Thursday, April 16, 2009
Fox News televised the partial unloading of more than 1 million of our tea bags at Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. near the White House this morning (note background of photo)! Unfortunately, representatives of The Patriot Depot and Reagan.org were told by National Park Services officials to reload the truck. Why? Even though the original protest permit was approved, our tea bag team was conveniently told that it was not the "proper" permit.
This is an absolute outrage and a denial of our First Amendment rights, which read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
organizers modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations.'" So which is it?
In an era in which Congress can approve thousands of pages of legislation spending hundreds of billions of dollars without reading the proposal, there seems to be no definitive answer on what some of the vague language of H.R. 1388 means.
But there is enough in the "GIVE Act," now awaiting a conference committee in Congress after being approved by both the U.S. House and Senate, to cause critics to shiver.
For example, it certainly imposes a requirement for public service on some people, even though its original much-feared study on mandatory service for all was moved to another bill during congressional debate.
"The Audacity of Deceit" exposes exactly who Barack Obama is. He isn't pedaling "change you can believe in" – he's planning to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular, socialist policies of the past.
The latest version includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "has successfully completed training" and "complete not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."
It also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.
For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing
, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."
But probably the biggest red flag for many is how the proposal fits into the overall picture painted by President Obama when he described to a Colorado Springs audience a "National Civilian Security Force" that he wants as big and well-funded as the U.S. military – a staggering suggestion that would involve hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.
Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal.
Judi McLeod wrote for Canada Free Press that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.
"Everybody means the roughly seven million people called to public duty in the $6 billion National Service effort," she said. "But members pressed into the service of the one million-strong Youth Brigade, sanctioned by 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education
(GIVE),' will have none of the freedoms of the community organizer who started it all.
"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."
She also describes one section with a program to introduce "service learning" as "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."
The plan suggests raising the participation in such programs from 75,000 now to 250,000.
Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Gary Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.
"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.
He cited the Hitler Youth's launch in the 1920s. In 1933, the participants totaled 100,000, and in 1939 the membership was compulsory for those over 17. Two years later, the membership was compulsory for those over 10, and it included 90 percent of the nation's youth.
He also cited concerns it would steer volunteers away from churches, politicize charity and focus on the "education" of participants.
"The legislation will, in many circumstances, force our children to participate in charitable activity as part of school – and that activity may well be chosen by or approved by a bureaucrat," he suggested.
At Washington Watch one forum participant warned, "Our republic is under attack as never before."
Said another, "This is social engineering at the very least, and could be the first step towards the reinstitution of slavery! Take heed, the New World Order (aka 'Change') draws nigh!"
WND reported when Obama delivered his Colorado Springs mandate and a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.
Monday, April 6, 2009
MINSTER, OH- Jon Hoying, president of Fabcor Inc., is flying his company's American flag upside down as a protest to recent government actions.
He flipped the flag a week ago and then went home that night and pondered whether to change the display the next morning. Ultimately, he decided it would stay that way as one man's message to the powers that be in Washington, D.C.
"It hurts me to see my flag with the union down," the father of five says. "It is a painful reminder to me and hopefully to others that the time has come to stand up for what is right and good in our great nation before it ceases to exist."
Hoying feels "We the People" has become "We the Government" with their talk of a one world order, one world currency, taking away the right to bear arms, nationalized health care, forced volunteerism, massive tax increases, regulating and taking over free enterprise, funding the United Nations population control fund, large deficits and government funded abortions among other concerns.
"We have to wake up and take back our country," he says. "I've got a message to get across, but Washington won't hear if I jump up and down screaming and hollering. It takes something visual for people to stop and take notice."
Hoying means no disrespect displaying the flag in such manner, adding it is the official signal of distress when done for the right reasons. "The Flag Code" states the flag should never be displayed with the union down except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life and property.
"I am one voice of many who believe the life, liberty and property of U.S. citizens are in dire danger and distress," he says. "As a nation I feel we are quickly headed down the wrong path. Where are the values and principles that made this a great nation? Have our leaders lost all common sense or are they purposefully gearing us toward socialism? Our God given right to freedom is at risk."Hoying decided to take ac-tion immediately after news broke about bonuses paid to AIG employees in the wake of a government bailout - something he believes President Barack Obama knew about and wholeheartedly condoned. He adds another sign of "too much government" is the president requesting the head of General Motors to step down.
