Print Page - Falling Toward Socialism and Worse

In varying degrees, this is the opposite of FREEDOM, and that's where we are headed.

Things started out gradually with the "NEW DEAL". It was argued that it was okay for many reasons, but mainly because there was an emergency. INCOME TAX started out in the same way - as a temporary emergency. UM? - things like this rarely end up being temporary - DO THEY?

There was a time when hungry people and people with other life-sustaining needs were taken care of by churches and the generosity of big-hearted people who wanted to help. This is called FREEDOM. The government didn't STEAL your money by force and give it to someone you don't know - for a reason you don't know.

There was a time when the individual person chose what charities they wanted to support financially, and that's part of FREEDOM. You got to look at all of the circumstances and decide YES or NO on helping - based on your own opinions, not those of government. This pertained to every NECESSITY OF LIFE, and nobody dreamed of trying to make you buy someone a house, a car, a television, and other NON-NECESSITIES OF LIFE. It was just a MATTER OF COMMON SENSE. A BASIS RULE OF THUMB involved EATING: you worked if you wanted to EAT. You didn't STEAL someone else's food or ask the government to do the STEALING FOR YOU because that wouldn't be FREEDOM. Things did start out gradually and most didn't object too harshly because people were starving to death. We've made a lot of SO-CALLED PROGRESS since then, and now they want to force us to pay for ABORTIONS in our country and others. Under the theory of COMMON SENSE AND FREEDOM, one would have to think that things like this COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FORCED! WATCH and see what they're about to do.

Average Christians, regardless of wealth, still help more people than anyone else - AND that's over and beyond the money that the government STEALS from them. Being big-hearted and wanting to help someone is also a MATTER OF FREEDOM. Please keep in mind this is the opposite of being FORCED - COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY - FREEDOM! In a free country, you get what you earn, and you keep what you earn to spend however you wish, and that certainly includes helping others you want to help. There IS NO RIGHT to a house, a car, television set, or many other things that we are CURRENTLY FORCED to buy for others. This is SLAVERY - NOT FREEDOM! There is NO RIGHT to lay around getting drunk or high and thinking that it's only right for the government to force someone else to pay your bills. There shouldn't be ANY FREE LUNCH unless someone WANTS to VOLUNTARILY GIVE you one. Otherwise, you WORK if you want to EAT. It was WRONG to give generations of people what they need or want FROM THE LABOR OF OTHERS. This sent the WRONG MESSAGE to everyone and ended up victimizing the ENTIRE SOCIETY: the receivers - the government FORCIBLY STEALING - and the people being STOLEN FROM. This was a disaster of EPIC proportions where NOBODY WON - MORALS WERE DESTROYED - AND FREEDOM STARTED DISAPPEARING at an ever-increasingly rapid rate. NOW we are being FORCED to rescue banks and other businesses because their OWN CORRUPTION SUNK THEIR SHIP. The same people responsible for the CORRUPTION, including our GOVERNMENT, are the ones applying the funds we were forced to give in THE BAILOUT! Our GOVERNMENT doesn't know where 350 BILLION DOLLARS WENT - so they WANT 800 BILLION DOLLARS MORE! What happened to FREEDOM, morals, values, and ethics in the meantime? NEWSFLASH - Those things are either gone, or they are disappearing rapidly. The BIG QUESTION is not "Are we becoming a SOCIALIST COUNTRY," rather "HOW FAR ARE WE FROM BECOMING A HARDCORE COMMUNIST COUNTRY? Those of us who are old enough can reflect back on what FREEDOM AND A FREE COUNTRY used to mean!

Brother,

I think that Ephesians 6 fits this perfectly. We should know that the desired path of this world is not TOWARD GOD, rather the opposite. At the end of the desired path, there are systems of government that hate GOD and Christians. GOD is mocked and Christians are either persecuted or killed. WHY? They don't want to hear that THERE IS AN ALMIGHTY GOD IN CHARGE. They can't stand the thought of a RIGHTFUL AND RIGHTEOUS AUTHORITY FIGURE, and Christians talking about that Authority Figure represents a DANGER to their own power and authority over the people. That DICTATOR or POLITICAL PARTY wants to be god, and it's inconvenient for anyone else to define right and wrong. After all, ALMIGHTY GOD CALLS THEM WRONG!

I turned to this portion of Scripture in the Amplified Bible and wanted to share it with everyone. By the way, this is a wonderful Bible Study for everyone - ONE that we NEED!

Ephesians 6:10-13 AMP In conclusion, be strong in the Lord [be empowered through your union with Him]; draw your strength from Him [that strength which His boundless might provides]. 11 Put on God's whole armor [the armor of a heavy-armed soldier which God supplies], that you may be able successfully to stand up against [all] the strategies and the deceits of the devil. 12 For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere. 13 Therefore put on God's complete armor, that you may be able to resist and stand your ground on the evil day [of danger], and, having done all [the crisis demands], to stand [firmly in your place].

In case any of our readers are wondering, the greatest forces of evil are fallen angels - the leader being called by many names: devil, satan, lucifer, and some names that are even complementary. See the below for an interesting cross-reference - also from the Amplified Bible.

Isaiah 14:11-32 AMP Your pomp and magnificence are brought down to Sheol (the underworld), along with the sound of your harps; the maggots [which prey upon dead bodies] are spread out under you and worms cover you [O Babylonian rulers]. 12 How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!] 13 And you said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit upon the mount of assembly in the uttermost north. 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. 15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol (Hades), to the innermost recesses of the pit (the region of the dead). 16 Those who see you will gaze at you and consider you, saying, Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms?-- 17 Who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who would not permit his prisoners to return home? 18 All the kings of the nations, all of them lie sleeping in glorious array, each one in his own sepulcher. 19 But you are cast away from your tomb like a loathed growth or premature birth or an abominable branch [of the family] and like the raiment of the slain; and you are clothed with the slain, those thrust through with the sword, who go down to the stones of the pit [into which carcasses are thrown], like a dead body trodden underfoot. 20 You shall not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land and have slain your people. May the descendants of evildoers nevermore be named! 21 Prepare a slaughtering place for his sons because of the guilt and iniquity of their fathers, so that they may not rise, possess the earth, and fill the face of the world with cities. 22 And I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon name and remnant, and son and son's son, says the Lord. 23 I will also make it a possession of the hedgehog and porcupine, and of marshes and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the Lord of hosts. 24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, Surely, as I have thought and planned, so shall it come to pass, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand-- 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, and upon My mountains I will tread him underfoot. Then shall the [Assyrian's] yoke depart from [the people of Judah], and his burden depart from their shoulders. 26 This is the [Lord's] purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth [regarded as conquered and put under tribute by Assyria]; and this is [His omnipotent] hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who can annul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? 28 In the year that King Ahaz [of Judah] died there came this mournful, inspired prediction (a burden to be lifted up): 29 Rejoice not, O Philistia, all of you, because the rod [of Judah] that smote you is broken; for out of the serpent's root shall come forth an adder [King Hezekiah of Judah], and its [the serpent's] offspring will be a fiery, flying serpent. [II Kings 18:1, 3, 8.] 30 And the firstborn of the poor and the poorest of the poor [of Judah] shall feed on My meadows, and the needy will lie down in safety; but I will kill your root with famine, and your remnant shall be slain. 31 Howl, O gate! Cry, O city! Melt away, O Philistia, all of you! For there is coming a smoke out of the north, and there is no straggler in his ranks and none stands aloof [in Hezekiah's battalions]. 32 What then shall one answer the messengers of the [Philistine] nation? That the Lord has founded Zion, and in her shall the poor and afflicted of His people trust and find refuge.

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on January 25, 2009, 08:30:39 AM

There was a time when hungry people and people with other life-sustaining needs were taken care of by churches and the generosity of big-hearted people who wanted to help. This is called FREEDOM. The government didn't STEAL your money by force and give it to someone you don't know - for a reason you don't know.

While I agree with your basic argument in this thread, the above is simply not true. Governments have been involved in taking care of those who couldn't care for themselves since the Puritans settled in Massachusetts. I remember reading a complaint from someone in Connecticut in colonial days that a person "was taking too long to die and burdening the taxpayers"! Welfare was the responsibility of local, not Federal governments, but it was still a government function.

Churches should meet the need, but have never been very effective at doing it.

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on January 25, 2009, 08:30:39 AM

There was a time when the individual person chose what charities they wanted to support financially, and that's part of FREEDOM. You got to look at all of the circumstances and decide YES or NO on helping - based on your own opinions, not those of government. This pertained to every NECESSITY OF LIFE, and nobody dreamed of trying to make you buy someone a house, a car, a television, and other NON-NECESSITIES OF LIFE. It was just a MATTER OF COMMON SENSE. A BASIS RULE OF THUMB involved EATING: you worked if you wanted to EAT. You didn't STEAL someone else's food or ask the government to do the STEALING FOR YOU because that wouldn't be FREEDOM. Things did start out gradually and most didn't object too harshly because people were starving to death. We've made a lot of SO-CALLED PROGRESS since then, and now they want to force us to pay for ABORTIONS in our country and others. Under the theory of COMMON SENSE AND FREEDOM, one would have to think that things like this COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FORCED! WATCH and see what they're about to do.

I agree here. Some on welfare live better than those who work to pay for it. Welfare should only pay for the basic necessities of life, and then only for those who are really unable to work. Those who can work should be made to either get a job or do public service in return for benefits.

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on January 25, 2009, 08:30:39 AM

Average Christians, regardless of wealth, still help more people than anyone else - AND that's over and beyond the money that the government STEALS from them. Being big-hearted and wanting to help someone is also a MATTER OF FREEDOM. Please keep in mind this is the opposite of being FORCED - COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY - FREEDOM! In a free country, you get what you earn, and you keep what you earn to spend however you wish, and that certainly includes helping others you want to help.

Maybe. While there is no forced giving in the Bible, (God loves a cheerful giver) the principle is that it is God's money, not yours, and that you should be using it as God directs. The attitude should be that God has blessed you with it, not that "I earned it by my own skills and effort and it is mine to do with as I like". Too many Christians seem to forget this.

It is ironic that those who condemned welfare for individuals over the last decades - right wing businessmen and financiers, are now lined up at the public trough for corporate welfare! And while there is a lot in the Bible about helping the poor, there is absolutely nothing about giving to bail out poorly run businesses.

Quote from: pastor roger

The "NEW DEAL" initiated by President F. D. Roosevelt did indeed send this nation into a downward spiral into socialism and did nothing to help the economy. In fact it extended the depression by many years. We see the same thing happening today again. I am convinced that those coming out with these programs have an agenda to repeat the failures (or should I say success depending on how one looks at it) of the Roosevelt era. A failure economically and a success in taking peoples freedoms away.

The New Deal was actually an attempt to preserve capitalism, not institute socialism. It did succeed at that. Communism was gaining ground even in the US as the Depression dragged on. By giving people hope, Roosevelt held off the possibility of revolt either through the polls or violent revolution while buying time for the economy to recover. His programs may not have actually helped the economy to recover, but they probably didn't hurt it much either.

The same situation doesn't hold today, in spite of media hype. We have nowhere near 25% unemployment, no armies of homeless riding the rails, no social unrest as yet. People can get unemployment, welfare, job training - all of which were results of the "New Deal" and help provide social stability through tough times. I really don't see a need to throw billions at financial services, especially when it isn't closely regulated to make sure it doesn't go into people's pockets.

We are no longer falling toward socialism but rather socialism is here and we are now falling toward communism as each and every day goes by that our left leaning government leans heavier toward that side with each bill that they pass. Most of these bills are not getting any amount of notice by the media as they are concentrating on such things that have been put out as smoke screens such as the AIG bonuses issue. An issue which the democrats knew of and approved in advance and are now complaining about in order to prevent the public from seeing what truly is going on.

HR Bill 1388 was passed on 20 Mar. This bill is the one that established and will make membership in Obama's Brownshirt Organization mandatory. Officially it is being called the “National Civilian Security Force”. The following link is the official website for the U.S. Public Service Academy (Indoctrinate U.)

http://uspublicserviceacademy.org/

This next one is about an organization called "Organizing for America" that is to set the stage and gather information for this action.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/23/video-organizing-for-americas-training-program/

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.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

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 Treasury secretary, a member of the president’s Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830.html

Now we find that we have "Fusion Centers" nationwide collecting information against the citizens of the U.S. that decide to take a stand against this garbage. Yes, even those that are doing so legally and labeling them as "threats".

Secret document leaked: The Obama administration is branding libertarians and abortion opponents as hidden terrorists

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

'Mandatory youth service' bill advances
House version commissions panel to consider 'volunteer' requirement

Congress appears ready to pass an Obama administration plan that could create mandatory public service requirements for all American youth, fulfilling a campaign promise.

The bill, HR 1388: The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, otherwise known as the "GIVE Act," has already passed the House by a vote of 321-105.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted closure on the motion to proceed by a margin of 74-14 in a move that makes its ultimate passage likely.

The bill, promoted by the Obama administration as a means of encouraging America's youth to participate in voluntary community service, has received little scrutiny from Congress or the public.

Yet, a version of the bill in the House proposes to establish a Congressional Commission on Civil Service tasked with determining whether a mandatory service requirement for all young people in America could be developed and implemented, though it is not clear that provision will survive a conference committee.

Moreover, an amendment to the bill introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., one of the bill's 37 co-sponsors in the House, appears to severely restrict the First Amendment by prohibiting the youth participating in the program from attempting to influence legislation, organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts or strikes.

Funds under the bill are designated to be distributed through AmeriCorps, even though AmeriCorps volunteers have a history of being recruited and employed by community programs with an ideological purpose supported by Democratic Party politicians, including Planned Parenthood.

