Hostile bloggers facing fines, jail?

Posted: May 06, 2009
10:39 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

1ST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL

Proposal ‘comes close to making it federal offense to log onto Internet’

Jail cell

A new proposal in Congress is threatening fines and jail time for what it calls “cyberbullying” – communications that include e-mails and text messages that “cause substantial emotional distress.”

The vague generalities are included in H.R. 1966 by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors.

But it already is being condemned as unconstitutional, unrealistic and probably ineffectual.

At Wired.com, in a report labeled “Threat Level,” writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand “up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'”

“Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag,” he wrote.

(Story continues below)

Such limits never would pass First Amendment muster, “unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing,” he wrote. “So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.”

The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages.

Speak out now against limits on your speech!

The defendant in the case, Lori Drew, was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“Sanchez’s bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the Internet or use the telephone,” Kravets wrote. “The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.”

“We can’t say what we think of Sanchez’s proposal,” he said. “Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement.”

Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, “If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn’t] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation.”

The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, states, “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

It states: “Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.”

Military Police at the Kentucky Derby

Infowars
May 3, 2009

A Google News search does not produce a story or even a brief mention of the fact military police were on hand at the Kentucky Derby to keep restless plebs in line. However, an Associated Press photograph, posted on the Yahoo! News website, shows two MPs in combat fatigues with side arms restraining a man at the derby.

	Military police detain a fan who ran onto the track following the running of the 135th Kentucky Derby horse race at Churchill Downs Saturday, May 2, 2009, in Louisville, Ky.

“Military police detain a fan who ran onto the track following the running of the 135th Kentucky Derby horse race at Churchill Downs Saturday, May 2, 2009, in Louisville, Ky.,” the photo caption reads.

The photo was also included in a slideshow on the Yahoo! Sports website, although the text of the article does not contain a mention of military police at the event.

“The military has NO BUSINESS policing the citizens except during extraordinarily exceptional times of national emergency by an executive order. This is very disturbing and completely un-American. Maybe even more disturbing is that no one seems to care how quietly and easily we have accepted the burgeoning police state,” an article comment states.

Infowars has reported on numerous instances of military involvement with local law enforcement in violation of Posse Comitatus. In March, we reported on U.S. Army troops dispatched to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, after a murder spree.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

On April 6, we reported on a DHS, federal, state, Air Force, and local law enforcement checkpoint in Tennessee. On April 3, Infowars was instrumental in the cancellation of a seatbelt checkpoint that was to be conducted in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and the 251st Military Police in Bolivar, Tennessee.

Last December, we reported on the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center dispatching troops to work with police on checkpoints in in San Bernardino County, California.

On Aprill 22, we reported the deployment of 400 National Guard Combat Support Battalion troops to “maintain public order” at the Boston Marathon.

Last June, Infowars posted an article by D. H. Williams of the Daily Newscaster reporting the deployment of 2,300 Marines in the city of Indianapolis under the direction of FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Prison Planet’s Paul Joseph Watson reported a story on April 22 covering the assault of a local television news team by an irate police officer in El Paso, Texas. A video taken by the news videographer shows uniformed soldiers working with police officers at the scene of a car accident.

The presence of uniformed and armed military police at the Kentucky Derby is part of an ongoing campaign to acclimate the populace to the presence of soldiers at public events.

Lose your property for growing food?

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

GROUND CONTROL
Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million

Some small farms and organic food growers could be placed under direct supervision of the federal government under new legislation making its way through Congress.

Food Safety Modernization Act

House Resolution 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in February. DeLauro’s husband, Stanley Greenburg, works for Monsanto – the world’s leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seed.

DeLauro’s act has 39 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Agriculture Committee on Feb. 4. It calls for the creation of a Food Safety Administration to allow the government to regulate food production at all levels – and even mandates property seizure, fines of up to $1 million per offense and criminal prosecution for producers, manufacturers and distributors who fail to comply with regulations.

Michael Olson, host of the Food Chain radio show and author of “Metro Farm,” told WND the government should focus on regulating food production in countries such as China and Mexico rather than burdening small and organic farmers in the U.S. with overreaching regulations.

“We need somebody to watch over us when we’re eating food that comes from thousands and thousands of miles away. We need some help there,” he said. “But when food comes from our neighbors or from farmers who we know, we don’t need all of those rules. If your neighbor sells you something that is bad and you get sick, you are going to get your hands on that farmer, and that will be the end of it. It regulates itself.”

Want your vegetables to grow like crazy? Get the amazing natural fertilizer designed to maximize taste and nutrient density!

The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services “to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.”

Federal regulators will be tasked with ensuring that food producers, processors and distributors – both large and small – prevent and minimize food safety hazards such as food-borne illnesses and contaminants such as bacteria, chemicals, natural toxins or manufactured toxicants, viruses, parasites, prions, physical hazards or other human pathogens.

Under the legislation’s broad wording, slaughterhouses, seafood processing plants, establishments that process, store, hold or transport all categories of food products prior to delivery for retail sale, farms, ranches, orchards, vineyards, aquaculture facilities and confined animal-feeding operations would be subject to strict government regulation.

Government inspectors would be required to visit and examine food production facilities, including small farms, to ensure compliance. They would review food safety records and conduct surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment.

“What the government will do is bring in industry experts to tell them how to manage all this stuff,” Olson said. “It’s industry that’s telling government how to set these things up. What it always boils down to is who can afford to have the most influence over the government. It would be those companies that have sufficient economies of scale to be able to afford the influence – which is, of course, industrial agriculture.”

Farms and food producers would be forced to submit copies of all records to federal inspectors upon request to determine whether food is contaminated, to ensure they are in compliance with food safety laws and to maintain government tracking records. Refusal to register, permit inspector access or testing of food or equipment would be prohibited.

“What is going to happen is that local agriculture will end up suffering through some onerous protocols designed for international agriculture that they simply don’t need,” Olson said. “Thus, it will be a way for industrial agriculture to manage local agriculture.”

Under the act, every food producer must have a written food safety plan describing likely hazards and preventative controls they have implemented and must abide by “minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water.”

“That opens a whole can of worms,” Olson said. “I think that’s where people are starting to freak out about losing organic agriculture. Who is going to decide what the minimum standards are for fertilization or anything else? The government is going to bring in big industry and say we are setting up these protocols, so what do you think we should do? Who is it going to bring in to ask? The government will bring in people who have economies of scale who have that kind of influence.”

DeLauro’s act calls for the Food Safety Administration to create a “national traceability system” to retrieve history, use and location of each food product through all stages of production, processing and distribution.

Olson believes the regulations could create unjustifiable financial hardships for small farmers and run them out of business.

“That is often the purpose of rules and regulations: to get rid of your competition,” he said. “Only people who are very, very large can afford to comply. They can hire one person to do paperwork. There’s a specialization of labor there, and when you are very small, you can’t afford to do all of these things.”

Olson said despite good intentions behind the legislation, this act could devastate small U.S. farms.

“Every time we pass a rule or a law or a regulation to make the world a better place, it seems like what we do is subsidize production offshore,” he said. “We tell farmers they can no longer drive diesel tractors because they make bad smoke. Well, essentially what we’re doing is giving China a subsidy to grow our crops for us, or Mexico or anyone else.”

Section 304 of the Food Safety Modernization Act establishes a group of “experts and stakeholders from Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies, the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia” to make recommendations for improving food-borne illness surveillance.

According to the act, “Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act.”

Each violation and each separate day the producer is in defiance of the law would be considered a separate offense and an additional penalty. The act suggests federal administrators consider the gravity of the violation, the degree of responsibility and the size and type of business when determining penalties.

Criminal sanctions may be imposed if contaminated food causes serious illness or death, and offenders may face fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years.

“It’s just frightening what can happen with good intentions,” Olson said. “It’s probably the most radical notions on the face of this Earth, but local agriculture doesn’t need government because it takes care of itself.”

Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act

Another “food safety” bill that has organic and small farmers worried is Senate Bill 425, or the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Brown’s bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson. It was introduced in September and has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Some say the legislation could also put small farmers out of business.

Like HR 875, the measure establishes a nationwide “traceability system” monitored by the Food and Drug Administration for all stages of manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution of food. It would cost $40 million over three years.

“We must ensure that the federal government has the ability and authority to protect the public, given the global nature of the food supply,” Brown said when he introduced the bill. He suggested the FDA and USDA have power to declare mandatory recalls.

The government would track food shipped in interstate commerce through a recordkeeping and audit system, a secure, online database or registered identification. Each farmer or producer would be required to maintain records regarding the purchase, sale and identification of their products.

A 13-member advisory committee of food safety and tracking technology experts, representatives of the food industry, consumer advocates and government officials would assist in implementing the traceability system.

The bill calls for the committee to establish a national database or registry operated by the Food and Drug Administration. It also proposes a electronic records database to identify sales of food and its ingredients “establishing that the food and its ingredients were grown, prepared, handled, manufactured, processed, distributed, shipped, warehoused, imported, and conveyed under conditions that ensure the safety of the food.”

It states, “The records should include an electronic statement with the date of, and the names and addresses of all parties to, each prior sale, purchase, or trade, and any other information as appropriate.”

If government inspectors find that a food item is not in compliance, they may force producers to cease distribution, recall the item or confiscate it.

“If the postal service can track a package from my office in Washington to my office in Cincinnati, we should be able to do the same for food products,” Sen. Brown said in a Sept. 4, 2008, statement. “Families that are struggling with the high cost of groceries should not also have to worry about the safety of their food. This legislation gives the government the resources it needs to protect the public.”

Recalls of contaminated food are usually voluntary; however, in his weekly radio address on March 15, President Obama announced he’s forming a Food Safety Working Group to propose new laws and stop corruption of the nation’s food.

The group will review, update and enforce food safety laws, which Obama said “have not been updated since they were written in the time of Teddy Roosevelt.”

The president said outbreaks from contaminated foods, such as a recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of peanut products, have occurred more frequently in recent years due to outdated regulations, fewer inspectors, scaled back inspections and a lack of information sharing between government agencies.

“In the end, food safety is something I take seriously, not just as your president but as a parent,” Obama said. “No parent should have to worry that their child is going to get sick from their lunch just as no family should have to worry that the medicines they buy will cause them harm.”

The blogosphere is buzzing with comments on the legislation, including the following:

• Obama and his cronies or his puppetmasters are trying to take total control – nationalize everything, disarm the populace, control food, etc. We are seeing the formation of a total police state.

• Well … that’s not very ” green ” of Obama. What’s his real agenda?

• This is getting way out of hand! Isn’t it enough the FDA already allows poisons in our foods?

• If you’re starving, no number of guns will enable you to stay free. That’s the whole idea behind this legislation. He who controls the food really makes the rules.

• The government is terrified of the tax loss. Imagine all the tax dollars lost if people actually grew their own vegetables! Imagine if people actually coordinated their efforts with family, friends and neighbors. People could be in no time eating for the price of their own effort. … Oh the horror of it all! The last thing the government wants is for us to be self-sufficient.

• They want to make you dependent upon government. I say no way! already the government is giving away taxes from my great great grandchildren and now they want to take away my food, my semi-auto rifles, my right to alternative holistic medicine? We need a revolution, sheeple! Wake up! They want fascism … can you not see that?

•  The screening processes will make it very expensive for smaller farmers, where bigger agriculture corporations can foot the bill.

• If anything it just increases accountability, which is arguably a good thing. It pretty much says they’ll only confiscate your property if there are questions of contamination and you don’t comply with their inspections. I think the severity of this has been blown out of proportion by a lot of conjecture.

• Don’t waste your time calling the criminals in D.C. and begging them to act like humans. This will end with a bloody revolt.

• The more I examine this (on the surface) seemingly innocuous bill the more I hate it. It is a coward’s ploy to push out of business small farms and farmers markets without actually making them illegal because many will choose not to operate due to the compliance issue.

Detention Camps? In America?

Posted: February 05, 2009                                      
1:00 am Eastern by Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

© 2009 

 

What goes on here?

Jerome Corsi’s breathtaking story in WND earlier this week is giving me heart palpitations.

In case you missed it, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a former judge impeached in 1981 by a Democratic House of Representatives and only the sixth federal judge ever to be removed by the U.S. Senate, has introduced a bill to establish at least six emergency centers for U.S. civilians in the event of some future, unspecified crisis.

“The bill also appears to expand the president’s emergency power, much as the executive order signed by President Bush on May 9, 2007, that, as WND reported, gave the president the authority to declare an emergency and take over the direction of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments without even consulting Congress,” the story continues.

And here’s some further context: “As WND also reported, DHS has awarded a $385 million contract to Houston-based KBR, Halliburton’s former engineering and construction subsidiary, to build temporary detention centers on an ‘as-needed’ basis in national emergency situations.”

I don’t like it.

I don’t trust Washington.

And I sure don’t trust Alcee Hastings.

In 1981, the former judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter, was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify. Borders went to jail.

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Even Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers and Charlie Rangel voted to impeach Hastings. He was then easily convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office.

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but – unwisely – did not do so.

So Hastings came back in 1993 to win his House seat.

Now he is promoting the building of “camps” for U.S. civilians.

It is Hastings who clearly belongs behind bars, not in the House of Representatives sponsoring draconian legislation.

The biggest “emergency” this nation faces is the overreaching of our federal government and its lack of concern over constitutional limits on its power.

Maybe we need detention facilities for out-of-control Washington powerbrokers.

I don’t know what’s behind this move.

Maybe it’s no more than a distraction to make us nervous and persuade Americans to keep their big mouths shut and follow orders.

Maybe it’s no more than an effort to create more make-work jobs for the constituents of Alcee Hastings and his colleagues.

Maybe it’s all just a big misunderstanding.

But, whatever it is, I don’t like the way it smells.

I don’t like the way it tastes.

And I know it is spawned in this the-Constitution-be-damned mentality that pervades Washington.

So let’s expose it.

Let’s kill it.

Let’s lock it up and throw away the key.

And let’s declare a real emergency – one that has already hit us like a smack in the face with a baseball bat: The Constitution is daily being breached by the very people sworn to uphold and defend it. If anyone in America deserved to be rounded up and detained for the good of the country, it is those who are blatantly exceeding the strict limits on their authority and remaking our nation in their own corrupt and power-hungry image.

United Nations Treaty Would Squash U.S. Parental Rights If Adopted

Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object

Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

 

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.

“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

• A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

• A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

• Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

“Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,” Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.

“If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.”

He continued, “If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

“It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty’s submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

“I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime,” he said. “There’s not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it.”

Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for ’emergencies’

Posted: February 01, 2009
7:19 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.

The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.

Heed the warning of a former Hitler Youth who sees America on the same path as pre-Nazi Germany in “Defeating the Totalitarian Lie” from WND Books!

The bill also appears to expand the president’s emergency power, much as the executive order signed by President Bush on May 9, 2007, that – as WND reported – gave the president the authority to declare an emergency and take over the direction of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments without even consulting Congress.

As WND also reported, DHS has awarded a $385 million contract to Houston-based KBR, Halliburton’s former engineering and construction subsidiary, to build temporary detention centers on an “as-needed” basis in national emergency situations.

According to the text of the proposed bill, the purpose of the National Emergency Centers is “to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.”

Three additional purposes are specified in the text of the proposed legislation:

• To provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of federal, state and local first responders;
• To provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response and recovery efforts of government, private, not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations;
• To meet other appropriate needs, as defined by the secretary of homeland security.

The broad specifications of the bill’s language, however, contribute to concern that the “national emergency” purpose could be utilized by the secretary of homeland security to include any kind of situation the government wants to contain or otherwise control.

Rep. Hastings created controversy during the 2008 presidential campaign with his provocative comments concerning Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Hastings said, as reported by ABC News. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

H.R. 645, which seeks to allocate $360 million for developing the emergency centers, has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Armed Services.

American Casualties Likely Result of Obama Closing GITMO

GITMO DETAINEES RETURNING TO THEIR MURDEROUS, EXTREMIST WAYS

 

The evidence is loud and clear.  The anti-American, anti-military pressure to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center is endangering American lives.  We have to persuade the Congress to stop President Obama from continuing this suicidal policy of treating terrorists like neighborhood pickpockets.

Does it make any sense at all to be releasing people just so that they can get back to their terrorist ways and continue plotting attacks against the United States?  

Help us fund our television campaign to awaken
our fellow Americans to this horrible threat:

Since his election President Obama has been scurrying around trying to find a way to close Gitmo to fulfill his campaign promise to the Code Pink and Move-On left wing organizers of his presidential campaign.  This constant pressure even affected the Bush Administration that released far too many Gitmo detainees.  There already are reports that at least 61 of them have returned to the battlefield to kill Americans.

Obama wants to continue to send these dangerous detainees back to their home countries, or EVEN TO THE UNITED STATES, which is a crazy idea.  These other countries don’t have the interest we do in keeping these hardened terrorists behind bars. Time after time they escape after being returned to their home country.

The NY Times (of all places) reported today that the Saudi Arabian government had re-arrested 9 people who had been released from their “terrorist rehabilitation program” after it came out last week that 2 other men they had released joined up with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

This is a stark reminder of a lesson which we cannot forget – once a terrorist, always a terrorist! The men that our troops are standing guard over at Gitmo are DANGEROUS and here are 9 men that the Saudis thought were non-threatening, some of whom had been to Gitmo before, and still they returned to terrorism.

Please help us SAVE GITMO so that our troops
can KEEP THESE PEOPLE LOCKED UP!

Obviously the terrorists were effective at convincing the Saudis that they were no longer extremists.  But, as soon as they were let go they attempted to join Al Qaeda again and were arrested. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5591235.ece

Last week we found out that another former Gitmo detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, had been released from Gitmo, was sent back to Saudi Arabia where he then traveled to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda there as one of their top commanders.

In a video relating to this new position, Shihri proclaimed,

“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles
for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for”

Shihri was a terrorist when he was brought to Gitmo, he was released on the promise that he would go home to Saudi Arabia and run his parent’s furniture shop, but when he was released it was clear that Shahri was STILL A TERRORIST. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html

Are you going to let Obama decide that more of these terrorists are not a danger to society? Are we going to let these terrorists go back to their home countries only see them released and back to their terrorist ways? 
 

Please contribute today so that we can
continue our campaign to SAVE GITMO.

Words cannot express how important Guantanamo Bay is to our national security. Detainees there give up vital information that helps our troops win the War on Terror and complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But closing the base and moving these terrorists to other countries increases the possibility that they will go free. Some liberal politicians here in America have said that these Gitmo detainees are “no more dangerous than any other prisoner.” We can see from these and many other examples that they ARE more dangerous because once released they go right back to plotting bombings and attacks against targets in the U.S. and worldwide.

Please help us put pressure on President Obama to keep GITMO OPEN and keep the terrorists BEHIND BARS. America has enjoyed safety here because the previous administration was able to keep us safe from another 9/11. Do not wait for America to learn the hard way again.

The worst thing is that the alternative Obama is considering is bringing these hardened criminals into the United States.  How long will it take before the ACLU lawyers and liberal judges start demanding that we release these terrorists into the United States because we didn’t give them their rights or were too mean to them on the battlefield?

This is a battle for the security of the United States and even your own neighborhood.  Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Camp Pendleton, California, are a couple of places they are looking to put these terrorists.  Other prisons and military installations around the country are being considered

From moveamericaforward.org

Obama’s Treasury Secretary Presided Over Wall Street Collapse As Well As Cheated on His Taxes

Posted: January 29, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

NEW YORK – While the nomination of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner generated plenty of heat because of his failure to pay income taxes for five years, almost unnoticed amid the controversy is the fact that he presided over the failure of some of the largest banking institutions in the world – institutions he was charged with overseeing and regulating as head of the New York region of the Federal Reserve Bank.

On Nov. 17, 2003, Geithner became the ninth president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank, a position he held until he was nominated by President Obama as treasury secretary.

The Federal Reserve’s charter makes it responsible for the strength of the financial institutions operating in each of its 12 regional districts. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York presides over Wall Street-based financial institutions.

In the current financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has played a major role in responding to the meltdown of banks and investment firms, including some of the nation’s largest.

During Geithner’s tenure as CEO of the New York Fed, he presided over the following major economic failures:

• March 2008: Investment bank Bear Stearns collapses from losses in subprime mortgage obligations and derivatives transactions; J.P. Morgan Chase buys Bear Stearns in a deal arranged by the Federal Reserve for the dramatically reduced value of $2 a share, with the Federal Reserve guaranteeing J.P. Morgan against $30 billion in Bear Stearns asset losses.
• September 2008: Wall Street investment bank Lehman Brothers closes doors in bankruptcy after the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve refuse to arrange a merger plan, a bailout or a guarantee program to save the Wall Street giant.
• September 2008: The Bank of America buys Wall Street investment bank Merrill Lynch in a $50 billion deal that saves Merrill Lynch from having to declare bankruptcy.
• September 2008: The Federal Reserve extends to insurance giant American International Group, or AIG, an $85 billion loan that saves it from going bankrupt from derivatives loses in a massive $441 billion exposure to credit default swaps.
• November 2008: Citibank received $45 billion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, plus Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and FDIC guarantees on $306 billion in troubled assets held by the bank.
• January 2009: Morgan Stanley takes over Citibank’s Smith Barney investment unit as Citibank unravels the “financial supermarket” conglomerate accumulated when Sandy Weill combined Travelers Insurance, investment bank Smith Barney and Citibank to form Citigroup in the 1990s.

The Obama administration has touted Geithner as a financial wizard uniquely qualified to preside over the U.S. Treasury during this period of economic crisis, despite the obvious failure of the New York Federal Reserve Bank to sustain the solvency of New York financial institutions during his tenure.

Globalists also noted Geithner’s credentials. He worked for Kissinger and Associates for three years in Washington, D.C.

Then, from 1998-2001, he served as under secretary of the treasury for international affairs under Clinton administration treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.

He is an active member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Geithner also has previous ties to Obama.

At the Ford Foundation in the early 1980s, Geithner oversaw micro-finance programs in Indonesia, where he reportedly met in person with Obama’s mother. Ann Dunham spent part of her career working in Indonesian micro-finance after she received her Ph.D. in anthropology. 

Obama Eligibility Challenges Still Alive; “President” Meets with Justices in Secret

Posted: January 23, 2009
12:25 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

A lawyer working on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the eligibility of President Obama is raising concerns over a meeting between the defendant in the case and the judges who are expected to review it.

The case is one of many brought before U.S. courts that allege Obama doesn’t meet the “natural born” requirement of the U.S. Constitution for the president. It’s one of about half a dozen that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which already has declined to grant hearings to several cases.

Orly Taitz, whose case is scheduled to be heard tomorrow in a conference among justices – a private meeting at which they review cases and decide whether they should hold a hearing – confirmed on her website today that a supplemental brief in her arguments had been distributed.

But the website also reported she “had to explain … many of us citizens are also concerned about the eight out of nine justices meeting privately with Mr. Obama (while the cases are pending).”

The blog continued, “No reporters were allowed. No attorneys were invited on behalf of the plaintiffs. This causes many of us citizens to question the rules of judicial ethics and causes us to question the impartiality on behalf of the justices.”

The report said “quite a number of people” have raised their questions with their U.S. representatives over the issues.

According to a CBS report, Obama visited the Supreme Court before his inauguration at the invitation of Chief Justice John Roberts. The report described it as a protocol visit.

According to a separate published report, Obama and then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden met in a court conference room with Roberts and seven other justices for about 45 minutes.

The report said the only absent justice was Samuel Alito.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 215,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!

The supplemental documents in the Taitz case cite an executive order concerning qualifications issued by President Bush Jan. 16.

“This action is seeking the mandate for the U.S. State Department, the FBI and the Director of the Personnel Department to seek the documents for verifying Obama’s legitimacy as president and also his citizenship of the United States,” the blog reported.

The Supreme Court document reveals that the Taitz case is scheduled for conference tomorrow, and her supplemental briefs have been distributed to the justices.

Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of the ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35. Her case raises the issue of Obama’s birthplace and citizenship status, which also are specified in the Constitution.

The lawsuits allege in various ways that Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.

There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.

One case, handled by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, is seeking Obama’s school records from Occidental College, which could reveal if Obama attended class on aid intended for foreign students.

Another lawyer working on similar allegations, Philip J. Berg, has written to Congress seeking an investigation, while Taitz’s filings have been before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, said the issue isn’t going to disappear.

Others agreed.

“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void,” argues a California case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. “Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.

The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.

Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.

Meanwhile, a separate report has emerged in the Buffalo, N.Y., News about a woman who said she recalled being told about Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Barbara Nelson reported she was having a dinner with Dr. Rodney T. West, an obstetrician, when he discussed the birth of a baby boy to Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother.

She said she later taught Obama as a high school student in Hawaii.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Free Speech Group Seeks Obama Help

Posted: January 24, 2009
12:30 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

An organization that seeks to uphold freedom of expression and conscience at colleges and universities nationwide is asking President Barack Obama for help.

In an open letter to Obama on the occasion of his inauguration this week, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or FIRE, asked for his help in its battle “against college and university speech codes that are infringing on the rights of millions of our nation’s college students.”

“Millions of American students are being taught that colleges have the power to censor and punish speech that the Bill of Rights protects,” said FIRE’s president, Greg Lukianoff.

The group’s letter stated, in part: “Failing to educate an entire generation about our constitutional ideals of liberty – and, still worse, actually teaching students that they have a duty to censor opinions with which they disagree – means that it will not be long before these illiberal attitudes result in severe consequences for our Republic.”

The organization cited 10 federal court decisions “unequivocally striking down campus speech codes on First Amendment grounds from 1989 to 2008” but said the number of “unconstitutional restrictions on campus speech” actually has risen.

The group’s 2009 survey of speech codes in academia, for example, found 77 percent of public colleges and universities maintain speech codes that violate the U.S. Constitution.

Worse yet are the actual examples of punishment for violating the codes, the organization said.

In a case at Valdosta State in Georgia, a student was expelled for “creating a satirical online collage to peacefully protest the university’s plans to construct campus parking garages,” FIRE’s letter said.

A student-employee at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book with pictures of Klansmen on the cover – despite the fact that the book was celebrating the defeat of the Ku Klux Klan, the letter continued.

Another student, this one at Michigan State, faced punishment under a school e-mail policy for encouraging faculty members to weigh in on planned policy changes.

Will Creeley, FIRE’s director of legal and public advocacy, said  FIRE is asking for Obama’s help in ending restrictions on student and faculty rights, “because our nation’s institutions of higher education have seemingly ignored clear pronouncements from both the legislative and judicial branches.”

“College harassment policies have inexplicably failed to adhere to the precise legal standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, and Congress, while Obama was a U.S. senator, issued its second ‘sense of Congress’ resolution in just 10 years on the value of free speech on campus, but to little practical result,” Creeley said.

Lukianoff concluded: “If President Obama simply speaks out against speech codes, colleges will get the message that they must finally begin to obey the law.”