"Free enterprise is what makes our country so great," he says. "Now even that is in danger."
One has only to walk through the company located at 350 S. Ohio St. to realize the patriotism Hoying and his employees share. From the "Proud to be an American" banner in the front lobby to multiple Star Spangled banners suspended from rafters in the work area. Huge letters spell out "God Bless America" on the front of a delivery truck proclaiming a message that appeared in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy while American flag emblems decorate the shoulder of each employee uniform. Even the mouse pads the company distributes to customers have a patriotic theme.
He admits the flag display has generated a number of telephone calls. One caller vehemently disagreed with his logic while the other seven listened to his logic and voiced no more complaints. Company officials taped an explanation to the front door and more printed copies are available at the reception window.
"If everyone who shares my concern would also fly their flags with the union down maybe we would finally have our voices heard in Washington," Hoying says looking out the window at the flagpole overlooking a pond. "I am not dishonoring my country; I love my country and want my kids to have the same opportunities I have been blessed with."
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Back to the current power grab by The Obama administration. Our current government is on a power grab, like nothing that has ever been seen in the history of this country. They do it in the name of economic security. Since the current situation affects such over whelming number of people, it makes it OK.
Below is a new chip of what going on at this moment. I say at this Moment because in a minute or two they'll be taking a different freedom from us! I can't keep up!!!!!!
A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency."
Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.
A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act's broadly drawn government powers. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
"The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president."
According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation "addresses our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure."
In a statement explaining the bill's introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on."
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, "If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:
First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.
Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure."
Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional. And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power. "There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government behind them," writes Seltzer in eWeek. "This is not the same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and who can do it."
"It's an incredibly broad authority," CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us."
According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.
"What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are 'banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.' Let's think about this," writes Seltzer. "I'm especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash."
S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.
-- Barack Obama
Saturday, April 4, 2009
I found this article by Ryan Messmore on www.heritage.org interesting.
In February, the Obama Administration announced its proposals to raise tax rates on high-income earners and to reduce their tax deduction rate on gifts made to charities. These strategies are intended to raise funds for Obama's health care plan.
The Senate Budget Committee passed an amendment by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to the budget resolution that would prevent this policy from going into effect. Congress should give this amendment full consideration. In so doing, it can resist government crowd out of the valuable charitable work performed by individuals and nonprofits.
American citizens in the highest marginal personal income tax bracket are taxed at a rate of 35 percent. If they donate to a charitable organization, they can receive a tax deduction at the same 35 percent rate. For example, if a couple in this marginal bracket gives $10,000 to a hospital, they can write off $3,500 when filing their taxes.
Under Obama's proposal, beginning in 2011, families making over $250,000 a year would see their marginal personal income tax rate rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Rather than keeping the charitable deduction rate consistent with the tax rate, Obama proposes reducing it to 28 percent. At this reduced rate, the possible tax write off from a $10,000 donation would drop from $3,500 to $2,800, a difference of $700.
The Obama Administration estimates that its proposed tax changes will fill government health care coffers with around $630 billion over 10 years.
The Likely Consequences
The President claims that his tax plan will only have a small negative effect on charitable giving. Percentage-wise, this may be true, but the estimated reduction in giving means billions of dollars less each year for charities, especially if weak economic conditions continue.
Scholars at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University estimated that, had Obama's proposed changes been in place in 2006, total itemized contributions from wealthy households would have dropped almost $4 billion.
While this amount is only a small percentage of total charitable donations given each year, it represents more than the annual operating budgets of the American Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude's Children's Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association combined. Moreover, other scholars estimate that under Obama's proposal charitable organizations would see donations drop possibly by as much as $9 billion every year.
In addition to receiving less money from wealthy donors, charitable organizations under Obama's plan could face a more subtle yet significant challenge: government crowding them out of social welfare provision. This phenomenon occurs when government claims increasing responsibility for tasks once performed by civil society, absorbing a larger percentage of the resources dedicated to carrying out those tasks.
Obama defends his proposal as a way of "equalizing" tax breaks for donors in different tax brackets. In his March 24 prime-time news conference, Obama said it would not be fair to allow wealthy donors to write off more than lower- or middle-income donors who give the same amount. "Ultimately," he added, "if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more."