Under terms of the legislation, volunteers recruited into AmeriCorps through the GIVE Act could end up counseling Planned Parenthood clients to recommend and arrange abortions.

It is uncertain whether restrictions will survive into the final legislation that would prohibit GIVE Act participants from being recruited under the program to work in ACORN, a radical community organizing group facing criminal charges in several states for voter fraud.

"The purpose of the bill is to require mandatory community service for all young people in the United States," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, told WND in a telephone interview.

"The mobilization of the youth to put them into community work environments that are specified in the bill raises questions about who will be teaching the youth and what is deemed appropriate community service," he said.

"It's great young people should do community service, but to have mandatory government-run community service projects may be a different thing," Poe stressed, explaining why he voted against the bill. "It's better if we can encourage young people to volunteer, and when you require something of them you are certainly not volunteering, and to place them only in government-controlled programs concerns me."

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who also voted against the GIVE Act, expressed to WND his reservations.

"I opposed the bill because it would expand and authorize programs that have been audited and considered ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget, which does not align with the administration's stated plans of encouraging transparency and accountability in all federal programs."

WND telephoned the office of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., the bill's sponsor in the House, to ask for comment on this story, but did not receive an immediate response.

Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union, said the history of the program goes back to the VISTA program under the Carter administration.

The problem is that taxpayer funds under the GIVE Act could end up getting paid to volunteers in organizations that are doing political advocacy activity," Hart said.

"Whether the safeguards in the GIVE Act that are sufficiently strong to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for political advocacy remains to be seen, until the Senate passes a final bill and the House-Senate conference committee gets together on final language," he said.

According to Fox News, the legislation could cost up to $6 billion over five years and would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps.

WND previously reported that the GIVE Act may be the first step taken by the Obama administration to create what candidate Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military.

WND also reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel coauthored a 2006 book entitled "The Plan: Big Ideas for America' that called for three months of compulsory civil service for all Americans aged 18 to 25.

The Obama/Biden campaign website proclaims that "Obama and Biden will expand AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps with "a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year, and will establish a new tax credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year."

After completing college at Columbia University, Obama in 1983 became a community organizer in the Chicago-based Developing Communities Project, an organization that operated according to principles articulated by Saul Alinsky, whose 1971 book "Rules for Radicals" articulated a socialist strategy for gaining political power to redistribute wealth from the "haves" to the "have-nots."

Don't count out 'mandatory' service yet
Provisions dropped from one bill, but appear in another

A proposal in Congress to study whether "mandatory" service should be required of all young people in the United States has suddenly disappeared from a bill that would reauthorize other national service programs such as AmeriCorps. But the plan has appeared in another bill at just about the same time.

WND reported more than a week ago on a plan in the U.S. House of Representatives to determine whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed across the United States. But the language that was included in H.R. 1388 suddenly disappeared.

At about the same time, H.R. 1444 by U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., appeared and was assigned to the House Committee on Labor and Education.

The bill, under Section 4 (b)6, states:

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.

The original plan not only reauthorized existing programs but added "new programs and studies" with a forecast funding level of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

It raised immediate concerns that the effort, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in 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.

WND reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

As the presidential campaign advanced last year, another video appeared that for many crystallized their concerns over such a "corps." It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama.

The newest plan says the aim is "to establish the Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes."

It would be directed to identify how issues that deter volunteerism "and national service" can be overcome, determine what role should government have "in overcoming" those issues, evaluate the "existing databases" for linking "would-be volunteers and service providers," and referred to the "workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement."

The proposal also speculates on a "public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."

Like the provisions in the earlier bill, it also includes children down to primary school, requiring a review of "the means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding and promoting service options for primary and secondary school students and by raising awareness of existing incentives."

According to a report by Canada Free Press, "'volunteerism' that kept America running since the days of its founding" would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."

"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service," the commentary said.

The plan in the earlier bill generated this concern from Resistnet.com: "This is the equivalent of brown shirts."

A forum participant wondered "what's going to happen to those who refused to 'volunteer.' Maybe they will be put into a different 'campus.' I guess we will soon find out."

On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: "What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of 'volunteer' service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and 'camps.' They revise the word 'camps' and call it 'campus.' There is language about Seniors and Community organizations."

The blog noted such work forces would be used for "pressing national and local challenges" that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.

WND also reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced the president would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue of a "national civilian force" and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel coauthored a 2006 book entitled "The Plan: Big Ideas for America' that called for three months of compulsory civil service for all Americans aged 18 to 25.

The Obama/Biden campaign website proclaims that "Obama and Biden will expand AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps with "a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year, and will establish a new tax credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year."

After completing college at Columbia University, Obama in 1983 became a community organizer in the Chicago-based Developing Communities Project, an organization that operated according to principles articulated by Saul Alinsky, whose 1971 book "Rules for Radicals" articulated a socialist strategy for gaining political power to redistribute wealth from the "haves" to the "have-nots."

Tancredo: Clinton aids Obama's 'war on guns'
Criticizes her claim U.S. at fault in Mexican drug violence

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is just aiding and abetting President Obama's war on guns with her new suggestion that the U.S. is at fault in the Mexico drug cartel war.

"She's part of Obama's plan to conduct a war on guns," he said. "He's opposed to private ownership of guns, opposed to concealed carry laws. He doesn't believe we should be able to carry guns as individuals."

Tancredo was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America on the issue of the violence along the Mexico-U.S. border, blamed on battles among the various drug cartels in Mexico.

In an interview with Fox News, Clinton said the drug gangs have moved into the United States to feed the addiction of "American young people." And she added that the border between the nations is "unstable, insecure."

Then she continued, "It would inaccurate to absolve ourselves of responsibility or to absolve the Mexicans of responsibility. This is a shared responsibility. We share the border. And as you rightly said, the demand for illegal drugs is what keeps these guys in business. And it's a, you know, multi-billion-dollar, $25-plus billion industry.

"The guns that are sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico," she said.

"So we've got to help out here. We can't stand by and say, Well, you know, you guys just do the best you can, when we, unfortunately, are the market for drugs, when a lot of the money is laundered in the United States back into the hands of the drug kingpins, and when the weapons have come from our country. So I think recognizing the co-responsibility is just stating the obvious," Clinton said.

Tancredo said that's just wrong, and Clinton knows it.

"The heavy weaponry is not coming from the U.S.," he said, citing the Mexican military as a source for drug cartels for automatic weapons, as well as gun dealers throughout South and Central America.

He said the Mexican army has sustained 110,000 desertions in the last few years alone, and those soldiers often have taken their weapons with them to sell them later on.

Tancredo said the solution is to militarize the border, a move that would stop the drugs going north.

'Income redistribution'
coming in Dem budget
Tax hikes to hit $250,000 earners,
'maybe even going further down'

The nation needs to face the fact that income will be redistributed and health care rationed under a federal budget plan moving through Congress at the behest of President Obama, according to an official who served under President Clinton.

The plan, according to Lawrence J. Haas, former communications director for Vice President Al Gore, said Obama "wants to make permanent all the tax cuts from those years [2001 and 2003] for people making up to $250,000 a year and frankly to redistribute income a bit in a fair way so he would raise taxes on those above $250,000."

His comments came in an interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America.

Haas, who also was communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton administration, later worked as director of public affairs for the president at Yale University.

The interview starts out with Haas' condemnation of a GOP proposal for an alternative budget this year, saying it contains "unrealistic spending cuts."

Haas also said in recent budgets, the income "has been redistributed … in exactly the other direction," condemning tax cuts for anyone in an upper income bracket, a category that includes many business owners.

Haas said GOP plans for restraint are "radical."

"They would impose … they propose to severely limit spending across the board other than for defense and veterans programs," he said.

He explained the income redistribution plan:

"The tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 provided a disproportionate amount of the benefits for those in the top one, two percent of earners, so in essence what the president is attempting to do is make things a little bit fairer by way of asking those who have done so well in recent years to pay a little bit more … [while continuing] tax relief for people at the bottom, in the middle, in all candor who have struggled in recent years."

He said while the president "has proposed" protecting from tax increases those who make less than $250,000, even that's not assured.

Feel like you've lost control of your country? Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

"To the extent we need to raise taxes down the road we're going to have to sort of work our way down that income level starting with people making over $250,000," he said, "and maybe even going further down. I hope we don't have to do too much of that."

He said health care costs will play a major role in coming budgets.

"That's going to cause us to make some real decisions as to who gets how much health care and when they get it," he warned.

President Obama famously created an issue during the 2008 campaign by telling a plumber his goal was to spread the wealth.

WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

House votes on 'hate crimes' bill
Will Christians face prosecution for speaking out against homosexuality?

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee will vote tomorrow on a "hate crimes" bill that some say might allow federal officials to prosecute Christians who speak out against homosexual behavior.

Barney Frank, an openly homosexual congressman, announced Thursday that the House Judiciary Committee will be considering "hate crimes" legislation, H.R.1913.

The bill is named the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It has 42 co-sponsors and was introduced into the House on April 2 by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

In his April 2 introductory speech, Conyers cited the FBI's national data on reported hate crimes. For 2007, the most current data available, the FBI identified 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents directed against individuals because of their personal characteristics.

According to the report:

* racially motivated bias accounted for 50.8 percent of all incidents
* religious bias accounted for 1,400 incidents, or 18.4 percent
* sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,265 incidents, or 16.6 percent
* ethnicity/national origin bias accounted for 1,007 incidents, or 13.2 percent

"The statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability," Conyers noted. "The federal government must have authority to be involved in investigating and prosecuting these crimes when state authorities cannot or will not do so."

Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern, warned that the bill could allow federal prosecutors to target Christians who teach that homosexual behavior is sinful and that Islam is a false religion.

But in his speech, Conyers said, "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

Section 10 of the act states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

However, the ICC cites United States Code Title 18, Section 2, as evidence of how the legislation could be used against people who merely speak out against homosexuality. It states:

Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

Critics argue that under this reasoning, a Christian pastor or other teacher could be tried for openly speaking out against homosexuality if someone misconstrues their message as encouragement to commit a violent crime against another person – even if the Christian leader never advocated the offense.

"H.R. 1913 is a backdoor tool from the far left and radical homosexuals to shut down legitimate free speech from Christians and others who oppose their lifestyle," King said. "It is political payback from the new administration to the homosexual lobby, and could have radical ramifications."

Conyers called the act "a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation."

"These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience," he said. "They should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution."

But King noted that pastors in Europe and Canada have already been arrested for preaching against homosexuality based on similar legislation.

As WND reported, Julio Severo, a prominent Brazilian pro-family activist, has been forced into exile because of the "hate crimes" laws that are being implemented in his native land.

"It is imperative that we contact all members of the House and demand that they vote against this bill as it will not protect a pastor, Bible teacher, Sunday School teacher, youth leader or anyone else from prosecution if he or she teaches against homosexuality if an individual who hears their message then goes out and commits a crime against a homosexual," wrote Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America Action.

WND has also reported that the Obama administration has stated its dedication to strengthening "federal hate crimes legislation" and expanding "hate crimes protection."

Critics have said "hate crimes" laws actually criminalize thought because they demand enhanced penalties due to the "perception" of the victim by the perpetrator. A mugger, for example, who attacks a victim while screaming an epithet denoting a race or sexual preference could receive a much more significant penalty than a mugger who attacks a victim but doesn't say anything.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, has spoken out repeatedly in opposition to the idea.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law," he said. "Hate crimes legislation is … [a] violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it elevates one class of citizen based upon their chosen sexual behaviors above other people."

King said Christians are acting like the proverbial frog in a slowly heating kettle that boils to death.

"They need to wake up and take action to oppose this threat to religious liberty."

The following is a list of seven Republican co-sponsors of H.R.1913 alphabetized by state:

Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif.
Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill.
Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
Rep. Anh Cao, R-La.
Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J.

The following is a list of 35 Democrat co-sponsors of the bill alphabetized by state:

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.
Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.
Rep. Lynn Woolseym D-Calif.
Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo.
Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla.
Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii
Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa
Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.
Rep. John Olver, D-Mass.
Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich.
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn.
Rep. William Clay, D-Mo.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.
Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y.
Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.
Rep. Raymond Green, D-Texas
Rep. James Moran, D-Va.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.

FCC attack on talkers beginning?
'I hope you will not hesitate to propose aggressive solutions'

The acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has told members of a "diversity" committee who almost exclusively represent left-leaning organizations to tackle the status quo in America's broadcast industry and suggest "aggressive" solutions to what they see as problems.

According to The O'Leary Report, published by author Brad O'Leary, author of "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech," the FCC's "Diversity Committee," headed by "Fairness Doctrine," supporter Henry Rivera, has begun its work.

The report said the committee made it clear at a meeting yesterday its members will force President Obama's supporters into positions of power within the broadcast industry.

The message came when acting FCC chief Michael J. Copps "forcefully denounced the current racial and gender makeup of the broadcast industry and called its lack of diversity 'a shameful state of affairs,'" the report said.

"Is it any wonder that minorities are so often stereotyped and caricatured and that the positive contributions of the minority community are so often overlooked?" Copps claimed, according to the report.

(Story continues below)

The members, who represent groups such as the National Urban League, the Asian American Justice Center and One World Economy, were told by Copps:

"Be bold. Take these issues and run with them. This is not a ceremonial appointment. This is your chance to make a real and lasting difference. I hope that you will set an aggressive agenda for yourselves and that you will not hesitate to propose aggressive solutions," the report said.

WND reported earlier when the membership of the committee was named. It also was reported when a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

That report found the best strategy for getting equal time for "progressives" on radio lies in mandating "diversity of ownership" without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the "Fairness Doctrine," a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

The mission of the new diversity committee, according to the FCC website, is to "make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries."

Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, further commented on the lineup of 31 activists and media moguls chosen to form the committee.

"Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this commission," Motley writes. "More than a dozen leftist groups are. A little ironic for a 'diversity' panel, is it not?"

At no time during the committee meeting was mention made of a recent Zogby poll that showed 66 percent of American voters opposed the creation of advisory committees designed to promote diversity in the broadcast industry.

Rivera's statements were no less ominous than Copps'.

"The public is here and the press is here so you might want to keep that in mind as you formulate your thoughts," he warned.

Nowhere was the process of selecting committee members explained, nor was there an explanation why conservative groups were not included.

But Rivera did confirm the committee now will begin making suggestions to the FCC on how broadcasters will be required to submit reports on the race and gender of individuals in their companies.

That will be a large part of what the "Diversity Committee" will analyze, Rivera said, with a "race-based rulemaking procedure" possibly in the offing, according to the report.

O'Leary's book warns that the FCC also may look to shortening the broadcast license renewal period from eight years to two, forcing broadcasters to make immediate changes or jeopardize their license.

After the FCC abandoned the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, talk radio exploded from fewer than 150 stations nationwide to more than 3,000. But many of those stations carry popular syndicated programming from politically conservative hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, prompting some politicians to seek more "balance" on the airwaves.

As WND has reported, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has joined up with other influential Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, in calling for a resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

It's time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech!

And President Obama, while he has eschewed support for the "Fairness Doctrine" by name, has made statements in speeches and on the White House website that read as through they were taken directly from Podesta's plan for using "diversity" to make radio more "fair."

The full membership of the committee is listed below:

* Henry Rivera, Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media
* Raul Alarcon, Jr., Spanish Broadcasting System
* Jenny Alonzo, Mio.TV
* James M. Assey, Jr., National Cable and Telecommunications Association
* Geoffrey C. Blackwell, Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
* Matthew Blank, Showtime Networks
* Maria E. Brennan, American Women in Radio and Television
* Kathy Brown, Verizon
* Toni Cook Bush, Virgin Mobile
* Alan B. Davidson, Google, Inc.
* Ralph de la Vega, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets
* Steve Hillard, Council Tree Communications
* David Honig, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
* Rodney Hood, National Credit Union Administration
* Ronald Johnson, Ronson Network Services
* Debra Lee, BET Holdings, Inc.
* Jane Mago, National Association of Broadcasters
* Robert Mendez, ABC Television Network
* Marc H. Morial, National Urban League
* Karen K. Narasaki, Asian American Justice Center
* Melissa Newman, Qwest
* Jake Oliver, Afro-American Newspapers
* Susan K. Patrick, Patrick Communications
* Lisa Pickrum, The RLJ Companies
* Rey Ramsey, One Economy Corporation
* Michael V. Roberts, Roberts Broadcasting Companies LLC
* Andrew Schwartzman, Media Access Project
* Anita Stephens Graham, Opportunity Capital Partners
* Diane Sutter, Shooting Star Broadcasting
* Charles Warfield, Inner City Broadcasting
* James Winston, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters

Moonbats Dream of Taking Our Cars

Even after the Ascension of the Anointed One, we’ll have to hurry to catch up to Europeans in the race into the encroaching dark ages of moonbat totalitarianism. The New York Times praises the Nazi military base turned Green Party haven of Vauban, Germany for making it almost impossible to drive a car:

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

All we have to do is give up our cars and the independence they offer us, and we’ll all be much happier. But since we don’t know what’s best of us, the government will have to impose the bliss of not owning a car by force:

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced” communities, and legislators are starting to act, if cautiously. Many experts expect public transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a new six-year federal transportation bill to be approved this year, [David] Goldberg [of Transportation for America] said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways and only 20 percent to other transport.

Those percentages will be changing dramatically. While bureauweenies pour fortunes we can’t afford down light rail boondoggles, highways will be left to crumble.

Meanwhile, in the statist dystopia formerly known as Great Britain:

“Development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services should not be designed and located on the assumption that the car will represent the only realistic means of access for the vast majority of people,” said PPG 13, the British government’s revolutionary 2001 planning document. Dozens of shopping malls, fast-food restaurants and housing compounds have been refused planning permits based on the new British regulations.

Eventually we’ll all live in “smart communities,” where no one can go where planners haven’t decided we should go.

'Extremists' offered identification card
Identifies those who support 2nd Amendment, oppose abortion

With little fanfare and no effort for any significant level of publicity, a law firm specializing in defending the constitutional rights of American citizens has begun offering an identification card for "Right-Wing Extremists" – as labeled by the Department of Homeland Security.

And the phones have been ringing off the hook.

The card is from Liberty Counsel and states:

Official Liberty Counsel card-carrying Right-Wing Extremist. If confronted by an agent of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or any other law enforcement official who has read the DHS Intelligence Assessment dated April 7, 2009, on so-called Right-Wing Extremism call Liberty Council at 1-800-671-1776.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/idcardfront.jpg)

Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, told WND it sends a message, "if the government considers me an extremist because I'm pro-life, pro-veteran, pro-family, pro-self defense and pro-limited government, then I'm proud to wear this as a badge of honor."

It's also a protest of the government targeting people and ideas that made America great, he said.

"We have had this overwhelming response from people about the country," he said. "They want that card now."

He said the feeling has been: "If they are going to call me an extremist, so be it."

He said more in line with reality is that the government has become extremist, and is out of step with the values, ideas and fundamental values on which the United States has been built.

The card pictures a Minute Man, with the statement, "The 18th Century version of a Right Wing Extremist, as cited by the DHS Intelligence Assessment, was a Colonial Minute Man!"

On the back, it says: "I'm proud to be a Right-Wing Extremist … as described in the DHS Intelligence Assessment of April 9, 2007. I have taken one or more of the following positions: The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, killing unborn babies in morally wrong, lower taxes are better than higher taxes, local and state solutions are usually more efficient than federal expansion, interpreting the Bible literally is not a crime, and veterans deserve honor, not special monitoring by Big Brother."

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/idcardback.jpg)

Ironically, the Washington Times reported at the same time the DHS was confirming that it had pulled the report that identified those involved with "right wing extremism" as veterans and individual opposed to abortion.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said the report was going to be replaced or redone "in a much more useful and much more precise fashion."

Quote from: Pastor Roger on May 16, 2009, 09:53:50 AM

I want this card in my wallet. I am "PRO" all of those things, and I'm not ashamed of it. Further, I'm proud of it and don't consider it to be extreme at all. I'll put it right next to my NRA Card. The Founder's Principles are of RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, DECENCY, AND GOD!

Shut down! Guess which
auto dealers got targeted
Chrysler showroom political donations
linked to government closing 'hit list'

As part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Chrysler is terminating one-fourth of its franchises – but some say its catalog of doomed dealerships looks more like a hit list that specifically seeks to put Republican donors out of business.

Chrysler will now be eligible for up to $8 billion in taxpayer-funded federal aid. The federal government has already provided $8.58 billion to Chrysler and Chrysler Holding between the months of January and May of this year. The Treasury also loaned $1.5 billion to the automaker's lending arm in January.

President Obama has said the bankruptcy will give the company "a new lease on life," after his administration spearheaded a plan requiring the company sell to Italian automaker Fiat. Chrysler's stronger operations will be owned by Fiat, labor and the U.S. and Canadian governments. The sale could close as early as this Friday.

Obama said the bankruptcy would be a "quick" and "efficient" step toward Chrysler's "survival."

"The necessary steps have been taken to give one of America's most storied automakers, Chrysler, a new lease on life," Obama said. "This is not a sign of weakness."

But WND reviewed the list of 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership majority owners making contributions in the November 2008 election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.

The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP, while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.

Obama received a combined total of only $450 in donations – $250 from dealer Jane Baldock in Wenatchee, Wash., and $200 from Waco, Texas, dealer Jeffrey Hunter.

Many of the majority owners who donated to Republican campaigns last year also contributed additional thousands to George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2004 and to help elect GOP representatives.

The first dealership on Chrysler's list of facilities marked for termination by June 9 is located in Venice, Fla., and belongs to Republican Rep. Vernon G. Buchanan.

Buchanan gave $2,300 to John McCain in 2008 and has contributed nearly $150,000 to GOP candidates and organizations since 2007. He discovered that his location was scheduled for closure when he crossed paths with Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich.

According to the Associated Press, Miller told Buchanan, "I heard you're going to lose your Dodge franchise."

"Oh, really?" Buchanan said in a state of surprise.

The dealership's operating partner, Shelby Curtsinger, said he was astonished by Chrysler's decision because the location has been profitable – selling more than twice the stock of an average Chrysler dealership every year.

Houston dealer Robert Archer is one of 330 people contesting Chrysler's decision to close their locations. He donated $1,000 to National Republican Congressional Committee and $500 to Americans for a Republican Majority.

Archer told the New York Times he ordered 700 new vehicles and $1.7 million in new parts after Chrysler told him he could survive unless he stocked more cars. He sacrificed his profits to help the company survive.

Now he is set to lose his franchise.

Other GOP contributors include Michael Maroone, a dealer in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. He gave $20,000 to the Florida Republican Party, $12,700 to the Republican National Committee and $2,300 to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Likewise, Menomonee Falls, Wis., dealer Russ Darrow and his family gave $19,000 to the Republican National Committee, $6,029 to the Wisconsin Republican Party, $2,300 to John McCain and $1,000 to Rudy Giuliani. Bedford, Texas, dealer Eric Grubbs gifted $11,500 to Mike Huckabee, $4,600 to Rudy Giuliani, $6,500 to Texas Republican Congressional Committee, $1,085 to the RNC and $500 to National Republican Congressional Committee. Midlothian, Va., dealer Max Pearson donated $18,000 to National Republican Senatorial Committee, $6,900 to the RNC, $6,900 to John McCain, $3,600 to Virginia Republican Party and $1,000 to National Republican Congressional Committee.

The list continues with more than 60 political donors who are scheduled to lose their franchises – many of whom gave thousands of dollars to Republican candidates – and only seven dealers who contributed a total of less than $12,000 to the Democratic Party and its candidates.

Blogger Doug Ross reviewed patterns on the closure list and noticed the unmistakable trend.

"I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once on the list," he wrote. "And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates."

With 2,392 Chrysler dealerships remaining, some bloggers claim to have already begun the exhaustive process of checking each majority owner to determine whether Chrysler has been more merciful toward those who donate to Democrats while simultaneously giving walking papers to Republican contributors.

Chrysler has not responded to WND's requests for comment. The company claims it evaluated the dealerships based on raw sales volume, location, market, history of experience and market share. According to the company's bankruptcy court filing, the 789 dealerships listed for closure "lack the operational, market, facility and linemaker characteristics necessary to best contribute to the ongoing dealer network under current or future ownership."

Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he doesn't understand why Chrysler is shutting down his Long Island dealership because he claims his dealership is quite profitable – with sales volume ranking in the top 2 percent.

Asked why he believes the company targeted him, Anderer said, "They won't tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense."

He continued, "This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they're telling me there's nothing I can do about it."

Anderer said Chrysler claims it wants to combine its stores or that dealers cost the manufacturer money to stay in business.

"In the dealers that they cut, there seems to be no cohesive way that they did it," he said. "There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, 'Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.' They didn't do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with."

An anonymous employee affected by the dealership closings blogged at Cars.com:

"This isn't about business. It's about politics and control. My dealership is in the top 125 out of the 3,500-plus dealerships nationwide ... yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area. Our new vehicle inventory alone is well over $4.0 million. Is that small?"

The employee continued, "This is so much more than 'just business.' This is about control and power by our present administration in Washington. An administration that will stop at nothing to bring complete socialism to this once great country. Wake up people or get in line now to 'drink the Kool-Aid.'"

Chrysler's bankruptcy court review process began May 14 and is scheduled to end by June 9. According to a May 14 Chrysler memo, dealers learned of their fate via UPS letters arriving earlier this month. A Senate committee is conducting hearings this week as dealers file their requests to block their termination.

George C. Joseph, owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu in Melbourne Fla., has sent out his plea to several online media organizations, including WND.

Joseph said his family paid for his franchise 35 years ago and employs more than 50 people. The company is active in the community and the local chamber of commerce, and he claims it is financially profitable.

"On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them," Joseph wrote. "My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009."

He said that without the franchise his family can no longer sell Dodge inventory as "new" or conduct any service warranty work. Joseph wrote that his parts inventory – worth $300,000 – is now practically worthless because Chrysler will not be required to buy vehicles, tools or parts from terminated dealers under bankruptcy rules.

To make matters worse, Joseph said Chrysler recently required his facility to be renovated, requiring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage.

"This is a private business, not a government entity," he wrote. "This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through no fault of our own. We did nothing wrong."

Joseph continued, "This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? … How in the United States of America can this happen?"

More from the office of dictator.

White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation to Coordinate Efforts

Right from their own web page http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-to-Reque...

President Barack Obama, in his FY2010 budget, will ask Congress to provide $50 million in seed capital for the Social Innovation Fund to identify the most promising, results-oriented non-profit programs and expand their reach throughout the country.

Many solutions to our nation’s most challenging social problems are being generated outside of Washington; the Social Innovation Fund will identify what is working in communities across the country, provide growth capital for these programs, and improve the use of data and evaluation to raise the bar on what programs the government funds.

"The idea is simple: to find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country that are facing similar challenges," First Lady Michelle Obama will say Tuesday at the Time 100 Most Influential People Awards in New York City, according to her prepared remarks. "By focusing on high-impact, result-oriented non-profits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust."

Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, also highlighted the Fund Tuesday in a keynote speech to the Council on Foundations. "The Social Innovation Fund reflects the President’s new governing philosophy: finding and investing in what works; and partnering with and supporting others who are leading change in their communities," Barnes said. "We are also working with Federal agencies across the government to identify new solutions to problems that have resisted traditional approaches."

The Social Innovation Fund was authorized in the recent Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. The Fund will focus on priority policy areas, including education, health care, and economic opportunity. It will partner with foundations, philanthropists, and corporations which will commit matching resources, funding, and technical assistance.

The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation will coordinate efforts to enlist all Americans –individuals, non-profits, social entrepreneurs, corporations and foundations – as partners in solving our great challenges. Located within the Domestic Policy Council, it will:

* Catalyze partnerships between the government and nonprofits, businesses and philanthropists in order to make progress on the President’s policy agenda
* Identify and support the rigorous evaluation and scaling of innovative, promising ideas that are transforming communities like, for example, Harlem Children’s Zone, YouthVillages, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Citizen Schools.
* Support greater civic participation through new media tools
* Promote national service.

Mrs. Obama’s full remarks at the Time 100 Most Influential People Awards in New York City will be released later in the day.

World's Elite Make Population Control #1 Priority

http://www.lifesitenews.com/

Even though recent demographic study has revealed a great looming threat of demographic winter, the richest of the rich seem to believe that overpopulation is the top priority for their philanthropic endeavors. John Harlow writes today in The Times about a secret meeting of the global financial elite, convened by Microsoft mogul Bill Gates, at which attendees agreed that curbing the world's population should be their top priority.

In "Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation," Harlow recounts that a May 5 meeting took place in Manhattan that included "David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey." Harlow notes that the general agreement that population control was a major priority came at Gates' instigation.

Gates' enthusiasm for population control comes as no surprise since he has himself admitted to being strongly influenced by the views of Thomas Malthus, the fear-mongering overpopulation guru of the late 18th century. He has also admitted that his father headed a local Planned Parenthood while he was growing up.

Of note, The Times reports that at the secret meeting, participants "discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change."

The Times paraphrased the account given by one attendee of the secret meeting who spoke anonymously, saying, "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."

"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers," said the guest. "They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming." In answer to a question about the secrecy, the guest replied, "They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government."

In sharp contrast to the ideas of the billionaires, a recent film containing the views of some prominent demographers has sounded the alarm on underpopulation rather than overpopulation. Promoting the film 'Demographic Winter' at a recent event, celebrated columnist Don Feder said that the demographic problem of worldwide declining birthrates "could result in the greatest crisis humanity will confront in this century" as "all over the world, children are disappearing."

Feder noted, "In 30 years, worldwide, birth rates have fallen by more than 50%. In 1979, the average woman on this planet had 6 children. Today, the average is 2.9 children, and falling." He explained the situation noting, "demographers tell us that with a birthrate of 1.3, everything else being equal, a nation will lose half of its population every 45 years."

Martial law now demanded in this U.S. state ...

NAACP to governor: Declare martial law
'It's time for some real action'

An NAACP official has demanded the governor of Pennsylvania call out the National Guard, suspend civil liberties and impose martial law to deal with a recent wave of shootings.

Stanley Lawson, president of the Harrisburg Chapter of the NAACP, urged Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell deploy the National Guard for at least one month and enforce a curfew after more than a dozen shootings rocked the city, according to the Patriot News.

Many of the shots were fired during daylight hours, and one man was killed at a busy intersection in the middle of the afternoon June 24.

"The Guard is for floods and natural disasters. I don't know any more of a natural disaster than of our young people being killed," he said at a meeting at Capitol Presbyterian Church.

"It's time for some real action," he said. "Right now the important thing is to stop this madness."

"We're beyond what the Harrisburg police department can do. We need help," Lawson said.

According to the report, Lawson referenced the 1968 race riots following the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tenn. And the subsequent deployment of National Guard troops.

Rather than drugs, robberies and gang activity, Lawson said the shootings were most likely due to fear.

"The young men, it's fear, it's just fear," he said. "They think: 'I'm going to get them before they get me.'"

But Gov. Rendell's office told WND calling out the National Guard and imposing martial law – a system where military rule overrides civil law in times of war or emergency – is not an option.

"That action is not currently on the table," said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has ordered the state police to increase patrols in the City of Harrisburg and to work with the city police in whatever way they deem necessary."

Harrisburg Chapter NAACP President Stanley Lawson did not respond to WND's requests for comment about the governor's refusal to impose martial law.

In addition to bringing in support from state police, the city stepped up law enforcement presence, and the mayor asked officers to work overtime.

Members of the "Guardian Angels," unarmed civilians trained in self-defense, came from York to help Harrisburg residents create their own civilian force, the Patriot News reported.

Police officers have also rounded up many citizens with outstanding warrants.

Ardo told WND conditions are improving but that part of the problem lies in the number of firearms on the streets.

"The situation seems to be much more calm at the moment," he said. "Given the number of guns on the streets and violence that seems to follow, there are continued concerns."

Attorney Stanley Mitchell told the Patriot News that the local NAACP chapter is asking for a short suspension of some civil rights, but he added: "We have the civil rights not to be shot."

ACLU Threatens Lawsuit After Wisconsin Police Seize Man's Upside-Down American Flag

An American flag flown upside down as a protest in a northern Wisconsin village was seized by police before a Fourth of July parade and the businessman who flew it — an Iraq war veteran — claims the officers trespassed and stole his property.

A day after the parade, police returned the flag and the man's protest — over a liquor license — continued.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin is considering legal action against the village of Crivitz for violating Vito Congine Jr.'s' First Amendment rights, Executive Director Chris Ahmuty said.

"It is not often that you see something this blatant," Ahmuty said.

In mid-June, Congine, 46, began flying the flag upside down — an accepted way to signal distress — outside the restaurant he wants to open in Crivitz, a village of about 1,000 people some 65 miles north of Green Bay.

He said his distress is likely bankruptcy because the village board refused to grant him a liquor license after he spent nearly $200,000 to buy and remodel a downtown building for an Italian supper club.

Congine's upside-down-flag represents distress to him; to others in town, it represents disrespect of the flag.

Hours before a Fourth of July parade, four police officers went to Congine's property and removed the flag under the advice of Marinette County District Attorney Allen Brey.

Neighbor Steven Klein watched in disbelief.

"I said, 'What are you doing?' Klein said. "They said, 'It is none of your business."'

The next day, police returned the flag.

Brey declined comment Friday.

Marinette County Sheriff Jim Kanikula said it was not illegal to fly the flag upside down but people were upset and it was the Fourth of July.

"It is illegal to cause a disruption," he said.

The parade went on without any problems, Kanikula said.

Village President John Deschane, 60, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said many people in town believe it's disrespectful to fly the flag upside down.

"If he wants to protest, let him protest but find a different way to do it," Deschane said.

Congine, a Marine veteran who served in Iraq in 2004, said he intends to keep flying the flag upside down.

"It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else," Congine said, "and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."

Open borders critics report cyber attack
'We are seeing orchestrated pattern of censorship'
Posted: August 22, 2009
12:45 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An organization critical of plans percolating in Washington, D.C., to create amnesty for the tens of millions of illegal aliens estimated to be in the United States now is reporting a cyber attack it describes as both targeted and orchestrated.

"Google's own software admits we have no viruses or malware on our site," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The readings indicate that Google scanned our site on the 19th and we were clean and now they are arbitrarily blocking us for the second time this week. Our technicians tell us our site is clean and Google will not offer us any explanation or assistance despite multiple attempts to reach out to them."

The organization said its tens of thousands of pages of archived evidence on the issue of open borders and amnesty were being flagged as containing software viruses.

Gheen told WND the warning flags were on, then off, then reinstalled before being taken off just a short time ago. Then they reappeared later, warning that the site had been identifed as an "attack site."

As a result, the organization issued an emergency alert to its thousands of supporters.

"Public access to the extensive information archived by ALIPAC over the last five years has been blocked on Google, by Firefox web browsers, and on Twitter! ALIPAC.us is not infected and is safe to use," the statement said.

"ALIPAC is now declaring an emergency and making the claim that the blocking of alipac.us is politically motivated and involves wrongful acts by Google employees or the broader influences within the Google corporation."

A message WND left with Google requesting comment did not generate a response.

But ALIPAC officials said other major online virus protection services concluded the website was not infected.

Internet users are alarmed by such warnings and very seldom override the warning to continue to the targeted websites, officials said.

ALIPAC noted Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt is a member of President Obama's campaign committee, and Obama just this week held a White House meeting of pro-amnesty interests to discuss a bill that is expected to be introduced in Congress soon.

"We are seeing a clear and orchestrated pattern of censorship across American emanating from the Obama administration and the open borders lobby that plans to launch new amnesty legislation within two weeks," said Gheen.

"We need everyone to fight back and speak out while they can," he said. "Google is the most powerful site on the web, but they can be bypassed and defeated."

Gheen told WND his own computer experts had examined the website and found no infection.

"They're basically bashing our reputation on the web," he told WND.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on August 22, 2009, 03:49:53 PM

This is DIRTY and just what you would expect in a communist country with a tyrant running it. There will be a BACKLASH and the RESULTS will be the OPPOSITE of what the TYRANTS WANT! No company is too big to be boycotted and run out of business, and that includes Google and any other company that wants to shut down free speech. Further, NOT ONE OF THE POLITICIANS, REGARDLESS OF OFFICE, ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION! All of the politicians need to start checking what they are doing to see if it's legal and Constitutional. This certainly includes the attempt to force communist style healthcare, the extortion of cap and trade, invasion of privacy of citizens, maintaining dossiers on innocent citizens, and DENYING RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT ARE GUARANTEED BY LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION!

Regarding ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, our government is guilty of GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY! Our laws are being BROKEN and the people are being endangered because our government is NOT doing its DUTY for the people. THEY CAN AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! It is NOT a matter of choice on whether to ENFORCE our Laws or not. Further, the PEOPLE are NOT going to pay the bills for the illegal aliens. We have our own bills that we are struggling to pay, and the illegal aliens MUST be SENT HOME. Mexico and Central America can pay their own bills. There are CRIMINAL AND CIVIL REMEDIES for public servants who refuse to do their jobs for the public. One of their choices IS NOT ignoring them and trying to make the citizens pay their bills. This is NOT AN OPTION! The ONLY OPTION is to ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE PEOPLE. This would mean securing the borders and deporting all illegal aliens. Employing illegal aliens is ALSO NOT AN OPTION because this is against our laws. There is NO DEBATE OR CHOICE. THE ONLY BILL ASSOCIATED WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY IS HAVING THEM DEPORTED! THE PEOPLE ARE ALSO WILLING TO PAY FOR THE PROSECUTION AND INCARCERATION OF CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS VIOLATING MANY LAWS REGARDING ILLEGAL ALIENS. THIS IS NOT AN OPTION FOR ANYONE. THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PATIENT TOO LONG. WE NEED TO START PUTTING CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS IN PRISON!

College kids recruited to join Obama's 'army'
Earn credit for pushing 'change,' working on president's 'agenda'

President Obama's army of citizen volunteers is now actively recruiting college students in states across the country to "build support for President Obama's agenda" – and earn college credit while advocating for "change."

Obama for America, Obama's 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing for America, or OFA. The movement some call "Obama 2.0" is now recruiting students and offering to provide credits toward degree plans in exchange for their advocacy skills.

A message from OFA national volunteer coordinators announcing the recruitment campaign and internship opportunities has been posted on several websites and on Facebook.

"Students and young people were critical in building the movement that helped elect President Obama last year. By becoming a National Organizing Intern, you'll be part of the grassroots effort to make the change we fought for a reality in 2009 and beyond," it states. "As an Organizing Intern, you'll work side by side with OFA staff and community leaders to help build support for President Obama's agenda. You'll learn core organizing principles that are crucial for any campaign and play an important role in building our organization in your state."

The announcement continues, "President Obama describes his time as a community organizer by saying: 'It was the best education I ever had, because I learned in those neighborhoods that when ordinary people come together, they can achieve extraordinary things.'

"This is your chance to get that same education.

"If you're passionate about making sure every American has quality health care, reviving our economy, and building a clean energy future, don't miss this great opportunity. No previous experience is needed in order to apply."

The group's website declares: "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is empowering students across the country to build on the movement that elected President Obama and help bring about his vision for change."

Volunteers must commit to working at least 12 hours a week from Sept. 1 to Dec. 11 and, according to the OFA website, may receive college credit from their schools for doing so.

The Omaha World-Herald reported that OFA workers have been knocking on doors and making phone calls in Iowa and Nebraska to garner support for Obama's health care initiative.

"It is the first time in recent memory that a presidential candidate has maintained an active, grassroots presence in either state after an election," the newspaper reported.

"Iowa has almost nonstop presidential activity," said Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. "But the idea of having a sitting president continuing an organization is fairly unusual."

According to the Washington Post, Obama used the same standing political army earlier this year to gather signatures in support of his economic plan. The president asked his supporters to go "block by block and door by door" in every state.

In March, when volunteers canvassed high-traffic locations in Birmingham, Ala., to support Obama's health care, education and energy policies, one event organizer told the Birmingham News, "We are looking for supporters. We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."

In an Aug. 5 e-mail, Obama once again urged his supporters to help him gain support for his health care plan:

… Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.

But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in July that OFA has hired staff in 38 states and intends to expand to all 50 states. OFA announced that it has organized 1,906 local events in all 50 states – from press conferences to community discussions – since it launched its health care campaign in June.

As WND reported, Obama has been accused of "planting" OFA volunteers and supporters at many of his recent town hall forums so they may ask pre-selected questions. The White House insists that attendees are selected at random, but a closer look reveals many questioners range from Obama campaign donors and Organizing for America volunteers to single-payer health care lobbyists and Service Employees International Union members.

According to New Hampshire's DMUR 9 News, Obama health care supporters, including OFA members, are being driven to town hall meetings by the busload:

One citizen filmed a crowd of activists at a recent town hall meeting. Each attendee held a printed placard promoting health "reform" and addressing numerous "myths" and "facts" about Obama's plan. Asked where she got the sign, a woman said, "Organizing for America. We're a grass-roots organization and proud of it."

Other town hall attendees have reported seeing volunteers handing out pre-printed fliers and posters from OFA.

WND also reported that help wanted ads are appearing on Craigslist that offer to pay citizens between $9 and $16 an hour to lobby for the passage of Obama's health care. One Sacramento Craig's List ad declares, "Help pass Obama's health care reform! Earn $325-$550 per week!"

Another Craigslist ad in San Francisco invited prospective applicants to "join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen."

The same ad ran in the Craigslist Washington, D.C., section. Similar ads were posted in Minneapolis, Minn., and Columbus, Ohio, sections.

Organizing for America is also calling on Obama supporters to show up at local representatives' offices to show support for health reform.

"As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly," a letter from Organizing for America states. "Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand."

The group even offers to provide "information to drop off about how the health care crisis affects your state (with the option of adding your personal story)" and "a step-by-step guide" for pushing health "reform" at district offices.

That graphic is a keeper - consider it snagged. Thanks Brother Jerry.

Brother Roger, the recruiting for COMMUNIST indoctrination of our young people is deeply disturbing. We are watching an all-out effort to transform America into a COMMUNIST country. This is not a wild conspiracy theory because we are watching the attempt before our very eyes. All the people need to do is LOOK, LISTEN, and WATCH with an effort to understand the goals. It doesn't take much effort or intelligence to see that the current administration is feeding the public a PACK OF LIES in an attempt to gain TOTAL POWER AND CONTROL. Those who want to preserve a FREE COUNTRY are the opposition to this administration. The RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION are being trampled under foot as a general method of operation. A variety of serious CRIMINAL AND CIVIL VIOLATIONS are common and seemingly ignored.

The AGENDA of this administration CAN'T be accomplished in a LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL WAY! The RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE PEOPLE means nothing! In fact, RIGHTS and FREEDOMS stand as an obstacle to the AGENDA. This administration wants to DICTATE - NOT serve under the LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION! Reading the proposed BILLS of this administration tells the entire story for anyone willing to spend the time and effort to read them. It's all POWER to the GOVERNMENT - DICTATION BY THE GOVERNMENT - massive INCREASE in the SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT - REMOVAL OF STATE'S RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY - REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION - AND GENERALLY AN END TO FREEDOM WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALL-POWERFUL, TYRANNICAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE ANSWER FROM A FREE PEOPLE MUST BE NO! THE ANSWER FROM THE STATES MUST BE NO! THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT AND THE U.N. MUST BE NO! THE ANSWER TO ANY FORM OF FOREIGN CONTROL MUST BE NO! THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL CURRENCY MUST BE NO! ALL OF THESE THINGS REPRESENT AN END TO FREEDOM!

WE THE PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE! Our government is our SERVANT - NOT OUR MASTER! WE THE PEOPLE are FREE and we are DETERMINED TO STAY FREE! When our representatives VIOLATE OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS, they are to be CHARGED, and it's time to do just that! WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND THAT OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS BE ENFORCED. This currently means many so-called representatives being removed from office and/or charged with a variety of CRIMINAL OFFENSES. Our government has NO CHOICE but to enforce our LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS. This is NOT a matter of CHOICE OR DEBATE! Enforcement of our LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS would mean many things, INCLUDING THE DEPORTATION OF ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THE SECURING OF OUR BORDERS! IT WOULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE AN END OF ALL ATTEMPTS TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF CITIZENS - AND THE RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE! A rude reminder must be given that the power of the Federal Government is at the BOTTOM - NOT THE TOP! The Federal Government is a SERVANT TO THE STATES, and the STATES ARE A SERVANT TO THE PEOPLE! Reminder in terms of POWER: 1) THE PEOPLE - TOP AND FIRST; 2) THE STATES SECOND - A SERVANT TO THE PEOPLE; 3) the federal government - LAST AND BOTTOM - A SERVANT TO THE STATES! This is our FORM OF GOVERNMENT - BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE! - A FREE PEOPLE! - A FREE COUNTRY! WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT TOLERATE TYRANNY! THOSE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN AN ENSLAVED COUNTRY NEED TO MOVE TO RED CHINA, NORTH KOREA, OR SOME OTHER COUNTRY WHERE FREEDOM HAS ALREADY BEEN REMOVED!

On Facebook, MySpace? Obama's got your e-mail
White House spammer-in-chief wants contractor to track critics

The White House is hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans from its pages on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

The National Legal and Policy Center, or NLPC, revealed the White House New Media team is seeking to hire a technology vendor to collect data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place where the White House "maintains a presence" – for a period of up to eight years.

"The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence," the posting states.

According to the 51-page solicitation of bids posted Aug. 21, the purpose of the mining and archiving project is to "comply with the Presidential Records Act," though the listing does not specify how the information will be used. It states that the government is currently collecting data from social networks both programmatically and by use of daily screenshots.

The program is expected to be fully operational within 30 days after the contract is awarded to a vendor.

The White House pages at Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and Flickr contain thousands of comments from Americans – both supportive and critical of the administration and its policies.

Contractors must agree to keep information disclosed by the EOP in the "strictest confidence" and restrict access "to those employees who must have the information to perform the work provided herein on a 'need-to-know' basis."

NLPC warns, "[V]irtually any communication mentioning the president or the administration could become subject to collection and archiving under the act. This is not out of an 'abundance of caution,' but out of an over-abundance of power. President Obama should make sure that this plan goes no further."

'Fishy' info on health care

As WND reported, the Obama administration has made several efforts to collect information about citizens in the past. The White House announced a program Aug. 4, pleading with people around the nation to forward to a White House e-mail address anything they see "about health insurance reform that seems fishy."

Scary chain e-mails and videos are starting to percolate on the Internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to 'uncover' the truth about the president's health insurance reform positions.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, demanded that President Obama either halt the "snitch" program or define how he would protect the privacy of those who send or are the subject of e-mails to the flag@whitehouse.gov e-mail address.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White house for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," the Texas senator wrote in a letter to Obama.

"By requesting that citizens send 'fishy' e-mails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported… You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection system."

'Compelling need' for cookies

WND has also reported that the Obama administration has announced plans to lift a government ban on tracking visitors to government websites, and potentially, collect their personal data through the use of "cookies" – an effort some suspect may already be in place on White House sites.

A ban on such tracking by the federal government on Internet users has been in place since 2000, however, the White House Office of Management and Budget now wants to lift the ban citing a "compelling need."

In fact, according to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, federal agencies have negotiated agreements and contracts with social networking sites like Google, YouTube, SlideShare, Facebook, AddThis, Blist, Flickr and VIMEO to collect information on visitors for federal websites. All of these private companies are known to have agreements with federal agencies, but the public has never seen them.

In public comments submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, EPIC notes it has obtained documents that show federal agencies have negotiated these contracts with the private sector in violation of "existing statutory privacy rights." Those agencies include: Department of Defense, Department of the Treasury, and the National Security Agency.

There are suspicions the White House is already involved.

According to Obama "technology czar" Vivek Kundra, the "compelling need" driving this major policy reversal is the administration's desire to create "more open" government and to "enhance citizen participation in government."

To see the rest of the information:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108696

The younger generation probably doesn't realize that the word Socialism means and connotes a system that is profoundly un-American. Socialism pretty much disappeared from from the world since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) collapsed because of Ronald Reagan's policies, :D

Socialism requires a totalitarian system; that gives the ruling gang the power to distribute the fruits of other people's labor to its political pals. That is what is happening to the United States as President Obama proceeds with his goal of "remaking America."

The Republican National Committee, which for years had been a stuffy establishment appendage, started to tell the truth on May 20 when it passed a resolution nailing the Obama Administration for "PROPOSING, PASSING, and IMPLEMENTING SOCIALIST PROGRAMS THROUGH FEDERAL LEGISLATION" and pushing our country "TOWARDS EUROPEAN STYLE SOCIALISM AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL" Nine Whereases spell out the political indictment in detail.

The RNC charges the Democratic Party with passing "TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN A NEW GOVERNMENT SPENDING WITH ALL THE STRINGS ATTACHED IN ORDER TO CONTROL NEARLY EVERY ASPECT OF AMERICANS LIFE." There are plans to nationalize the banking, financial and healthcare industries. "Massive government bailouts for the mortgage and auto industries," and "paying states to increase their welfare caseloads" by reducing work requirements and increasing handouts. Which the government doesn't have funds, or bonds to back up all the money the Obama administration has spent.

Obama's takeover of the American auto industry is so breathtaking in scope and power that it proves all the RNC's accusations about Socialism. The takeover was followed by orders to close 789 local Chrysler dealers, notices to 1,100 General Motors franchises that they will be shut down by next year, and estimates that total dealer shut-downs will rise to 3,000.

Some of these local dealerships have been family-owned for generations. The Chrysler and GM dealership closings are estimated to eliminate 187,000 jobs, which is more than the number of people who work for the two automakers.

Now we can see the icing on the cake for the politicians who use economic dictatorship to punish those who resist Socialist planners. Nearly every one of the closed local dealerships had donated to Republican candidates, almost none was an Obama contributor, and some DEALERSHIPS OWNED BY DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GETTING THE AX!!

These closings came after Obama's extraordinary cash and stock favoritism to one of his principal campaign supporters, the United Auto Workers union. The Car Czar, Steve Rattner, was a top Democratic fundraiser (surprise, surprise!).

Obama seems to be captivated by the un-American notion of running the country through RUSSIAN STYLE CZARS Obama has empowered to issue czarist-style ukases. (For those of you who don't know "ukases", 1. An authoritative order or decree; an edict. 2. A proclamation of a czar having the FORCE OF LAW in imperial Russia.) Obama has already named about 20 czars (more than the Russians had over four centuries), and his latest is a Cyber Czar.

The Federal Government is suppose to serve the people, not the people serving the government. Any time Obama or one of his flunkies want to come and get me, I am right here.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Bob

'Green Jobs Czar'
Van Jones resigns
WND's 5-month series of exposés
leads to White House's 1st casualty

President Barack Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones quit late last night after pressure mounted over his extremist history first exposed in WND.

The last straw for Jones was being caught on tape in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through. He admitted after the statements were released that the comments were "inappropriate" and "offensive."

"They do not reflect the experience I have had since joining the administration," Jones said in the statement.

Jones was also linked late last week to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

When the White House press corps grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about Jones on Friday, a reporter asked how the administration could reject "conspiracy theories" about his birth certificate while employing someone who previously charged the U.S. government with masterminding Sept. 11.

Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration," a non-ringing endorsement that set the stage for his ouster. Jones' name appeared on a petition calling for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had orchestrated the 9/11attacks.

Jones flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said: "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

In April, Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for WND.com, broke the first major story on Jones who was identified as a self-described radical communist and "rowdy black nationalist" who said his environmental activism was actually a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Succeeding revelations by WND included:

* Jones previously served on the board of an environmental activist group at which a founder of the Weather Underground terrorist organization is a top director.

* Jones was co-founder of a black activist organization that has led a campaign prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Glenn Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program. The revelation followed Beck's reports on WND's story about Jones' communist background.

* That Jones and other White House appointees may have been screened by an ACORN associate.

* One day after the 9/11 attacks, Jones led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world.

* Just days before his White House appointment, Jones used a forum at a major youth convention to push for a radical agenda that included spreading the wealth and "changing the whole system."

* Jones' Maoist manifesto while leading the group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, was scrubbed from the Internet after being revealed by WND.

* Jones was the main speaker at an anti-war rally that urged "resistance" against the U.S. government – a demonstration sponsored by an organization associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party.

* In a 2005 conference, Jones characterized the U.S. as an "apartheid regime" that civil rights workers helped turn into a "struggling, fledgling democracy."

* Jones signed a petition calling for nationwide "resistance" against police, accusing them of using the 9/11 attacks to carry out policies of torture.

While talk radio and cable television picked up WND's reporting and increased the pressure on the administration to cut Jones loose, there was no significant press coverage of the scandal by the major U.S. news media until late last week.

Get ready! Here come the energy police
'Google PowerMeter' could mean regulation of your private home

Google is developing an Internet-based power monitor designed to monitor energy usage inside homes. As a result, the meter will provide utilities and any government regulators access to data on a household's energy footprint and carbon footprint, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

"Get ready," Corsi warned. "Here come the energy police."

Named the "Google PowerMeter," the software is intended to measure the precise amount of energy a house consumes and provide an accounting that lists by household location and device that consumes the electricity.

"An easy next step would be for government regulators to demand more household energy efficiency or a reduction in carbon emissions," Corsi wrote. "'Energy offenders' could be charged substantial fines, with the possibility that the truly recalcitrant could be deemed 'energy criminals' subject to severe consequences."

He noted, "As always, government extermination of civil liberties first arrives with a helping hand."

Google boasts its PowerMeter will make it possible for households to "make informed choices about electricity" by providing home energy consumers with detailed household "personal energy information" that will allow consumers to save up to 15 percent on their monthly energy bills.

