US betrays Honduran Constitution to side with commies.

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.

Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."

Raul Castro, left, Manuel Zelaya, center, and Hugo Chavez in Managua, Nicaragua, June 29.
Hondurans have good cause for calling on divine intervention: Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom. Ruling the debate on Mr. Zelaya's behavior is Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is now the reigning international authority on "democracy."

Mr. Chávez is demanding that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated and is even threatening to overthrow the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti. He's leading the charge from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United Nations and the Obama administration are falling in line.

Is this insane? You bet. We have fallen through the looking glass and it's time to review how hemispheric relations came to such a sad state.

The story begins in 2004, when Mr. Chávez was still an aspiring despot and the U.S. pursued a policy of appeasement toward him. Not surprisingly, that only heightened his appetite for power.

Mr. Chávez had already rewritten the Venezuelan Constitution, taken over the judiciary and the national electoral council (CNE), militarized the government, and staked out an aggressive, anti-American foreign policy promising to spread his revolution around the hemisphere.

Many Venezuelans were alarmed, and the opposition had labored to collect signatures for a presidential recall referendum permitted under the constitution. As voting day drew near, Mr. Chávez behaved as if he knew his days were numbered. The European Union refused to send an observer team, citing lack of transparency. The OAS did send observers, and in the months and weeks ahead of the vote mission chief Fernando Jaramillo complained bitterly about the state's intimidation tactics against the population. Mr. Chávez gave OAS Secretary General César Gaviria an ultimatum: Either get Mr. Jaramillo out of the country or the referendum would be quashed. Mr. Chávez was appeased. Mr. Jaramillo was withdrawn.

The Carter Center was also invited to "observe," and former President Jimmy Carter was welcomed warmly by Mr. Chávez upon his arrival in Venezuela.

A key problem, beyond the corrupted voter rolls and government intimidation, was that Mr. Chávez did not allow an audit of his electronic voting machines. Exit polls showed him losing the vote decisively. But in the middle of the night, the minority members of the CNE were kicked out of the election command center. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Chávez claimed victory. There was never a credible audit of the paper ballots against the tallies in the voting machines.

Mr. Carter's approval notwithstanding, the proper U.S. and OAS response was obvious: The process had been shrouded in state secrets and therefore it was impossible to endorse or reject the results. Venezuelan patriots begged for help from the outside world. Instead, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, Roger Noriega, and the OAS blessed the charade.

There was never any explanation for the blind endorsement, but behind the scenes there were claims that Mr. Chávez threatened to call his militia to the streets and spill blood. The oil fields were to be burned. To this day, the opposition contends that the U.S. and Mr. Gaviria made a cold calculation that caving in to Mr. Chávez would avoid violence.

Predictably, Washington's endorsement of the flawed electoral process was a green light. Mr. Chávez grew more aggressive, emboldened by his "legitimate" status. He set about using his oil money to destabilize the Bolivian and Ecuadorean democracies and to help Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and Argentina's Cristina Kirchner get elected. Soviet-backed Fidel Castro was able to intimidate his neighbors in the 1960s and '70s, and Mr. Chávez has done the same thing in the new millennium. This has given him vast power at the OAS.

Hondurans had the courage to push back. Now Chávez-supported agitators are trying to stir up violence. Yesterday afternoon airline service was suspended in Tegucigalpa when Mr. Zelaya tried to return to the country and his plane was not permitted to land. There were reports of violence between his backers and troops.

This is a moment when the U.S. ought to be on the side of the rule of law, which the Honduran court and Congress upheld. If Washington does not reverse course, it will be one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

Marshall Law for the sake of Food Safety

HR 2749 is a strange bill in many ways. While the other “food safety” bills have been around since winter, allowing for much public discussion on the internet, HR 2749 has only suddenly appeared. It is a mutant conglomeration of the worst of the other bills, with the addition of one very original part – martial law.

When it was a draft, it was Waxman’s bill. But once given a number, it became Dingel’s who already had a “food safety” bill, HR 759. So Waxman got none and Dingel got two. (Was this because Waxman, being Jewish, was a hideous choice to introduce a bill with Codex in it – designed by the Nazi pharmaceutical companies that funded Hitler, provided the gas for the gas chambers, experimented on prisoners with vaccines – and is expected to kill millions?)

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”

[This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home or any pickup someone has eaten take-out in, so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.]

Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.

[This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.] See this DailyKos entry.
The bill is unusual, too, because slow as it was to appear. The little bugger of bill has made up for it since. It got a number on June 10, went to committee on June 17, passed instantly, and is headed for a vote on the floor of the House.


The first Patriot Act was passed using fear of terrorism. This Patriot Act is more coy, hiding under a cloak of “food safety” and but also using fear – fear of food contamination. Evidently, Americans are supposed to be so frightened by the slightest possibility of a terrorist or of E-coli, they would trade away all their precious, hard fought freedoms for the promise of safety. Or at least, that is what the trade-off has become. “Terrorism” and “contamination” are great bugaboos used to open doors to an end to the US Constitution. That is exactly what we are left with after those who wrote HR 2749 are done.
Who did write these bills? It seems Monsanto had not only a hand, but a “defining” influence. http://farmwars.info/?p=594
This redefining of reality is what seems to be underlying all the loss of freedom. Normal and free are disappearing into the maw of corporate definitions of reality. See this Yup Farming piece.

So, we begin with contaminated food from filthy corporate processors and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). And what do we end up with after that reality is ground up by corporate legal hands? Changes in the definition of risk so that natural things are treated as dangerous and toxic things are untouched, such that:

Healthy, normal farms are taken over by government as though they were run by criminals and contaminated corporate slaughterhouses are untouched;

The necessary freedom of individuals to live and grow food and be left alone are somehow suddenly destroyed, though they were never the source of any food contamination issue; and such that

The profit and control and power of corporations which were absolutely the source of the increasingly terrible food, is somehow suddenly vastly increased.

Thanks to corporate control over reality, our wanting to clean up corporate processors and feedlots and CAFOS and end up with farmers’ markets and local farms and organic food has become the industrialization and potential destruction of every healthy part of the food system and the triumph of the most contaminated and toxic part. And in the non-bargain, we lost all freedoms and they took all control. And “all” is not a hyperbole here, for one need only look at another provision of HR 2749 to feel how insane, how distant from all we ever wanted.

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.

[What is missing in pointing out this astounding control, is that it opens the door to CODEX and WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products. They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will. There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one's own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all. Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished. So, it needs to be made clear where control will take us. And weren't these the "rumors on the internet" that were dismissed but are clearly the case?] See this DailyKos entry.

When we wanted not to get E-coli in processed meat, did we intend to put our farmers into corporate servitude? Did we plan to have our own lives straight-jacketed by a million new controls over our own gardens, our own desire to grow food, our own plans to start small businesses, our own dreams to have a small piece of land and farm ourselves? Who has the audacity to take our needs and grotesquely bastardize them in these ways, while giving the destruction and totalitarian control the sham name of “food safety”?

We wanted good food. We never wanted to trap our farmers into an industrial prison on their own land, afraid moment to moment of not fulfilling some monstrous set of instructions that never end – rules the farmers loathe, rules that have not only nothing to do with real farming but which are antithetical to it. Why have we ended up with HR 2749, an intense corporate nightmare around the most central and necessary aspects of a free country and of free human beings – farming and food?
American farming needs to be relieved of the burdens it has been under, not finished off by its corporate competition. It needs freedom to flourish again.

Obviously – and Congress people who would think to vote for such absurdities, take note – the imposition of surveillance, monitoring, warrantless entry, taking of all records, licensing, fees, Codex and NAIS, in addition to massive penalties and prison terms (all without judicial review over even appropriateness and validity), are not how one thanks American farmers for holding together the only working part of our food system. See Literal Enslavement by Linn Cohen-Cole.

HR 2749 is the most vicious and insane bill one could imagine. Who treats our farmers in this way? Who believes that such police measures can provide for the rebirth of farming and the return of healthy food? Who wrote this bill that trashes the freedom of all our lives? HR 2749 was not what we ordered and it should be sent back the bowels of hell it came from.
HR 2749 is both insane and cruel. And the deceptiveness of hiding a Patriot Act in it and the brutal rush to slip it through Congress are ANTI-democratic.

Go here to tell Congress, “No.” http://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum993.php

Happy Forth Of July

God did not create all men equal in intelligence, wealth, nor abilities. But he did create him equal in the important things, like worth, value, freedom, and rights. If a government will protect the latter, men may themselves adjust to compensate for the deficiency in the former. But if the government tramples the latter to try to compensate for the inequality of the former, then men shall have none of the above.

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON .... WATCH THIS.

GM = Government Motors: Fascism takes over USA.

The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition




Government Motors
by Eric Peters

Our last experience with a government-designed car (the Yugo - an Americanized version of a Soviet Bloc Special) didn't work out so well. But that was 25 years ago and memories have faded. We're about to get a refresher.

It appears that General Motors will become, for all practical purposes, a state-owned enterprise as part of a "restructuring" deal that is being hammered (and sickeled?) out as this is written. At least 50 percent of GM will become the property of the federal government. The United Auto Workers union will be the junior partner, owning 40 percent. The remaining 10 percent is all that will be left to private shareholders.

Some wags have already christened the resultant operation Government Motors - and unfortunately, this is no exaggeration. Every single decision about what cars to build, how they should be built, what equipment they will offer, how big (or small) they will be - is now out of the hands of consumers because it's out of the hands of the market. It will instead be dictated to them by bureaucrats and apparatchiks.

And what sorts of cars do bureaucrats and apparatchiks love? Well, just remember the Yugo. Designed for the Masses, it was cheap, slow and ugly. Those were the intentional features. The unintentional ones were - shoddy build quality, unreliability and dangerousness. These attributes were the result of putting non-engineer government drones in charge of engineers - which is not unlike putting a husky in charge of a sled driver.

But wait. To be fair about it, there is an example of a government-mandated car that was a lot better than the Yugo. Der KdF Wagen - more colloquially known as the Beetle. Volkswagen, let's recall, literally translates as "People's Car" - or more precisely, the car for the masses. Hitler sketched out the shape and laid out the parameters, including rear-mounted air-cooled engine. Dr. Porsche executed the vision of Der Fuhrer - and the Beetle was born. A highly successful car, it remained in production and was hugely popular for more than 60 years. So, perhaps it won't be so bad.

Then again, to give the devil his due, Hitler and his Nazis were very technically minded people whose competence when it came to the hard sciences cannot be challenged. It was only thanks to the defective operation of National Socialism itself that German inventions and machinery failed to win the war.

Obama's crowd is far less competent in this respect. There probably isn't one among them with a degree in something other than a liberal art. No Dr. Ing Herr Professor Porsche types.

A Yugo-like result is therefore much more likely. And, its parameters will not be - as Hitler's were - cheap, reliable transportation for the average American. That would be easy enough to achieve, after all. Simply rescind the existing federal mandates that force automakers to add hundreds of pounds of weight and thousands of dollars of cost to each new car so that it complies with myriad "safety" and "fuel economy" standards. We could have 50 mpg $7,000 cars in six months. But that's not the objective.

If anything, the cars of Government Motors will be more expensive and less efficient - because the diktats from the DC Politburo will specify they be even more "green" and "safe" - which won't come cheap. Don't think so? Compare the cost of the least expensive new hybrid - the $20,000 Honda Insight - with that of a conventional 30-something MPG subcompact such as the Nissan Versa or Chevy Aveo, both of which cost under $10,000. That price difference buys a helluva lot of gas.

But since the hybrid's tailpipe emissions are 1-2 percent "cleaner" than those of a non-hybrid economy car, Change will be forthcoming. In particular, the decision of the Obama politburo to regulate carbon dioxide as a tailpipe emission will likely mean even more hybrids, regardless of the sticker price. Hybrids you see produce no C02 when running on their batteries - at least, not from their tailpipes. (The fact that much of the country's electrical generating capacity is produced by burning coal, which produces mucho C02, is overlooked.)

Regular cars can't help producing C02 whenever they operate; it's a consequence of burning gasoline and the only way to reduce the output of C02 is by burning less of it. Which will require smaller engines in smaller cars - or more hybrids (and more industrial pollution). Take your pick. Or rather, let Government Motors pick for you.

I'd Like To See Your Papers Please!

Deborah Davis thought she'd save gas and money by taking the bus to work, but she was arrested by Denver "Federal Protective Service" cops when they searched everyone on the public RTD bus, demanding "ID" from every passenger. She had an ID but thought she didn't live in a totalitarian state. Public pressure forced the feds to drop the case, but the story is not yet over.
www.papersplease.org/davis/

Alaskans are particularly sensitive to governmental restrictions on their freedom. A group of them are fighting in federal court against the government's incursions on their rights. In 2004, they brought a case challenging the CAPPS II program. The government has since abandoned the CAPPS II program. In 2005, they were able to show, through records requests, that the Secure Flight program did not work. The government has since abandoned their schedule to implement the program and has "returned to the drawing board" to reexamine the program as a whole.
www.alaskafreedom.com

The United States is a hard place to travel without your "papers", and John Gilmore is suing to uphold his right to travel by common carriers (trains, airplanes, buses, and ships) by merely paying the published fare and following the published rules. The government claims he can't travel without getting and showing a "government-issued photo ID" (but they won't even publish the rules that supposedly say so). After the March 2004 District Court dismissal and the Ninth Circuit 2005 rejection of Mr. Gilmore's appeal, a petition for cert was rejected by the Supreme Court in January of 2007.
www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was standing by the side of the road, having a smoke outside the pickup truck his daughter was driving, when a policeman confronted him and demanded his ID card. He declined numerous times, and the policeman arrested him, then yanked his daughter out of the car and threw her on the ground. Since he hadn't been doing anything wrong, he was arrested for failure to follow a state law that required those "suspected of a crime" to state their name if asked for it. His arrest and subsequent conviction were upheld by the Supreme Court, leaving the right to remain silent in jeopardy, as well as the right to live anonymously.
www.papersplease.org/hiibel/

First They Label You Extreme.... then they take away your rights.

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.

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.”

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.

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 notes 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, it was reported of 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, 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.

Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute Research Fellow and author of the book The Founders’ Second Amendment, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.

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 feudalist slave state.

Thought Crimes The Focus Of Thought Police

If you believe in the constitution expect to be labeled, harassed and persecuted.

Your 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.

Who Is Profiting From The Financial Collapse?

The Financial Collapse was engineered by the Federal Reserve to eliminate competition of other bankers, fleece the system, lower values of companies so they can be bought up by the very people who made the collapse happen in first place.  People are profiting from the collapse. Find them and you find the conspirators who caused the whole mess in the first place. 

Their plan is to buy up controlling interest in the entire system removing competition form the capitalist system thus creating a fascist system. They also want to scare the gullible masses into accepting their fascist system by giving control to governmental saviors to remove local governmental power and consolidate economic power into a one world government system with a one world currency. Why? Because a one world system under their control by their agents in bought off governments is easier to manipulate for future economic conquest. It's about more than acquiring money. It's about consolidating world power under one small shadow government which they control.


Why are some banks failing while others are posting record profits? Because some people were in on it...

Read This:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-jump-at-open-on-Wells-apf-14891117.html

Who is making money hand over fist?

Read This:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164771/Im-having-good-crisis-says-hedge-fund-manager-1billion-world-plunged-recession.html

Notice George Soros is "having a good downturn" and making billions during the down turn. And this is the same person personally who funded the democrat attack machine (Moveon.org) and who pushed for the election of Obama.

Obama is owned by the people who created this down turn and who are profiting from it.

Read here how Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and a dozen other bailed out companies actually posted profits in the hundreds of millions.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/

IT'S ALL A SCAM THE OWNERS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO FLEECE THE WORLD.

Nancy Pelosi's First Step To Taking Guns Is Registering Them. Then When They Know Who Has Them They Take Them.

BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico. They never let a little thing like the U.S. Constitution or God given rights get in the way of their agenda. 

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”



Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”

“These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the firearm of their choice,” Gottlieb said. “They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi’s California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn’t disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won’t prevent crime, either.

“The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights,” Gottlieb said. “The press seems deliberately blind to the statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their incompetence in dealing with crime. 

More than 90 million gun owners haven’t hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like criminals.”

ONLY 53% OF AMERICAN ADULTS BELIEVE CAPITALISM IS BETTER THAN SOCIALISM....

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. (YOU MEAN UNEDUCATED IN THE SOCIALIST RUN SCHOOL SYSTEM)

Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.




Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism. (THERE IS YOUR PROBLEM)

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.

Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

See How We Are Destroying The Dollar On Purpose!

School House Rock: Pirates and Emperors

Black Pastor Not Given Free Speech... put in jail for what he said in the USA!

Oakland, CA (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life pastor in Oakland, California who was convicted of helping women outside abortion centers find life-affirming alternatives has been released after spending 18 days in jail. Reverend Walter Hoye was charged with violating an anti-free speech ordinance Oakland officials put in place to target him.

Oakland officials had enacted the law that prohibited contact within eight feet of women entering abortion businesses without their consent.

Last month, Hoye began serving a 30 day sentence and he received three years probation as well as a requirement to pay a $1,000 fine and a $130 restitution fee. He was ordered to stay 100 feet away from any abortion center in the city of the Oakland.

Judge Stuart Hing of the Alameda Superior Court denied the defense motion to stay the sentence pending appeal.

After serving two and a half weeks of the sentence, Hoye was released on Tuesday and was met by a large contingent of pro-life supporters.

Dion Evans, pastor of Alameda's Chosen Vessels Christian Church and on hand to greet Hoye, told the Contra Costa Tribune that the Oakland anti free speech ordinance has backfired. That's because he says more pro-life advocates will turn up at area abortion centers to help women.

"They would have been in a better position if they would have left him alone. They picked on one man on one street, one day a week trying to reach one woman at a time with one sign for one hour," he said. "Now a mobilization has come together because they've created an unjust law. People like myself who have been cheerleading are not on the sidelines anymore. We're now in the game."

Hoye made good use of his time in prison and regularly talked with inmates about pro-life issues, but also led six men to adopt the Christian faith.

His wife Lori said pro-life advocates visited Hoye in prison, including Salvatore Joseph Cordileone, the Diocese of Oakland's bishop-designate.

"He visited Walter Hoye because he respects Hoye's affirmation of the value of human life," said Diocese spokesman Mike Brown.

But Nancy Nadel, the Oakland council member who drafted the ordinance, complained to the Tribune about the pro-life people.

"Even though there are more people out there and they're noisy and annoying," she said.

The potential news of a conviction on what Hoye considered an unjust law didn't get him down.

At a hearing on February 19, Judge Hing stated that he had not intended to impose any fine or jail time on Rev. Hoye if he would agree to stay away from the abortion center. Reverend Hoye refused to agree not to offer alternatives to abortion-minded women.

"If you are reading this email then it can only mean that I have been incarcerated," he told LifeNews.com in an email sent by his attorneys. "I will be back. Thank you all so much! May God bless you and keep you always."

Dozens in the African-American and pro-life communities from around the nation who came out in support of Rev. Hoye were outraged by the sentence.

“It is absolutely incredible that in America an individual can be sentenced to jail for engaging in peaceful free speech activity on a public sidewalk,” Allison Aranda, an attorney for the Life Legal Defense Foundation, told LifeNews.com. “Rev. Hoye is being singled out for particularly harsh punishment because he refused to agree not to offer help to women considering abortion. Where is the justice in that?”

Hoye is an African-American pastor who feels a special calling to work for the end of the targeting of black Americans by abortion.

According to 2004 statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, about 37 percent of pregnancies among black women end in abortion, compared with 12 percent for non-Hispanic white women and 19 percent for Hispanic women.

As part of his efforts, he stands in front of an abortion clinic in Oakland with leaflets offering abortion alternatives and a sign reading, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help.”

Hoye spent 40 days fasting prior to beginning the jail sentence, which made Bill May, the chairman of the pro-life Catholics for the Common Good, describe him as slight and gaunt as he was calmly led from the Alameda County courtroom.

When he returns to the streets to help women, Hoye will have one less abortion center to visit. That's because the nation's oldest abortion center, located in Oakland, has been forced to close because of financial issues.

Related web sites:
Life Legal Defense Foundation - http://www.lldf.org

PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008.

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339

WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Eth.ical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

CCF Research Director David Martosko said: “PETA hasn’t slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony ‘animal rights’ message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA’s headquarters building?”

Martosko added: “Since killing pets is A-OK with PETA, why should anyone listen to their demands about eating meat, using lab rats for medical research, or taking children to the circus?”

CCF obtained PETA’s “Animal Record” filings since 1998 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Members of the public can see these documents at PetaKillsAnimals.com.

In addition to exposing PETA’s hypocritical record of killing defenseless animals, the Center for Consumer Freedom has publicized the animal rights group’s ties to violent activists, and shed light on its aggressive message-marketing to children.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

For media comment, contact our media department at 202-463-7112 ext. 115

Congress Wants To Make Your Children Slaves Who Have No First Amendment Rights.

On March 18, Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, tacked an amendment on H.R. 1388, entitled “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” or GIVE , which is Obama’s plan to require mandatory service for all able young people.

Miller’s amendment will “prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing,” according to GovTrack.us, a site that tracks Congress. So the young people forced into service cannot exercise their first amendment rights. 

Obama’s call for a “Civilian Security Force” during a campaign speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

In other words, Obama’s “volunteer corps” act, passed by the House with a 321-105 margin and requiring the government to develop a plan for indentured servitude, would deny millions of people their right to oppose and organize against government legistation under the First Amendment.

“This is as close to a sedition act, a violation of 1st Amendment rights, as has been proposed in recent history. A basic right as a part of our natural, inalienable rights, is to resist government. Our founders not only knew it was a right but it was a responsibility. This legislation begins to break that down significantly,” writes Gary Wood for the Examiner.

GIVE (up your rights) will conscript millions of young people, put them in uniforms and send them packing to 4-year “public service” academies where they will be indoctrinated and trained to become “public sector leaders.”

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

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

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

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

“Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 ‘volunteers,’ is the beginning of what President Obama called his ‘National Civilian Security Force’ in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate,” Unruh adds.

It appears Miller’s amendment is designed to strip members of this emerging “National Civilian Security Force” of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

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

According to GovTrack.us, the addition of the Miller amendment to GIVE was agreed to by voice vote.  On March 23, a similar bill was passed by the Senate on a 74 to 14 vote.

Obama wants to give the Fed "the power to buy anything they want at any price" they choose.

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document. They could seize any company they want for any price they want.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks. Now they will totally control all private business. If they chose they can take over control.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Welcome To the Soviet States of Amerika.

WE NOW INTERRUPT YOUR REGALLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM....

Obama National Security Advisor Says He Takes Daily Orders From Henry Kissinger Not Obama.

In a speech transcript posted on the CFR website where U.S. National Security Adviser Jones declared the following:

Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General (sic) Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.

Jones made the remark at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.

Mr. Jones is basically telling us the National Security Council is run by Henry Kissinger. The NSC is the principal forum used by Obama for considering national security and foreign policy matters. Biden, Clinton, Geithner, Gates, Mullen, Emanuel, Summers, and others are listed as participants, but not Henry Kissinger.

In 2006, the Associated Press reported that Kissinger advised Bush and Cheney, a fact included in Bob Woodward’s book “State of Denial.”

In other words, the Bush and Obama administrations — never mind the “change” rhetoric — receive the same advice (instructions) from the ruling elite.

Earlier this year, Kissinger went on the floor of the stock market to declare Obama had a chance to create a New World Order.

Said Kissinger:
He can give a new impetus to American Foreign policy, partly because the perception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when really a New World Order can be created — it’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.

Kissinger — along with David Rockefeller, Paul Arthur Allaire, and Richard Holbrooke — directs the American Friends of Bilderberg. He is also connected to the globalist Aspen Institute, the Committee of 300, the Trilateral Commission, and sits on the advisory board of JP Morgan Chase.

“Kissinger has been patiently waiting since at least 1973 for his New World Order egg to hatch,” notes the August Review.

Kissinger earlier praised Obama’s picks for economic recovery, and why not?

Obama picked Trilateral Commission wonder boy Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. The rest of the team are protégés of Robert Rubin, also a Trilateral and former Treasury Secretary under Clinton.

Obama’s top foreign policy advisor has been Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.

Finally, before Obama was elected, Kissinger went on the Charlie Rose Show and talked about the New World Order:

Dictator Wannabe's New Trick in New York: If you can't restrict guns then restrict the ammo.

Local Law “A” for 2009 would tightly regulate “in the interests of public safety” all ammunition sold in Albany County. Not just ammo for handguns, which already is closely monitored by state law, but all rifle and shotgun ammunition as well. Hunting and target shooting ammo, basically.

Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, would have to show identification, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the ammo seller. The buyer would have to state his intent of use, and could be refused the purchase. The ammo seller, at the same time, would be required to keep records for 10 years.

Anyway you look at it, this amounts to yet another unreasonable assault on lawful gun owners and hunters without any logic behind it except to build a data base of who has guns so they can confiscate them someday.

Not to mention that this flies in the face of a long tradition in this state, and in nearly all other states, of not registering long guns – that is, rifles or shotguns. These are not weapons typically used in crimes or the illegal gun trade, anyway.

There is simply no demonstrable need for this law, none. Even if there were, this is something that needs extended discussion in the open, at least on the state level, and probably nationally.