But Obama ignores the fact that wealthy citizens get a higher deduction precisely because they already pay more--a lot more--in taxes. In fact, although families making over $250,000 a year represent less than 5 percent of income earners in America, they pay 48 percent of all federal income taxes. That a portion of their giving may go to private charities instead of to the government does not change the fact that, under the present tax system, the wealthy already shoulder a larger burden for social welfare. But Obama seems to believe that federal government bureaucracy can deploy the resources of the wealthy more effectively than nonprofit civil society organizations can.
President Obama has stated his desire to help "folks who have fallen on very hard times." Yet he is standing by his proposal to lower deductions for charitable giving, which would hamper efforts by nonprofits to help needy families. The President seems to be letting his desire to equalize differences undercut his desire to help the poor.
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's proposal says something about who Obama thinks can best determine how to distribute people's money.
In their influential book To Empower People, Peter Berger and the late Richard John Neuhaus describe the importance to a healthy democratic society of "mediating institutions"--i.e., forms of association like the family, church, and nonprofit organization that stand between citizens and the large institutions of public life.
Mediating institutions are essential for generating and maintaining the operative values of society. They are also well-equipped to provide a helping hand to people in the context of face-to-face relationships. They have intimate knowledge of those in need--they understand social problems in up-close and personal ways. Driven by deep convictions and compassion, such organizations can provide loving forms of assistance and care that government programs cannot offer. And they often do so for less money. Smaller and more flexible than most government bureaucracies, local congregations and charities can also spawn creative social innovations that benefit those in need.
Berger and Neuhaus claim that public policy should "cease and desist from damaging mediating structures." More than that, though, public policy should protect mediating institutions and, where possible without co-opting them, empower them in their efforts to promote the common good.
The tax plan put forward in Obama's 2010 budget blueprint, however, implies that the state should assume responsibility for people's needs even at the expense of vital mediating institutions. And it communicates the notion that America is better off with expansive and intrusive--rather than limited--government.
In short, Obama's proposed tax plan penalizes those who can give the most, shifts dollars from citizens and local private charities to distant government bureaucracy, and prioritizes mandatory taxation to voluntary tithing and giving.
Unfortunately, Obama's proposed tax changes move the dial of social responsibility one more notch in the direction of the state. This sets a course for adopting many future policies that could chip away at local, personal, mutual obligation and increase dependence on government. For an example of this, one need look no further than Obama's vision of expanding government control over health care, which is the very objective behind proposals to raise taxes and reduce charitable deductions for wealthy citizens.
The Bully Pulpit
Obama should use his presidential authority and influence to encourage voluntary giving and protect nonprofit groups, especially during tough economic times. President Obama speaks articulately and often of the important role charitable institutions play in America. He should send an equally clear message in his policy. Reconsidering the tax changes proposed for charitable donations would be good place to begin.
Ryan Messmore is William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
The marginal tax rate is the statutory rate at which a taxpayer's last dollar of income is taxed.
Those in the second highest income bracket would also see their personal income tax rate increase, from 33 percent to 36 percent.
If the charitable deduction instead stayed consistent with the increased tax rate at 39.6 percent, the difference in tax savings would be even greater. According to that scenario, the couple making a $10,000 gift would go from a $3,960 deduction to a $2,800 deduction, a difference of $1,160.
"Obama's Tax Plan Could Cause Giving by the Wealthy to Drop by Several Billion Dollars Annually," Chronicle of Philanthropy, February 27, 2009, at http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7285 (April 2, 2009).
Based on 2007 and 2008 figures available on the organizations' Web sites.
"The Charity Revolt: Liberals Oppose a Tax Hike on Rich Donors," The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2009, at http://online.wsj.com/article
/SB123664427493678121.html (April 2, 2009); Ryan J. Donmoyer, "Rich Donors May Be Undeterred by Tax Caps on Charitable Gifts," Bloomberg.com, March 4, 2009, at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive
&sid=aRLx2HwnWyWs (April 2, 2009).
See Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), p. 58.
Transcript available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/
See "Who's paying how much to IRS--December 10, 2008," The Heritage Foundation A La Chart No. 39, at http://www.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart
Transcript available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/politics/
Peter L. Berger and Richard John Neuhaus, To Empower People: From State to Civil Society, ed. Michael Novak, 20th anniversary edition (Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 1996), p. 158.
