The Resistance!

A SHORT VIDEO ON SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT (MUST SEE)

2010-04-27T05:25:00.000-07:00

Prince Philip says you shouldn't own a 2nd home.... just him.

2009-09-30T10:23:00.000-07:00

The prince’s wife is the largest landowner on the planet — she controls 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non-ocean surface.

Prince Philip has taken a pot shot at supermarkets and second-home owners who he says are threatening the traditional village, in remarks published Wednesday.

Philip’s absurd comments come after he said he’d like to come back as a killer virus and wipe out a large chunk of humanity.

The 88-year-old husband of Queen Elizabeth II — who has official residences in London, Windsor and Scotland as well as a vast portfolio of property — lamented the demise of the quintessential English village.

Prince Philip's son Prince Charles and heir to the throne says we must all abandon our cars (not that he has).

RON PAUL ON THE JOHN STEWART SHOW

2009-09-30T08:14:00.000-07:00

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE DEATH OF FREEDOM

2009-09-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

SCHOOL AND POLICE COMMAND KIDS NOT TO WALK OR RIDE BIKES TO SCHOOL

STATE TELLS MOM: STOP BABY-SITTING NEIGHBORS KIDS

CHEERLEADERS CANNOT QUOTE THE BIBLE ON SIGNS

CAN'T ASK SOMEONE FOR CHANGE WITHOUT A LICENSE

African American Preacher Debunks Tea Party Racism.

2009-09-30T07:18:00.001-07:00

Creepy Obama Worship..

2009-09-30T07:06:00.000-07:00

I love home schooled Kids:

Federal Mercenaries Illegally Hired As Local Police.

2009-09-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

A private security force whose biggest role is helping the U.S. government to “combat terrorism” is now patrolling the streets of a town in Montana, acting as law enforcement but accountable to nobody and operating completely outside the limitations of the U.S. constitution in a chilling throwback to the brownshirts of Nazi Germany.

The American Police Force organization is a paramilitary unit that “provides surveillance, investigative, and military services across the world,” according to its website, which shows men dressed in military fatigues carrying machine guns.
“As part of our mission, APF plays a critical role in helping the U.S. government meet vital homeland security and national defense needs. Within the last 5 years the United States has been far and away our #1 client. Technologies, programs, and services performed by APF have played a very important role in U.S. military and civilian efforts to protect our homeland and combat terrorism,” the website states.

APF were originally contracted to provide security at a previously empty detention center in Hardin, a small town in Montana, but are now patrolling the streets driving SUV’s with “Police Department” printed on them despite the fact that Hardin doesn’t have a police department. American Police Force has no jurisdiction in the area because it is a private organization, not a police force.

According to Two Rivers Authority officials, having the private security force patrol the streets was not part of the contract. “I have no idea. I really don’t because that’s not been a part of any of the discussions we’ve had with any of them,” Two Rivers Authority’s Al Peterson told KULR 8 News. Peterson said that patrolling the streets was on the “wishlist” of APF’s Captain Michael.

The American Police Force is a shady outfit shrouded in suspicion. According to an Associated Press report, questions over the legitimacy of the organization abound.

“Government contract databases show no record of the company. Security industry representatives and federal officials said they had never heard of it. On its Web site, the company lists as its headquarters a building in Washington near the White House that holds “virtual offices.” A spokeswoman for the building said American Police Force never completed its application to use the address,” reports AP.

Furthermore, APF was tasked with filling the empty Hardin detention center with inmates, without any clear indication of where those prisoners would come from.

“It’s unclear where the company will get the inmates for the jail. Montana says it’s not sending inmates to the jail, and neither are federal officials in the state,” according to the report.

Maybe the inmates will be the local population of Hardin if American Police Force is allowed to continue to pose as a law enforcement outfit in the town, which is exactly what they intend to do for at least another month.

Having a private security force whose stated mission is to help the U.S. government “combat terrorism” patrol the streets of small towns in America without even having the authority to do so from local authorities is obviously a frightening pretext and harks back to the private paramilitary forces that helped Adolf Hitler rise to power in Nazi Germany.

Many fear that if martial law is declared in response to a flu pandemic or other emergency, private security forces such as APF will be used by the government to oppress citizens by operating outside of the law.

This is completely unconstitutional and a flagrant threat to the liberty and security of the population of Hardin. The County Sheriff is effectively breaking the law if he doesn’t immediately kick APF out of the area and end the occupation of the town by a private paramilitary army.

Americans Celebrate Communist China's Mass Murder

2009-09-30T06:45:00.000-07:00

Wednesday Sept. 30th, the The Empire State Building will be bathed in red and yellow lights in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China!?!

New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

Why is the United States, honoring or celebrating communism? Why are we, The United States, celebrating the fact that the communist regime in china slaughtered millions of citizens, invaded and murdered a million Tibetans, promised Mongolia greater autonomy only to end up slaughtering millions of Mongols, the people who brought us Tiananmen Square, and displaced millions of citizens to host the Olympic games??? And this is just the tip of the iceberg! What about the christian and child slave labor? Oh yeah... that's how we get stuff so cheep at Walmart...

Well let's celebrate our part in keeping China's horrific abuse of human rights alive.

Call (212) 736-3100 or contact, via the contact form at their website, the Empire State Building representatives and voice your opinion!

Congressional Math

2009-09-30T06:39:00.000-07:00

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent
"savings" of $1000.

However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that
no auto dealer will tell you).
If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.

So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In
addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4
or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you
less to run than the payments that you will now be making.

But wait, it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer.
For example, every dealer in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the
goodies including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the
month before the "cash for clunkers" program started.

When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and
instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than
you would have the month before. (Honda, Toyota, and Kia played the same
list price game that Ford and Chevy did).

So let's do the final tally here:

You traded in a car worth: $3500 You got a discount of:
$4500

---------
Net so far +$1000 But you have to pay:
$1350 in taxes on the $4500

--------
Net so far:
-$350 And you paid:
$3000 more than the car was selling for the month before

----------
Net
-$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on
the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of
interest on the car loan but let's just stop here.

So who actually made out on the deal? The feds collected taxes on the car
along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave"
you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold
along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. The
manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month
before. And the poor stupid consumer got saddled with even more debt that
they cannot afford.

Congress convinced Joe consumer that he was getting
$4500 in "free" money from the "government" when in fact Joe was giving away
his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.

BIBLE BANNED IN AMERICA (AS COMMIES ALWAYS DO)

2009-09-30T06:29:00.000-07:00

Community members are rallying around Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleaders after they were banned from displaying signs with Bible verses urging fans and players to “commit to the Lord” and “take courage and do it.”

The banners — the paper ones that football players crash through at the beginning of games — have been common sights in the school’s football stadium since 2003, local officials say.

Catoosa County Schools spokeswoman Marissa Brower said a Fort Oglethorpe resident lodged a verbal complaint to Superintendent Denia Reese last week, saying that the display of a Bible verse on the football field is a violation of federal law.

The Bible is banned from public? Is that Federal Law? What did our founders die for if not freedom of expression and religion?

9/18/09 At a football game on the school's field, cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School hold up a sign with a Biblical verse on it. After a complaint last week, the school has banned the cheerleaders from using any more signs with religious statements on them, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution.

A school system statement released Monday said the message constitutes “a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field.”

Here is what the US Constitution says about the matter, "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."

Any law that establishes a national religion is unconstitutional. NO SUCH LAW HAS BEEN PASSED.

Any law that prohibits the "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" is unconstitutional. SUCH LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED SUCH AS THE ONES THAT STOP CHEERLEADERS FROM EXPRESSING THEIR FAITH!

Obama's top Science advisor called for forced abortions and serialization enforced by a one world government..

2009-07-11T16:22:00.000-07:00

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.
Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “I have determined that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed” tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”
Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions. One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I sure as hell don’t.

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration” could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was “feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied equal protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration” by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so — how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Why?

I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the “Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the “Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge.

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a “pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John. Stop telling us what to do.

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.

It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the book was first published. Indeed, as you can see from the first picture that accompanies this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed with it.

It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions of one man. As we have exhaustively documented, most recently in our essay, The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies, the positions adopted in this book echo those advocated by numerous other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the environmental movement for decades.

Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist movement, recently met with other billionaire “philanthropists” in New York to discuss “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population,” according to a London Times report.

Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west.
Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs, leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet (Gates’ father has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social Darwinism.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends. What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.
The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the United States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental policy, once openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public through the food and water supply, along with the plethora of other disgusting proposals highlighted in Ecoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled top-down environmental movement.

Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and draconian population control plans can we truly alert people to the horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.

Tiburon California Is Tracking Your Movements.

2009-07-11T16:06:00.000-07:00

Your presence has been noted.

The posh and picturesque town that juts into San Francisco Bay is poised to do something unprecedented: use cameras to record the license plate number of every vehicle that crosses city limits.

Some residents describe the plan as a commonsense way to thwart thieves, most of whom come from out of town. Others see an electronic border gate and worry that the project will only reinforce Tiburon's image of exclusivity and snootiness.

"I personally don't see too much harm in it, because I have nothing to hide," commodities broker Paul Lambert, 64, said after a trip to Boardwalk Market in downtown Tiburon on a recent afternoon.

"Yet," he said, "it still has the taint of Big Brother."

Tiburon's camera idea is a marriage of technology, policing and distinct geography.

Situated on a peninsula, Tiburon's hillside homes and waterfront shops are accessible by only two roads, allowing police to point the special cameras known as license plate readers at every lane that leads into and out of the town of 8,800.

The readers, which use character recognition software, can compare plates to databases of cars that have been stolen or linked to crimes, then immediately notify police of matches, said Police Chief Michael Cronin.

If someone burglarized a Tiburon home at 3 a.m. one morning, he said, detectives could consult the devices and find out who came to town in the hours before - and who rolled out soon after.

'Very low-key'

"It's very low-key," said Town Manager Peggy Curran. "The whole point of license plates is that people can be identified by them."

If the Town Council gives final approval, Curran said, officials hope to install the readers on Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive by late fall.

Tiburon plans to spend grant funds on the project and ask two other governments that could benefit from it to contribute to an expected price tag of $100,000 - the city of Belvedere, a bump of land on the southeastern edge of Tiburon, and Marin County.

Cronin called it a sound investment. He pointed to a frustrating twist in Tiburon crime: Residents feel so safe that they don't lock their cars and homes.

In all of 2007 and 2008, Tiburon recorded 196 thefts, 37 burglaries and a dozen stolen cars. The chief said every alleged thief who was arrested in those years was from outside Tiburon.

Finding suspects

Once the street cameras are installed, Cronin said, hunting a burglary suspect could be easier. "We'll look for a plate that came and went," he said. "That's going to give us a very short list to work on."

Detectives could then check to see if any of the cars has been linked with crimes in the past. Between 300 and 400 cars use Tiburon Boulevard to travel in or out of the town from midnight to 6 a.m. on weekdays.

"It's much more efficient than having an officer sit on the boulevard, watch passing cars and guess who might be a burglar," Cronin said.

Nicole Ozer, who directs policy on technology for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, isn't as supportive. She called the cameras a "needle in a haystack" approach that may waste money, invade privacy and invite unfair profiling.

"To be under investigation simply because you entered or left Tiburon at a certain time is incredibly intrusive," Ozer said. "Innocent people should be able to go about their daily lives without being tracked and monitored."

City leaders promise to prevent abuses. Information on which cars enter and leave town will not be available to the public, they said, and will be erased within 60 days. Police officers will be granted access to the information only during an investigation.

License plate readers have exploded in popularity in recent years, but Tiburon would be one of the first to mount them at fixed locations - and perhaps the very first to record every car coming or going.

California Highway Patrol officials have put the readers on 18 cruisers and at four fixed locations. CHP officers have seen a huge increase in recoveries of stolen cars since the devices were installed starting in August 2005, the agency said.

Devices help CHP

Through December, officials said, the CHP had used the devices to recover 1,739 cars and arrest 675 people.

San Francisco gave the devices to police as well as parking control officers, allowing them to track cars parked for too long in one spot. Some cities use the cameras to assess anti-congestion tolls on motorists, while casino bosses get an alert when a high roller - or a cheater - pulls in.

Outside Tiburon's Boardwalk Market, where a flyer in the window offered a $2,000 reward for the return of a stolen Pomeranian, residents seemed split on the plan.

Robin Pryor, 66, of Belvedere said the most important issue was whether the cameras made people safer.

"It's just like locking your door," Pryor said. "If they have reason for it to bother them, they shouldn't be coming in."

But Fred Mayo, 62, who lives in Tiburon and owns a travel agency in Mill Valley, said the cameras would invade privacy. "Where does it end?" Mayo asked.

He referred to the crime blotter in the local newspaper, which listed two incidents recently of kids tossing water balloons at cars, and noted, "It's not like Tiburon's a high-crime area."

E-mail Demian Bulwa at dbulwa@sfchronicle.com.

US betrays Honduran Constitution to side with commies.

2009-07-06T10:14:00.000-07:00

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

Martial Law for the sake of Food Safety

2009-07-06T04:33:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-04T03:33:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-06-10T04:30:00.000-07:00

GM = Government Motors: Fascism takes over USA.

2009-06-03T10:58:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-06-02T11:23:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-05-10T04:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-10T07:34:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-04-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

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....

2009-04-10T06:39:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-04-10T06:37:00.000-07:00

School House Rock: Pirates and Emperors

2009-04-08T15:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-08T13:08:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-30T06:21:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-24T09:03:00.000-07:00

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....

2009-03-23T06:50:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-23T05:13:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-21T06:31:00.000-07:00

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.

The House Passes A Bill To Consider Making Mandatory National Service For Young Adults.

2009-03-19T08:32:00.000-07:00

The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

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

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

“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.

The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”. They want to program youth and give them a "common experience" so they know "what it is to be an american." But if they know what it was to be an American we wouldn't be considering legalized slavery for our youth in national reeducation camps.

Fears about Obama’s plans to create involuntary servitude were first stoked in July 2008, when Obama told a rally in Colorado Springs, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

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

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006.

“The bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service,” reports Fox.

“We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn’t emulate and probably can’t imagine,” said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. “The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative.”

Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker warns that Obama’s agenda is to, “tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda.”

CFR luminary Gary Hart hit back at critics, claiming in a Huffington Post piece that, “Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy.”

UNDER OBAMA'S CAP & TRADE POLICY THE AVERAGE AMERICANS ELECTRIC BILL WILL GO UP BY $700 TO $1400 BY 2012

2009-03-17T03:52:00.000-07:00

Man made global warming is a lie. The average world temperature has not risen for ten years. Global warming is a wild theory not accepted by many scientists who are experts in the climate field. It's a false premise used to push an anti-industrialization socialist agenda.

Now climate change is the excuse to pass the soviet style central planning agenda of the left called CAP AND TRADE. With this program which OBAMA is pushing, Obama admits that your electric bill will go up between $700 to $1400 in the next four years! How many people will have to go without electricity because of this jump in price. How will this help the economy? What will happen to people on fixed incomes?

Obama says he wants to give tax credtis back to the poor. But those will only be $400 or so. How will people make up the $300 to $1000 difference?

Businesses electric bills will go through the roof. They will get no tax credits. They will pass this cost along in the price of goods. The cost of literally everything will go up. This will have a disastrous effect on our economy which is already about to fall off a cliff of no return. And of course, who is pushing this in the video below but the mouth piece of the Federal Reserve and Treasury department.

WATCH THIS VIDEO!

Not Global Warming... just city warming.

2009-03-17T03:45:00.000-07:00

Natural Trend Toward Cooling Climate

2009-03-16T17:14:00.001-07:00

The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.

The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.
Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

"Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.

Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other.
Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.
"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

Here is why we had an economic crash...

2009-03-12T08:27:00.000-07:00

If you like Ron Paul, the government considers you a terrorist.

2009-03-11T16:56:00.000-07:00

Have you seen the secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was leaked by an anonymous Missouri police officer.

The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”

MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort.

Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.

In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.

MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics.

MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.

The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition.

The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration. The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.

In order to artificially heighten the perceived threat threshold, MIAC rolls in Christian Identity, white nationalism, “militant” anti-abortion activists, opposition to illegal immigration, and income tax resistance. MIAC deceptively blurs the lines between these disparate political ideologies and underscores the possibility for violence in a summary of the organizational structure of the militia movement and a section describing how members strive to train in “combat readiness.”

The MIAC effort to characterize Libertarians and Constitutionalists as racists is reminiscent of an attempt by the corporate media in early 2008 to portray Ron Paul as a racist by attempting to link him to a series of vaguely racist newsletters produced in the 1980s. Paul did not exercise editorial control over the newsletters and went so far as to apologize for them, but this did not prevent the corporate media from characterizing him as a racist.

According to MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a threat to the police. “The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps,” the document claims in a section entitled “You are the Enemy.”

In regard to supposed militia movement literature and media, the MIAC report mentions Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism and William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries — the latter was penned by the former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance and the former by a Libertarian filmmaker. In order to underscore the absurdity of the MIAC attempt to link Pierce’s novel and Russo’s anti-tax documentary, it should be noted that the late Aaron Russo was Jewish and The Turner Dairies posits a Zionist government in America (or ZOG, the Zionist Occupation Government) run by Jews.
The award-winning film Zeitgeist, featuring Alex Jones, is also mentioned as terrorist material.

The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists.

MIAC is attempting to radicalize the police against political activity guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If Missouri police indoctrinated by MIAC propaganda overreact to political activists and supporters of Ron Paul in their state and injure or kill people involved in entirely legal and legitimate political activity, MIAC, the governor of Missouri (his name appears on the MIAC document), and the DHS and federal government should be held directly responsible and prosecuted the fullest extent of the law.

They take a naked picture of you before you can board a plane.

2009-03-11T16:32:00.001-07:00

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) undated handout image shows a composite of 4 separate scans, a female in the left two and a male in the right two, from a whole body scan machine, or millimeter wave machine being used at a security check point at the Salt Lake International Airport in Salt Lake City, Utah. NOTICE THEY BLURED OUT THE FACE FOR THIS RELEASE BUT WOULDN'T IN THE AIRPORT.

The new machine developed by New York based L3 Communications is in use for the first time today by passengers and takes a whole body scan penetrating clothing. This is a pilot program by the TSA to test the machines in a live setting for the first time at Salt Lake International Airport March 10, 2009. REUTERS/TSA

SO ARE YOU OK WITH THE TSA TAKING A NAKED PICTURE OF YOU BEFORE YOU BOARD A PLANE AND STORING IT ON FILE?

WILL YOU LET THEM TRACK YOU?

2009-03-11T12:22:00.001-07:00

The Corporations Are Tracking Your Every Move...

2009-03-11T11:26:00.000-07:00

The millions of people who use their cellphones daily to play games, download applications and browse the Web may not realize that they have an unseen companion: advertisers that can track their interests, their habits and even their location.

Smartphones, like the iPhone and BlackBerry Curve, are the latest and potentially most extensive way for advertisers to aim ads at certain consumers. Advertisers already tailor ads for small groups of consumers on the Web based on personal information. But cellphones have a much higher potential for personalized advertising, especially when they use applications like user-review sites like Yelp or Urbanspoon with GPS to identify a person's location, right down to the street corner where they are standing.

Advertisers will pay high rates for the ability to show, for example, ads for a nearby restaurant to someone leaving a Broadway show, especially when coupled with information about the gender, age, finances and interests of the consumer.

Eswar Priyadarshan, the chief technology officer of Quattro Wireless, which places advertising for clients like Sony on mobile sites, says he typically has 20 pieces of information about a customer who has visited a site or played with an application in his network. "The basic idea is, you go through all these channels, and you get as much data as possible," he said.

The capability for collecting information has alarmed privacy advocates.

"It's potentially a portable, personal spy," said Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, who will appear before Federal Trade Commission staff members this month to brief them on privacy and mobile marketing. He is particularly concerned about data breaches, advertisers' access to sensitive health or financial information, and a lack of transparency about how advertisers are collecting data. "Users are going to be inclined to say, sure, what's harmful about a click, not realizing that they've consented to give up their information."

Advertisers collect specifics about how someone behaves on the mobile Web — for instance, that someone bought a "Hot N Cold" ring tone after seeing an ad for it, then watched a Miley Cyrus video on TMZ.com — they use that information to categorize that person as a pop-culture fan, and then show a movie ad.

Advertisers are eager to use the information for much more specific targeting, however. An advertising system could know, for instance, that someone is 27 years old, male, a New England Patriots fan (which NFL.com can track), plays Blackjack, travels frequently between Boston and New York on weekdays (which applications using GPS can track) and uses a 3G iPhone. That would make him attractive to a host of advertisers, like the Delta Shuttle or a Las Vegas hotel, whose ads would appear while the consumer was browsing the Web on his phone.

"Everyone's in an arms race to find out more and more about their users," said Eric Bader, the managing partner of the mobile advertising firm Brand in Hand. Even application developers are handing over information about their customers to marketers. Dockers San Francisco, a brand of Levi Strauss, for instance, is beginning a campaign this week that will run on applications like iBasketball and iGolf. It will show a model wearing khakis, and the iPhone customer can shake the phone to see the model dance.

Dockers will start by tracking how long people shake the ad, and then "if it does make sense to do follow-up with these consumers, we'll do that," said Jonathan Haber, the United States director of Ignition Factory at OMD, the media agency directing the campaign. "We dig in, specifically, with these application developers and owners to get information about usage behavior."

It's not just behavior, but also data about income, or even whether you have children, that mobile advertisers consider. A company called Acuity Mobile, whose clients include the MGM Mirage and Harrah's Entertainment, lets clients use consumer data, including, potentially, income, to determine what kind of offers clients should see.

"Someone who does not spend a lot of money with your brand might get a lower-value offer, like a free dessert in Vegas, versus a free buffet" for a high roller, said Alan Sultan, the president and founder of Acuity Mobile.

Applications that use GPS can offer even more specificity, including Loopt, Yelp, Urbanspoon, Where and almost any iPhone application that shows the pop-up box saying it "would like to use your current location." Several firms are experimenting with a program called AisleCaster that can offer specials based on a person's exact location in a supermarket aisle or mall.

Advertising systems can track not only the location of the phone, but also that person's travel pattern: uptown New York to Nob Hill in San Francisco, for instance.

For now, systems like Quattro are using broad city-level categories while trying to sell to advertisers like Amtrak. "You don't want to necessarily go down to location-level stuff like specific street corners, because it wanders over into really creeping out the user privacy-wise," Priyadarshan said.

For now, there are not enough people using smartphones to make it worthwhile for advertisers to use highly specific criteria. But as more people switch to smartphones, that will happen more frequently. The smartphone market in North America increased 69 percent in 2008, according to the research firm Gartner. Google, Palm and BlackBerry are all introducing their own application stores. Despite the amount of data in the market, as long as advertisers don't use personally identifiable information, there is no current regulation or law that governs how closely advertisers and application developers can track mobile phone users. Opting out of mobile targeted advertising is difficult, and that's assuming consumers are even aware how closely they are being tracked.

Government To Track You Everywhere You Go...

2009-03-09T11:21:00.000-07:00

New York Times article about the different test studies being conducted as a precursor to the introduction of a CO2 or mileage tax admits that cars will contain tracking devices that will record where motorists have been.

Obama’s transportation secretary Ray LaHood recently caused controversy when he let slip that the administration was considering a “vehicles miles traveled” tax to replace the federal fuel tax.

As the New York Times reported in its Sunday edition, a number of different large scale beta-testing programs are currently underway to trial that exact scheme.

The largest is the $16.5 million federal Road User Study, under which thousands of volunteers in Austin, Tex.; Baltimore; Boise, Idaho; Raleigh and Durham, N.C.; San Diego; and the Quad Cities region of Iowa are driving cars equipped with tracking devices that catalogue their every movement.

For such a program to achieve its objective of taxing people by the mile, one would think that the only information the tracking device would need to measure is how many miles the vehicle has traveled. However, the true purpose of the technology is revealed when we learn that the system will also “record where motorists have been”.

Jon Kuhl, principal investigator for the Road User Study, concedes that “invasion of privacy” will be an issue, but the article does not mention how this will be overcome.

“You’d have to have a record where the car is at all times, and that certainly would frighten America,” said Mike Moffatt, an economist at the Ivy School of Business at the University of Western Ontario.

Efforts to sell the mileage tax proposal as a replacement for gas tax are likely to increase as the proposal nears introduction, but as is the case in North Carolina, where legislators are considering introducing a fee of one-quarter of a cent per mile, the charge will be in addition to tax per gallon of gas, not as a replacement for it.

The Times article notes that Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon are also piloting similar schemes.

An increase on the roads of fuel-efficient vehicles and cars run on electricity is causing panic amongst tax-hungry authorities, who are seeking new ways to snag people who are managing to pay far less gas tax.

Indeed, the Times article quotes Susan Martinovich, director of the Nevada Department of Transportation, who expressed her desire to pursue such individuals.

“Those people are not paying as much, and yet they’re still on the road and still causing congestion and impacting pavement. How do I get at those people?” she stated.

“How do I get at those people?” That phrase perfectly underscores the nature of this entire program - a fresh government assault on the personal privacy and the wallet of the beleaguered American taxpayer that will achieve nothing aside driving more people into near-poverty while ensuring their every move is tracked and catalogued by big brother.

The Times article concludes that the mileage tax is “inevitable” and that it will begin by all automakers installing the tracking devices in new cars as standard. What do they know that we don't?

Obama Wants To Take Away Your Gun

2009-03-09T11:16:00.000-07:00

Planned Parenthood's Mission Is To Exterminate Black People

2009-03-04T09:06:00.003-08:00

A Racist Founded Plan Parenthood with her mission of "exterminating the negro population."

Racists Still Run Plan Parenthood Today

FDIC Insurance Fund Insolvent...

2009-03-04T08:44:00.000-08:00

March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said the deposit insurance fund could dry up amid a surge in bank failures, as she responded to an industry outcry against new fees approved by the agency.

“Without these assessments, the deposit insurance fund could become insolvent this year,” Bair wrote in a March 2 letter to the industry. U.S. community banks plan to flood the FDIC with about 5,000 letters in protest of the fees, according to a trade group.

“A large number” of bank failures may occur through 2010 because of “rapidly deteriorating economic conditions,” Bair said in the letter. “Without substantial amounts of additional assessment revenue in the near future, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero or even become negative.”

The FDIC last week approved a one-time “emergency” fee and other assessment increases on the industry to rebuild a fund to repay customers for deposits of as much as $250,000 when a bank fails. The fees, opposed by the industry, may generate $27 billion this year after the fund fell to $18.9 billion in the fourth quarter from $34.6 billion in the previous period, the FDIC said. The fund was drained by 25 bank failures last year.

Smaller banks are outraged over the one-time fee, which could wipe out 50 percent to 100 percent of a bank’s 2009 earnings, Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

“I’ve never seen emotions like this,” said Fine, adding that he’s received more than 1,000 e-mails and telephone messages from angry bankers.

‘Significant Expense’

“The FDIC realizes that these assessments are a significant expense, particularly during a financial crisis and recession when bank earnings are under pressure,” Bair wrote. “We did not want to impose large assessments when the industry and economy are struggling. We searched for alternatives but found none better.”

The agency, which has released the change for 30 days of public comment, could modify the assessment to shift the burden to the large banks “that caused this train wreck,” Fine said. “Community bankers are paying for the incompetence and greed of Wall Street,” he said.

Abortionists Threw Live Baby In The Trash After It Was Born Alive

2009-03-04T08:28:00.000-08:00

MIAMI - An abortion clinic owner is accused of delivering a live baby during a botched procedure and then throwing the infant away.

Belkis Gonzalez, 42, was arrested Tuesday and charged with practicing medicine without a license and tampering with evidence, both felonies, said Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office. If found guilty, Gonzalez would face at least a year in prison and up to 15 years.

The teenage mother, Sycloria Williams, has filed a lawsuit alleging that Gonzalez knocked the infant off the chair where she had given birth, and then scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag, and threw it out.

The clinic's doctor, Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique, had been scheduled to perform the procedure, but Williams went into labor after being given drugs to dilate her cervix and waiting for hours for Renelique to arrive, the suit said. The doctor has said he had been on his way to the Hialeah clinic when he was called to treat another patient who was bleeding.

Last month, the Board of Medicine revoked Renelique's license for committing medical malpractice, delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel and failing to keep an accurate medical record.

Williams was 23 weeks pregnant when the incident happened in 2006.

Authorities were unable to definitively determine the cause of death -- and Gonzalez's role in it -- because the baby's body had decomposed by the time it was found eight days later, said Griffith, the attorney's office spokesman.

Gonzalez was being held on $50,000 bond. A hearing was scheduled for this morning. It was unclear if she had an attorney.

The Thought Police Harass Innocent Student For Believing in the 2nd Amendment.

2009-03-03T08:28:00.000-08:00

This is outrageous.

For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”

Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

Wahlberg believes that her complaint was filed without good reason.

“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly nonthreatening matter. Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat,” Wahlberg said in response. “The actions of Professor Anderson made me so uncomfortable, that I didn’t attend several classes. The only appropriate action taken by the Professor was to excuse my absences.”

The university police were unavailable for comment.

“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

Teachers No Longer Have Freedom Of Religion!

2009-03-03T06:37:00.001-08:00

If students lead a prayer before a football game, the coach can't join in. He can't close his eyes and bow a knee even if he says nothing.... Why? Because the Supreme Court has allowed the ruling by default.

Now here is what the constitution actually says, "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."

Now where in that does it say that a coach can't pray with kids before a football game?

The Amendment was given to allow people to establish the "free exercise" of religion and the "freedom of speech" It seems to me this teachers free exercise has been hindered by the local school system (governments) laws. It seems his "freedom of speech" has been abridged for this coach. He can't even bow his head and bow his knee! This is insane! The lower court judges appointed by Clinton and Bush are ruling exactly opposite of what the constitution says and the supreme court allows it to stand. A curse on both their houses!

IS THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR MERELY THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ?

WASHINGTON – Coach Marcus Borden used to bow his head and drop to one knee when his football team prayed. But the Supreme Court on Monday ended the practice when it refused to hear the high school coach's appeal of a school district ban on employees joining a student-led prayer. This Supreme Court is evil. What an abuse of law.

The decision on the case from New Jersey could add another restriction on prayer in schools, advocates said.
"We've become so politically correct in terms of how we deal with religion that it's being pretty severely limited in schools right now, and individuals suffer," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues.

But Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said some parents had complained about Borden leading prayers before the East Brunswick, N.J., school district ordered him to stop and banned all staff members from joining in student-led prayer.

"The bottom line is people in positions of authority, like a coach, have to be extremely careful about trying to promote their ideas, or implying that if you don't pray, you may not play," Lynn said.

The high court without comment refused to reconsider the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding the ban.
The district established the ban in 2005 after parents complained about Borden, coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, sometimes leading prayers at the Friday afternoon team pasta dinner or in the locker room before games. Borden said he wanted to show respect for the students engaged in prayer by bowing his head silently and dropping to one knee.

The district, Borden argued, was violating his free-speech rights by ordering him to stop action he called secular signs of respect. After the ban, the coach stood at attention for the remainder of the season while the students prayed.

Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the Philadelphia appeals court, said Borden's past action of leading the prayers made his head-bowing seem inappropriate. "A reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray," Fisher said.
Messages left for Borden and lawyer Ronald Riccio were not immediately returned Monday.

"With teachers and students, individual expressions are being limited. There's just a concept out there that religion doesn't belong in schools," said Whitehead, whose group acted as co-counsel for Borden. He said he does not know what Borden would do now.

School employees should avoid looking like they're endorsing religion in any way, said Lynn, whose group represented the school district.

"Coaches are not supposed to be promoting religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," Lynn said.

The Supreme Court ended school-sponsored prayer in 1962 when it said directing that a prayer be said at the beginning of each school day was a violation of the First Amendment. The justices reaffirmed the decision in 2000 by saying a Texas school district was giving the impression of prayer sponsorship by letting students use loudspeakers under the direction of a faculty member for prayers before sports events.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WATCH THIS... PASS IT ON.

2009-03-03T05:42:00.000-08:00

Rep. Rohrer For President! (or anyone else who will stand up to the Federal Fascists.)

Bush believed he could set aside constitutional rights!

2009-03-02T21:47:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers.

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights. HOw did we come to this?

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo. What is the point of the constitution if you don't have to follow it?

Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.

It's madness... we were locking up us citizens in military prisons without a lawyer or a trial. This is a violation of his oath to uphold the constitution! Bush was a fascist dictator. And American don't care. Are we so afraid of terrorists we'll give up our most rights, freedoms and constitution?

DO NOT USE FACEBOOK... WATCH THIS TO SEE WHY?

2009-03-02T12:08:00.000-08:00

When will you understand their plans to track your every move? When will you question as to why they want to?

2009-03-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

By Bob Unruh

Privacy advocates are issuing warnings about a new radio chip plan that ultimately could provide electronic identification for every adult in the U.S. and allow agents to compile attendance lists at anti-government rallies simply by walking through the assembly.

The proposal, which has earned the support of Janet Napolitano, the newly chosen chief of the Department of Homeland Security, would embed radio chips in driver's licenses, or "enhanced driver's licenses."

"Enhanced driver's licenses give confidence that the person holding the card is the person who is supposed to be holding the card, and it's less elaborate than REAL ID," Napolitano said in a Washington Times report.

REAL ID is a plan for a federal identification system standardized across the nation that so alarmed governors many states have adopted formal plans to oppose it. However, a privacy advocate today told WND that the EDLs are many times worse.

Radio talk show host and identity chip expert Katherine Albrecht said REAL ID earned the opposition of Christians because of its resemblance to the biblical "mark of the beast," civil libertarians opposed it for its "big brother" connotations and others worried about identity theft issues with the proposed databases.

"We got rid of the REAL ID program, but this one is way more insidious," she said.

Enhanced driver's licenses have built-in radio chips providing an identifying number or information that can be accessed by a remote reading unit while the license is inside a wallet or purse.

The technology already had been implemented in Washington state, where it is promoted as an alternative to a passport for traveling to Canada. So far, the program is optional.

But there are other agreements already approved with Michigan, Vermont, New York and Arizona, and plans are under way in other states, including Texas, she said.

Napolitano, as Arizona's governor, was against the REAL ID, Albrecht said. Now, as chief of Homeland Security, she is suggesting the more aggressive electronic ID of Americans.

"She's coming out and saying, 'OK, OK, OK, you win. We won't do REAL ID. But what we probably ought to do is nationwide enhanced driver's licenses,'" Albrecht told WND.

"They're actually talking about issuing every person a spychip driver's license," she said. "That is the potential problem."

Imagine, she said, going to a First Amendment-protected event, a church or a mosque, or even a gun show or a peace rally.

Katherine Albrecht "What happens to all those people when a government operator carrying a reading device makes a circuit of the event?" she asked. "They could download all those unique ID numbers and link them."

Participants could find themselves on "watch" lists or their attendance at protests or rallies added to their government "dossier."

She said even if such license programs are run by states, there's virtually no way that the databases would not be linked and accessible to the federal government.

Albrecht said a hint of what is on the agenda was provided recently by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state's legislature approved a plan banning the government from using any radio chips in any ID documentation.

Schwarzenegger's veto noted he did not want to interfere with any coming or future federal programs for identifying people.

Albrecht's recent guest on her radio program was Michigan State Rep. Paul Opsommer, who said the government appears to be using a national anti-terrorism plan requiring people to document their identities as they enter the United States to promote the technology.

"The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was … just about proving you were a citizen, not that you had to do it by any specific kind of technology," Opsommer said.

But he said, "We are close to the point now that if you don't want RFID in any of your documents that you can't leave the country or get back into it."

Opsommer said his own state sought an exception to the growing federal move toward driver's licenses with an electronic ID chip, and he was told that was "unlikely."

He was told, "They were trying to harmonize these standards with Canada and Mexico so it had to apply to everybody. I was absolutely dumbfounded."

WND previously has reported on such chips when hospitals used them to identify newborns, a company desired to embed immigrants with the electronic devices, a government health event showcased them and when Wal-Mart used microchips to track customers.

Albrecht, who has worked on issues involving radio chip implants, REAL-ID, "Spychips" and other devices, provided a platform for Opsommer to talk about drivers licenses that include radio transmitters that provide identity information about the carrier. She is active with the AntiChips.com and SpyChips.com websites.

Opsommer said he's been trying for several years to gain permission for his state to develop its own secure license without a radio chip.

"They have flat out refused, and their reasoning is all about the need for what they call 'facilitative technology,' which they then determined was RFID," he said during the recent interview.

According to the U.S. State Department, which regulates international travel requirements, U.S. citizens now "must show proof of identity and proof of U.S. citizenship when entering the United States from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the countries of the Caribbean by land or seas."

Documentation could be a U.S. passport or other paperwork such as birth certificates or drivers' licenses. But as of this summer, one of the options for returning residents will be an "Enhanced Driver's License."

The rules are being promulgated under the outline of the WHTI, a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which requires travelers to present a passport or other identity documents on entry into the U.S.

While the government has expressed confidence that no personal or critical information will be revealed through the system, it also says drivers will need special information on how to use, carry and protect the radio-embedded licenses as well as "a shielded container that will prevent anyone from reading your license."

But Albrecht, the author or co-author of six books and videos, including the award-winning "Spychips: How major corporations and government plan to track your every move with RFID," warns it goes much further.

"This must be nipped in the bud. Enhanced DL's make REAL ID look like a walk in the park," Albrecht said.

"Look, I am all in favor of only giving drivers licenses to U.S. citizens or people that are otherwise here in this country legally," Opsommer said, "But we are already doing that in Michigan. We accomplished that without an EDL, as has virtually every other state via their own state laws.

"But just because we choose to only issue our license to U.S. citizens does not mean that our licenses should somehow then fall under federal control. It's still a state document, we are just controlling who we issue them to. But under the EDL program, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that making sure illegals don't get these is not enough. Now you need the chip to prove your citizenship," he continued.

Opsommer further warned the electronic chips embedded in licenses to confirm identity are just the first step.

"Canadians are also more connected to what is going on in Britain with the expansion of the national ID program there, and have seen the mission creep that occurs with things like gun control first hand … Whatever the reason, as an example, just last week the Canadian government repatriated a database from the U.S. that contained the driver's license data of their citizens," he said.

"Someone finally woke up and realized it would not be a good idea for that to be on American soil … I think it is only logical that we as state legislators really understand how the governments of Mexico and Canada will have access to our own citizen's data. Right now it is very ambiguous and even difficult for me to get answers on as a state representative."

But Opsommer said Big Brother concerns certainly have some foundation.

"So if EDLs are the new direction for secure licenses in all states, it just reinforces what many have been telling me that DHS wants to expand this program and turn it into a wireless national ID with a different name," he said. "We'll wake up one day and without a vote in Congress DHS will just pass a rule and say something like 'starting next month you will need an EDL to fly on a plane, or to buy a gun, or whatever.'"

This is the death of freedom, liberty and privacy rights.

The Resistance Is Growing...

2009-03-01T04:07:00.000-08:00

By Ray Bilger

The basic idea of the Founding Fathers was to get government as close to the people as possible. In other words, a small federal government, with strong local and state governments. Thomas Jefferson said, “When all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will… become as oppressive as the government from which we separated [ourselves, the government of England].”

Do you think that a bloated federal bureaucracy might be at the root of the problems we are facing today in our American Republic? Our nation’s Founders never dreamed that the federal government would become the octopus that it is, with its tentacles reaching into every facet of our lives. Is there a solution? Yes, and it’s already happening now!

Our nation’s Founders and Framers (of the Constitution) saw that with a small federal government, our Congress might not see a need to meet at all in any given year. This is why our Constitution states (Art. I, Sec. 4, Cl. 2) that, “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year… on the first Monday in December [later changed to Jan. 3 by the 20th Amendment].” Congress was never intended to be in session all year long!

And Congress is only authorized “to exercise exclusive legislation… over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)…(Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17).” Ten miles square is not the same as ten square miles. Ten miles square is ten miles by ten miles, or 100 square miles, which is the exact size of the District of Columbia, and that is the only place, repeat, the only place that Congress has jurisdiction over, except military bases, etc., within the States.

Congress was never authorized to make laws and legislation for the States with respect to gun ownership, school curriculums, the rights of the people, federal drug laws, or any of a whole slew of other insidious laws and legislation now in place.

We The People run this country, and Our Constitution is quite clear about all of this. That is exactly why Our Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What is happening today to correct this problem is that the people are becoming informed about all of the above and are requesting (or demanding) that their State legislatures put a stop to the federal encroachment. On Feb. 2, 2009, the New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step by introducing a Resolution declaring that certain actions by the federal government are totally void, and warning that certain future acts, if taken by the federal government, will be viewed as a “Breach of Peace” against the States.

Remember, it was our federal Congress that gave us the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which took the power and control of our money system away from the Congress and the Treasury, and illegally and unconstitutionally gave it to a foreign corporation, headed by greedy foreign international bankers, called the Federal Reserve, which is not, repeat, is not a part of the federal government and is no more federal than Federal Express. The Federal Reserve runs the biggest confidence game (con game) in the history of the world, and it is now attempting to collapse America before the States can save it. (This is the final step in achieving a One World Government.)

New Hampshire is not alone, however. In an article from www.infowars.com , titled “Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty,” we read, “Although Fox News and CNN are not telling you about it, a growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.”

People see the federal government today as an entity beholden only to itself, with a blatant disregard for the expressed interests of the majority of citizens. The vote in Congress in October of 2008 to bailout the banks illustrates the point exactly. Just before the Senate vote on the $700 billion dollar bailout (of the very banks that created the financial dilemma, headed by the Federal Reserve), Sen. Diane Feinstein asked for 3 minutes to speak. She said she had received 91,000 faxes, emails, and phone calls from Californians, and that 85,000 of those were totally opposed to any bailout whatsoever. Then she said the people don’t understand the situation, and she voted for it anyway. And remember, both McCain and Obama interrupted their campaigns to fly back to Washington to vote for the bailout.

If there is any hope for America, it lies with We The People taking back our country from the crooks and criminals in Wash., D.C. who are running our country into the ground. Instead, we need to make America SOAR into the stars. It almost seems like a miracle that the people are having their state legislatures divorce themselves from the totally corrupt policies of the federal government.

There is a new hope for America, with a great light at the end of the tunnel, and it involves the states and the people working together, as the Founders intended, to make the America of all our dreams.

Ray Bilger [send him email] is a freelance writer and investigative journalist.

Ron Paul: 'Get Rid of the Federal Reserve'

2009-02-28T16:34:00.000-08:00

By: Rick Pedraza

Rep. Ron Paul, in a speech delivered to an enthusiastic crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, said conservatives “have to be devoted to and willing to stand by and defend the Constitution, and have the position that it is absolutely necessary to get rid of the Federal Reserve system.”

Paul, who ran for president in 2008 championing the Constitution, talked about his bill seeking to abolish the Federal Reserve, which he said is getting bipartisan support in the Congress.

“We’ve gotten ourselves in a mess because the conservative movement, which was designed to bring us back to our roots of limited government, smaller government and more individual liberty, hasn’t happened,” said Paul, R-Texas.

Paul believes that in many ways, the conservative movement has had a struggle defining what and who a true conservative really is.

“After finally getting the House, Senate and White House in 2000, what did we do? We doubled the size of the Department of Education. I thought we were supposed to get rid of the Department of Education!" Paul said.

“Now, since we did not do the job we were supposed to do, the opposition has taken over, and they’re going to double and triple and quadruple spending. Believe me, we’re in serious trouble,” he warned.

“In the past 12 months, our national debt went up $1.5 trillion, and next year it’s going to be more. Young people know what they are getting. They know they are getting a bad deal. They’re getting nothing but debt.

“We’re in an atmosphere now where if we can accept the idea that the taxpayers can bail out the banks and big business, there is nothing that can't be funded. Everything will be appropriated. There will be no cuts.

“Our financial system has come unglued, but the next shoe to drop will be the disintegration of the dollar. We as conservatives and believers in limited government have a tough task to restrain big spenders before that happens because, when that happens, what is threatened is our liberty.”

Paul said the main purpose of a government in a free society should be the preservation of liberty.

“Fortunately, we live in a country that knew something about that and emphasized that in our early years, but we have forgotten it and lost our confidence."

Paul said conservatives today are not determined to present the case for liberty.

"We have chopped liberty up into pieces," he explained. "We have economic liberty, we have social liberty, and we have a foreign policy that is built on total fallacies. We have to put this all back together again and, fortunately, we have something that can pull it back together, and that is the understanding of the Founding Fathers that put it in our Constitution."

"If we followed the rules and did the job right, we wouldn’t have a welfare state.”

Paul said the job ahead for conservatives is “to present this case and still prove that we are the humanitarians. The liberal do-gooders and the big spenders who say, ‘We’re going to give a free house to everybody, free medical care to everybody, free education’ – that’s preposterous.

“If you care about your fellow man, there is only one way you can maximize prosperity and freedom, and that is through the rule of law and making sure that everybody understands that liberty is an individual thing and not a collective right.”

At Some Point We Have To Stop This...

2009-02-28T06:48:00.001-08:00

Privacy advocates are issuing warnings about a new radio chip plan that ultimately could provide electronic identification for every adult in the U.S. and allow agents to compile attendance lists at anti-government rallies simply by walking through the assembly.

The proposal, which has earned the support of Janet Napolitano, the newly chosen chief of the Department of Homeland Security , would embed radio chips in driver's licenses, or "enhanced driver's licenses." "Enhanced driver's licenses give confidence that the person holding the card is the person who is supposed to be holding the card, and it's less elaborate than REAL ID," Napolitano said in a Washington Times report.

REAL ID is a plan for a federal identification system standardized across the nation that so alarmed governors many states have adopted formal plans to oppose it. However, a privacy advocate today told WND that the EDLs are many times worse. Radio talk show host and identity chip expert Katherine Albrecht said REAL ID earned the opposition of Christians because of its resemblance to the biblical "mark of the beast," civil libertarians opposed it for its "big brother" connotations and others worried about identity theft issues with the proposed databases. "We got rid of the REAL ID program, but [this one] is way more insidious," she said.
Enhanced driver's licenses have built-in radio chips providing an identifying number or information that can be accessed by a remote reading unit while the license is inside a wallet or purse.

The technology already had been implemented in Washington state, where it is promoted as an alternative to a passport for traveling to Canada. So far, the program is optional. But just give Obama some time.

Women stripped naked on video by male police officers who say it was not a strip search....

2009-02-28T06:34:00.000-08:00

BEATEN UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...

2009-02-28T06:29:00.000-08:00

JOE BIDEN CAUGHT LYING.... AGAIN

2009-02-26T08:14:00.000-08:00

SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) - Giving the republican response to President Obama's speech Tuesday night, Governor Bobby Jindal pointed out fundamental differences in how republicans and democrats see the economy. "But what I don't understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do?," asks Joe Biden while on the Early Show. He must not have listened to the list of suggestions that dominated the Governor's short speech.

And That rhetorical question to Governor Jindal on the CBS morning show, was followed with this. "in Louisiana there's 400 people a day losing their jobs, what's he doing?" asks Biden. There was only one problem with Biden's question. It was based on a lie. Biden is always sticking his foot in his mouth.

If you look at the numbers from the Louisiana Workforce Commission. "In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release that added employment over the month," says Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission. According to her, not only is Louisiana not losing jobs. "The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures.

You don't even have to take my word for it, these are number you can check out yourself if you just go to laworks.net, there you can find the latest unemployment statistics, statistics that appear to directly contradict what the vice president said this morning.

Many who crunch the numbers credit a growing diverse economy for Louisiana's resilience to unemployment. Many others credit the massive tax cuts Governor Bobby Jindal passed with bipartisan support which freed up investors to develop a diverse pattern of economic growth.

It's unclear where the VP gets his numbers, but they certainly don't match numbers from the labor department. Many think he just made it up on the spot knowing the media would not call him on it. The unemployment rate in Louisiana is only 5.9. That is less than the national average, which sits at 7.2%.

Several reporters called the Whitehouse press office today and left a message for the vice president's office, but have not received a call back.

UNITED NATIONS WANT TO BAN FREE SPEECH

2009-02-26T08:04:00.001-08:00

Obama's Many Many Lies...

2009-02-24T15:51:00.001-08:00

Obama Rumors...

2009-02-24T15:33:00.000-08:00

How the economy was lost.

2009-02-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

Paul Craig Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy."

February 24, 2009

The American economy has gone away. It is not coming back until free trade myths are buried six feet under.

America’s 20th century economic success was based on two things. Free trade was not one of them. America’s economic success was based on protectionism, which was ensured by the union victory in the Civil War, and on British indebtedness, which destroyed the British pound as world reserve currency. Following World War II, the US dollar took the role as reserve currency, a privilege that allows the US to pay its international bills in its own currency.

Obama’s cabinet and National Economic Council are filled with representatives of the interest groups that caused the problem.
World War II and socialism together ensured that the US economy dominated the world at the mid 20th century. The economies of the rest of the world had been destroyed by war or were stifled by socialism [in terms of the priorities of the capitalist growth model. Editors.]

The ascendant position of the US economy caused the US government to be relaxed about giving away American industries, such as textiles, as bribes to other countries for cooperating with America’s cold war and foreign policies. For example, Turkey’s US textile quotas were increased in exchange for over-flight rights in the Gulf War, making lost US textile jobs an off-budget war expense.

In contrast, countries such as Japan and Germany used industrial policy to plot their comebacks. By the late 1970s, Japanese auto makers had the once dominant American auto industry on the ropes. The first economic act of the “free market” Reagan administration in 1981 was to put quotas on the import of Japanese cars in order to protect Detroit and the United Auto Workers.

Eamonn Fingleton, Pat Choate, and others have described how negligence in Washington DC aided and abetted the erosion of America’s economic position. What we didn’t give away, the United States let be taken away while preaching a “free trade” doctrine at which the rest of the world scoffed.

Fortunately, the U.S.’s adversaries at the time, the Soviet Union and China, had unworkable economic systems that posed no threat to America’s diminishing economic prowess.

This furlough from reality ended when Soviet, Chinese, and Indian socialism surrendered around 1990, to be followed shortly thereafter by the rise of the high speed Internet. Suddenly, American and other first world corporations discovered that a massive supply of foreign labor was available at practically free wages.

To get Wall Street analysts and shareholder advocacy groups off their backs, and to boost shareholder returns and management bonuses, American corporations began moving their production for American markets offshore. Products that were made in Peoria are now made in China.

As offshoring spread, American cities and states lost tax base, and families and communities lost jobs. The replacement jobs, such as selling the offshored products at Wal-Mart, brought home less pay.

“Free market economists” covered up the damage done to the US economy by preaching a New Economy based on services and innovation. But it wasn’t long before corporations discovered that the high speed Internet let them offshore a wide range of professional service jobs. In America, the hardest hit have been software engineers and information technology (IT) workers.
The American corporations quickly learned that by declaring “shortages” of skilled Americans, they could get from Congress H-1b work visas for lower paid foreigners with whom to replace their American work force. Many US corporations are known for forcing their US employees to train their foreign replacements in exchange for severance pay.

Chasing after shareholder return and “performance bonuses,” US corporations deserted their American workforce. The consequences can be seen everywhere. The loss of tax base has threatened the municipal bonds of cities and states and reduced the wealth of individuals who purchased the bonds. The lost jobs with good pay resulted in the expansion of consumer debt in order to maintain consumption. As the offshored goods and services are brought back to America to sell, the US trade deficit has exploded to unimaginable heights, calling into question the US dollar as reserve currency and America’s ability to finance its trade deficit.

As the American economy eroded away bit by bit, “free market” ideologues produced endless reassurances that America had pulled a fast one on China, sending China dirty and grimy manufacturing jobs. Free of these “old economy” jobs, Americans were lulled with promises of riches. In place of dirty fingernails, American efforts would flow into innovation and entrepreneurship. In the meantime, the “service economy” of software and communications would provide a leg up for the work force.

Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid. And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm. Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council.

The pressure of jobs offshoring, together with vast imports, has destroyed the economic prospects for all Americans, except the CEOs who receive “performance” bonuses for moving American jobs offshore or giving them to H-1b work visa holders. Lowly paid offshored employees, together with H-1b visas, have curtailed employment for older and more experienced American workers. Older workers traditionally receive higher pay. However, when the determining factor is minimizing labor costs for the sake of shareholder returns and management bonuses, older workers are unaffordable. Doing a good job, providing a good service, is no longer the corporation’s function. Instead, the goal is to minimize labor costs at all cost.
Thus, “free trade” has also destroyed the employment prospects of older workers. Forced out of their careers, they seek employment as shelf stockers for Wal-Mart.

I have read endless tributes to Wal-Mart from “libertarian economists,” who sing Wal-Mart’s praises for bringing low price goods, 70 per cent of which are made in China, to the American consumer. What these “economists” do not factor into their analysis is the diminution of American family incomes and government tax base from the loss of the goods producing jobs to China. Ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshoring, while California issues IOUs to pay its bills. The shift of production offshore reduces US GDP. When the goods and services are brought back to America to be sold, they increase the trade deficit. As the trade deficit is financed by foreigners acquiring ownership of US assets, this means that profits, dividends, capital gains, interest, rents, and tolls leave American pockets for foreign ones.

The demise of America’s productive economy left the US economy dependent on finance, in which the US remained dominant because the dollar is the reserve currency. With the departure of factories, finance went in new directions. Mortgages, which were once held in the portfolios of the issuer, were securitized. Individual mortgage debts were combined into a “security.” The next step was to strip out the interest payments to the mortgages and sell them as derivatives, thus creating a third debt instrument based on the original mortgages.

In pursuit of ever more profits, financial institutions began betting on the success and failure of various debt instruments and by implication on firms. They bought and sold collateral debt swaps. A buyer pays a premium to a seller for a swap to guarantee an asset’s value. If an asset “insured” by a swap falls in value, the seller of the swap is supposed to make the owner of the swap whole. The purchaser of a swap is not required to own the asset in order to contract for a guarantee of its value. Therefore, as many people could purchase as many swaps as they wished on the same asset. Thus, the total value of the swaps greatly exceeds the value of the assets.*

The next step is for holders of the swaps to short the asset in order to drive down its value and collect the guarantee. As the issuers of swaps were not required to reserve against them, and as there is no limit to the number of swaps, the payouts could easily exceed the net worth of the issuer.

This was the most shameful and most mindless form of speculation. Gamblers were betting hands that they could not cover. The US regulators fled their posts. The American financial institutions abandoned all integrity. As a consequence, American financial institutions and rating agencies are trusted nowhere on earth.

The US government should never have used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to pay off swap bets as it did when it bailed out the insurance company AIG. This was a stunning waste of a vast sum of money. The federal government should declare all swap agreements to be fraudulent contracts, except for a single swap held by the owner of the asset. Simply wiping out these fraudulent contracts would remove the bulk of the vast overhang of “troubled” assets that threaten financial markets.

The billions of taxpayers’ dollars spent buying up subprime derivatives were also wasted. The government did not need to spend one dime. All government needed to do was to suspend the mark-to-market rule. This simple act would have removed the solvency threat to financial institutions by allowing them to keep the derivatives at book value until financial institutions could ascertain their true values and write them down over time.

Taxpayers, equity owners, and the credit standing of the US government are being ruined by financial shysters who are manipulating to their own advantage the government’s commitment to mark-to-market and to the “sanctity of contracts.” Multi-trillion dollar “bailouts” and bank nationalization are the result of the government’s inability to respond intelligently.
Two more simple acts would have completed the rescue without costing the taxpayers one dollar: an announcement from the Federal Reserve that it will be lender of last resort to all depository institutions including money market funds, and an announcement reinstating the uptick rule.

The uptick rule was suspended or repealed a couple of years ago in order to permit hedge funds and shyster speculators to rip-off American equity owners. The rule prevented short-selling any stock that did not move up in price during the previous day. In other words, speculators could not make money at others’ expense by ganging up on a stock and short-selling it day after day.

As a former Treasury official, I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support. No bailout or stimulus plan has any hope until the uptick rule is reinstated.

The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen still prevails and is blocking any remedy. Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector.

The Bush and Obama plans total 1.6 trillion dollars, every one of which will have to be borrowed, and no one knows from where. This huge sum will compromise the value of the US dollar, its role as reserve currency, the ability of the US government to service its debt, and the price level. These staggering costs are pointless and are to no avail, as not one step has been taken that would alleviate the crisis.

If we add to my simple menu of remedies a ban, punishable by instant death, for short selling any national currency, the world can be rescued from the current crisis without years of suffering, violent upheavals and, perhaps, wars.

According to its hopeful but economically ignorant proponents, globalism was supposed to balance risks across national economies and to offset downturns in one part of the world with upturns in other parts. A global portfolio was a protection against loss, claimed globalism’s purveyors. In fact, globalism has concentrated the risks, resulting in Wall Street’s greed endangering all the economies of the world. The greed of Wall Street and the negligence of the US government have wrecked the prospects of many nations. Street riots are already occurring in parts of the world. On Sunday February 22, the right-wing TV station, Fox “News,” presented a program that predicted riots and disarray in the United States by 2014.

How long will Americans permit “their” government to rip them off for the sake of the financial interests that caused the problem? Obama’s cabinet and National Economic Council are filled with representatives of the interest groups that caused the problem. The Obama administration is not a government capable of preventing a catastrophe.

If truth be known, the “banking problem” is the least of our worries. Our economy faces two much more serious problems. One is that offshoring and H-1b visas have stopped the growth of family incomes, except, of course, for the super rich. To keep the economy going, consumers have gone deeper into debt, maxing out their credit cards and refinancing their homes and spending the equity. Consumers are now so indebted that they cannot increase their spending by taking on more debt. Thus, whether or not the banks resume lending is beside the point.

The other serious problem is the status of the US dollar as reserve currency. This status has allowed the US, now a country heavily dependent on imports just like a third world or lesser-developed country, to pay its international bills in its own currency. We are able to import $800 billion annually more than we produce, because the foreign countries from whom we import are willing to accept paper for their goods and services.

If the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreigners will not accept dollars in exchange for real things. This event would be immensely disruptive to an economy dependent on imports for its energy, its clothes, its shoes, its manufactured products, and its advanced technology products.

If incompetence in Washington, the type of incompetence that produced the current economic crisis, destroys the dollar as reserve currency, the “unipower” will overnight become a third world country, unable to pay for its imports or to sustain its standard of living.

How long can the US government protect the dollar’s value by leasing its gold to bullion dealers who sell it, thereby holding down the gold price? Given the incompetence in Washington and on Wall Street, our best hope is that the rest of the world is even less competent and even in deeper trouble. In this event, the US dollar might survive as the least valueless of the world’s fiat currencies.

Alan Keys Warns Us

2009-02-22T20:42:00.000-08:00

Lobbyists have more power than congressmen

2009-02-20T17:15:00.000-08:00

HOW BIG IS THE BAILOUT? HOW MUCH DID WE GIVE AWAY WITHOUT OVERSIGHT?

2009-02-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT TO 700 BILLION

AND THAT IS HOW MUCH WE GAVE THE FEDERAL RESERVE

TO WASTE WITHOUT OVERSIGHT...

THEY WON'T TELL US WHERE IS WENT.

WHY IS THERE NO OUTRAGE AT THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEFT OF AMERICAN WEALTH. THIS IS THE LARGEST BANK HEIST IN HISTORY!

AMERICA IS LOST!

Democrats self-destructing over ethics. The whole country is next.

2009-02-20T04:52:00.000-08:00

"The problem in Washington with ethics is there is too much power concentrated in one place. There is too much money at stake. There is too much corruption because there is too much power in too few hands. Because we have not followed the 10th amendment to our constitution we have created a power hungry federal monster. Democrats said they would clean up the ethics problems republicans had... but it turns out absolute power corrupts absolutely whether you are democrat or republican. We must return to following the 10th amendment and give all powers not expressly granted to the federal government in the constitution back to the 50 states. If we do not Washington will take more and more power and become more and more corrupt until we are in civil war." - Phenihas

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.
Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is only the latest embarrassment.

Senate Democrats accepted Burris because they believed what he told them: He was clean. Burris now admits he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.
"The story seems to be changing day by day," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.
The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.

_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation. It's partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.

_Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were provided millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.

_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration's point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs.
Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.

_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed after revealing he had tax troubles.

_Obama's initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.

_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.
The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed his anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.

"I do believe that the public statements made by Mr. Burris to this point have raised questions ... as to the nature of his relationship with the former governor and the circumstances surrounding his appointment," Durbin said.
Reid said in Nevada, "Now there's some question as to whether or not he told the truth."

Where to go next? Reid had no answer.

"What I think we have to do is just wait and see," the Senate leader said.

Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee. While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first early step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.

In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House after Democrats effectively used a "culture of corruption" theme against them.
The final scandal broke shortly before the election, when it was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, sent sexually suggestive e-mails and explicit instant messages to teenage boys who had served as House pages.
Republicans were further harmed when it was disclosed that several of their members were aware of the problem and failed to take action.

Democrats, who've been in control of both Congress and the White House less than two months now, are lucky on one point. The next congressional election is nearly two years away.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Larry Margasak has covered Congress, including major ethics investigations, since 1983.

Yes We Can!

2009-02-19T17:21:00.001-08:00

SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise To Give Americans 48 Hours To Read Bill Before Taking A Vote.

2009-02-13T08:11:00.000-08:00

In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.

“[I] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said.

“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”

Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.

The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:

"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."

Meanwhile, at an earlier presser Thursday, Pelosi -- while talking about legislation regarding school construction funds -- said it was vital to see the language of a bill before making decisions. ReadtheStimulus.org had the following quote:

“With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward."

"Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it, I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right."

Congressional members are also exchanging barbs via the popular social network Twitter. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) twittered, "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) twittered back, “Those in favor of speed over commonsense may just be afraid of letting the People know what they are ramming through.”

UPDATE: The Democrats finally made the bill's language available around 11 p.m. Thursday, approximately 10 hours before members meet Friday to consider the bill and 38 hours short of the time promised Americans to review the bill.

Democratic Senator says that No Senator 'Will Have the Chance' to Read Final Stimulus Bill Before Vote!

2009-02-13T08:01:00.000-08:00

Friday The 13, 2009
By Ryan Byrnes and Edwin Mora

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress. Is that not madness? They will be passing a bill to spend more money than ever and not even knowing how, where or why it will be spent?

“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com.

The final bill, crafted by a House-Senate conference committee, was posted on the Website of the House Appropriations Committe late Thurday in two PDF files.

The first PDF was 424 pages long and the second PDF was 575 pages long, making the total bill 999 pages long. The House is expected to vote on this 999-page bill Friday, and the Senate either later Friday or Saturday. [Editor's note: The first PDF, as posted on the House Appropriations Committee website as of 8:20 AM Friday morning, had grown by 72 pages to 496 pages, increasing the length of the total document to 1,071 pages.]

Of the several senators that CNSNews.com interviewed on Thursday, only Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) claimed to have read the entire bill--and he was speaking of the preliminary version that had been approved by the Senate, not the final 999-page version that the House-Senate conference committee was still haggling over on Thursday afternoon.

When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, "Yes."

And only one--Voinovich--volunteered that he had actually read the version of the bill that had passed the Senate.

Both Republicans and Democrats told CNSNews.com they were eager to read the unseen bill--once they could get get their hands on a copy of the final legislation.

Nonetheless, members from both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate admitted they doubted they would have adequate time to read the bill before they actually voted for it.

“Certainly I hope to have the opportunity to go through [the bill] before the vote takes place,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told CNSNews.com. “But that’s something I’ve found doesn’t always happen around here.”

Some lawmakers said one of the reasons they would not vote for the bill was because there would be no time to study it before it came up for a vote.

“The Democrats have thrown this at us very last-minute,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). “That’s why the rule of thumb in the United States Congress should be, ‘When in doubt, vote no,’ because the devil is in the details and that’s why this stimulus is not worthy of support.”

Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) shared that sentiment. “The American public expects for us to get in and know what we’re voting on,” Boozman said. “But there are very few members from Congress that are going to have time to actually read this thing.”

“This is not light reading,” Boozman added. “It’s difficult reading, it involves policy and things.”

“Right now, because of those things, I will probably vote against it,” he added.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), President Barack Obama's successor in the Senate, seemed baffled by the thought of actually reading the entire bill--as did his press secretary.

“I think it’s about 800 pages,” Burris's press secretary said before laughing lightly. “We’ll do the best we can.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said that due to the hasty process, he may not have time to read the whole bill.

“I will, as much as I can, get through all the changes that occurred in the conference committee,” says Thune.

“That’s assuming we have time to review it prior to the vote,” he added, “This is a very rushed process, the whole process, starting from the beginning has been very rushed.”

Voinovich, the only member of Congress who told CNSNews.com that he had taken the time to read through every line of the stimulus bill that had been initially approved by the Senate, said he planned to do the same for the final version of the bill that had been approved by the House-Senate conference committee.

But the Ohio Republican wasn’t sure if his colleagues would be as meticulous as he had been. “I don’t know,” he said, when asked if he thought others would read every line of the bill. “You’ll have to ask them.”

The bill is expected to land on President Obama’s desk no later than Monday, and the president is expected to sign it into law--whether the nation's lawmakers have read it or not.

Capitalism Vs Socialism

2009-02-06T17:12:00.001-08:00

Baby Born and put in plastic bag alive and thrown in trash

2009-02-05T21:29:00.000-08:00

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.

The state Board of Medicine is to hear Renelique's case in Tampa on Friday and determine whether to strip his license. The state attorney's homicide division is investigating, though no charges have been filed. Terry Chavez, a spokeswoman with the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office, said this week that prosecutors were nearing a decision.

Renelique's attorney, Joseph Harrison, called the allegations at best "misguided and incomplete" in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He didn't provide details.

The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic's actions constitute murder.

"The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage," said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. "People all over the country are just aghast."

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.

"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

According to state records, Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti. In 1991, he completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Interfaith Medical Center in New York.

New York records show that Renelique has made at least five medical malpractice payments in the past decade, the circumstances of which were not detailed in the filings.

Several attempts to reach Renelique were unsuccessful. Some of his office numbers were disconnected, no home number could be found and he did not return messages left with his attorney.

Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion, Pennekamp said. She declined an interview request made through him.

She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child, he said, and went to the Miramar Women's Center on July 17, 2006. Sonograms indicated she was 23 weeks pregnant, according to the Department of Health. She met Renelique at a second clinic two days later.

Renelique gave Williams laminaria, a drug that dilates the cervix, and prescribed three other medications, according to the administrative complaint filed by the Health Department. She was told to go to yet another clinic, A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, where the procedure would be performed the next day, on July 20, 2006.

Williams arrived in the morning and was given more medication.

The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn't shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.

"She came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything."

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

Williams' lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.

The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.

The department wants the Board of Medicine, a separate agency, to permanently revoke Renelique's license, among other penalties. His license is currently restricted, permitting him to only perform abortions when another licensed physician is present and can review his medical records.

Should prosecutors file murder charges, they'd have to prove the baby was born alive, said Robert Batey, a professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport. The defense might contend that the child would have died anyway, but most courts would not allow that argument, he said.

"Hastening the death of an individual who is terminally ill is still considered causing the death of that individual," Batey said. "And I think a court would rule similarly in this type of case."

The Fox In Charge Of Hen House

2009-02-05T06:47:00.000-08:00

As if parents and grandparents don’t already have enough to worry about with the dangerous content flooding the Internet, now the smut peddlers may soon have an ally at the very highest levels of the government. Obama always puts the fox in charge of the hen house. He puts tax evaders in charge of our bailout and IRS... Now he puts a pornographer in charge of enforcing decency laws.

President Barack Obama has chosen David Ogden to be the second in command at the Department of Justice as the Deputy Attorney General.

Who is David Ogden?

Ogden has served as the lawyer for Playboy and Penthouse magazines;
Ogden also has worked for a major distributor of adult films.
Ogden has served as a lawyer for the ACLU in various lawsuits.
Ogden represented an adult bookstore in Fort Wayne, Indiana in a lawsuit.
Ogden defended the right of pornographers to produce materials using underage actors.
Ogden has also opposed filters on library computers designed to protect children from Internet filth. He thinks porn should be available to kids in libraries.
Ogden represented Playboy magazine in a lawsuit against Attorney General Ed Meese becuase Meese wanted Playboy included in a list of pornographic materials for the Attorney General's report on the dangers of pornograhy.

A news report for the adult industry praised the nomination of Ogden saying, "This is a good sign for the adult industry."

David Ogden is not the kind of person most parents and grandparents really want in charge of obscenity crime prosecutions or controling the spread of sex trafficking, child exploitation and other vital decency issues.

Here is What Socialized Medicine Looks Like

2009-02-04T12:38:00.000-08:00

THEY HAVE ROOM AND MONEY FOR ROBOTS BUT NOT PATIENTS IN JAPANESE HOSPITALS.

TOKYO (AP) - After getting struck by a motorcycle, an elderly Japanese man with head injuries waited in an ambulance as paramedics phoned 14 hospitals, each refusing to treat him. He died 90 minutes later at one facility that finally relented—one of thousands of victims repeatedly turned away in recent years by understaffed and overcrowded state run hospitals.

Paramedics arrived at the accident scene within minutes after the man on a bicycle collided with a motorcycle in the western city of Itami. But 14 hospitals contacted to provide medical care for the injured 69-year-old all refused to admit him citing a lack of specialists, equipment, beds and staff, according to Mitsuhisa Ikemoto, a fire department official.

The Jan. 20 incident was the latest in a string of recent cases in Japan in which patients were denied treatment, underscoring health care woes in a rapidly aging society that faces an acute shortage of doctors and a growing number of elderly patients. There are not enough young people to pay for their socialized plan.

The motorcyclist, also hurt in the accident, was denied admission by two hospitals before a third accepted him, Ikemoto said. He was recovering from his injuries.

The man's death prompted the city to issue a directive ordering paramedics to better coordinate with an emergency call center so patients can find a hospital within 15 minutes. But hospitals still cannot be punished for turning away patients if they are already full.

Similar problems have occurred frequently in recent years. More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007, the latest government survey showed.

In the worst case, a woman in her 70s with a breathing problem was rejected 49 times in Tokyo.

There was also the high-profile death of a pregnant woman in western Nara city in 2006 that prompted the government to establish a panel to look into hospitals turning patients away.

In that incident, the woman was refused admission by 19 hospitals that said they were full and could not treat her. She died eight days later from a brain hemorrhage after falling unconscious during birth.

Health Minister Yoichi Masuzoe told a parliamentary committee late last year that the rising number of elderly patients hospitalized for months was in part clogging up space for those needing emergency treatment.

Masuzoe urged the development of a community-wide support system to ease the burden on overcrowded and understaffed hospitals.

Free markets adjust to the needs of customers........ Government programs do not respond to needs, even life and death needs.

Google knows where you are at all times.

2009-02-04T09:15:00.000-08:00

Google knows where you are at all times if you give them your cell phone number. If you allow them, they will let other people track where you are too.

How Did This Man End Up Leader Of The US Senate?

2009-02-03T18:10:00.000-08:00

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Stimulus Bill would ban money to buildings used for religious instruction.

2009-02-03T15:07:00.000-08:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…unless your institution of higher learning is getting part of the massive (nearly $900-billion and counting) Obama/Reid/Pelosi stimulus proposal.

Both versions of the bill, the House version (H.R. 1) that passed on Jan. 28 by a 244-188 margin, without a single Republican vote, and the Senate version (S. 336), which will probably be voted on in the next few days – include language that would “prohibit” modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities: (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission

Such language is unconstitutional and could leave some institutions of higher learning susceptible to a legal action by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) according to a spokesman from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint’s office.

Hillary Appointment UNconstitutional

2009-01-31T13:57:00.000-08:00

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)).

The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States.

Under the “Emoluments” or “Ineligibility” clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the “emoluments” of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.

Specifically, article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides, “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.

Life In A Jar!

2009-01-27T15:10:00.000-08:00

There recently was the death of a 98-year-old lady named Irena Sendler who history forgot.

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist.

She an ulterior motive...

She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German).

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of her tool box she carried, and she also carried in the back of her truck a Burlap sack, (for larger kids).

She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto.

The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.

She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs and arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it, and reunited the family.

Most, of course, had been gassed.

Those kids she helped were placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007 Irena was finally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize...

She LOST.

Al Gore won for doing a movie of his slide show on Global Warming which British Courts have found was so full of inaccuracies that it was not allowed to be shown in British public schools without a warning that its not true.

Learn More at:
http://www.irenasendler.org/

Obama’s Unconstitutional Agenda: GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

2009-01-26T06:35:00.000-08:00

PELOSI SAYS FUNDING BABY KILLING, CONDOMS AND THE PILL WILL HELP ECONOMY

2009-01-26T06:29:00.000-08:00

Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." This money will go to help fund giving out the pill, condoms and fund abortions.

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

CULT OF OBAMA!

2009-01-20T13:19:00.000-08:00

Can you see what is happening here?

Creepy Ain't It?

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.

Very Very Creepy!

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Say What?

2009-01-20T10:32:00.000-08:00

Benediction at Obama 's inauguration, Rev. Joseph Lowery: 'Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'..

Will Obama Keep His Promise Today? I hope not.

2009-01-20T08:02:00.000-08:00

We are only a moments away from the inauguration of President Barack Obama. During the campaign, Barack Obama left little doubt where he stands on the issue of abortion. Now that he is about to be sworn in, will he continue to be so stridently pro-abortion?

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama told the American people exactly what his first act as president would be:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

-- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

The Freedom of Choice Act is truly an insidious piece of legislation. It would basically invalidate every single restriction on abortion in every U.S. state - even those that the Supreme Court of the United States previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade.

The Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate all parental notification laws, waiting period laws, and all requirements for full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks of having an abortion.

It would also overturn the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and it would deny the right of religiously-based hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.

So that is what Barack Obama would accomplish.

On his first day.

Since 1973, more than 40 MILLION innocent babies have been chopped up and slaughtered in the American abortion mills.

What the United States has done is beyond imagination. The reality is that we have dissected our babies, burned them alive, sucked their brains out and yet the American people seem to care about this issue less than ever.

How far down the toilet have we gone as a society when we kill about a million babies a year, and nobody even gets upset about it anymore?

Is there any hope?

Is there any chance that Barack Obama could change his mind?

Well, Barack Obama is so rabidly pro-abortion that he even voted AGAINST a bill that would have provided medical care for infants that survived an abortion procedure. Even Hillary Clinton was not in favor of that.

For a full examination of what Obama believes regarding abortion watch the following video.....

Let's take a really quick look at one very cruel method of abortion which the Freedom of Choice Act would once again legalize.....

Five steps to a partial birth abortion:

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.

2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

America must wake up while it still can.

This is a tragedy of unprecedented magnitude that cannot be ignored. Do you really think God will let us get away with this forever? Repent America!!

Here is why the head of NASA will be fired by Obama....

2009-01-19T15:04:00.000-08:00

NASA Says Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

spaceandscience.net Jan 13, 2008

Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the NASA & SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

Obama's Inauguration Has Been Financed Partially by Bailed-Out Wall Street Executives

2009-01-19T14:56:00.000-08:00

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama. Why? Political favors later.

Employees at banks, brokerages and Wall Street firms donated $7 million Barack Obama's inauguration. Where did they get the money... from the tax payer via a bailout.

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 1993.

Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.

But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.

"They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite." Payola Baby!

Now Obama owes them politcally and we owe the federal reserve for the money they loaned wall street big wigs to give it back to Obama.

Another Stake In Global Warmings Heart - by CRANKY GEORGE

2009-01-17T06:12:00.000-08:00

With temps across this country dipping to (or even past) 15-year lows, I thought I might to do another blog entry on the issue of Global Warming. It just seems like a week doesn't go by without another fact or two that refutes the false belief that we are in the midst of a worldly overheating due to man-made CO2 emissions. Here are a sampling of things that I have read over the last few weeks that just help to blow a hole in all this Global Warming hype and panic.

One thing that the fanatical global warmists always point to as a disaster that could literally swamp the modern world we live in is the anticipated melting of the polar ice caps. The worst case scenario is one where we could lose half of California and all of Florida and much of the world's coast line cities to flooding as the polar ice melts . Well, surprise..surprise! In just two month's time, at the tail end of 2008, the polar ice caps returned to levels that haven't been seen since 1979 (See Full Story). The reason that this happening is the frigid temps that we saw in the last part of 2008 and that are continuing as of today.

With all of these cold temperatures upon us, it might be wise to read this 3-page story from the Russian news agency, Pravda, that, in essence, says we are now entering into another Ice Age (See Full Story). That article also takes aim at the liberal academics, and not necessarily scientists, who promulgating the carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas theory. Of particular importance is this graph of ice cores taken from the Russian science facilities at Vostok, Antarctica (Click To See Chart). Clearly, even the non-scientific person can easily see that there are regular periods of heating and cooling of this earth that have occurred over thousands of years and, 99.9999999999999999%+ of which occurred without any of the influence of man's carbon output from power stations and automobiles. My problem with most Global Warming theories is that they give too much prominence to the activities of mankind in this world than should be and they use such a small sample, this last century, to conclude that man is destroying the earth. To me, even with all of our cars and power stations and flatulent cattle and poultry, we still have less impact on this earth than most natural events like forest fires and volcanic eruptions. And, there is no way mankind can compete with the effects of sun activity.

The last bit of information that I find interesting comes from our own U.S. Climate Survey data for December of 2008 which, then, looks backwards to the year 1895 when official record keeping began (See Current Data). By their own statistics, this last December was almost a full degree cooler than the average of all Decembers in the last century. So, where's all this heating and the famous hockey-stick rise in temperatures that Al Gore has warned us of? I would think temperatures would be consistently getting warmer if, in fact, carbon dioxide was actually affecting our climate. Further, last December was the 35th coolest December in a century of data. Beyond all that, you always hear from all those silly people pushing this global warming theory that temperatures could rise as much as a full degree in the next decade. If you look closely at the text of the U.S. Climate Survey's review of December 2008, it clearly states that temperatures in America have only risen an average of one-tenth of a degree per decade. That's a degree every hundred years. Now, with temperature falling in the last two years, I don't see this disastrous one degree leap in temps that would cause us to act immediately or the world will be doomed. If you listen to Al Gore, it might already be too late to save the world! Please!

One last thing about the melting of sea ice and floating icebergs. When I was kid, I loved to watch the General Electric sponsored science show, Mr. Wizard. As part of that show, Mr. Wizard would do experiments that you could repeat at home with simple, everyday things. One experiment that always stuck in my mind was his "water and ice" experiment. By repeating that experiment, you can truly amaze and mystify all Global Warming friends. Take a straight-sided, clear drinking glass and fill it half way with ice. Then fill that glass with water to the absolute brim; but, not overflowing. You will note that the ice will float and, some of the ice will clearly protrude from the top of the glass. What you have just created is your own mini-iceberg. You know, the ice that all those global warmists fear will all melt and flood the earth. To the non-scientist, most people would bet that water will run all over the place as protruding ice in the glass completely melts. But, it won't. That's because the water level has already been adjusted to account for the complete (above and below water) volume of that ice. So, all the floating sea ice in the entire world can melt into oblivion and won't result in any increased level of the seas. Only ice that is land-based and that melts and runs off into our oceans will result in increase ocean levels. That volume of land ice is substantially less than the volume of ice that is floating around the polar areas. In fact, the area of the North Pole is all floating ice in what is also known as the Arctic Ocean. Only Antarctica, the South Pole, has a land mass and can be legitimately called a continent. However, the South Pole is the coldest place on earth so it would take more than a just degree or two of projected overall global warming before the ice in this part of our world would have any significant melting. The coldest temps in Antarctica can actually hit -130 degrees Fahrenheit in the dead of winter; and, that's about 162 degrees (on the Fahrenheit scale) below the point where ice would melt.

From http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-stake-in-global-warmings-heart.html

Quick video with important lesson on the US Form of Government.

2009-01-12T14:24:00.001-08:00

This should be shown in every american classroom

Global Warming Myth Freezing To Death

2009-01-10T07:10:00.000-08:00

Sound science put to rest numerous unsubstantiated global warming scares in 2008. Sensationalist predictions that the North Pole would melt, polar bear numbers would decline, hurricanes would run amok, devastating droughts would occur, and Antarctic ice sheets would flood the southern seas never materialized.

Unfortunately, this will not stop the purveyors of gloom and doom from creating similar false global warming scares and sensationalist predictions for 2009.

Keeping in mind the following 10 global warming truths will help us avoid falling prey to global warming scams in the upcoming New Year.

Global temperatures are not rising. The warmest year in the past century occurred a full decade ago, in 1998. Temperatures have been gradually and steadily falling for most of the past decade. Temperatures in 2008 were no warmer than temperatures in 1980.

