known; the question and focus ought to be on what was done."
But he added that the controversy over "what was said and when it was said, who said it ... is probably what ought to be on the record as well."
Hoyer also was asked whether he believes Pelosi's support has been undermined among Democrats.

"No, I don't," he said.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee holds the first hearing on the interrogation policy on Wednesday, but has scheduled testimony unrelated to the Pelosi matter.

A CIA document made public last week shows that Pelosi received a briefing in September 2002 on the tactics used on Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaida leader and one of three prisoners subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi said she was told the agency was discussing its legal right to use the tactic in the future.

"We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Former Top Rated NRA Senator to Introduce Gun Ban This Week

2009-05-12T08:21:00.000-07:00

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 11, 2009

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.

Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.

It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.

McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.

As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”

Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday.

The Obama administration recently attempted to link the right to own firearms to drug cartel violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have said 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army.

Soon after his shoo-in confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder revived the assault weapons ban debate. Responding to a reporter’s question on weapons’ regulations, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder did not provide details on when legislation would be presented to Congress.

Democrats are reluctant to make additional attacks against the Second Amendment. In 1994, the issue was instrumental in handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate dealt a body blow to the gun control movement, when 22 Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined 40 Republicans to shelve firearms restrictions in the nation’s capital.

Democrats fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.”

Democrats, however, are biding their time. Veteran gun-grabber Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on April 12 that she has no intention of reintroducing the assault weapons ban at this time. “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it,” she said, that is to say when the opportunistic introduction of such legislation is politically expedient and will not damage her party.

Government propaganda and exploitation of recent high profile “gun violence” stories by the corporate media have not turned the public against the Second Amendment. “Recent polls show shrinking support for new gun control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by three in four Americans — now rates barely one in two,” reports the Houston Chronicle.

An April poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today

Don't Tred On Me is Tredded Upon

2009-05-11T14:37:00.000-07:00

Dr. Archie Jones

The American Vision

May 8, 2009

Our friends at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemarie in Ball, Louisiana alerting Patriot Depot that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased and displayed a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his car.

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.” Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration. But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election.

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion. Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition-and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,

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.
Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse. They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

Holder vs. the 2nd Amendment

2009-05-11T14:25:00.000-07:00

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 9, 2009

A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.

As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.

Pratt worries that the new bill will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt continues. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.

The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.

During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities.

In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

2009-05-08T15:02:00.000-07:00

By Paul Kane
The Washington Post

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House

Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations."As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.

Leaked 1955 Bilderberg Docs Outline Plan For Single European Currency

2009-05-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, May 8, 2009

Leaked documents from the 1955 Bilderberg Group conference held in Germany discuss the agenda to create a European Union and a single EU currency, decades before they were introduced, disproving once again debunkers who claim that Bilderberg has no influence over world events.

Leaked papers from the meeting which took place from September 23-25 1955 at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany, were released by the Wikileaks website yesterday.

As we first reported in 2003, a BBC investigative team were allowed to access Bilderberg files which confirmed that the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. They were probably reading from the same documents that were released by Wikileaks.

It was only last month that Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s.

However, the documents show that the agenda to create a European common market and a single currency go back decades earlier

read the full article here

Poll: Majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana

2009-05-07T15:00:00.000-07:00

Raw Story
Thursday, May 7, 2009

3,937 voters were asked: “Scarce law enforcement and prison resources, a desire to neutralize drug cartels and the need for new sources of revenue have resurrected the topic of legalizing marijuana. Proponents say it makes sense to tax and regulate the drug while opponents say that legalization would lead marijuana users to use other illegal drugs. Would you favor or oppose the government’s effort to legalize marijuana?”

52 percent came out in favor, with 37 percent against. The poll was commissioned by the conservative-leaning O’Leary report.

“The survey, published as a full-page ad in [Wednesday's] issue of the political newspaper The Hill, polled a sample of 3,937 voters weighted to match the 2008 presidential outcome — 54 percent Obama voters and 46 percent McCain supporters,” Salem News reported.
The results are “slightly higher than the 46 percent support reported in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released at the end of April.”

Obama pressed to engage on gay issues

2009-05-07T14:47:00.000-07:00

I find this incredibly interesting. Obama claims to be a Christian, a religion which deeply opposes same-sex anything as it relates to any "sexual" based relationship, and I know this to be true via the video below. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that Obama, if nothing more, wishes to remain aloof of the topic. I would think that any hard line Christian, as he claims he is, would be clear on his position. This does not mean that he can't appoint a gay man to the supreme court, to do that would violate the first amendment, but if he is in fact a Christian, then this issue should not have to be "pressed".

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
The New York Times
Thurs, May 7, 2009

President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a "fierce advocate of equality" for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.

Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter , who is retiring. Same-sex marriage is advancing in states — the latest to allow it is Maine — and a new flare-up in the District of Columbia could ultimately put the controversy in the lap of the president.

Mr. Obama’s new global health initiative has infuriated activists who say he is not financing AIDS programs generously enough. And while the president has urged Congress to pass a hate crimes bill, a high priority for gay groups, he has delayed action on one of his key campaign promises, repealing the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" rule.

Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware that Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and overseas, have counseled patience.

But some are unsettled by what they see as the president’s cautious approach. Many are still seething over his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren , the evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, and remain suspicious of Mr. Obama’s commitment to their cause.

In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are beginning to wonder, "How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?" Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in The Washington Post headlined, "Where’s our fierce advocate?"

'They have a plan'The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as "don’t ask, don’t tell." Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be "unfolding exactly as we thought," he was pleased.

"They have a vision," Mr. Solmonese said. "They have a plan."

A Thought of My Own: Pledge of Allegence

2009-05-06T14:37:00.000-07:00

I am going to address a somewhat different, and I am sure, controversial topic, that of the pledge of allegiance. This may seem a moot topic, but as a christian, and a christian dedicated to the founding ideals of the United States, I have come to conclude that saying the pledge of allegiance is both wrong for Christians to do, and that the pledge, itself, is a contradiction to the ideals of the United States.

I would like to begin by dealing with the second issue first; and to do this, I would first like to define socialism. Socialism is a "theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." This economic system was adopted by Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, and in many ways, Adolph Hitler was socialist. I bring this point up because our pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a self-proclaimed socialist who frequently interjected socialism into his sermons. (To read more about him and the pledge, click here. Also, the picture posted at the top of this post is a picture entitled "The Bellamy Solute to the Flag) I in no way intend to suggest that socialists are inherently evil, instead, I find it rather odd that US citizens would recite words written by a man dedicated to the ideals of socialism, when those ideals so clearly contradict those laid forth in both our founding documents, and the words of our founding fathers.

Furthermore, the allegiance states "And to the republic for which it stands, One Nation . . ." These terms are not synonymous. When one thinks of a republic they are to understand that power is vested in the hands of the people who willing provide elected officials certain rights for the purpose of governance. This form of government is often times found in a Confederacy. A nation, on the other hand, does not require people to have nay power, but rather, and more often then not, a strong central government with its own agenda; not always the agenda of the people. A perfect example of this is the Roman Empire. A republic for 500 years, then came Cesar and out the window went the republic, and the will of the people, and in came Emperor. Frankly, to put these two words next to one another seems of over arching contradiction.

Finally, I find it difficult to pledge total allegiance to the state when my allegiance is to Christ. It could be said that one could have an allegiance to both their state and their god. To this, I define the word allegiance. Allegiance is "loyalty or devotion to some person, or of a subject to his or her sovereign". Christ is sovereign over my life, not the United States. One might then point to Romans 13 and say that as a Christian we are bound to give allegiance to our government. This works insofar as government is acting within the realm of Christ's character, which, sadly, is almost never. To read more about this topic click here.

Ultimately, I think that the action of saying the pledge, for myself, causes me to speak with a double tongue, and as a Christian, I simply cannot pledge my allegence to anything except God. (Please note that I am not against others saying the pledge, and I would in no way ask others to follow my example. This would take away from their freedom of speech, and their right to express their thoughts)

The video below deals first with the issue of Texas secession, and then with the Pledge of Allegiance. So please watch the entire clip.

Bilderberg: What They Have in Store for Our Future

2009-05-06T14:15:00.000-07:00

On the eve of the 2009 Bilderberg Group conference, which is due to be held May 14-17 at the 5 star Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece, investigative reporter Daniel Estulin has uncovered shocking details of what the elitists plan to do with the economy over the course of the next year.

The Bilderberg Group meeting is an annual confab of around 150 of the world’s most influential powerbrokers in government, industry, banking, media, academia and the military-industrial complex. The secretive group operates under “Chatham House rules,” meaning that no details of what is discussed can ever be leaked to the media, despite editors of the world’s biggest newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Financial Times, being present at the meeting.

According to Estulin’s sources, which have been proven highly accurate in the past, Bilderberg is divided on whether to put into motion, “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

The information takes on added weight when one considers the fact that Estulin’s previous economic forecasts, which were based on leaks from the same sources, have proven deadly accurate. Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.
Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,” according to a Canada Free Press report.

According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.
Estulin’s sources also tell him that Bilderberg will again attempt to push for the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, a key centerpiece of the agenda to fully entrench a federal EU superstate, by forcing the Irish to vote again on the document in September/October despite having rejected it already, along with other European nations, in national referendums.

“One of their concerns is addressing and neutralizing the anti-Lisbon treaty movement called “Libertas” led by Declan Ganley. One of the Bilderberger planned moves is to use a whispering campaign in the US media suggested that Ganley is being funded by arms dealers in the US linked to the US military,” reports CFP.

Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker, and other sources who have infiltrated Bilderberg meetings in the past have routinely provided information about the Bilderberg agenda that later plays out on the world stage, proving that the organization is not merely a “talking shop” as debunkers claim, but an integral planning forum for the new world order agenda.

Indeed, just last month Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s. Bilderberg’s agenda for a European federal superstate and a single currency likely goes back even further. A BBC investigation uncovered documents from the early Bilderberg meetings which confirmed that the European Union was a brainchild of Bilderberg.

In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year.

In 2006, Estulin predicted that the U.S. housing market would be allowed to soar before the bubble was cruelly popped, which is exactly what transpired.
In 2008, Estulin predicted that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
Bilderberg has routinely flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.

Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected Dick Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and “Kerry-Gephardt” stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two.

A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal.

Several key geopolitical decisions were made at last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together.

As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that “oil prices would probably begin to decline”. This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

Also at last year’s meeting, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

Rice was joined at the meeting by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who reportedly encouraged EU globalists to get behind an attack on Iran. Low and behold, days later the EU threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment program.

There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s “secret meeting,” which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the Bilderberg meeting in DC.

It remains to be seen what kind of mainstream media press coverage Bilderberg 2009 will be afforded because, despite the proven track record of Bilderberg having a central role in influencing subsequent geopolitical and financial world events, and despite last year’s meeting being held in Washington DC, the U.S. corporate media oversaw an almost universal blackout of reporting on the conference, its attendees, and what was discussed.
Once again, it will be left to the alternative media to fill the vacuum and educate the people on exactly what the globalists have planned for us over the coming year.

John Stewart on Torture

2009-05-04T07:04:00.001-07:00

This is Awesome!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

Preparing for years in Afghanistan

2009-04-30T15:23:00.000-07:00

This type of story drives me nuts. This cleary illustrates that the foreign policy of the United States is WAR.

DAVID S. CLOUD
Politico
April 21, 2009

The Pentagon’s senior military leaders are worried that the security situation in Afghanistan is stalemated or deteriorating, and now are preparing a far-reaching plan that would prepare the U.S. military for a war that could last three to five more years, officials said.
The effort, which is being coordinated by the Joint Staff and is still in its early stages, is designed to create an experienced cadre of officers and senior enlisted soldiers, who would rotate between assignments in Afghanistan and at their home stations until the end of hostilities.

By doing so, the Pentagon hopes to end a problem that has plagued the effort in Afghanistan—the lack of familiarity with local conditions by U.S. forces who rotate in and then depart after a year, just when they are beginning to understand the area or the mission where they are assigned.

“These would be small groups who would deploy together for shorter periods, going back and forth to the same place and the same mission again and again, so they would know the culture and the terrain,” said a senior Pentagon official briefed on the plan, who said the teams could be asked to conduct training or other specialized counterinsurgency missions.

READ ARTICLE

Obama, on 100th Day, Says He Is ‘Remaking America’

2009-04-30T15:08:00.000-07:00

Do You Agree With This?

By Edwin Chen and Roger Runningen

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama marked his 100th day in office by telling Americans that “we’ve begun the work of remaking America.”
The president, speaking at a town hall meeting in the St. Louis suburb of Arnold, Missouri, said that while the U.S. still faces challenges in recovering from a recession, the country is making progress.

“We have begun to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off,” Obama said. “I’m pleased with the progress we’ve made, but I’m not satisfied. I’m confident in the future, but I’m not content with the present.”

Obama said he wants Congress to approve legislation revamping U.S. financial regulation by the end of this year, expressed hope for a potential auto deal to save Chrysler LLC from bankruptcy and reiterated a pledge to cut the budget deficit in half during his first term.

Over the next 100 days the president will be dealing with a host of thorny issues, including getting his proposals on the budget, health and energy pushed through Congress and dealing with the war in Afghanistan. The Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and continued high approval ratings give him a strong hand.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted April 23-26 found 61 percent of Americans approve the way Obama is handling his job. The poll of 1,005 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken April 22-26 gave him a 68 percent approval rating.
Simultaneous Initiatives

The support has helped him press ahead with simultaneous initiatives on health care, energy and national security.

“The priorities that we’ve acted on are the things we said we would do during the campaign,” Obama said. “It’s not like anybody should be surprised.”

Answering questions from the audience, Obama repeated his stance that subjecting higher incomes to the Social Security payroll tax is the “best idea” for protecting the government retirement insurance system’s financial health. Making the wealthy “pay a little more payroll tax” is preferable to cutting Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age, Obama said.
The tax currently is applied to all income up to $102,000 a year. Obama proposed subjecting income above $250,000 to the tax -- though at a lower rate -- to keep the system solvent.
Chrysler Negotiations

On automakers, Obama endorsed a merger of Chrysler and Fiat SpA. The combination may help Chrysler make “fuel-efficient, clean-energy cars that’ll meet the needs of future markets,” Obama said. Chrysler is negotiating with lenders on a plan to cut its debt, a step needed to form the alliance.

Obama said environmental measures, such as his plan for a cap on carbon emissions, don’t require a choice between jobs and protecting the planet. “There’s a balance that can be struck, and the key principle is sustainability,” he said.
The 100-day milestone only represents the “beginning of another long journey” with many challenges ahead, Obama said.

“I’m not a miracle worker,” Obama said. “We’ve got a lot of tough choices and hard decisions and hard work ahead of us.”

As Obama marked his 100th day, the Commerce Department said the U.S. economy capped its worst six-month slump in more than 50 years, with gross domestic product dropping at a 6.1 percent annual pace during the first quarter of 2009. GDP contracted at a 6.3 percent rate during the last three months of 2008. The latest decline reflected a record slide in inventories and further declines in housing.
Not Surprising

Today’s GDP report is “not altogether surprising,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, saying it “demonstrates a pretty severe contraction in our economy over the course of the first three months of the year.”

The government also reported that consumer spending increased, which Gibbs described as “generally a very good economic statistic” that provides “some glimmers of hope.”
Since taking office Jan. 20, the 44th president has pushed for changes in U.S. economic, social and defense policies and reversed many of those put in place by his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.

Obama has signed an order to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, enacted a law to make it easier for employees to sue for pay discrimination, extended health coverage to 4 million uninsured children, overturned restrictions on federal funding of stem cell-research and won passage of a $787 billion economic stimulus bill designed to revive an economy in recession.
Target Date

Obama has set Aug. 31, 2010, as the target for ending the U.S. combat mission in Iraq, assigned 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and called in Prague for steps to eliminate nuclear weapons. He declared in Turkey that America is “not at war with Islam,” and lifted restrictions on Cuban-Americans sending money to Cuba.

The president forced out General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner and replaced him with Fritz Henderson, and demanded changes at GM and Chrysler as a condition for further government aid.

The president got a political gift yesterday when Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, strengthening Obama’s hand in the Senate and boosting his agenda on health care, energy, education and the budget.
After the town-hall meeting, the president is scheduled to return to Washington for a press conference at 8 p.m. local time, his third prime-time White House appearance.

Constitution is "narcissistic"...world govt should raise your kids

2009-04-30T15:00:00.000-07:00

Notice that the desire of American parents to take responsibility for raising their children, coupled with the fact that American parents are telling the New World Order to keep its hands off their families...is called..."narcissistic" (i.e. selfish). Raising children is not narcissistic. It's the opposite.

Also notice that this UN convention, if enforced, could prohibit parents from teaching the truth about the Bible and Jesus Christ to their children--because, under the convention, the children have the "right" to pursue other lifestyles and religious worldviews. And they're calling for ratification of this right now. 'Narcissistic Sovereignty’ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rights CNS NEWS - Monday, November 24, 2008 - By Penny Starr, Senior Staff

WriterWashington, D.C. (CNSNews.com)

Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children’s rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it, groups that support ratification said at a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday.“It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call, narcissistic sovereignty,” Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the American Psychological

Association, told CNSNews.com.But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the treaty should not be ratified.“This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,” Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com.Smith said that if Congress ratifies the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants – a fact advocates do not deny.“Every national government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,” Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference.“And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,” Davidson added.But Austin Ruse, president of the conservative United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com that the conventions reflect a worldview that rejects the idea of sovereign nations.“They no longer want independent nations deciding what to do, but good citizens in a new international order,” Ruse said.Ruse said that the very idea of children’s rights is “problematic,” because it sees children as having rights apart from their parents.“It separates parents from their children,” Ruse told CNSNews.com. “The rights of children can only be seen in the context of the rights and responsibilities of the parents.”

Panelists at the news conference portrayed the convention as a way to help children in the United States whose needs are not being met, including every child having access to health care, good nutrition and safe living conditions.“The convention’s articles on non-discrimination and adequate standard of living charge us to seek out exactly those children, families, and communities that live on the margins of society and design equitable policies that meet their needs,” said Dr. Jennifer Kasper, who represented the American Academy of Pediatrics at the press conference.“It states explicitly that nations must not only actively protect children from discrimination, but they also must refrain from actions that may have a discrimination effect on some children.”Ruse said the United States does not need to be regulated by those he describes as “radicals” on the U.N. committees that oversee such treaties.“U.S. laws for protecting children are the best in the world,” Ruse said, “and we don’t need a treaty to help us.”He also said Cook’s remarks about narcissism are a “smear” on the United States and show how his and other groups advocating ratification of the treaty want to promote a liberal global agenda.“It’s a power grab, pure and simple, by radicals like him,” Ruse said.Smith said the most dangerous thing about the convention is that rather than building stronger families, it could damage relationships by giving children “rights” to question their parents’ decisions on a range of issues, including discipline, religious training and education.“It pits children against their parents,” Smith said.When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”

Groups at the press conference expressed optimism about the new administration, including Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.“We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child’s survival, protection and development,” Gardinier said.