Ibid., p. 163.
Now, lets look at some comparisons:
According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.
No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.
Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591,$212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236,$31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.
That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.
Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.
Are you fed up with a Congress and President who voted for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it, passing trillions of dollars in debt to our great-grandchildren, giving special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected, taking your hard-earned money and redistributing it to others.
I am, that’s why I am supporting and attending a local Tea Party on April 15th. The fact is there are Tax Day Tea Parties scheduled in cities around the country on April 15th.
Visit here find your local Tea Party: http://taxdayteaparty.com/
Thursday, April 2, 2009
He gave the Queen of England an iPod? Really? What a dope! After the gaffe with the DVDs that he gave Gordon Brown you would think that he would have wisened up and sought some professional help to help him choose the perfect gift. SHE IS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND NOT SOME HAG OFF THE STREET. Show a little respect! Obama is an embarassment to this country. And they thought Bush was a bad president? This guy has him beat by a country mile.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Do we still need to fight a war on terror?
The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.
The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.
An influential book making the rounds - "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" - argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists themselves.
Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.
This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.
First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked British report detailed al-Qaida's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years.
Second, have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.
Third, in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries allow indirect financial and psychological support for al-Qaida terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must assume that a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war - and our enemies' greatest advantage.
Fourth, jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything - except Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led to riot and death.
The net result is that terrified millions in Western societies silently accept that for the first time in centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think of Islam and the Koran.
Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depend on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.
A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.
Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.
Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.
This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.
But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."
Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.
President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
He’s a fan of “transnational legal process,” arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Fort Campbell command reversed under pressure
A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored.
The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not "acting within his authority."
The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a "privately owned weapon" was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit.
Further, the rule warned, "If any soldier comes into possession of a Privately Owned Weapon following the effective date of this memorandum, he is required to inform the Chain of Command of the above information."
One soldier who objected to the demands circulated the memo, commenting that he lives off post.
"It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days the most anti-firearm president in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why," the soldier said.
Base spokeswoman Cathy Gramling told WND the letter apparently was a mistake. She said the base requires anyone bringing a privately owned weapon onto the installation to register it.
"As a response to a number of negligent discharges of privately owned weapons, the command decided to explore how to implement a training program for soldiers with privately owned weapons. Their goal is to identify soldiers with firearms and provide additional safety training to them, much like our motorcycle and driver safety classes," she said.
"Our soldiers train and operate in combat with M-4 carbines and various other military weapons, but not all who purchase their own weapons are properly trained to handle them. Determining which soldiers possess weapons will allow the command to identify the soldiers who may require additional training on them," she said.
Learn here why it's your right – and duty – to be armed.
Gramling said the memo was "from a subordinate unit commander who, at the time, believed he was acting within his authority." She said requiring the information was halted when it was discovered the commander was not within his authority.
The process has been suspended pending a full review, she said.
"This is not an effort to infringe on soldiers' rights to own firearms," Gramling told WND.
Mistake or not, the commander's order comes on the heels of a Department of Defense policy that limited the supply of ammunition available to the private gun owners by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.
That policy already had been implemented and had taken a bite out of the nation's stressed ammunition supply before it was reversed this week.
Mark Cunningham, a legislative affairs representative with the Defense Logistics Agency, explained in an e-mail to the office of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that the Department of Defense had placed small arms cartridge cases on its list of sensitive munitions items as part of an overall effort to ensure national security is not jeopardized in the sale of any Defense property.
"Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale," Cunningham wrote.
I’d like to give you the heads up on “HR 45″ - the Blair Holts Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - introduced by Representative Bobby Rush (D) Illinois. These are the “suggested” requirements of this proposed national bill:
Require Licensing to anyone who wants to own a gun.
Require each gun owner to submit a current passport size photo to the government.
Require the individual to submit to a thumbprint for the government database.
Creation of a Federal Firearms Card.
Must release any mental health records to the government - so they will be able to decide who can and who cannot own guns.
You would then have to pass a “test” administered by the government that would test you for the following: the safe storage of arms, the safe handling of arms, proper use of firearms in the home and the legal responsibilities of firearm owners.