The Earth is colder than its long-term average. For most of the past 10,000 years, global temperatures have been 1.0 to 3.0 degrees Celsius warmer than our current climate. Twentieth century temperatures appear unusually warm only when compared to the preceding Little Ice Age, which had the coldest global temperatures of the past 10 millennia. The rise of human civilization occurred in a much warmer climate than that of today.

Polar bear populations are not declining; they’re thriving. The global polar bear population has more than doubled since the 1980s. Moreover, polar bears had no problems surviving and flourishing in the much warmer temperatures that dominated the past 10,000 years.

Polar ice is not shrinking. Arctic sea ice has moderately declined in recent years, due in large part to a recent shift in regional wind patterns. But in the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctic sea ice has been growing at a record pace. Polar ice as a whole is right on its long-term average.

Global warming is not causing more droughts. Throughout the twentieth century and since, global precipitation has been increasing, as has global soil moisture. A recent paper in one of the world’s foremost peer-reviewed science journals noted, “the terrestrial surface is literally becoming more like a gardener’s greenhouse”--an environment that is great for plant growth.

Higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not killing sea life. Numerous recent studies show that aquatic ecosystems become more productive and robust under higher carbon dioxide conditions. Assertions that higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause harmful ocean acidification are unsupported by real-world evidence, ignore the prevalence of shellfish during prior geological periods when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and would apply to only a small subset of aquatic creatures versus the vast majority of aquatic life that benefits from higher atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Global warming is not causing more extreme weather. The frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events is no greater now than in prior decades and centuries. Even daily high temperature records were more frequently broken 70 years ago, in the 1930s, than they are today.

Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.

Global deserts are not growing. On the contrary, the Sahara Desert and others like it have been retreating for decades.

Scientists do not agree on a policy of alarmism. More than 32,000 scientists have signed a formal statement, prepared by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-authored by an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University, saying there is no global warming crisis. By contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has only 2,600 participants, many of whom are not scientists, and counts the staff of activist groups Environmental Defense and Greenpeace as its lead authors.

James M. Taylor (jtaylor@heartland.org) is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

Corrupt Federal Reserve - Robbing Americans Since 1913

2009-01-09T07:26:00.000-08:00

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

The Government Computers Are Listening To ALL Cell Phone Calls and Reading Your Email

2009-01-09T06:42:00.000-08:00

Nat Hentoff - The Village Voice
January 7, 2009

Barack Obama will be in charge of the biggest domestic and international spying operation in history. Its prime engine is the National Security Agency (NSA)—located and guarded at Fort Meade, Maryland, about 10 miles northeast of Washington, D.C. A brief glimpse of its ever-expanding capacity was provided on October 26 by The Baltimore Sun’s national security correspondent, David Wood: “The NSA’s colossal Cray supercomputer, code-named the ‘Black Widow,’ scans millions of domestic and international phone calls and e-mails every hour. . . . The Black Widow, performing hundreds of trillions of calculations per second, searches through and reassembles key words and patterns, across many languages.”

In July, George W. Bush signed into law the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which gives the NSA even more power to look for patterns that suggest terrorism links in Americans’ telephone and Internet communications.

The ACLU immediately filed a lawsuit on free speech and privacy grounds. The new Bush law provides farcical judicial supervision over the NSA and other government trackers and databasers. Although Senator Barack Obama voted for this law, dig this from the ACLU: “The government [is now permitted] to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it’s conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.”

WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS?

Feds Giving Bailout Money Away But Will Not Tell To Who Or For What!

2009-01-09T06:14:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a congressional panel overseeing the $700 billion bailout program said Friday that lawmakers need to "take a very hard look" at how banks have used the money.

"I'm shocked that we have to ask these questions," said Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, "but what I will say is that I'm not giving up on this. The best news is that these questions have gotten a lot of attention and a lot of people are demanding answers and when a lot of people demand answers, things start to change."

Warren appeared on a nationally broadcast television show Friday as the Congressional Oversight Panel she heads released a report featuring questions about how banks are spending taxpayer money, how the money will combat the rising tide of home foreclosures and Treasury's overall strategy for the rescue.

But Treasury's Dec. 30 response "did not provide complete answers to several of the questions and failed to address a number of the questions at all," said the panel's second report.

The new document cited an Associated Press investigation that found none of the banks was willing to disclose what they were doing with hundreds of billions of dollars distributed through direct injections of federal money.

"For Treasury to advance funds to these institutions without requiring more transparency further erodes the very confidence Treasury seeks to restore," it said.

Appearing Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Warren said that Treasury "didn't put any tracking mechanisms on it."

"They didn't tell the banks what they had to do in order to get the money. It might be used for lending, it might be used to buy other banks ... Or it might just be stuffed in vaults and left there," she said.

"I think that Congress may want to take a very hard look at that question," Warren added. "Ultimately, we don't have a badge, don't have a gun. It's up to Congress."

"In my view, the heart of this problem started with the housing bubble and the mortgage foreclosure mess and in my view, that's where the solution should start as well," Warren said.

Most of the panel's report argues that better responses to unanswered questions are "essential" and explains why it believes Treasury's earlier responses were insufficient.

"Treasury has still not explained precisely what it sees as the problem," reads one assessment of a response deemed inadequate.

At several points, the report tartly explains the meanings of simple terms such as "strategy" and "oversight."

Referring to a question of why Treasury has required Citigroup, but not other firms that got money, to modify mortgages, the report says: "Treasury's refusal to answer this question is one of the most troubling aspects of their letter. The panel intends to do more fact finding on this matter."

Line after line of the column marked "Treasury Response" says simply, "No response."

The panel repeatedly states its reluctance to take Treasury's reassurances at face value.

"Treasury may be 'confident' that it is 'pursuing the right strategy to stabilize the financial system and support the flow of credit to our economy,' but once again, the function of oversight is to evaluate that claim," the report reads. "The question remains unanswered."

The panel's next official action will be a public hearing next Wednesday.

Global Warming Lie Used to Justify 50% increase in Gas Tax & tracking every where you drive

2009-01-02T03:33:00.000-08:00

What Will We Do When We Can't Afford Gas Anymore?

WASHINGTON -- A 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by a federal commission until the government devises another way to control traffic, pay for roads, and offset our carbon footprint.

The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing, a 15-member panel created by Congress, is the second group in a year to call for higher fuel taxes.

In a report expected in late January, members of the infrastructure financing commission say they will urge Congress to raise the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon and the diesel fuel tax by 12 to 15 cents a gallon. At the same time, the commission will recommend tying the fuel tax rates to inflation.

According to a draft of the financing commission's recommendations, the nation needs to move to a new system that taxes motorists according to how much they use roads.

"Most if not all of the commissioners have a strong belief and commitment that we need a fundamental transformation of the current system," said commission chairman Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a technology policy think tank in Washington.

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, in a report issued in January 2008, to call for an increase of as much as 40 cents a gallon in the gas tax, phased in over five years.

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said. The point is to try to make americans drive less by making them pay more.

The financing commission thinks the long-term solution is a mileage-based revenue system. While details have not been worked out, such a system would mean equipping every car and truck with a device that uses global positioning satellites and transponders to record how many miles the vehicle has been driven, the type of roads and time of day.

Using this kind of technology to track driving would violate drivers' privacy, and you can be assured that such a system would be used to track every americans movements.

The police will not give speeding tickets anymore. If you go over the posted speed limit, the satellite tracking system will report it and automatically take the money from your bank account electronically.

Welcome to the Obamanation!

Four Quick Facts To Share With Friends To Prove Global Warming Is A Lie:

2009-01-01T14:40:00.000-08:00

Polar Ice Cap Is Growing Not Shrinking!

By Daily Telegraph

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.

1. Temperatures are falling, not rising
As Christopher Booker says in his review of 2008, temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the "winter from hell". This winter looks set to be even worse.

2. The earth was hotter 1,000 years ago
Evidence from all over the world indicates that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. Research shows that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

3. The earth’s surface temperature is not at record levels
According to Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

4. Ice is not disappearing
Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. Polar bear numbers are also at record levels.

Email this to a friends and family. It's too important to allow everyone to believe a lie!

The President Can Now Declare Martial Law For Any Reason Any Time

2009-01-01T07:12:00.000-08:00

The president should NOT be able to suspend the Constitution on a whim and without congress. This is madness!

Obama's Eligibility Questioned By Supreme Court on Jan. 9th

2008-12-28T14:37:00.000-08:00

A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.

The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.

Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."

On Berg's Obama Crimes.com website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.

WND has reported Berg's case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.

"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for 'conference' on January 9," the website said.

"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis,'" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."

WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.

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 190,000 others and sign up now!

The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.

As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged 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 of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.

Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injuction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved.

Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

"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 the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "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."

With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.

That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.

A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone 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 image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.

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?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.

What do Lincoln, Garfield, and Kennedy all have in common?

2008-12-28T12:57:00.000-08:00

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." - President James Garfield

What do Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, and John Kennedy all have in common, besides being assassinated while President of the US?

They all three instated a sovereign currency. This was not friendly to the International Bankers interests.

Ronald Reagan spoke of it, and he nearly died. His public statements regarding the Fed changed in a hurry AFTER he was shot.

LBJ's first official act as President, upon Kennedy's assassination was to abolish it again.

James Garfield said the following just weeks before he was killed:

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.... And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

President John F. Kennedy planned to exterminate the Federal Reserve System. In 1963 he signed Executive Orders EO-11 and EO-110, returning to the government the responsibility to print money, taking that privilege away from the Federal Reserve System.

Shortly thereafter, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The professional, triangulated fire that executed the President of the United States is not the most shocking issue. The high- level coordination that organized the widespread coverup is manifest evidence of the incredible power of a "hidden government" behind the scenes.

UK Newspaper: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

2008-12-27T17:22:00.000-08:00

By Christopher Booker

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.

As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.

I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest "metric martyr", the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council's vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce "by the bowl" (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don't understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.

Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original "martyrs" who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column's readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).

Readers were equally generous this year in rushing to the aid of Sue Smith, whose son was killed in a Snatch Land Rover in Iraq in 2005. Their contributions made it possible for her to carry on with the High Court action she has brought against the Ministry of Defence, with the sole aim of calling it to account for needlessly risking soldiers' lives by sending them into battle in hopelessly inappropriate vehicles. Thanks not least to Mrs Smith's determined fight, the Snatch Land Rover scandal, first reported here in 2006, has at last become a national cause to celebrate.

May I finally thank all those readers who have written to me in 2008 – so many that, as usual, it has not been possible to answer all their messages. But their support and information has been hugely appreciated. May I wish them and all of you a happy (if globally not too warm) New Year.

NEWS FLASH: MAN ABOUT TO TELL ALL ON BUSH ENDS UP DEAD!

2008-12-26T08:30:00.000-08:00

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT

Obama's Problem Just Wont Go Away - Where was he born?

2008-12-26T07:46:00.000-08:00

INDIANAPOLIS -- Two Indiana men filed a lawsuit claiming that President-elect Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as president.

The suit questions whether Obama meets the constitutional requirement that the president must be a "natural born citizen."
Obama's birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, but his father was not a U.S. citizen and some have claimed the document is a fake.

The Indianapolis Star reports the Indiana suit was filed in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis by Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn.

It names Gov. Mitch Daniels and the Republican and Democratic national committees as defendants, saying they failed to uphold the Constitution when they certified results of the November election. It asks Judge David Dreyer to throw out the election results.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, why doesn't he just produce the actual birth certificate in a court of law? Problem solved. Millions of dollars saved, courts not clogged up for days with needless litigation..... unless he wasn't born in Hawaii and he doesn't have a real birth certificate.

Video - Political Correctness Vs. Freedom Of Thought

2008-12-25T09:59:00.000-08:00