"Even greater savings are possible if you use this information to see the value of retiring your old refrigerator, installing a new air conditioner or insulating your home," Google writes.

Billing the effort as "energy technology meets information technology," or "ET meets IT" in Google-speak, the goal is to monitor home-by-home energy consumption of every home in the nation, calculating as a byproduct the likely carbon footprint of the household.

"What's to stop the government from just happening to ignore one or two minor legal restrictions regarding privacy infringement?" Corsi asked. "Now, armed with precise estimates of how many people live in each household in America and how much money the household makes, what is to stop the government from further intruding?"

Corsi said the courts will likely determine that a generous reading of the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to enforce energy efficiency standards on homes, much like the federal government enforces energy efficiency standards on cars and trucks.

"The Supreme Court has already expanded the government's eminent domain privileges to authorize confiscation of your private property on pretexts of the common good so numerous and loosely defined that energy offenders might risk loss of their homes if they refused to comply with government energy dictates," Corsi noted.

Still, Google insists, "At Google, we're helping enable a future where access to personal electricity information helps everyone make smarter energy choices."

Google is already beta-testing the PowerMeter with utility partners in the U.S., India, Germany and Canada.

"We think Google PowerMeter offers more useful and actionable feedback than complicated monthly bills that provide little detail on consumption or how to save energy," Google writes. "But Google PowerMeter is just a start; it will take a lot of different groups working together to create what the world really needs: a path to smarter power."

Corsi wrote, "One thing is clear: Google's definition of 'smarter power' is unlikely to have much to do with personal freedom to consume energy, even if you are willing to pay for it, unless you also conform with Google's definition of what 'smarter power' means."

Red Alert's author, whose books "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.

In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.

For financial guidance during difficult times, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."

Red Chinese flag flies near White House
Chinese festivities honoring 60th anniversary of regime

The flag of the communist Chinese regime has been raised over festivities near the White House honoring the restrictive nation's 60th anniversary, according to videos posted on YouTube as well as reports from the Chinese Central television network's English-language report.

WND reported earlier when plans were announced for the events held over the weekend, drawing a response from columnist Chuck Baldwin, who said the idea "challenges my vocabulary.

"Words such as UNBELIEVABLE, UNREAL, HORRIFIC, OBSCENE, even TRAITOROUS quickly come to mind," he wrote in a column. "Remember, the communist leaders of Mao's China are not called the 'Butchers of Beijing' for nothing. Since seizing power in 1949, it is estimated that the communist government in China has murdered more than 50 million people (some reports say the number is over 70 million)."

According to the CCTV documentation of the festivities, the park near the White House was used for "an eye-catching national flag-raising.

"Hundreds of Chinese came together to celebrate the 60th anniversary of their home country," the report said.

Organizers of the event stated it was the first time the Chinese national flag was raised in a public place in Washington.

Zhou Wenzhong, the Chinese ambassador in the U.S, said it was a step towards better relationships between the nations.

A Dutch student who also posted a YouTube video of the activities wrote the nation of China will "amaze" people.

"China is great! The west should take China as an example in many ways," the student wrote. "Perhaps the Chinese way is better than our western way, look what a mess the world is because of us Westerners. China can change the world!"

When the White House confirmed that the flag of Communist China would fly over the Ellipse, the public area adjacent to the president's residence, those following the issue were disturbed.

"This is an outrage," wrote on Fox forum page participant.

"Don't believe a flag belonging to a Communist nation should ever be flown in this country, at the White House or anywhere else," said a second. And a third added. "Which communists should we believe, OURS or theirs???"

Baldin warned of the dangers of forgetting past confrontations.

"Does the name Chosin Reservoir mean anything to anyone? Obviously, the name doesn't mean anything to President Barack Obama. However, that name means much to the tens of thousands of American families who lost husbands, sons, and fathers there," he wrote.

Chosin was a Korean conflict confrontation in which 60,000 troops from China crossed into North Korea to attack American troops at the reservoir. More than 4,000 Americans died.

WND's original report cited Obama's previous encounters with flag troubles. It was Obama's official campaign blogger who had a Communist Party flag in his Harvard apartment.

Such emblems also were an issue during Obama's presidential campaign when a Houston Fox TV affiliate captured images of a volunteer in an Obama campaign office working in front of a flag featuring the image of Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.

At that time, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling the flag "inappropriate" and noting that the office where it was displayed was funded by "volunteers" and was not the official campaign headquarters.

However, it was Sam Graham-Felsen, a journalist-on-leave from The Nation, who joined Obama for America in 2007 and worked as the official blogger. He, according to a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson, adorned one corner of his shared student apartment with "a Communist Party flag ... bought on their trip to Russia the summer after sophomore year."

The coming flag event was condemned on the forums page on Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's website.

"People could understand if there was a Chinese visitor at the White House and the Red flag was placed on the stage behind the speakers, but to hoist the commie pinko flag in 'honor' of the founding of the People's Republic of China is absurd," the forum participant said. "This only goes to prove the Obama administration is out-of-touch with the American people."

William Gheen, chief of Americans for Legal Immigration, the pre-eminent organization battling against illegal immigration, said it's the message that is sent to the world that will be significant.

"Our concern is that sovereign wealth funds, like the Chinese, now control the executive branch more than the American people," he said. "China is not our friend. China is our enemy. Our enemy is coming and raising their own flag in a type of proclamation.

"I expect the Chinese media will make a big thing of it," he said, saying something like, "'Look how strong and powerful China is, raising our flag on the White House.'"

He said it conveys the same message as if Old Glory would be raised on the property of the Kremlin.

A spokesman for the American Legion told WND that if the proper protocols are followed, there should be no issue with the actual display of a Chinese flag, especially since diplomatic visits routinely include the display of foreign flags.

See the following link for associated videos:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110583

Cops, deputies warned again about right-wing 'terrorists'
SPLC alarm: 'Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters coalescing'

A private activist organization apparently is picking up where the federal government left off when the Department of Homeland Security issued its "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists.

Only the new warning, delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, is lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers.

The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center, where officials confirmed to WND it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC did not respond to a WND request for other comment.

But the article groups members of various organizations such as Oathkeepers – whose mainly military and law enforcement members pledge to uphold their constitutional duties, including the duty to question and refuse what appear to be illegitimate orders – with a man "said to be interested in joining a militia" who is accused of killing two deputies in Florida.

Garbage, says a supporter of the individual rights of gun ownership contained in the Second Amendment.

Mike Vanderboegh is with the Sipsey Street Irregulars, who describe themselves as among the 3 percent as in: "During the American revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3 percent of the colonists."

The SPLC "are conflation experts," he told WND. "They have a pot and they throw everyone in it in an attempt to tar the rest of us with the racists and terrorists they throw in there."

He said the largest number of active members of various "militias" are constitutionalists, libertarians and conservatives who simply fear the government's swift advances toward federal ownership of banks and auto companies, intervention in personal rights such as health care and obstruction of constitutional provisions with gun regulations.

Only the minority are focused on conspiracy theories and the like, he said.

He said, for example, he was at the Oathkeepers April ceremony in Lexington, and the members with no significant exceptions were highly decorated and long-term serving military members and police. The group's principles include statements they will uphold their oath to support the Constitution.

"What I saw there was quintessentially America," he said.

The warning from the SPLC echoes the alarmism from the earlier federal report. WND has posted the report online.

It warned of potential terrorism threats from those who:

* Oppose abortion

* Are returning veterans

* Oppose same-sex marriage

* Oppose restrictions on firearms

* Oppose lax immigration laws

* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

* Are suspect of foreign regimes

* Fear Communist regimes

* Oppose a "one world" government

* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

* Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano later apologized to veterans for including them in the list but not to other groups of people, not even when WND also reported later that the "extremism" report was confirmed to have been based on Internet "chatter."

Under the headline "Going Feral," the SPLC warning to police quotes personalities such as Fox News host Glenn Beck, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and actor Chuck Norris.

"It's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point ... of revolution. And by that, what I mean [is] an orderly revolution, where the people of this country wake up and get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch," the warning quoted Bachmann, R-Minn., saying.

Norris, in a WND column in March, wrote, "How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?"

Check out WND's impressive collection of 13-star Betsy Ross flags, Navy Jack, Gadsden and tea-stained flags!

Beck's "threat" was, "If this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control … Americans … just won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up."

In a later column, Norris addressed the issue in a discussion of the 9/12 rally in Washington, where hundreds of thousands of people assembled to protest uncontrolled spending by government and its interference in individual lives.

"On Sept. 12, 2002, we sought to protect our nation against terrorists from without. Beginning on Sept. 12, 2009, we are seeking to protect our nation against enemies of our republic from within. Many of us are protesting the present political direction of Washington. Outrageous borrowing, excessive bailouts, massive spending, speedball stimulus plans … swings toward socialism are just a few of things that were protested that day. Of course, economics is far from America's only problem, as large as it appears to loom," Norris wrote.

"I want to emphasize: this revolutionary movement is not solely an independent, Republican or Democrat fight. It represents patriots fed up against modernists who seek to overturn almost every principle and tenet laid down by our country's founders at the inception of our republic. From the East Coast to the 'Left Coast,' America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government," he said.

A column by gun rights author David Codrea said, "SPLC's Larry Keller asserts they are 'particularly worrisome.' A fair question might be 'why' or 'to whom?' It's not like they're associated with anything other than patriotism, in spite of his attempts to insinuate racist ties."

Codrea said a militia was important enough for the Founding Fathers to declare them "necessary to the security of a free state."

The terror theme also was raised recently by Democrats. WND reported when an "Organizing for America" campaign document outlined a plan to have activists telephone their state's senators Sept. 11 to demand a "public option," which critics say would lead to a government health-care monopoly.

Bobby Eberle, posting on a Republican Party site called The Loft, said Obama "and his team have no limits on what they will do or say in order to inject socialist views into the minds of Americans."

"They also have absolutely no respect or appreciation for the American way and the sacrifices Americans have made in order to stay free and to promote the American way of life across the globe. Just take the latest effort being pitched at BarackObama.com. Rather than remembering the Americans who lost their lives during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Obama's political team wants you to make phone calls on 9/11 to fight back against 'Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists,'" Eberle wrote.

The OFA plan said, "All 50 states are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly reseizing power for their treacherous leaders."

Shortly after the "extremism" report was released, WND reported, the Department of Defense was describing protesters as "low-level terrorists."

WND later reported when the DoD eventually withdrew a training manual question that linked protesters across the U.S. to terrorism.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The lawsuit alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims DHS encouraged law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Hate crimes bill - law by the weekend?

A spokesman with the American Family Association says the hate crimes bill passed Thursday afternoon by the House could have a chilling effect on free speech and religious freedoms in the nation. If the bill passes the Senate, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, "gender identity," or disability. (See Associated Press story below)

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. The bill passed by the House, he says, is alarming. (The vote on HR 2647 was 281-146; see roll call vote)

"For the first time in American history we are criminalizing thought," Fischer laments. "Thomas Jefferson said the reach of legislation should extend to actions only and not to opinions -- and now we are punishing people not just for what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it.

"It's also going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, especially religious speech. And [in] other places where these hate crimes bills have gone into effect, pastors have wound up in jail or fined for preaching a biblical view of homosexuality."

Fischer says he would not be surprised if the bill passes through the Senate by the weekend. "I suspect the president is putting pressure on some Democrats in Congress to get this done so he can sign it by Saturday night," says the AFA spokesman. "[That very evening] he's going to give the keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. That's the major homosexual advocacy group in the nation. I think he wants this scalp on his belt walking into that dinner."

He also has concerns about overturning such legislation in the near future. "Something like this is going to be very difficult to repeal," Fischer admits. "It's doable, but again [there's] a slim chance that Republicans or conservatives will have control of either the House or Senate in 2010 -- so we'll be fighting a rear-guard battle for some time now."

The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion Pentagon policy measure that now heads to the Senate.

House moves to extend hate crimes to cover homosexuals

Assaulting people because of their sexual orientation would become a federal hate crime in legislation the House voted on Thursday. The bill would significantly expand the hate crimes law enacted in the days after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination in 1968.

Should the Senate also approve the bill, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against people based on their sexual orientation or "gender identity." President Obama is a strong supporter of the hate crimes legislation.

Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. "It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was a longtime advocate of the legislation.

Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, voted against the must-pass defense bill because of the addition of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation.

"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a member of the Republican leadership.

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association -- critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against homosexuals.

Tom McClusky, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council's legislative arm, said the next step likely would be contesting the legislation in court. "The religious protections are pretty flimsy," he said. He contended that Democrats were trying to move their "homosexual agenda" this year because it would prove unpopular with voters next year.

Shut up! U.S. sponsors plan to restrict free speech

Joins Egyptians in proposal to United Nations Human Rights Council

A proposal sponsored by the Obama administration at the United Nations that purports to seek protection for "freedom of opinion and expression" actually is a call for a worldwide crackdown on freedom of speech and a mandate for nations to ensure "that relevant national legislation complies with … international human rights obligations" – a clear threat to the First Amendment, according to critics.

The resolution was submitted recently by the United States and Egypt. It was approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council as a first step in its process through the international organization.

It demands that all nations condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation told WND the issue is not about free speech at all but about installing international precedents to stifle any criticism of Islam.

Groves has written for the Heritage Foundation on the issue, citing the demands from members of the Organization of Islamic Conference that national legislatures pass laws to ensure protection against "defamation of religions."

"Such a ban … could not withstand legal scrutiny in the United States," he wrote. "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and expression, even when speech is offensive or insulting. Moreover, a religious 'speech code' would disrupt the assimilation of religious minorities that has occurred throughout U.S. history and could breed resentment rather than understanding among America's religious communities."

He also cited the need for the U.S. to oppose strongly any such move, "given the penchant of some federal judges – including justices on the U.S. Supreme Court – to rely on the decisions and opinions of international courts and organizations."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice as well as the European Centre for Law and Justice, which has been involved in fighting "defamation of religion" plans at the U.N., said the "free speech" resolution itself "incites discrimination."

"The proclamation of the Gospel in Muslim countries has been called incitement of religious discrimination," he told WND. "The U.S. backing of this is a mistake. The Universal Declaration of Human rights protects free speech.

"I am very concerned the U.S. is co-authoring something like this," he said.

Sekulow cited the wording in several parts of the proposal, which was reported widely by other media at the time of its adoption by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council in stories that cited almost exclusively the "free speech" concept.

But Sekulow noted the proposal also raises "concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges states to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents."

Likewise, in paragraph 6, the U.N. writing stresses "that condemning and addressing, in accordance with international human rights obligations, including those regarding equal protection of the law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is an important safeguard to ensure the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, particularly minorities."

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a "defamation of religious" resolution in each of the three sessions from 2005 to 2007. The text always has been similar, and it always has had major support from Islamic nations with opposition from Western democracies, including the U.S.

Groves' evaluation noted that even "offensive speech and expression" is protected by the U.S. Constitution except in narrow areas such as obscenity and libel.

"Blasphemy, sacrilegious statements, and any other speech or expression that insults or denigrates organized religion is, for better or worse, protected by the First Amendment," he wrote.

Online critics of the administration were alarmed that it now is the United States pursuing a plan that would protect "freedom of opinion and expression" by cracking down on statements critical of issues, groups or religions.

In a column published on Europe News, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch wrote that while reducing "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred" sounds like a good idea, there is plenty wrong with it.

"First of all, there's that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans' right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all – far less in such vague and sweeping terms – would be unconstitutional," he wrote.

"'Incitement' and 'hatred' are in the eye of the beholder – or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations," he continued. "The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as 'hate speech.' The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be."

The resolution cites the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" as "one of the essential foundations of a democratic society."

It also expresses deep concern over "violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

cont'd

But it also cites the responsibility of states to "encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful dialogue."

The resolution then "calls upon all states … to take all necessary measures to put an end to violations of these rights and to create the conditions to prevent such violations, including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their international human rights obligations and is effectively implemented."

It also demands that nations "promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information."

Egyptian spokesman Hisham Badr told the assembly, according to a U.N. report, that freedom of expression sometimes has been "misused to proliferate negative racial and religious stereotyping and incitement to racial and religious hatred."

He said "every state must condemn and resolve to combat them in according with the obligation stipulated in human rights law," the U.N. said.

Speaking for the United States on behalf of the plan, Chargé ad interim Douglas M. Griffiths said the effort was intended to build on the commitment from President Obama in a Cairo speech that the U.S. was ready to "help bridg[e] the unhelpful divide regarding freedom of opinion and expression," according to the U.N.

Zamir Akram of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference noted the "duties and responsibilities" of nations to fight hate speech. He cited the need to protect not only individuals but religious and belief systems from "negative stereotyping."

"Now no less distinguished a personage than the president of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave," Spencer continued. "The resolution also condemns 'negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,' which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism – for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Quranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's 'negative stereotyping.'"

Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law, criminal law, tort law, religious freedom law and other subjects at UCLA, and also founded the Volokh Conspiracy weblog, said that the First Amendment protecting speech in the United States isn't so secure all of a sudden.

"If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries – including the U.S. – should adhere to this resolution," he said.

"If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it,' he said.

The administration, he opined, would "presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).

"I'm worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence' and possibly of 'negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,'" Volokh said.

"Advocacy of mere hostility – for instance advocacy that people should hate and be hostile to radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity, or for that matter to religion generally – is clearly constitutionally protected here in the U.S.; but the resolution seems to call for its prohibition," he said.

"Beyond that, I'm worried that the executive branch's endorsement of speech-restrictive 'international human rights' norms will affect how the courts interpret the First Amendment, so that over time, 'an international norm against hate speech ... [would] supply a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding,'" he said.

Spencer reported in 2008 the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic States, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, warned, "We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism.

"The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked," Ihsanoglu continued, according to Spencer's report.

On Volokh's Web forum, one participant said, "Just another example of how the Chicago Mafia that is now running this country is going to destroy it, in advocacy of their beloved New World Order, in which the USA is secondary to 'international groups,' and indeed is held equal with, let us say, the Congo, or perhaps Belize, or Luxemburg, etc."

Added another, "Future liberal academics and judges will cite resolutions like this to claim the existence of a 'compelling interest' in banning 'hate speech' that overrides free speech rights. … In practice, hate speech laws are used in most of the world to silence dissent, not protect vulnerable minorities."

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for the "anti-defamation" plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states "that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said a statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."

Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law
'It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties'

A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.

The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.

Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.

Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act at a White House ceremony today. Prior to signing the act into law, Obama spoke briefly of the hate crimes bill.

"After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," he said. "I promised Judy Shepard when she saw me in the Oval Office that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband, Dennis, could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation. I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help make this day possible."

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."

Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.

"It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.

The Alliance Defense Fund blasted the "hate-crimes" bill, calling it "another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment."

"All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a statement. "This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel, or believe. ADF will be on the front line to defend those whose free speech or free exercise of religion rights are violated by this unconstitutional law and to ultimately overturn this attack on freedom."

Opponents point to cases in Canada and Sweden, where Christians have faced criminal prosecution for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.

"ADF has clearly seen the evidence of where 'hate crimes' legislation leads when it has been tried around the world: It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed 'politically correct,'" Stanley explained. "'Hate crimes' laws fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech."

Stanley said such crimes are already punishable under existing federal, state and local laws.

"Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime," he said. "The bottom line is that we do not need a law that creates second-class victims in America and that gives the government the opportunity to ignore the First Amendment."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, testified before Congress against the hate crimes bill in 2007.

"It is fundamentally unjust for the government to treat some crime victims more favorably than others, just because they are homosexual or transsexual," Dacus said. "This bill is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state law enforcement authority, and it is an unwise step toward silencing religious and moral viewpoints."

He said the adoption of hate crimes legislation has led to widespread suppression of speech deemed politically incorrect. The Pacific Justice Institute noted that in California, hate crimes laws are commonly invoked as a basis for further laws pushing acceptance of homosexuality in public schools and the workplace. The group also warned that use of "hate speech" terminology is also now being employed by minority religious groups in America to encourage suppression of free speech, as a prominent Hindu group called on Congress and major Internet service providers to shut down websites critical of Hinduism, including websites of Christian mission organizations.

The Pacific Justice Institute pledged to come to defend anyone who is prosecuted under the new hate crimes law because of their religious expression.

Liberty Counsel litigation counsel Matt Krause told WND, "It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties in general."

He said the law will not deter crime or help the law-enforcement system.

"The only thing it will do is silence and scare Christians and religious organizations," Krause said. "It will penalize thoughts and actions, and it will not stop crime. It should be called the 'thought-crimes' bill."

He continued, "We encourage pastors and church leaders to keep doing what they're doing and preach the gospel. If they run into any barriers, they can contact us because we are ready and willing to defend them in any way we need to."

The White House announced it will host a reception this evening to commemorate the enactment of the hate crimes legislation. Obama's remarks will be aired live on the White House website.

White House to Begin Push on Immigration Overhaul in 2010

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

In her first major speech on the overhaul, Ms. Napolitano dispelled any suggestion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — would postpone the most contentious piece of immigration legislation until after midterm elections next November.

Laying out the administration’s bottom line, Ms. Napolitano said officials will argue for a “three-legged stool” that includes tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and employers who hire them and a streamlined system for legal immigration, as well as a “tough and fair pathway to earned legal status.”

With unemployment surging over 10 percent and Congress still wrangling over health care, advocates on all sides of the immigration debate had begun to doubt that President Obama would keep his pledge to tackle the divisive illegal immigration issue in the first months of 2010.

Speaking at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano unveiled a double-barrel argument for a legalization program, saying it would enhance national security and, as the economy climbs out of recession, protect American workers from unfair competition from lower paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants.

“Let me emphasize this: we will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows,” she said, adding that the recovering economy would be strengthened “as these immigrants become full-paying taxpayers.”

Under the administration’s plan, illegal immigrants who hope to gain legal status would have to register, pay fines and all taxes they owe, pass a criminal background check and learn English.

Drawing a contrast with 2007, when a bill with legalization provisions offered by President George W. Bush failed in Congress, Ms. Napolitano said the Obama administration had achieved a “fundamental change” in border security and enforcement against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She said a sharp reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants into the country created an opportunity to move ahead with a legalization program.

Some Republicans were quick to challenge Ms. Napolitano’s claims that border security had significantly improved or that American workers would be helped by bringing illegal immigrants into the system.

“How can they claim that enforcement is done when there are more than 400 open miles of border with Mexico?” asked Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. He said the administration should “deport illegal immigrant workers so they don’t remain here to compete with citizen and legal immigrant job seekers.”

But Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, agreed that it was time to open the immigration debate. “My commitment to immigration reform has not changed,” he said in a statement Friday. “I am interested in seeing a proposal sooner rather than later from President Obama.”

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and the chairman of that subcommittee, has been writing an overhaul bill and consulting with Republicans, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Schumer said that the administration’s agenda was “ambitious,” but that he was “confident we can have a bipartisan immigration bill ready to go under whatever timeline the president thinks is best.”

Ms. Napolitano has been leading the administration’s efforts to gather ideas and support for the immigration overhaul, meeting in recent weeks with business leaders, religious groups, law enforcement officials and others to gauge their willingness to go forward with a debate in Congress.

Framing the administration’s proposals in stark law and order terms, she said immigration legislation should include tougher laws against migrant smugglers and more severe sanctions for employers who hire unauthorized workers.

Ms. Napolitano said that the Border Patrol had grown by 20,000 officers and that more than 600 miles of border fence had been finished, meeting security benchmarks set by Congress in 2007. She was echoing an argument adopted by Mr. Bush after the bill collapsed in 2007, and by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in his race against Mr. Obama. They said Americans wanted to see effective enforcement before they would agree to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

Some immigrant advocates were dismayed by Ms. Napolitano’s approach. Benjamin E. Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, praised her package of proposals, but said some enforcement policies she outlined “have proven to do more harm than good.”

Black pastor: Reid's 'slavery' reference 'deplorable'
'Remarks are a diversion tactic by a despot leader of a desperate Democrat party'

The black pastor who leads Bond Action Inc. in support of "family, traditional moral values and positive, honest race relations" says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., should be ashamed of comparing opposition to President Obama's plans to socialize medicine in the U.S. to support for slavery.

"Reid's comparison of legitimate Republican opposition towards the Democrats $2.5 trillion health care plan to segregationists is deplorable," Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson said today. "This was an attempt to smear Republicans as racists in order to take the focus off the details of this awful socialist health care bill. Reid's remarks are a diversion tactic by a despot leader of a desperate Democrat party. "

Reid had said, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right."

Reid continued, "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Reid has stood by his remarks, sparking outrage from Peterson.

"Harry Reid should be ashamed of himself. He knows that throughout history, the Democrats have been the party of segregationists and Ku Klux Klan members. It's common knowledge that Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in greater numbers than the Democrats – and without GOP support the bill wouldn't have passed. Maybe Reid should consult with his colleague Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who was a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan about the racist legacy of his own party," Peterson said.

Bond Action is a group that exists "to educate, motivate and rally Americans to greater involvement in the moral, cultural and political issues that threaten our great country."

Peterson noted Reid's history is checkered.

"In 2004, this same Harry Reid called President George W. Bush a 'liar' on NBC’s Meet The Press. In 2007, Reid prematurely and falsely declared that the U.S. had 'lost' the war in Iraq. And in 2008, he showed his disdain for the American people by saying that tourists were stinking up the Capitol with their body odor," Peterson said.

"This bill is not progress. It will limit our choices and destroy the best health care system in the world. Harry Reid is a wicked man and he's only interested in staying in power. Neither he nor Barack Obama can be trusted."

Officials for Project 21, the national leadership network of black conservatives, were equally outraged.

"Harry Reid has resorted to the most shopworn trick in the liberal playbook. He deployed the race card in the ugliest way while debating health care reform," said Deroy Murdock, a Project 21 member and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

"It is astonishing and outrageous to equate those who seek the defeat of Reid's 2,074-page, $2.5 trillion legislative monstrosity with those who were happy to keep blacks in chains, unpaid for their back-breaking labor and traded back and forth like cattle. The fact that Reid would use such deplorable, insulting and insensitive rhetoric indicates that he is out of credible arguments to defend his own proposal," Murdock said.

"The Senate's top Democrat owes an immediate apology to Republicans on Capitol Hill, the 39 House Democrats who voted against Obamacare on November 7 and the 51 percent of Americans from coast to coast who a Rasmussen survey recently found are against Obamacare," Murdock said.

"If Reid believes these Americans who object to his high-cost, low-quality legislation also hold warm feelings for slavery, he is further removed from reality than anyone so far has feared. If he does not believe this, he should stop cynically firing rhetorical mortar shells at decent Americans who merely disagree with his spendthrift, Big Government approach to health care."

Michal Massie, the chairman of Project 21, also cited Reid's apparent misunderstanding of history.

"Why is history so confusing to Harry Reid? Six of the nine original planks of the Republican Party at its inception in 1856 were based on opposition to slavery and promoting civil rights," said Massie. "Did Reid also forget what party Lyndon Johnson worked with to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only passed but to even get it through committee and onto the floor for a vote?

"One of the Democratic opponents – Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a former Klansman – is still serving today and is third in the presidential line of succession as the president pro tem. Reid's daring to brand opponents as racist is indicative of how far liberals are willing to go in order to control Americans from the cradle to the grave," he said.

Dr. Allen Unruh, a Midwest activist for tea party events in opposition to the Democrats' health-care plan, said it is Reid – and Obama – who actually want slavery for the American people.

"What does the 13th amendment to the Constitution say about slavery?" he asked WND. "It says, 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'

"When a doctor is told by government bureaucrats what services he can and cannot provide against his better judgment – that's involuntary servitude. When a doctor takes an oath to 'first do no harm' but is told to harm a patient with denied necessary care – that's involuntary servitude," he said.

"When the value of a doctor's services are pre-determined by government bureaucrats, and not based on free markets, or the value of his knowledge and experience – that's involuntary servitude," he said. "The government is in essence stealing the intellectual property of health care professionals, under threat of six figure fines and imprisonment if they don't comply with [the] government's cookbook guidelines which are mainly adopted for cost containment and to match global budgets."

Unruh said, "If doctors are slaves of the state that means their patients are wards of the state. Your health care will be determined by global budgets. There will be zero incentive for doctors to improve their service or do research or utilize new technology to help patients with chronic pain."

He said, "Our first black president wants to institutionalize slavery for America on a much larger scale than we had 100 years ago. Let the debate over who is a slave to who begin. The dictionary defines a slave as someone entirely under the domination of some influence or person."

WND reported the original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"Contributing to the evidences was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading South Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels who testified that 'they [the Ku Klux Klan] belong to the reform part – [that is, to] our party, the Democratic Party,'" Barton writes.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."

School uniform argument may lead to lawsuit
Principal contacted dad's Army commanders when faced with criticism

A decorated member of the U.S. military says he may bring a lawsuit against school officials in Huntsville, Ala., after they complained to his military commanders when he objected to plans to require students, including his children, to spend $400 on uniforms.

"This case is not about me versus the school district," wrote Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, a 15-year Army veteran and military blogger who was invited by President George W. Bush to the White House for a historic sit-down meeting with a select gathering of "mil-bloggers."

"It's about parental rights and the limits of our educators in dealing with parental concerns, especially when those parents are in the military."

But, he confirmed, "I am pursuing a lawsuit to clear my name and force the school system to admit they overstepped their bounds by denying my right to participate in my children's education and attempt to ruin my career."

Grisham now is the the cover story for "Off Duty," an insert included in the Military Times, the magazine for the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Grisham's photo is overlaid with the headline: "The Rise and Fall of a Military Blogger – Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham didn't mince words. His readers loved it. His command hated it."

Grisham is in a new kind of fight after taking down a squad of Iraqis when his counterintelligence detachment was pinned down in an ambush. He earned a Bronze Star with "V" after rushing through the gunfire by himself with just a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade.

Before signing off permanently from his blogsite "A Soldiers Perspective," Grisham told his 1,500-plus readers:

"In September, my kids brought home a note from their school stating that the school would transition to uniforms beginning in January – midway through the school year. Naturally, this concerned me as the cost for each kid (I have two who would be affected) would be at least $400. A note home to parents assured us that the principal would entertain concerns during the upcoming 'uniform fashion show.' However, the principal ended that meeting without answering a question, even though numerous hands were up. After that meeting, I organized parents with concerns and began a letter-writing and phone-calling campaign to members of the school board and media. We succeeded in getting the uniform issue tabled until next year. But parents still weren't given a voice about whether we even wanted uniforms."

Instead of dealing with Grisham and other parents who disagreed with her new policy, the school's principal contacted the Army, saying Grisham had threatened her, the blog reports.

"She pointed to posts on my personal blog about her behavior at the meeting as proof. However, after being referred to military investigators, they concluded that I had never issued any threats through e-mail, blog or otherwise. I collected letters from other parents attesting to my behavior at the meeting," Grisham wrote.

However, the Army took a dim view of the conflict.

"Suddenly, I was a troublemaker after 15 years of honorable service," he wrote.

And that wasn't the end of it.

"At a PTA meeting a few weeks later, I again tried to present a motion to discuss the school uniform issue with the members of the association. It was shot down by the principal and the PTA president. I was harassed the entire evening by school security officials. Thankfully, I decided it would be prudent to record that meeting. When school officials again began contacting the Army about my supposedly threatening and disrespectful behavior at the meeting, I published the video on my blog to clear my name. This didn't sit well with school officials and only emboldened them to step up their claims and use the military to force me to take down the videos – the only piece of evidence I had to prove my innocence," he explained.

Attempts to obtain comment from the school were unsuccessful.

Grisham had at one time acknowledged on his blogsite and radio program that he believed he was dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which the principal used to bolster claims Grisham was a dangerous menace to her and her goals.

Grisham and his wife Emily removed their two children from the school, he says, because they were harassed.

"Because of this situation, my wife and I felt the need to relocate our kids after being singled out on more than one occasion by teachers and school staff. We took our kids to live with their grandparents until my orders allowed me to relocate in December. That trip cost us over $1,400, plus another $1,500 in maintenance on our elderly van, which completely wiped out our savings."

As a result, Grisham is asking for help with his lawsuit.

"I am reaching out through various avenues to help raise the money. I've enlisted the help of local media, talk shows and blogs to help me raise the money. Fellow milbloggers are reaching into their pockets and tapping their readers as well. My neighbors and local Huntsville citizens are donating to a local fund at a bank where I'm stationed."

He says, "While I have no problem asking for money to support these efforts, I've always been very bashful about asking for anything for myself. However, I feel like I must humble myself and ask for help on my own behalf in this instance."

Grisham also is in the process of relocating from Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala., to Fort Hood, Texas, for the next stage of his military service.

Here come the Brown Shirts. I'm sure that a revolution will follow.

Fears awakened: Army study suggests new 'police force'

Army-sponsored report suggests new 'police force'
Domestic agents could be used in 'shaping an environment before a conflict'

A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment "Stabilization Police Force" that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict" and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.

But civil libertarians are worried just exactly what the force would do, domestically or overseas.

Page 16 of the 213-page report says the new elite unit's purpose depends on where it is and who would be in command.

"The answer to this question (about its purpose) depends on the situation into which an SPF might be inserted. The SPF could be used for missions such as: shaping an environment before a conflict; law enforcement duties in an active conflict environment; or security, stability, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations after a conflict. It could operate as an independent entity under a U.S. ambassador or a U.N. Senior Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), or as a force element reporting to a Joint Task Force (JTF) commander," the report states.

The purpose statement doesn't say where the new unit would be deployed. However, Rand Corporation report co-author Terry Kelly said the Army-commissioned study primarily focuses on a force that would be sent overseas.

"The unit is supposed to deploy to places like Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe even places like Haiti where there's a tremendous disaster," Kelly said.

Learn what some organizations want in your future, read "Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World"

"Really, the purpose would be to help our military forces or whoever is in charge of maintaining stability to catch terrorists or prevent major criminals from operating," he added.

Mark Taylor, a private investigator and intelligence analyst with experience in Iraq, says he can't see the purpose for such a force.

"With regard to overseas missions, there is the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. If they need assistance, you have private military contractors such as XE and DynaCorp," Taylor said.

"In my case, the company I worked for moved in, did the mission and left. Period. In the case of a federal bureaucracy, you will fund it and it will do nothing but grow into a bureaucratic nightmare," Taylor said.

Taylor believes the additional force would just add to the confusion in any overseas situation.

"In addition the military and private contractor options, there are always the United Nations blue helmets, for whatever good they do. A federal police force would amount to nothing more than another colored helmet," Taylor said.

Taylor's comments about the U.N. point to the command structure of the overseas force. One of the statements in the report says the unit could serve under a U. S. foreign service officer or under U.N. authority.

Kelly admits the U.N. connection.

"It might be a U.S. ambassador who is in charge. It could work for the U.N. because there are plenty of U.N. missions that are working in different countries," Kelly said.

"That would be the decision that our government would make that this unit would work under U.N. authority. Usually when we have our forces under U.N. authority they're operating for a U.S. commander who is working with the U.N.," she said.

Although the report by the federally funded think tank spends most of its pages on overseas deployment, civil libertarians wonder if the proposed unit will only focus on foreign operations.

Kelly confirmed the force could be deployed in the United States.

"If there were a major disaster like Katrina it could be deployed in the U. S. but that's not the purpose of the research," he said.

"It's important to point out that the goal was to create a force that's deployable overseas. If it's to be used in the United States it would be a secondary thing and then only in an emergency," Kelly said.

But Taylor believes there is no need for a federal police force to function in the U.S.

"I cannot see any positives in setting up a national police force. Cities, counties and states have control over their own law enforcement and it should remain that way. Granting the federal government the power to police each individual locality is a Gestapo waiting to happen," Taylor said.

"If it became necessary to supplement local law enforcement in the case of another New Orleans, where a disaster situation is made more dangerous by lawless thugs looting, it would be more practical to hire a private contractor such as XE or DynaCorp to send their highly trained professionals in to stabilize the area. Once the job is done, they go on to the next (assignment)," Taylor said.

Darrell Castle is a retired Marine Corps officer with service in Vietnam, a practicing attorney and the Constitution Party's 2008 vice presidential nominee. Castle is skeptical of the report and believes the unit could be used in the U.S. against Americans.

"First, you have to approach anything done by or for the federal government in light of what I believe the ultimate goal of the federal government to be," Castle said.

"As I see it, the goal is to do the bidding of the international cartel of central bankers and financiers in order to assist them in building a world government police state which would entail total surveillance, total control, and the absence of what we think of as constitutional rights," he said.

Castle added that even though the report focuses mostly on foreign deployments, some of the language leaves open the possibility for domestic use.

"To that end, the question becomes, how does a stability police force for the United States move the federal government closer to its goal of totalitarian control? When the question is asked in that manner, the answer becomes fairly obvious," Castle warned.

Castle believes the goal is power, and a major springboard for such a power grab comes from the economy.

"Conditions have been intentionally created within the United States which make some kind of chaotic catastrophe very likely. This event could be anything the mind of man can dream up due to the overwhelming public debt and huge deficit which is budgeted to grow by trillions over the next few years," Castle said.

cont'd

"Hyperinflation and the resulting loss of the dollar's reserve status seems unavoidable. The United States is now at deficit spending which is 40 percent of the budget and climbing," Castle said.

To illustrate his point, Castle turned to history.

"The Weimar government in pre-Hitler Germany accelerated deficit spending to 70 percent of budget and when it did, hyperinflation occurred with its ruination of the German nation that started a cataclysmic chain of events in motion," he said.

"The Stability Police Force then is necessary to control the population much as the U.S. military is attempting to control the remaining population of Haiti right now. It is part of a long existing effort to mingle and combine all law enforcement, federal, state, and local with the military into one force," Castle said.

Castle is not the only one who thinks the Stabilization Police Force is the next step in establishing a totalitarian state. The Rand Corporation's Kelly said that since the report's release, he's received a number of letters and phone messages making the same claim.

However, Kelly insists the study is not a master plan for authoritarian rule.

"There are all kinds of aspects of government that can be manipulated in a bad way. But it would require a whole bunch of things to go wrong. Any means of coercion that exist in the government can be manipulated if the right things go wrong," Kelly said.

"Is it is conceivable that it could be used for a malevolent purpose? Yes, but it's not designed to do that and its purpose would not be for power. Frankly there would be much easier tools for someone with bad intentions," Kelly said.

"The two options we thought were viable were as a reserve option where call a whole bunch of police officers from a whole bunch of precincts. That's a really hard thing to do," Kelly said.

"If someone wanted to use the unit for a bad purpose it would require the cooperation of a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of organizations," he said.

"The other option we picked was a military unit, to create a military police unit to do the specific tasks. Military police units do military police work, not civilian police work which is what you need in these countries like Iraq and Afghanistan," Kelly said.

"I don't think this unit will create any more danger than already exists. If somebody wanted to do something unfortunate, there are easier ways to do it than manipulating this force," Kelly said.

Command of the Stabilization Police Force is still a concern. Page 123 of the Rand Corporation report says the force would work best under a civilian federal agency or the military police.

"They (the data) suggest that the U.S. Marshals Service and the MP options are the only credible ones. The Marshals Service has sufficient baseline capabilities and a policing culture to build a competent SPF, and its location in the Department of Justice makes it well suited to achieve broader rule-of-law objectives. This finding is consistent with a significant body of academic and policy research, which strongly concludes that civilian agencies are optimal for the execution of policing functions."

Taylor's concerns about the creation of such a response force and placing the unit under a federal department come from seeing how federal operations have functioned in the past.

"Once you establish a government agency or program, it does nothing but grow into a huge bureaucratic monstrosity that feeds on the taxpayer. And, as with the case of health care, bank bailouts and the like, should the federal government even consider such an undertaking, it would amount to just another intrusion into the states' rights to govern and intrude into the liberties of the American people," Taylor said.

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on January 25, 2009, 08:30:39 AM

How sad to have such fears of a nation that wants to help the least of these. You were not afraid under republican rule when there were decisions to cut back on health care for poor children, cut off food stamps for poor families, take jobs out of this nation, give taxes to the rich? To use tax dollars to fight wars where more civilians were killed than soldiers?

It sounds as though you fear compassion for the least of these and have nothing but a great fear of those who want to help others.

Tell me. How much money do you think it takes to take care of over 45 million people without health care?

ChristiansUnite Forums

Entertainment => Politics and Political Issues => Topic started by: nChrist on January 25, 2009, 08:30:39 AM