Imagine those requirements? Whether this Bill gets put in the schedule for Congress or not - just know - this is just the beginning of the attack - it will come in waves over the next 2-4 years. The government will slowly try to limit our availability to guns, ammunition and the rights of gun owners.
Once the government alienates and disenfranchises enough hard working, tax paying Americans these elected officials - do not want us armed - simple as that. Which is why I say that right now, one should own guns - to prepare for whatever direction this country takes. Even the Declaration of Independence talks of the people’s right to “alter or abolish” a government when it becomes “destructive to these ends.” We cannot let these documents become meaningless - our founding fathers knew that this is where our form of government could lead.
An American has the right to protect themselves. As it clearly says in the 2nd Amendment - “The right of the people to keep and bear arms - shall not be infringed.“ We must all rise up to block any attempt by this radical government to infringe on our 2nd Amendment - this Amendment may be our last hope - our last coat of armor and the founding fathers knew this - which is precisely why they wrote it into the Constitution. Remember, when it all began, that it was the states who were dominant and the Federal government was small - we must go back to these roots if America is to thrive once again.
This issue of gun “control” should clearly be decided by each individual state as they choose fit. Let their people vote on it and make their own decision - we do not need these corrupt Federal politicians deciding the 2nd Amendment fate for each end every person in this country - they need to butt out! The people know that they need to bear arms now more than ever - because of our crazy out of control government.
We must rise up as a people and protect our sacred 2nd Amendment rights because if these rights are slowly eroded away then along with them will be other cherished Constitutional rights. We must stand tall to protect out Constitution. Right now it’s the only thing between us and complete Socialism - which is desired by our elected officials.
Don’t let them fool you. In today’s news we saw Obama saying he was “against” the Fairness Doctrine - but in reality he just knows that it would cause a HUGE backlash against the government and free speech - he doesn’t want to go there right now - he just wants to slowly and “behind the scenes” sink this great country into a Venezuelan type of Socialism - are you ready for it? Or are you ready to fight against it?
What gets me is that every member of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House including the President has sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution - based on what is happening in Washington right now and this proposed bill I would say that NO ONE is upholding the Constitution - NO ONE is even thinking of the Constitution, so that leaves it up to us - the tax payers - We the People. Please, make your voice heard today.
Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort. Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”
The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.
In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.
MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics. MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (see the NASCO map here). The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document· The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document·
In order to artificially heighten the perceived threat threshold, MIAC rolls in Christian Identity, white nationalism, “militant” anti-abortion activists, opposition to illegal immigration, and income tax resistance. MIAC deceptively blurs the lines between these disparate political ideologies and underscores the possibility for violence in a summary of the organizational structure of the militia movement and a section describing how members strive to train in “combat readiness.”
The MIAC effort to characterize Libertarians and Constitutionalists as racists is reminiscent of an attempt by the corporate media in early 2008 to portray Ron Paul as a racist by attempting to link him to a series of vaguely racist newsletters produced in the 1980s. Paul did not exercise editorial control over the newsletters and went so far as to apologize for them, but this did not prevent the corporate media from characterizing him as a racist.
According to MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a threat to the police. “The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps,” the document claims in a section entitled “You are the Enemy.”
In regard to supposed militia movement literature and media, the MIAC report mentions Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism and William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries — the latter was penned by the former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance and the former by a Libertarian filmmaker. In order to underscore the absurdity of the MIAC attempt to link Pierce’s novel and Russo’s anti-tax documentary, it should be noted that the late Aaron Russo was Jewish and The Turner Dairies posits a Zionist government in America (or ZOG, the Zionist Occupation Government) run by Jews.
The award-winning film Zeitgeist, featuring Alex Jones, is also mentioned as terrorist material. The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists. MIAC is attempting to radicalize the police against political activity guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If Missouri police indoctrinated by MIAC propaganda overreact to political activists and supporters of Ron Paul in their state and injure or kill people involved in entirely legal and legitimate political activity, MIAC, the governor of Missouri (his name appears on the MIAC document), and the DHS and federal government should be held directly responsible and prosecuted the fullest extent of the law.
Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens
Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10,
Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90,
NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty , Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga, SAR-8,SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU,
Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.
Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Watch This, If You Want More Proof: