FOR PICS GO TO LINKS AT BOTTOM/" THE SYNTHESIS " POST 2010 ELECTION-THANKSGIVING EDITION:

" THE SYNTHESIS " POST 2010 ELECTION-THANKSGIVING EDITION:
OBAMA IS FACING $26 BILLION IN CUTS TO HIS 2011 BUDGET/REPUBLICAN THANKFULNESS SHOWS ITSELF IN MANY FORMS, AS AMERICANS ARE NO TURKEYS WHEN IT COMES TO WALKING AWAY FROM OBAMA’S LACKLUSTER PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES....

by: AJA BROOKS, OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM VOLUNTEER FOR THE BLACK RIBBON OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEDIA BIAS AND GA LOBBYIST FOR "LIFE AND LIBERTY"

WHAT IS "THE SYNTHESIS"? The synthesis is an objective analysis of political journalism, an assessment of the perception of the facts, a political digest for the common man. DISCLAIMER: IF YOU'RE IGNORANT, A HYPOCRITE, OR NOT A FAN OF RAW JOURNALISM, THIS MAY NOT BE FOR YOU, AND YOU SHOULD JUST STOP READING NOW AND DELETE THIS, NOT SEND ME AN EMAIL BACK WHINING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST GOING TO GET IT FORWARDED BACK TO YOUR OWN BOX --- just ask Carolyn Cary of "The Citizen" Fayette Edition! There are no spam laws in GA, and just because I use my freedom of speech in a way that challenges you doesn't necessarily mean anything in a court of law, or by you threatening to send me a summons in the mail just because your sensibilities are different than mine: it doesn't make me "scum"; it just makes your political philosophy as stale and decrepit as your existence and attitude....(if you're curious, see the archive at the end of this edition.) I have even found that those in law enforcement are seemingly oblivious to our current laws and how the laws are supposed to be interpreted properly by and through the Constitution, so I encourage you to exercise your rights, before they disappear from American culture. You don't have to write a newsletter like this one, but you surely can forward it to your friends, and you can even talk about it around the water cooler!! This publication is brought to you by people like us, who seek out the truth, an online collaboration of discussion topics for your perusal. *If you're being threatened with legal action for telling the truth, you're on the right side of the law*.


Some of you may have wondered where I’ve been since the end of August, so my dear readers, I must tell you, lobbyists are ALWAYS working, whether or not they are in front of a computer screen or being present at their state legislative building discussing/revising legislation, even community gatherings and tea parties at home take a lot of time and preparation, to get people to openly discuss politics one must create the atmosphere to do so. Which means a lot of legislative revision does take place in the wee hours of the night, the early hours of the morning, as we sandwich 12hrs. of working or rearing children around it all. I had several odd jobs: tutoring, housekeeping, dog sitting, and other personal matters requiring great responsibility and :


(I had exhausted all of the images available to me after exposing the campaign strategies of the Democrats, so to savor the success of “The Synthesis” over the past year, I hope to continue bringing you something that you’re actually thankful to read about: the good, the bad, and the fugly....

NOT the ‘make us think they’re good’, ‘but we’re not really bad’, with more economic brainwashing. If you haven’t figured out what “The Synthesis” is all about, in the in the Internet world and American politics, it’s everything!)

FIRST THE GOOD NEWS: http://www.newsmax.com/video/viewid/b9183e1f-16c5-4bc2-897e-6b6564426b6b
Judge's Rebuke to Obamacare Opens Door to States' Lawsuit

Thursday, 14 Oct 2010 03:18 PM
Article Font Size
By David A. Patten
Grass-roots conservatives and GOP leaders rejoiced Thursday following a federal judge's ruling that a multistate challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare must be allowed to go forward.

The Obama administration had asked that the lawsuit be dismissed as groundless and tossed out of court. Thursday's rejection of those arguments sets up a Dec. 16 hearing on the merits of the case.

A similar challenge to Obamacare in Virginia is scheduled to go to trial on Monday.

The effort of 20 state attorneys general to have Obamacare declared unconstitutional is shaping up as a major legal battle playing out on the eve of the November midterm elections. All sides agree that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately will decide the case.

Story continues below video.


Federal Judge Roger Vinson on Thursday afternoon tossed out three of the states' six objections to Obamacare and ruled another one moot.

But he gave the states and the National Federation of Independent Business, which has joined the lawsuit, permission to press forward on the two points most legal analysts say are their strongest:
That a federally mandated expansion of Medicaid will "run [state] budgets off a cliff."
That the individual mandate requiring people to have healthcare insurance exceeds the federal government's constitutional authority, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate interstate commerce.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is leading the multistate lawsuit, issued a statement hailing the judge's decision as "a victory for the American people."

In an exclusive interview, McCollum tells Newsmax he is "really pleased" with the judge's ruling.

"I was not surprised," he says, "but I was pleased. I thought that we had the best case [and] that we were going to win this. But it's always nice to hear the result."

Vinson, who was nominated to the bench by the late President Ronald Reagan, did not comment on how he might rule in his final decision. But he did not bother to conceal his strong skepticism regarding some of the government's arguments.

At one point in his 65-page order, he wrote that the administration was asking "that I divine hidden and unstated intentions, and despite considerable evidence to the contrary, conclude that Congress really meant to say one thing when it expressly said something else."

Elsewhere, he contended that Justice Department attorneys were making an "Alice in Wonderland" argument in maintaining the government had not overreached its constitutional authority.

"I'd say the tenor [of the order] is that we are dealing with a judge who is very favorably inclined to rule in our favor in the final decision he is going to render in a couple of months," McCollum tells Newsmax . . . We still have to go argue the merits, [but] I believe he signaled to us that he's really leaning heavily our way, and the Justice Department is really going to have to come up with something to persuade him otherwise."

National Federation of Independent Business Executive Director Karen Harned praised the judge's ruling.

"We're thrilled of course," she tells Newsmax. "We're very happy that we're going to have our day in court on what we think is a very unconstitutional law.

"It was a very thoughtful opinion," she adds, "but we were encouraged by the fact that he recognizes what I think is rather obvious: That this individual mandate — either forcing people to pay a fine or purchase health insurance — really is unprecedented. We're hopeful that ultimately he will rule also that it's unconstitutional."

One reason grass-roots activists were so energized about the judge's ruling: The growing recognition that, even if Republicans were to gain control of both chambers of Congress, President Barack Obama still could block any repeal with a stroke of his veto pen. But an adverse court ruling is not subject to presidential review.

Moreover, because the Democratic reform legislation has no boilerplate severability clause, some legal analysts say a court finding that any part of it is illegal would negate the entire bill.

Matt Kibbe, the FreedomWorks leader and staunch ally of tea party organizations, suggests the ruling reflects the shaky legal basis for legislation that he says was only passed through "procedural chicanery" in the first place.

"I think it validates the argument that activists have been making from day one, that this was a huge overstep of the federal government's constitutional authority," he says. "The very idea that you can mandate that someone buy a certain product from a certain industry, simply because you live and breathe, you can't find that power in the Constitution."

In his order, Judge Vinson cited several government documents that clearly indicated Congress knew the individual mandate was a major, possibly unconstitutional, expansion of federal powers long before the president signed the legislation into law.

"Unfortunately it's not surprising," Kibbe tells Newsmax. "Because they've shown great disdain for constitutional restraint all along."

Thursday's ruling marked the second time that a federal judge allowed a state-level lawsuit against healthcare reform to move forward.

The first lawsuit to pass muster occurred in Virginia, under the direction of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

A third lawsuit brought by the Thomas Moore Law Center, which asked for a temporary injunction to block the law, was thrown out by a Michigan judge on Oct. 8.

That judge ruled that an individual's decision not to purchase healthcare insurance is a transaction that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In the Michigan case, the judge's opinion stated: "The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population, who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance."

Vinson's ruling Thursday actually referenced part of the Michigan opinion that admitted the individual mandate's expansion of federal authority was without precedent.

The next step state case will occur Dec. 16, when the judge will convene a hearing for motion for summary judgment that both sides are now expected to file.

McCollum expects the hearing also will include the arguments for the lawsuit itself.

Whichever side wins, the ruling is sure to be appealed and ultimately to reach the Supreme Court, sources say.

The other lawsuit in Virginia is scheduled to begin Monday at 9 a.m. in Richmond, in Judge Henry E. Hudson's District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us

REMEMBER THIS....... which inspired school lunches to start making kids look like Sasha and Malia? Akin to super Somalian cuisine:
FOR SOME OF US, WE JUST GET NAUSEOUS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TELLS US THAT WE HAVE TO START EATING ‘HEALTHY’:
NUDGE: DOA TO USE ‘FOOD BEHAVIOR SCIENTISTS’ TO MODIFY KIDS’ EATING HABITS

Posted on October 12, 2010 at 1:31pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
Print »
Email »
Federal officials are turning to psychology in a new approach to get kids to choose healthier foods in the school lunch line.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced today it is giving $2 million to food behavior scientists to use marketing tricks to encourage kids to pick fruits and veggies over cookies and french fries.
Some of the ideas include hiding chocolate milk behind plain milk, putting the salad bar near checkout, placing fruit in pretty baskets and accepting only cash as payment for desserts.
Another idea suggests using pre-paid cards that only allow students to purchase healthy options from the school cafeteria.
Studies by Cornell University researchers have found these tactics work, the Associated Press reports, and Cornell will start a new child nutrition center to test more of these methods.
According to a release on the DOA’s website, the Cornell-based research center will be called the Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs. The money will also fund 14 other research projects in Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The release outlines the reasoning behind the funding as well: leaving choices to schools, students, and parents is not the way to ensure students make “healthful choices.” Good intentions, it explains, often do not translate into good choices:
[I]t is well recognized that understanding the value of a healthy diet does not always translate into healthy choices. Research has shown that good intentions may not be enough: when choosing what or how much to eat, we may be unconsciously influenced by how offers are framed, by various incentives, and by such factors as visual cues.
“This research can suggest practical, cost-effective ways that the school environment can better support healthful choices,” the release adds.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

AS IF WE HAVEN’T COMPLETELY RELIED ON THE GOVERNMENT WITH FOOD STAMPS AS IT IS, NOW WE’RE REPLACING THE FAMILY UNIT’S DECISION ON WHAT TO EAT, ALONG WITH BIG BROTHER POLICING US ON THE INTERNET:

Snuggly the Security Bear Speaks on Internet Wiretapping

Deeplink by Tim Jones
Worried about the White House's recent proposal to wiretap the Internet? Please, allow yourself to be reassured by Snuggly The Security Bear:

Other educational talks from Snuggly The Security Bear include The Spies Who Love You andConstitutional Compromise.
Snuggly is the creation of Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Mark Fiore. (Fiore's cartoons also have the distinction of being banned from Apple's iPhone App Store for "ridiculing public figures".)

SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2010
Government Seeks Back Door Into All Our Communications

Commentary by Seth Schoen
The New York Times reported this morning on a Federal government plan to put government-mandated back doors in all communications systems, including all encryption software. The Timessaid the Obama administration is drafting a law that would impose a new "mandate" that all communications services be "able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages" — including ordering "[d]evelopers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication [to] redesign their service to allow interception".
Throughout the 1990s, EFF and others fought the "crypto wars" to ensure that the public would have the right to strong encryption tools that protect our privacy and security — with no back doors and no intentional weaknesses. We fought in court and in Congress to protect privacy rights and challenge restrictions on encryption, and to make sure the public could use encryption to protect itself. In a 1999 decision in the EFF-led Bernstein case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that
[w]hether we are surveilled by our government, by criminals, or by our neighbors, it is fair to say that never has our ability to shield our affairs from prying eyes been at such a low ebb. The availability and use of secure encryption may offer an opportunity to reclaim some portion of the privacy we have lost. Government efforts to control encryption thus may well implicate not only the First Amendment rights of cryptographers intent on pushing the boundaries of their science, but also the constitutional rights of each of us as potential recipients of encryption's bounty.
For a decade, the government backed off of attempts to force encryption developers to weaken their products and include back doors, and the crypto wars seemed to have been won. (Indeed,journalist Steven Levy declared victory for the civil libertarian side in 2001.) In the past ten years, even as the U.S. government has sought (or simply taken) vastly expanded surveillance powers, it never attempted to ban the development and use of secure encryption.
Now the government is again proposing to do so, following in the footsteps of regimes like the United Arab Emirates that have recently said some privacy tools are too secure and must be kept out of civilian hands.
As the Internet security community explained years ago, intentionally weakening security and including back doors is a recipe for disaster. "Lawful intercept" systems built under current laws have already been abused for unlawful spying by governments and criminals. Trying to force technology developers to include back doors is a recipe for disaster for our already-fragile on-line security and privacy. And like the COICA Internet censorship bill, it takes a page from the world's most repressive regimes' Internet-control playbook. This is exactly the wrong message for the U.S. government to be sending to the rest of the world.
The crypto wars are back in full force, and it's time for everyone who cares about privacy to stand up and defend it: no back doors and no bans on the tools that protect our communications.
Related Issues: CALEA, Coders' Rights Project, NSA Spying, Privacy
Related Cases: Bernstein v. US Department of Justice
[Permalink]
IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T HEARD, USING YOUR CELL PHONE TO TYPE YOUR GROCERY LIST WILL NOW BE A PIECE OF ENCRYPTED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION, THAT WILL BE HOUSED IN A HUGE GOVERNMENT DATA ENCRYPTION WAREHOUSE, VERY AKIN TO AN AREA 51:


PUSHED UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT RENEWAL, THE MOST-WELL INTENTIONED PLAN AGAINST TERRORISM THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY STRIPS AMERICANS OF ALL OF THEIR IMPLIED FREEDOMS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION:
(HENCE ALL BASIC DRUG VIOLATIONS ARE TREATED AS A TERRORISTIC ACT; FOR EXAMPLE, POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE/DISTRIBUTION CARRIES A 30 YR. PRISON SENTENCE, AND AT 3 FOR 1, 4 months x 30 = 120 months/12 = 10 years to the door prison sentence....
Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII
Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term "domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States.[129] Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering.[130] Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are also redefined, including the term "protected computer," "damage," "conviction," "person," and "loss."[131]
New penalties were created to convict those who attack mass transportation systems. If the offender committed such an attack while no passenger was on board, they are fined and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and life imprisonment.[132] The title amends the biological weapons statute to define the use of a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system as a weapon, other than when it is used for "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes." Penalties for anyone who cannot prove reasonably that they are using a biological agent, toxin or delivery system for these purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or both.[133]
A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was made a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.[134] U.S. forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organization for the purposes of further terrorist activities.[135] One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[136] This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after theHumanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government. The court found that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a person of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were breaking the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person was charged for an offense that they had no way of knowing was illegal. The court found that this could potentially have the effect of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights.[137][138] Congress later improved the law by defining the definitions of the "material support or resources," "training," and "expert advise or resources."[139]
Cyberterrorism was dealt with in various ways. Penalties apply to those who either damage or gain unauthorized access to a protected computer and then commit a number of offenses. These offenses include causing a person to lose an aggregate amount greater than US$5,000, as well as adversely affecting someone's medical examination, diagnosis or treatment. It also encompasses actions that cause a person to be injured, a threat to public health or safety, or damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice, national defense or national security. Also prohibited was extortion undertaken via a protected computer. The penalty for attempting to damage protected computers through the use of viruses or other software mechanism was set to imprisonment for up to 10 years, while the penalty for unauthorized access and subsequent damage to a protected computer was increased to more than five years imprisonment. However, should the offense occur a second time, the penalty increases up to 20 years imprisonment.[140] The act also specified the development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities. It directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic laboratories that have the capability of performing forensic examinations of intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity and cyberterrorism, and that have the capability of training and educating Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in computer crime, and to "facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer-related crime with State and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task forces." The sum of $50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.[141]
[edit]Title IX: Improved Intelligence
Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title IX
Title IX amends the National Security Act of 1947 to require the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to establish requirements and priorities for foreign intelligence collected under FISA and to provide assistance to the United States Attorney General to ensure that information derived from electronic surveillance or physical searches is disseminated for efficient and effective foreign intelligence purposes.[142] With the exception of information that might jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation, it was made a requirement that the Attorney General, or the head of any other department or agency of the Federal Government with law enforcement responsibilities, disclose to the Director any foreign intelligence acquired by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence were directed to develop procedures for the Attorney General to follow in order to inform the Director, in a timely manner, of any intention of investigating criminal activity of a foreign intelligence source or potential foreign intelligence source based on the intelligence tip-off of a member of the intelligence community. The Attorney General was also directed to develop procedures on how to best administer these matters.[143] International terrorist activities were made to fall within the scope of foreign intelligence under the National Security Act.[144]
A number of reports were commissioned relating to various intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into the best way of setting up the National Virtual Translation Center, with the goal of developing automated translation facilities to assist with the timely and accurate translation of foreign intelligence information for elements of the U.S. intelligence community.[145] The USA PATRIOT Act required this to be provided on February 1, 2002, however the report, entitled "Director of Central Intelligence Report on the National Virtual Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance the Intelligence Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29, 2002" was received more than two months late, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which, in addition to contravening the explicit words of the statute, deprived the Committee of timely and valuable input into its efforts to craft this legislation."[146] Another report was commissioned on the feasibility and desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.[147] It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed immediately, and that it should include a section describing the circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with lawful reporting requirements."[148]
Other measures allowed certain reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters to be deferred until either February 1, 2002 or a date after February 1, 2002 if the official involved certified that preparation and submission on February 1, 2002, would impede the work of officers or employees engaged in counterterrorism activities. Any such deferral required congressional notification before it was authorized.[149] The Attorney General was charged with training officials in identifying and utilizing foreign intelligence information properly in the course of their duties. The government officials include those in the Federal Government who do not normally encounter or disseminate foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties, and State and local government officials who encounter, or potentially may encounter in the course of a terrorist event, foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties.[150] A sense of Congress was expressed that officers and employees of the intelligence community should be encouraged to make every effort to establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group while they conduct lawful intelligence activities.[144]
[edit]Title X: Miscellaneous
Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title X
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that did not really fit into the any other section of the USA PATRIOT Act. Hazmat licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can handle the materials.[151] The Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to Congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ.[152] It amended the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the interception of communications done through or from a protected computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully involved in an investigation.[153] Money laundering cases may now be brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a money laundering transfer started from.[154] Aliens who committed money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S.[155] Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism.[156] US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to train police in South and East Asia.[157] The Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag suspected criminals.[158] Another study was also commissioned to determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected terrorists before they boarded flights.[159] The Department of Defense was given temporary authority to use their funding for private contracts for security purposes.[160] The last title also created a new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act[161] which amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is representing.[162] It also increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross member.[163]
[edit]Reauthorizations
The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by two bills. The first, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This bill reauthorized provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating to the death penalty for terrorists,[164] enhancing security atseaports,[165] new measures to combat the financing of terrorism,[166] new powers for the Secret Service,[167] anti-Methamphetamine initiatives[168] and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006.
The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA. Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney.[169] However, the change also meant that the defendant was also made to tell the FBI who they were disclosing the order to — this requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.[170]
President Barack Hussein Obama on Saturday, February 27th 2010, signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire.[171] [172] [173]
The three sections that will remain in law are: -Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. -Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. -Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group. [174]
As NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act had been struck by the courts[120] the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence to be presented in camera and ex parte.[175] Gag provisions were maintained, but were not automatic. They only occurred when the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person".[176] However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal advice. Again, however, the recipient was ordered to inform the FBI of such a disclosure.[176] Because of the concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act removed the requirement to inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney.[177] Later, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic communications services.[178] The reauthorization Act also ordered the Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all NSL request made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[179]
Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Applications and orders for such wiretaps must describe the specific target of the electronic surveillance if the identity of the target is not known. If the nature and location of each of the facilities or places targeted for surveillance is not known, then after 10 days the agency must provide notice to the court. The notice must include the nature and location of each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance was directed. It must also describe the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that each new surveillance place or facility under surveillance is or was being used by the target of the surveillance. The applicant must also provide a statement detailing any proposed minimization procedures that differ from those contained in the original application or order, that may be necessitated by a change in the facility or place at which the electronic surveillance is directed. Applicants must detail the total number of electronic surveillances that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the order.[180]
Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act was modified. Previously it stated that delayed notifications would be made to recipients of "sneak and peek" searches in a "reasonable period". This was seen as unreasonable, as it was undefined and could potentially be used indefinitely. Thus, the reauthorization act changed this to a period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the execution of the search warrant. Courts were given the opportunity to extend this period if they were provided good cause to do so. Section 213 states that delayed notifications could be issued if there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result". This was criticized, particularly by the ACLU, for allowing potential abuse by law enforcement agencies[181] and was later amended to prevent a delayed notification "if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial."[182]
The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers undertaken under section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act.[183] The duration of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased. Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section 207 of the USA PATRIOT Act were increased to 120 days for an initial order, while pen registers and trap and trace device extensions under FISA were increased from 90 days to a year. The reauthorization act also increased congressional oversight, requiring a semi-annual report into physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under FISA.[184] The "lone wolf terrorist" provision (Section 207) was a sunset provision that also was to have expired, however this was enhanced by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The reauthorization act extended the expiration date to December 31, 2009.[185] The amendment to material support law done in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act[139] was also made permanent.[186] The definition of terrorism was further expanded to include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization andnarcoterrorism.[187] Other provisions of the reauthorization act was to merge the law outlawing train wrecking (18 U.S.C. § 992) and the law outlawing attacks on mass transportation systems (18 U.S.C. § 1993) into a new section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 1992) and also to criminalize the act of planning a terrorist attack against a mass transport system.[188][189] Forfeiture law was further changed and now assets within U.S. jurisdiction will be seized for illegally trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons technology or material, if such offense is punishable under foreign law bydeath or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Alternatively, this applies if similar punishment would be so punishable if committed within the U.S.[190] A sense of Congress was further expressed that victims of terrorism should be entitled to the forfeited assets of terrorists.[191]










WHAT YOUR GROCERY LIST HAS TO DO WITH THE TALIBAN, WELL THAT REMAINS TO BE DISSECTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT’S TOP ADVISORS....

SEP27
New York Times: Obama Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
Bait & Switch, Barack Obama, Big Brother, CHANGE?, COINTELPRO, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Cui Bono?, Cybersecurity, Dictatorship in America, Domestic Terror, Evidence, Executive Branch, FBI, Fear of Terrorism, First Amendment, Intelligence Agencies, Justice Department, MUST READ,Military Industrial Complex, NSA, New York Times, Police State, Political, Secrets, Silencing Dissent, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spying, Treason,True American History, Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at Work, disruptionNo Comments
source: New York Times
by Charlie SavageWASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.
Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites likeFacebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.
James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design.
“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”
But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
JUL07
NSA Creating “Big Brother” Spy System to Monitor Domestic Infrastructure
Bait & Switch, Barack Obama, Big Brother, CHANGE?, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Cui Bono?, Cybersecurity, Defense Contractors, Dictatorship in America, Domestic Terror, Evidence, Fear of Terrorism, Intelligence Agencies, MUST READ, Military Industrial Complex, NSA, Pentagon, Police State,Political, Psyops, Reports, Secrets, Silencing Dissent, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spying, Treason, True American History, Tyranny, Using Fear to Control, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at WorkNo Comments
source: Wall Street Journal
via: Raw Story
by Daniel TencerThe National Security Agency has begun work on an “expansive” spy system that will monitor critical infrastructure inside the United States for cyber-attacks, in a move that detractors say could end up violating privacy rights and expanding the NSA’s domestic spying abilities.
The Wall Street Journal cites unnamed sources as saying that the NSA has issued a $100-million contract to defense contractor Raytheon to build a system dubbed “Perfect Citizen,” which will involve placing “sensors” at critical points in the computer networks of private and public organizations that run infrastructure, organizations such as nuclear power plants and electric grid operators.
In an email obtained by the Journal, an unnamed Raytheon employee describes the system as “Big Brother.”
“The overall purpose of the [program] is our Government…feel[s] that they need to insure the Public Sector is doing all they can to secure Infrastructure critical to our National Security,” the email states. “Perfect Citizen is Big Brother.”
“Raytheon declined to comment on this email,” the Journal reports.
Some officials familiar with Perfect Citizen see it “as an intrusion by the NSA into domestic affairs, while others say it is an important program to combat an emerging security threat that only the NSA is equipped to provide,” the Journal states.
The program is reportedly being funded under the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, a program launched by the Bush administration in January, 2008, and continued under the Obama administration. The initiative is budgeted tocost $40 billion over several years.
ANOTHER WAR WITHOUT DEFINITION?
News of the spy system comes in the wake of months of news reports and government statements on the the threat of cyber-attacks. Last year, the US pointed the finger of blame at North Korea for a “widespread” attack on US and South Korean government computers. Earlier this year, a coordinated attack on Google servers was identified as originating from China.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
JUN11
Obama More Aggressive Than Bush Against Whistleblowers
Barack Obama, Big Brother, Central Bankers, Complicit Politicians, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Evidence, Executive Branch, George W. Bush,Government Corruption, Intelligence Agencies, Justice Department, Legal Cases, MUST READ, Moral Questions, NSA, New York Times, Political, Secrets,Silencing Dissent, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spying, Transparency in Government, Treason, True American History, Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at Work, patriotsNo Comments
source: New York Times
Obama Administration Takes an Even Harder Line Against Leaks to Press

by Scott ShaneWASHINGTON — Hired in 2001 by the National Security Agency to help it catch up with the e-mail and cellphone revolution, Thomas A. Drake became convinced that the government’s eavesdroppers were squandering hundreds of millions of dollars on failed programs while ignoring a promising alternative.
He took his concerns everywhere inside the secret world: to his bosses, to the agency’s inspector general, to the Defense Department’s inspector general and to the Congressional intelligence committees. But he felt his message was not getting through.
So he contacted a reporter for The Baltimore Sun.
Today, because of that decision, Mr. Drake, 53, a veteran intelligence bureaucrat who collected early computers, faces years in prison on 10 felony charges involving the mishandling of classified information and obstruction of justice.
The indictment of Mr. Drake was the latest evidence that the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks.
In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.
Mr. Drake was charged in April; in May, an F.B.I. translator was sentenced to 20 months in prison for providing classified documents to a blogger; this week, the Pentagon confirmed the arrest of a 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of passing a classified video of an American military helicopter shooting Baghdad civilians to the Web site Wikileaks.org.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
MAR31
Federal Judge: Bush Broke Law on Wiretapping
Associated Press, Big Brother, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Evidence, Executive Branch, George W. Bush, Government Corruption, Intelligence Agencies, Justice Department, Legal Cases, Lies, MUST READ, NSA, Patriot Act, Police State, Political, Silencing Dissent, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories",Spying, Treason, True American History, Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at WorkNo Comments
source: Associated Press (AP)
by Bob EgelkoSAN FRANCISCO — The Bush administration wiretapped a U.S.-based Islamic charity under an illegal surveillance program that was not authorized by Congress or the courts, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled today.
The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker marked the first time that a court has found that the government illegally wiretapped an individual or organization since President George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorists in 2001.
The government inadvertently sent a classified document in 2004 to the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, reportedly showing that two of its lawyers had been wiretapped. Several months after the surveillance began, the government classified Al-Haramain as a terrorist organization, a description its leaders called false.
The now-defunct charity, which was headquartered in Oregon, returned the document at the government’s request and could not use it as evidence in a lawsuit it filed over the wiretapping. But Walker said today that Al-Haramain had established, through public statements by officials and nonclassified evidence, that the government had intercepted its calls without obtaining the court warrant required by a 1978 law.
Bush acknowledged in December 2005 that he had ordered the National Security Agency, after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to intercept phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant. He claimed the power to override the 1978 law’s requirement of advance court approval for all such surveillance.
Today, Walker said Bush had lacked that authority.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
MAR24
Meet the Box the Feds Can Use to Subvert Your SSL Security
Big Brother, CHANGE?, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Cui Bono?, Dictatorship in America, Domestic Terror, FBI, Government Corruption, Homeland Security, Intelligence Agencies, Justice Department, MUST READ, NSA, Patriot Act, Police State, Silencing Dissent, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spying,Treason, True American History, Tyranny, War On You, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at Work, databaseNo Comments
source: Wired News
by Ryan Singel
That little lock on your browser window indicating you are communicating securely with your bank or e-mail account may not always mean what you think its means.
Normally when a user visits a secure website, such as Bank of America, Gmail, PayPal or eBay, the browser examines the website’s certificate to verify its authenticity.
At a recent wiretapping convention, however, security researcher Chris Soghoian discovered that a small company was marketing internet spying boxes to the feds. The boxes were designed to intercept those communications — without breaking the encryption — by using forged security certificates, instead of the real ones that websites use to verify secure connections. To use the appliance, the government would need to acquire a forged certificate from any one of more than 100 trusted Certificate Authorities.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
JAN21
FBI Used Faked Terrorism Emergencies to Illegally Obtain Americans’ Phone Records
Big Brother, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Cui Bono?, Dictatorship in America, Domestic Terror, Evidence, FBI, False Flag, Fear of Terrorism,Fraud, Government Corruption, Intelligence Agencies, MUST READ, NSA, NY Daily News, Police State, Political, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spying,Treason, True American History, Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Washington Post, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at WorkNo Comments
source: New York Daily News
by Brian KatesThe FBI faked terrorism emergencies to illegally obtain more than 2,000 U.S. telephone records between 2002
and 2006, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.
FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni told the Washington Post that the FBI technically violated theElectronic Communications Privacy Act when agents invoked nonexistent emergencies to collect records.
A Justice Department inspector general’s report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.
The maneuver was based on a system used in the FBI’s New York office in the aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks, officials said.
It involved use of an “exigent circumstances letter,” a document that allowed a supervisor to declare an emergency and get the records and then – after the fact – issue a national security letter detailing the terrorism risk.
The required national security letters were sometimes concocted and covered by broadbrush generic phrases like “threats against transportation facilities,” “threats against individuals” and “threats against special events,” internal e-mails show.
Later FBI officials shifted to crafting “blanket” national security letters to authorize all past searches that had not been covered by open cases, the Post reported.
Caproni said called the process a “good-hearted but not well-thought-out” method to speed up collecting data. “We should have stopped those requests from being made that way,” she said, calling the abuse, “a self-inflicted wound.”
FBI officials told The Post that they found that about half of the 4,400 records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
JAN14
Obama Staffer Wants “Cognitive Infiltration” of 9/11 Conspiracy Groups
9-11, 9-11 Truth Movement, Barack Obama, CHANGE?, CIA, COINTELPRO, Constitutional Crisis, Dictatorship in America, Domestic Terror, Evidence, FBI,Fear of Terrorism, First Amendment, Fraud, Government Corruption, Intelligence Agencies, Lies, MUST READ, NSA, Official Story, Police State, Political,Psychology Behind 9-11 Truth, Secrets, Silencing Dissent, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spies, Spying, Tactics, Treason, True American History,Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at WorkNo Comments
source: Raw Story
by Daniel TencerIn a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.
As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs,”according to the White House Web site.
Sunstein’s article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncoveredby blogger Marc Estrin, states that “our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a ‘crippled epistemology,’ in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources.”
By “crippled epistemology” Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public — the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
NOV03
Obama Looks Like Bush Invoking “State Secrets” Privilege in NSA Case
Barack Obama, Big Brother, CHANGE?, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Cui Bono?, Dictatorship in America, Evidence, Executive Branch, George W. Bush, Intelligence Agencies, Justice Department, Legal Cases, Lies, NSA, Neocons, Newsweek, Patriot Act, Police State, Political, Secrets, Silencing Dissent,So-Called "Conspiracy Theories", Spying, Treason, True American History, Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at WorkNo Comments
source: Newsweek
by Michael IsikoffWhen Attorney General Eric Holder invoked the “state secrets” privilege to quash a lawsuit alleging illegal National Security Agency spying last Friday night, his department’s lawyers sounded a lot like those who worked for President George W. Bush. In fact, they justified the action by filing an affidavit from President Obama’s director of national intelligence that is nearly identical to one filed by President Bush’s intelligence director two years ago.
The strikingly similar affidavit—making the same arguments in the almost exactly the same language—is among the strongest examples yet of how Obama administration officials are adopting Bush-era secrecy positions in major national security cases.
Holder’s move came in the case of Shubert v. Obama, a lawsuit filed in 2006 by four residents of Brooklyn, New York. They allege that their overseas phone calls were illegally intercepted by the NSA as part of a massive “dragnet” of warrantless surveillance ordered by Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks.
“It is my judgment that sensitive state secrets are so central to the subject matter of the litigation that any attempt to proceed in the case will…risk exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States,” national intelligence director Dennis Blair wrote in an affidavit submitted by Justice Department lawyers on Oct. 30. If that language sounded familiar to the court, it’s because it was: “It is my judgment that sensitive state secrets are so central to the subject matter of the litigation that any attempt to proceed in the case will…risk exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States,” wrote J. Michael McConnell, Bush’s intel chief, in an affidavit filed on May 25, 2007, in the same case.
“This is Bush 2. It’s Bush the sequel,” said Ilann Maazel, the lawyer for the Shubert plaintiffs, after reading the Justice Department’s motion and the accompanying affidavit by Blair. “They [the Obama officials] are saying the same thing: ‘Were not going to tell you what our spying program is—and even if it’s illegal, you can’t stop it.’” Asked for comment, Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Blair, said: “Given that the plaintiffs allegations have not changed since the privilege was asserted two years ago, it is not surprising that the declarations are very similar.”
The McConnell affidavit had originally been filed when the Justice Department (then headed by attorney general Alberto Gonzales) first invoked state secrets in the Shubert case, arguing there was no way any aspect of the lawsuit could be litigated without jeopardizing national security. But last spring, a federal judge in San Francisco invited the Justice Department to revisit its position. He did so after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected as overly broad a similar government claim of state secrets in another lawsuit. That case, known as Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, was filed by former detainees against a Boeing subsidiary that allegedly participated in the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” of terror suspects to foreign countries that practice torture. In essence, the appellate court concluded that if the Justice Department wanted to invoke state secrets to prevent matters from being heard by a federal court, it must do so regarding specific pieces of evidence only—and could not use the state secrets privilege as a blanket claim to quash the entire lawsuit before it even gets off the ground.
But despite a new policy, announced just last month, that was supposed to limit the use of the state secrets privilege, Holder (after what he called “a careful and thorough review process”) chose to stick with the same position as that taken by the Bush administration.What’s more, the Justice Department didn’t even bother changing the language of many of its arguments.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
NOV02
NSA Supercenters to Store Your Unconstitutionally Gained Private Data Permanently
Big Brother, Bill of Rights, CHANGE?, Class Warfare, Constitutional Crisis, Corporate Media, Cui Bono?, Dictatorship in America, Domestic Terror, Evidence,Government Corruption, Intelligence Agencies, MUST READ, NBC News, NSA, Patriot Act, Police State, Political, Slavery, So-Called "Conspiracy Theories",Spying, Treason, True American History, Tyranny, War On You, War on Terror, Wiretapping, Your Tax Dollars at Work, databaseNo Comments
source: New American
by Thomas R. EddleThe National Security Agency is building huge new storage facilities to store the unconstitutionally gained data on the American people’s telephone calls and Internet traffic permanently, including new buildings in suburban Salt Lake City, Utah, and San Antonio, Texas.
The NSA has been keeping permanent records of all American’s telephone call habits and Internet traffic since shortly after September 11, 2001, according to major news reports, without the constitutionally required warrants from a court.
No longer able to store all the intercepted phone calls and e-mail in its Ft. Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is engaging in its own housing boom. How much data will these giant, multibillion dollar new facilities hold? According to James Bamford of the New York Review of Books, the facility in Utah alone could hold data that will be measured in Yottabytes. Never heard of Yottabytes? You’re not alone. Most computers sold at stores still measure their storage at gigabytes, or billions of bits of data. A few store a terrabyte of information, or one trillion bits of information. That’s 1,000,000,000,000 pieces of information. Yottabytes is the highest number that has yet been named in computer information. The number is septillions of billions of bits of data, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bits of data.
In his review of Matthew M. Aid’s new book on the NSA, The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National Security Agency, Bamford noted that the NSA assault on the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment has taken place without public opposition or even public debate. “Unlike the British government, which, to its great credit, allowed public debate on the idea of a central data bank,” Bamford wrote, “the NSA obtained the full cooperation of much of the American telecom industry in utmost secrecy after September 11.” And when the British government held that debate, the people rose up against such a “big brother”-style plan:
When the plans were released by the UK government, there was an immediate outcry from both the press and the public, leading to the scrapping of the “big brother database,” as it was called. In its place, however, the government came up with a new plan. Instead of one vast, centralized database, the telecom companies and Internet service providers would be required to maintain records of all details about people’s phone, e-mail, and Web-browsing habits for a year and to permit the government access to them when asked. That has led again to public anger and to a protest by the London Internet Exchange, which represents more than 330 telecommunications firms.
Not so in America, where economically challenged communities are welcoming the multibillion dollar construction work to create the facilities. Freedom can be traded for temporary prosperity, according to local officials in Utah, as reported by a news segment on KSL, Salt Lake City’s NBC affiliate.
Read the rest of this entry »
ShareThis
NOW WE’RE BEING TOLD IN SPECIAL REPORTS BY THE PENTAGON, THAT THEY’RE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF SOLDIERS TO SAY THAT SOLDIERS SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF “DON’T ASK... DON’T TELL”

ANSWER ME THIS: WHEN HAS THE PENTAGON EVER BEEN ISSUING STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MILITARY INVOLVING THEMSELVES IN POLITICAL MATTERS?

ANSWER ME THIS: WHO GIVES A CRAP IF YOU’RE GAY OR STRAIGHT WHEN THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE WOULD BE HAVING “HOMO” STAMPED ON YOUR DOG TAGS??!

ANSWER ME THIS: WASN’T “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” ORIGINALLY CREATED TO PREVENT HOMOSEXUALS FROM BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST? I SAY WE DON’T NEED TO KNOW YOUR SEXUAL CLASSIFICATION: WHEN YOU DON THAT UNIFORM, YOU’RE A SOLDIER, YOU’RE THERE TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY NOT YOUR SEXUAL AGENDA!!

OH YEAH: AND SOMEONE PLEASE TELL OBAMA WIKILEAKS IS A RESPONSE TO HIS LEGISLATION THAT TAKES AWAY OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND TO EXPOSE ANYTHING THAT HE’S DOING WITH HIS CORRUPT RELATIONSHIP TO KARZAI:

WikiLeaks dump threatens national security

Releasing confidential documents only promotes increased secrecy

By Michelle Fantone
The Daily Gamecock
Fourth-year political science and sociology student
Published: Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Updated: Monday, November 29, 2010 22:11
Michelle Fantone
The Daily Gamecock
Just in time for the holidays, WikiLeaks has reappeared with another dump. This time, instead of focusing on documentation about the mismanagement of the Iraq and Afghan wars, it released 250,000 classified State Department documents and correspondence. The documents include secret talks within the State Department, candid discussions between U.S. and foreign officials and unflattering assessments of world leaders by American diplomats. The leaks contain not only sensitive information that could be dangerous in the wrong hands, but information that is simply embarrassing to the U.S. government.
WikiLeaks is an organization that takes submissions from anonymous sources around the world about government, military and some corporate issues, analyzes them for authenticity and compiles them into packages that eventually break to major media networks around the world. The goal of WikiLeaks is to promote transparency in government — if a government isn't going to be transparent, then WikiLeaks will give it a hand. This is supposed to force governments to be more transparent in the future. This logic is misguided.
Governments will not simply start offering confidential and sensitive materials for public viewing. In order for diplomacy, military action and governance to be successful, a certain degree of confidentiality is necessary. No government will be able to be as transparent as WikiLeaks hopes. Instead, governments will only tighten the controls they have over their correspondence so these information dumps will be impossible in the future.
WikiLeaks' second problem is the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" phenomenon. WikiLeaks has the potential to do a lot of good in world. It already has. By being able to collect anonymous submissions about the actions of governments, they can release information about illegal and terrible government actions. Can you imagine how helpful WikiLeaks would have been if they had been around during the Holocaust? WikiLeaks has the potential to protect the public from future abuses by making people aware of atrocities and forcing actions against them.
Unfortunately, the State Department cables in no way help the public or increase its security like other leaks do. They do not reveal dangerous or illegal activities, though some of the actions of officials may be shady. Instead, the leaks simply cause unnecessary scandal while endangering national security. By dumping these unnecessary and harmful cables, WikiLeaks is ruining its clout and creating many enemies. This damaged reputation could harm its effectiveness in the future should it leak an actually important secret.
Since the most recent leaks, prominent members of both parties have criticized WikiLeaks It seems like one benefit has come out of this massive dump: Republicans and Democrats can finally agree on something.

I DISAGREE WITH THIS, BY THE WAY: UNFORTUNATELY WITH THE U.S. TELLING SPIES AND INFORMANTS TO COLLECT SUCH PERSONAL INFORMATION AS FINGERPRINTS, IT DOES SEEM THAT WE’RE PINNING INTERNATIONAL CRIME ON PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T COMMITTED IT YET, RATHER THAN PREVENTING WAR OR PROTECTING THE PEACE.

WHAT THREATENS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY MORE THAN WIKILEAKS, IS OUR WEAKENED ECONOMY, AND OUR IGNORANCE TO OBAMA’S AGENDA.

PROPOSITION FOR A REPEAL BILL TO REPLACE H.R. 4872:

Why is this a jobless recovery with 25 million people out of work? It’s because of uncertainty about the Reconciliation Act of 2010:

PROPOSITION FOR A REPEAL BILL ________ TO REPLACE H.R. 4872:

While Obama is definitely right about the urgency to tackle health reform, (as costs are exorbitantly high and we have no program for the uninsured), if we do not create a program to cover the uninsured or reform health care, we will add another $3 trillion to the deficit! The cost of not reforming health care over the next decade will double, adding half of the current deficit, to the $13 trillion dollar deficit, and if we do nothing about it now, half of the deficit by 2020 is projected to be nothing but health care debt: created by 20 years of unwise Congressional spending and legislation, a whopping $20 trillion dollars in the red!

It is not enough to say to the Federal Reserve to print more money for a bailout when the cost of food and gas are inflated, and since we’re a global economy that enjoys fiat, meaning that the American dollar is the only currency that is backed by the government who can write own notes, and while this is a supreme position of financial power and financial and influence, this also makes us vulnerable to attack from other countries who covet our position and status. Essentially, if you control the value of the American dollar, by buying up gold, property, or investments backed by gold, you have the power to control the global economy, and depending on how much you have, it’s like using reigns on a horse. The more wealth you have, the more you control sectors of society, like strings of puppets. I have seen Obama depicted as Puppet Master, but the true Master of Money is the person who is the wealthiest in gold, American property, and investments. While it is true that Obama has written a lot of blank checks, in 2004 it was estimated that the government has 261,007,000,000 ounces of gold/$2,800 per ounce, so the gold value was $730,819,600,000 with $733,170,953,704 American dollars in circulation, which leaves $730,086,429,046,296, or about $730 trillion dollars in reserve.

If we were to sell off our gold to pay down the deficit, the United States is only then worth around $700 trillion dollars. With our current financial problems and people being unemployed, the government is not collecting any real tax revenue from 25 million people over the past 2-3yrs. Qualified unemployment recipients who receive $800 per month cost the government $20,000,000,000/$20 billion per month, and in one year $240,000,000,000,000/$240 billion, so for 3yrs. of unemployment that comes to an ungodly $720,000,000,000/$720 billion dollars, which by the end of this year will add $1 trillion to the deficit! The government can’t tax it’s own money, or make enough back off of taxes from unemployment checks, as it was a government pay-out to begin with! The government gives out close to $1 trillion and gets back only 1/10. The government is essentially loaning out money that was paid in by taxpayers, getting $100,000,000,000/$100 billion in revenue back for $1 trillion paid out.

Continuing this disastrous trend with unemployment will add to the deficit at nearly the same rate as the health care debt, which would put the projected deficit to then $25 trillion. Within the next 30-50 years, just with unemployment pay-outs and health care costs, the deficit will consume the entire value of gold that backs the U.S. dollar, and we’ll be penniless and gold-less, and we’ll have no capital to loan or be able to loan to other countries! Whoever buys our gold will essentially be buying our debt! Even if we used the tax revenue generated off of unemployment checks, that $100 billion, and bought gold with it, we would only add $35 million and some back, which won’t make but $142 million over the next 12 years to offset trillions of dollars spent on unemployment and health care!

So folks, this is where the rubber meets the road: health care has been so high that people have been having to choose between their health or having a roof over their head, a car to drive, and food in their stomachs. This is the main reason the I.R.S. disagrees with Obama’s wage control plan to levy the taxes to pay for health care, as even the I.R.S. knows that even if you took in more taxes to pay for a new health care program for the uninsured, Obama’s legislation fails to deal with the costs of MEDICARE/MEDICAID rising, along with private sector premiums and out-of-pocket costs, so the money it costs to treat the uninsured being used as tax write-offs for hospitals would only address one kink in the hose, like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound that really needs stitches: there are 25 million unemployed who may or may not return to work, but there are really 3 groups of people who make up the uninsured bracket of society. Illegals make up 12 million, 10 million Americans don’t have any insurance, and the other 25 million will get insurance at another job when they return to work or the ones who remain unemployed will be dropped from COBRA. Those who are insured now pay 8% higher premiums, as the hospitals charge insurance companies a percentage to offset the cost of operation for treating those not insured. Now with higher unemployment, insurance companies have jacked up their rates because of a lower pool for their policy.

The question is, why has universal care not worked for MA? MA is now carrying a deficit, against federal law, as universal care does not cover the cost of disability or address the costs of the aging population. MA’s premiums only went down $230 per year/per person, with much higher taxes, running a deficit, AND they STILL put disability appropriations on the chopping block, though that still didn’t stop their deficit or really improve care, lower premium costs substantially, or even offset medical costs to balance their budget. Universal care just shuffles federal money out around the state, and it fails to deal with the cost issues of elderly care or special needs. Which is why C.B.O. numbers are b.s.!

Keeping all of these things in mind of what we can’t keep doing and what has proven not to work, we can’t just do it Obama’s way to our country’s own undoing! America will meet her demise at Obama’s hand if we blindly follow him like sheep to the slaughter! We are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves, and while we’ve got to reform health care and do it N-O-W, even tort reform won’t stop this health care abyss!

As a lobbyist in GA in over the past 8 months, I have conferred with Republicans to give approval to fund H.R. 3200, H.R. 3400, H.R. 1200 (striking the mandate clause), and H.R. 3962 with much revision. I addressed committee members to agree to compromise with health care reform, and I garnered Republican concession to accept passage of 3 Democrats’ bills to their 1 bill, with the condition that H.R. 3590 be tabled until it could be revised to address cost issues effectively. The bill was so bad, it was written by Rangel, and it was determined in committee to be a conflict of interest, and I actually believe that Obama was so jealous that I prompted legislators to support this compromise, that it trumped anything he’d ever done in 10yrs. voting present in the Senate, so he refused to have Pelosi support convening on H.R. 3590, which would’ve gotten the bill thrown out entirely over ethical challenge, and he took it upon himself to write another version of it, H.R. 4872/the Recon. Act of 2010, and they used deem and pass to usurp the will of the American people, as the majority of Americans rejected it, as the majority of Americans rejected insurance mandating, federal funding of abortion, cutting $500 billion from from MEDICARE, and funding Thomson prison to house terrorists with pharmaceutical contracts for generic pills to medicate everyone into compliance, (to get them hooked on pills so they need an insurance contract!) I suggest you read the legislation for yourself, and all you have to do is read the first 150 pgs. of H.R. 4872 to see how the health care law is interpreted and will be applied in conjunction with the other bills, which sucks!

We must repeal H.R. 4872 for those reasons listed above, as those are legitimate concerns that revoke Obama’s promise of insuring the uninsured. None of that legislation pays for itself... where is the money coming from --- a $13 trillion dollar deficit?! Cutting $500 billion from MEDICARE will only make MEDICARE costs skyrocket and appropriate $500 billion divided by 47 million uninsured is like the government paying one $10 copay for a general doctor visit, and that’s it! Plus if abortion funding is not struck, that will cost $3 billion or more per year! I worked on revising this health care legislation for 3 months straight, so much so, I felt my legs were shackled to my parents’ computer desk. I would spend up to 18 hours a day some days on the computer, reading bills over 2,000 pages long, making revisions, and then taking an hour to email the entire Senate and an entire day to email the House of Representatives. I made a promise to investors to protect the stock market from this legislation, I promised business owners who were still left that taxes wouldn’t close down their business in this unprofitable economy, and I promised Obama I would turn over every abortion clinic for misappropriation if an amendment was not passed.

While I became certain we could not reform health care Obama’s way and that the law needs to be repealed before it becomes budgetary law before August 9th, 2010, I see that neither the Dems or Repubs know how to fix the problems that they’ve created and failed to govern judiciously, both sides offering inadequate solutions, with Dems offering the most undesirable solution that they’re forcing everyone to do, though their reckless spending and tripling the deficit in less than 2yrs. has increased the desperation that has made health care reform a 9-1-1 emergency! It’s weird: instead of doing their jobs to govern wisely, they’ve spent all of our tax dollars and then used that as the very reason to tax us more and pass more legislation that will tax us to death! Obama gave out a lot of money, but he didn’t tell you he’d try to recoup it with 4 new taxes on the middle class!

I was sure that repealing the bill would prevent further economic disaster, and selling insurance across state lines would help everyone, but no one had a vision of what the future American health care should look like, until I read “Why Our Health Matters” by Andrew Weil, M.D. In this book, Weil establishes medical standards that come from years of experience in conventional and non-conventional medicine, and a blue print for a system that will work in favor of the health of our nation, with health equaling wealth! It also gives a structural delegation of duties that will accomplish what Obama’s czar disciples can’t do, as a small group overseeing the entire state of the American public health. While Weil’s book was loaded with reliable facts, figures, history, and even structural system reform, it still did not tell how to measurably bring cost down or how to implement technology for our benefit to be cost effective. However, this book inspired me to discuss it with my peers, and while some are still holding out hope for Social Security, I have my own legislation to bring to the table. It’s very simple, I wrote it on half a sheet of paper with a marker, but I guarantee that it’s better than anything Obama, Congress, or the I.R.S. thought of to rectify cost issues. The C.B.O. can estimate that costs may go down some, but the C.B.O. can’t tell us how to get there or how to walk it out; however, I can.

I , Aja Brooks, would like to introduce a bill _______ for a National Health Insurance Plan, outsourced to __________. The purpose of this bill is to provide insurance for the uninsured, in the event their state has no program in their budget, or if they can’t attain MEDICAID or have been rejected by other private sector insurance companies. Monthly insurance premiums will be federally subsidized, as optional health coverage available through selecting an additional withholding on your W-4/corresponding tax forms. A National Health Advisory Council will be in charge of overseeing this program, who will interact with State Insurance Commissioners and ____________ outsourced insurance company. The National Health Advisory Council will not be a government position; doctors will submit a recommendation to a Senate committee nominating 10 most qualified doctors or influential health professionals from their field. The 10 most nominated will be the council. The Council will establish a Constitution to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and establish its own rules for terms of service and rules of operation.

The I.R.S. expansion will remain the same as in H.R. 4872, but the I.R.S. will have 3 new departments: wage division, premium division, and records division. The I.R.S. will do what it does best, collecting and recording accurate monetary and related information, and they will do do so by using the taxpayer ID# as a person’s National Health Insurance number. This way, the I.R.S. will be able to easily assess and collect information having to review and substantiate gazillions of 1099 forms, and without having to harass or hunt people down, the I.R.S. would be the only entity to have access to private medical data through use of the Tax ID number, which will track and compile medical data as soon as we add it for hospitals to submit it for billing/tax purposes.

The I.R.S. will analyze all Tax ID claims, those who have opted-in to National Health Insurance, and track the costs to those under other insurance, and also track the costs of those who refuse health insurance and compile it for an annual report for Congress. Congress could then accurately assess medical costs, with the I.R.S. curtailing fraud, and simplify billing for hospitals for those who can’t pay their bills. The computer system will work for Tax ID number only, to eradicate those who don’t pay taxes/to clearly count taxpayers’ contributions, in order to address illegal immigration as a separate cost issue that amnesty would not rectify. Billing pages will say NO TAX ID NUMBER/employer address for those who are illegal or employer tax ID#.

The I.R.S. and government can’t oversee every minute financial transaction to ensure taxes are being properly reported and not misrepresented, but they can more fairly tax, properly appropriate, and identify fraud easier with improved and accurate TAX-ID data based info. That way, it would be easier to extend tax cuts or credits to those who have large medical bills, and give a stimulus check to those who stay in good health and aren’t abusing their body or the system.

Funding for the new I.R.S. data base Tax ID# health information will cost_________. All health care providers must participate or license to practice will be revoked. Records must be submitted when patient information is taken in for admission or appointment.

Those who receive Social Security checks or unemployment checks have the option to opt-in on their forms by asking for additional withholding. This bill extends coverage to those under-insured, most of the uninsured who receive government checks, and those who are unemployed will be added to their yearly federal income taxes/that will be offset when they become employed and file their W-4 over again.

This bill excludes illegal immigrants, for the National Health Insurance Plan, as they do not possess a TAX ID number unless they are claimed as a dependent under an optional employer withholding for workman’s compensation insurance only, once we can accurately assess medical costs by TAX ID #, then we can effectively determine the costs and amount of medical services used by illegals, as to levy a tax of 3%, or require an ID card where they must pay 10% sales tax. The I.R.S. and ICE will partner to manage those claims filed that have the listing as NO TAX ID NUMBER, and the I.R.S. will determine legal work status and recommend deportation if necessary. If an illegal needs care, they must put their employer’s TAX ID NUMBER on the claim, so that withholding can be investigated by the I.R.S., and if they do not work, the spouse or head of household must disclose the employer’s TAX ID#.

While this bill is just a simple readjustment of how we do things, it may be amended or modified to fit legislative language and action as appropriate.

MEXICO REPEALS POSSESSION LAWS:

With Mexico doing this, it defines what is legal possession for non-regulated drugs, that were previously illegal. THIS MEANS, it will be much easier to get my two charges repealed or expunged MUCH easier and without the expense of $7,000-$10,000 when the U.S. follows suit. I can't thank you enough for putting up with me for all the stress that I was under. I know you didn't know everything that I was talking about, but it's o.k., I really just needed you to listen to me like you did in the past, this gave me the courage to do a lot of things that I needed to do, rather than operating in fear. I will make sure that I write you a more detailed letter. I've been meaning to get one off to you, and now I know why God had me wait. THIS IS GREAT NEWS for me. Thank you for inspiring me and giving me the courage to walk through those dark times by sharing scripture and writing letters to me... I don't know what I'd have done without you then in my life!! I felt like with what you'd been through in life, that you more than anyone I could turn to and talk to, even if you didn't get it all, I trusted you.

Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession
Buzzed!30 votes Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer Mark Stevenson, Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago
MEXICO CITY – Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday — a move that prosecutors say makes sense even in the midst of the government's grueling battle against drug traffickers.

Prosecutors said the new law sets clear limits that keep Mexico's corruption-prone police from shaking down casual users and offers addicts free treatment to keep growing domestic drug use in check.

"This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty," said Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general's office.

The new law sets out maximum "personal use" amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities no longer face criminal prosecution.

Espino del Castillo says, in practice, small users almost never did face charges anyway. Under the previous law, the possession of any amount of drugs was punishable by stiff jail sentences, but there was leeway for addicts caught with smaller amounts.

"We couldn't charge somebody who was in possession of a dose of a drug, there was no way ... because the person would claim they were an addict," he said.

Despite the provisions, police sometimes hauled in suspects and demanded bribes, threatening long jail sentences if people did not pay.

"The bad thing was that it was left up to the discretion of the detective, and it could open the door to corruption or extortion," Espino del Castillo said.

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the new personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory.

The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines." For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.

Mexico has emphasized the need to differentiate drug addicts and casual users from the violent traffickers whose turf battles have contributed to the deaths of more than 11,000 people since President Felipe Calderon took office in late 2006.

But one expert saw potential for conflict under the new law.

Javier Oliva, a political scientist at Mexico's National Autonomous University, said the new law posed "a serious contradiction" for the Calderon administration.

"If they decriminalize drugs it could lead the army, which has been given the task of combating this, to say 'What are we doing'?" he said.

Officials said the legal changes could help the government focus more on big-time traffickers.

Espino del Castillo said since Calderon took office, there have been over 15,000 police searches related to small-scale drug dealing or possession, with 95,000 people detained — but only 12 to 15 percent of whom were ever charged with anything.

THE CITIZENS’ REPORT CARD: OBAMA HAS FLUNKED SUMMER SCHOOL WITH A JOBLESS RECOVERY!

THE CITIZENS’ REPORT CARD: OBAMA HAS FLUNKED SUMMER SCHOOL WITH A JOBLESS RECOVERY!!

WHO CARES IF OBAMA IS HITTING THE ROAD FOR NOV. WHEN THERE’S NO JOBS!!

WHY IT’S NOT WORKING WITH OBAMA AS PRESIDENT: HE’S GOT NOT CITIZENSHIP, HE’S GOT NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY OTHER THAN OBAMANOMICS WHICH HASN’T WORKED, AND HIS NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY IS TO PERMIT A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO!!

The Army’s legal department has now launched a full-scale inquiry into Obama’s lack of citizenship, since the Supreme Court has delayed the matter of swift justice for over two years now:
BORN IN THE USA?
Officer's defense team demanding Obama docs

'I can't think of a single reason why the judge would take the government's position'

Posted: August 13, 2010
11:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
*


The key defense attorney for an Army officer being put on trial for refusing orders he views as suspect because of the possibility Barack Obama is not eligible to be commander-in-chief is demanding documentation from the president.
On the G. Gordon Liddy radio show today, Paul Rolf Jensen said the request for "discovery" in the Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin case – the access by the defense to documentation in the government's possession that could help its case – is being submitted.
Jensen had been asked whether there is a legal basis for denying a defendant on trial on criminal charges legitimate access to documentation that would prove his case.
There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
"We are today officially requesting that discovery," Jensen said. "If the government refuses to give it to us, then we will, a week from today, file a motion to compel discovery.
"I can't think of a single reason why the judge would take the government's position," he said.
(Story continues below)


The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has concealed documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
Lakin declined to follow deployment orders after he tried through military channels to affirm the validity of orders under Obama's command and was rebuffed. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan again.


Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the first active-duty officer to raise the question.
In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.
The issue of discovery in such a dispute is critical. The multitude of civil cases that have been brought over the Obama eligibility dispute all have failed to reach that process because of federal judges who have ruled on issues generally involving "standing." The judges have concluded that damages from an ineligible president suffered by the plaintiffs would not be more for them than any other member of the public, so there is not a specific damage or danger.
Jensen has explained that the Lakin case is different, since his client is being processed on criminal charges over the issue – a status that puts him in imminent danger of specific and personal "damages."
The courts already have shown a weakness on the subject of Obama's records. The discovery-of-evidence issue previously was raised in court byattorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.
Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website, which is generating support for Lakin. Hemenway brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.
The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.
Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obamabecause it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitutionto be president.
"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.
Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."
Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.
"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.
The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.
In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court quickly backed off, however, when Apuzzo noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.
Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.
"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to bepresident. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.
In today's Liddy interview, Jensen said the government could invoke the "presumption of regularity" in defending Obama's status, but that would be considered a rebuttable presumption in court.
"In order to rebut that presumption, we [would] seek evidence [through discovery] that the president is constitutionally ineligible," he said.
Lakin confirmed during the same interview that he's received "overwhelming support" from many of his peers. But he was counseled by his lawyer not to discuss specifics because of the pending court martial, scheduled for October.
Jensen said it's clear that if the president had the birth documentation that reveals his status as a "natural born citizen," he already would have presented it.
"The president has been invited repeatedly to release his Hawaiian birth certificate. He hasn't done so. Lt. Col. Lakin wrote to the president before refusing orders. If the president were going to do that he would have done so already. [His decision] leads me to suspect he doesn't have [it]," said Jensen.
Lakin said the issue is the U.S. Constitution, and whether it is still controlling in the U.S. or not.
Jensen also addressed the issue of the threats being issued against his client by at least one senior Army officer.
According to the American Patriot Foundation, the threat came while Lakin was appearing for an arraignment just a week ago.
The foundation reported, "The afternoon before the hearing, LTC Steven Brodsky told LTC Lakin's counsel that Lakin must report hours before the hearing to his duty post at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in order for him to be 'transported under escort' to make sure he showed up at the arraignment 'to avoid embarrassing his unit."
The report continued by explaining that Brodsky is a judge advocate and his job is prosecution. "He has no role – or at least should have no role – in deciding the manner in which Lakin relates to his commanders, or vice versa," the foundation report said.
But, it continued, "Outside the courtroom, Brodsky went far beyond interference with Lakin's commanders. While Lakin was waiting near the courtroom, Brodsky and Col. Melanie Craig (Lakin's 'escort') stood around the corner in the main hallway and in voices easily audible to LTC Lakin, spoke about the need to prevent Lakin after the hearing from speaking to the media, 'signing autographs or kissing babies.' Brodsky then said to Craig 'just Taser him and throw him in the van,'" the report said.
WND contacted Brodsky, who refused to say anything, instead referring the inquiry to a public information officer. That officer declined to respond to WND's calls and e-mails asking for comment.
In the foundation report, Lakin said, "LTC Brodsky meant for me to hear those words, no question. When COL Craig returned to where I was, she said to me 'you probably heard all that, didn't you?' I replied it would have been hard not to. After the hearing, my lawyers asked COL Craig for permission for me to speak to the press, since both CNN and NBC had sent camera crews, but she rudely refused, and she ordered me back into her vehicle to be transported back to Walter Reed."
However, probably a more accurate Army opinion of Lakin was described in his commander's assessment just prior to Lakin's refusal to deploy over the issue of Obama's eligibility.
Col. Dale Block wrote, "Dr. Lakin is an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician…he can always be counted on to provide me with expert advice…LTC Lakin is clearly one of the top clinicians in the Northern Regional Medical Command. He has superb clinical skills, rapport with patients and staff…Terry is the best choice for tough assignments. …Already on the promotion list to Colonel, he should be groomed for positions of greater responsibility."
The foundation suggested that those concerned about the situation should contact Maj. Gen. Carla Hawley-Bowland, and not the judge in the case, since Hawley-Bowland commands Lakin's superiors.
The foundation also suggested reaching Hawley-Bowland by telephone at 202-782-1104.
Lakin had posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue. The 18-year Army veteran, decorated multiple times, could get up to four years of hard labor in prison and be dismissed from the military.
"The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the Internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii's Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu," the foundation supporting Lakin's case confirmed.
"Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the head of that agency, has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the department's custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the department's records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii," the organization said.
"The United States Constitution requires that a person be a 'natural born citizen' to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a 'natural born citizen.' An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health (is) an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008," the foundation said.
The issue of the Hawaii records has been a volatile point in the argument. The state of Hawaii has gone so far as to approve a law that allows the state to ignore repeated requests for documentation about Obama's birth.
The state's governor, Linda Lingle, just months ago told a New York talk-show host that it was an "odd situation."
"This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country," she said on the radio show. "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue, and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
However, no news release from the state of Hawaii identified the birth location as Kapi'olani. And Lingle's statement also was contradicted by Fukino, who reported, "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."
Critics also note that while the Obama campaign posted a computer image of a "Certification of Live Birth" online during the 2008 election run-up, the procedures at the time allowed such certifications to be issued on the sworn statement of a relative for a child not born in the state.
The issue of Obama's birth "in Hawaii" also arose after he assumed the Oval Office when a letter was revealed that purported to be from the president claiming Kapi'olani as the place of his birth.
The letter, dated Jan. 24, 2009, was used by the hospital at a fundraiser but later concealed.
A photograph taken by the Kapi'olani Medical Center for WND shows a letter allegedly written by President Obama on embossed White House stationery in which he declares the Honolulu hospital to be "the place of my birth," The hospital, after publicizing the letter then refusing to confirm it even existed, is now vouching for its authenticity, but not its content. The White House has yet to verify any aspect of the letter.



"As a beneficiary of the excellence of the Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.
The letter was referenced by then-Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, during the Jan. 24, 2009, hospital dinner. Kapi'olani has said officials "know" the letter is real, but hospital spokeswoman Keala Peters refused to corroborate the content.
As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30.
In his latest video, Lakin said the issue of evidence is important:
Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.


Related offers:
There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth-certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question – and make sure it's in time for the next tea-party rally
Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet – and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.
Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.


For Immediate Release: – 08/11/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg Says Michelle Obama Celebrated, one last time,
in Spain with her friends and daughter
as She Knows Her Husband, Obama/Soetoro’s, Time
as President is Coming to an End
as he is forced to Quit
as He Will Admit He Was Born in Africa
and Adopted in Indonesia where his
name became “Barry Soetoro”
* * *
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/11/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States.
Berg said, “Michelle Obama Celebrated, for one last time, in Spain with her daughter and others as she knows that her husband, Obama/Soetoro’s, time as President is coming to an end as he is forced to quit as he will admit he was born in Africa and adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia and therefore, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President.”
Berg’s comments came as the controversy is building since Michelle Obama, her daughter and upwards of 40 friends traveled to Spain for a five [5] day vacation. The issues included spending money overseas when our country is going through economic turmoil; traveling overseas when she could have spent a vacation in the United States where her spending could have helped a local community; staying at a five [5] star hotel with sixty [60] rooms used for her friends, staff and security; and why she would travel overseas after widespread criticism when Michelle, her husband and two [2] children recently travelled to Maine for a four [4] day vacation and not to the Gulf of Mexico area.
Berg continued, “The pressure is building to force Obama/Soetoro to admit that he is an Imposter, a Fraud, a Phony and his tale is the largest ‘Hoax’ in the history of the United States, over 230 years. Actually, the pressure is building because the overwhelming evidence is that Obama/Soetoro was born in Africa and more important is the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s ‘legal’ name became ‘Barry Soetoro’ and there is no evidence that he has legally changed his name and therefore, every time he uses the name of ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ he has and is committing fraud.”
Berg concluded, “I am in the final days of planning for the largest March/Rally in Washington, DC in October 2010 to force Obama/Soetoro to step down from the Office of President, a position he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President as he is an ‘Usurper’ and he has led our country into a Constitutional crisis. When Obama/Soetoro steps down, all of the appointments and programs including ObamaCare will end because all of them are ‘voidable’”.
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com


Berg as Relator v. Obama – Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing En Banc



For Immediate Release: – 08/08/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
in the Case of
Berg as Relator vs. Obama
* * *
No Surprise that Attorney General Holder
Will “not” Prosecute “blacks” in Voting Rights Cases
as he has Refused to Prosecute Obama
in this False Claims Act Case
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/08/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States. The Policy of United States Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute “blacks” in voting rights cases should be no surprise as A.G. Holder has refused to prosecute Barack Hussein Obama in the False Claims Act [Qui Tam] case of Berg as Relator vs. Obama.
Berg said, “The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his offices and staff, including the Department of Justice have a clear Conflict-of-Interest in any type of prosecution against Obama.”
“This type case is usually utilized in Medicaid and Medicare cases where fraud is alleged. In the case against Obama, I set forth that Obama is not “natural born” or “naturalized” but an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as a United States Senator from Illinois was fraud and the salary and benefits Obama received must be returned to the United States Treasury, an amount in excess of One [$1] Million Dollars. I base my claim on the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s legal name became “Barry Soetoro.” At age ten [10] when he returned to Hawaii, I allege that he did not go through U.S. Immigration on a U.S. Passport, but did so on his Indonesia Passport, therefore, an “illegal alien.” Also, I allege that “Barry Soetoro” [former Barrack Hussein Obama] has never legally changed his name and therefore, he has committed ongoing fraud by using Barrack Hussein Obama.
“The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; was senior legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign; and served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still exists with my, Berg’s, False Claim or Qui Tam Case.”
Berg’s False Claims Act [Qui Tam] Case was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia at the end of 2008. The U.S. District Court Dismissed the Qui Tam Action and failed to respond to the issue of the Conflict-of- Interest. Berg Appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who on June 30, 2010, upheld the District Court’s ruling and in so doing stated that Berg failed to demonstrate that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have a Conflict-of-Interest. This simply is not the case.
Government employees are required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, which clearly spell out the issue of Conflict-of-Interest. Just to name a few, Eric Holder’s placement with Obama through Obama’s campaign are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder reports directly to Obama, the violator, spells out a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, is a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder was the Senior Legal Advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign violates the Code of Federal Regulations under Conflict-of-Interests; and the fact Eric Holder served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee are all clear Conflict-of-Interests in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.
For this reason, Berg has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. When a case is brought to the United States Appellate Court, the matter or a three-Judge panel hears matters complained of. When you request a rehearing En Banc, you are asking for the majority of active Circuit Judges to rehear the case En Banc.
Many Appellate Courts, who have a large number of Judges and a large caseload, will divide the Cases (Appeals) into divisions or panels for each case. For example, three [3] judge panels usually hear United States Appeals Court cases. There are times however, at the request of the panel, or one of the litigants, the case is later reheard by the full court, or, En Banc. En Banc is a French word that means “the full Court”. When a Petition for a Rehearing En Banc is filed, the party filing the Petition is asking for the Full Court to rehear the matter complained of on Appeal.
Berg said, “If a Conflict-of-Interest does not exist in this case, Berg as Relator vs. Obama, then the words ‘Conflict-of-Interest’ must be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and from all legal and other dictionaries.”
Berg concluded, “If we are denied a rehearing En Banc, then I will take this Case to the U.S. Supreme Court as the issues presented are far too important not to address.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com

AS IF WE HAVEN’T HAD BILLIONS OF TARP, BAILOUTS, AND STIMULUS ADDING $3 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT, WE NOW HAVE MORE UNFUNDED “DEFICIT SPENDING”!!
I HATE OBAMANOMICS: OBAMA'S GIVEN THIS AXE TO GRIND, SIGNS THAT THE SUMMER OF RECOVERY WAS NOTHING BUT SMOOTHING OUT THE STOCK MARKET AND STIMULUS HOG WASH: having a full-time job for bills doesn't exist as business owners don't have the money to train new workers to computers/job skills BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS COMING IN AND NO PROFIT IN 3 YEARS, and you're having to give up your own dream and having a small business for the same reason !!!

SIGNS OF THE GA RECESSION: you have a job that only pays your taxes, you have to get another part-time job to eat, and having a full-time job for bills doesn't exist because business owners don't have the money to train new workers to computers/job skills !!
RELATIONSHIPS ARE COMPLICATED BY THE RECESSION: How many people have had to postpone engagements, marriage, or even a serious relationship to an exclusive dating status because both people are so strapped, they can't afford a life together??

ANOTHER SLUSH FUND CREATED WITH YOUR MONEY

Just last week the Obama administration signed another bailout into law. It was a $26 billion bailout, with $10 billion supposedly saving teacher's jobs that were never on the chopping block. Out of that $10 billion, about $40 million will go directly to the teacher's unions - just in time for the elections. Much of this money was "paid for" by dipping into the funding for food stamps - ironic since they always accuse us of wanting to "starve the children."

The corrupt Big Government politicians aren't done yet.

Now they want to cut** another $8 billion from the food stamps fund to pay for a child nutrition bill that is at the center of Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" Initiative. The First Lady's initiative is a massive financial boon to the SEIU (again, just in time for the November elections...). It creates goodies like a "Food Service Management Institute" and "an open-ended green cafeterias pilot program" through a reauthorization of legislation from Lyndon Johnson's Big Government agenda.

There are 400,000 workers who prepare and serve lunch to kids in the US and the SEIU represents tens of thousands of them. They now want to use this money to hire and unionize more employees by creating year-round breakfasts, lunches,and dinners for kids as well as beefing up their pay and benefits packages, all paid for by us. Whatever happened to parents making sure their kids are fed??

Big Labor already has a lot of money, and now because of these two new bills, they'll have tens of millions more to use for November. Tea Party Patriots is fighting hard to stop the spending and to stop the runaway growth of government, including public employees and their unions, but we can't do it without you.

If you believe that we should fight back against these slush funds for the Left's favorite special interests; if you believe that our Republic is threatened by the absolute corruption and collusion that occurs between politicians and Big Labor unions, then please consider donating to Tea Party Patriots. Any donation, small or large, will help us stand up against groups like the SEIU.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/16/democrats-big-government-agenda-to-dip-into-food-stamp-program-again/

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/08/16/dems-hey-lets-raid-the-food-stamp-program-again-for-big-labor/

**Nancy Pelosi frequently uses the food stamp fund as her go-to fund to "cut" in order to abide by the PayGo rule. However, these "cuts" are scheduled to take place in the future and they know these cuts will never actually be made.

You are the heart and soul of the Tea Party Movement. Thank you for promoting the causes of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets with us!

Owning Up to President Obama’s Economy … Where Are The Jobs?
Posted by Kevin Smith on August 12, 2010
Last year President Obama took ownership of the economy – “Give it to me,” he famously said – but more than a year later Americans continue to ask one key question: Where are the jobs? If the President owns the economy like he says, why does he and other Democrats continue their feeble attempts to pin blame on the previous Administration and shift attention away from their broken promises on the economy?
For example, on Monday the President said: “The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?” And last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said: “We are not going back to the failed Bush policies that left us with deep deficits, a deep recession, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
But a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey has some bad news for Washington Democrats:
“Fully 76 percent of voters think it is time for the Obama Administration to start taking responsibility for the condition of the economy. That's more than four times as many as think it is right to continue to place the blame on Bush (18 percent).”
Last week we found out that the U.S. economy lost another 131,000 jobs in July and the unemployment rate remained at 9.5 percent despite Obama Administration projections from its departing chief economist Christina Romer that the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ would keep unemployment below eight percent. When will Democrats finally understand that imposing job-killing tax hikes and continuing their massive spending spree is making matters worse, not better? Here are just a few examples over the last 24 hours of what President Obama’s economy really means:
New Claims for Unemployment Benefits Rise to Highest Level in Six Months: “New applications for unemployment insurance rose last week to their highest level in almost six months, the latest evidence that some employers are still cutting their staffs. First-time claims for jobless benefits edged up by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said Thursday … Initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks and are close to their high point for the year of 490,000, reached in late January.” (Associated Press, 8/12/10)
July Budget Shortfall Puts U.S. on Pace for Record Deficit: “The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans. Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The $165.04 billion deficit … was the second highest for the month on record … For all of fiscal 2009, the U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit. Fiscal 2010 might run a little higher—the Obama administration sees $1.47 trillion.” (Wall Street Journal, 8/12/10)
Job Openings Drop for Second Straight Month: “Company job openings fell for the second straight month in June, a sign that hiring isn't likely to pick up in the coming months. The data comes after a weak employment report Friday that showed businesses aren't adding enough new workers to bring down the unemployment rate, currently 9.5 percent. Wednesday's report, known as the Job Openings and Labor Turnover survey, or JOLTS, suggests that won't change anytime soon.” (Associated Press, 8/11/10)
Fed Sees Recovery Slowing, Plans to Buy More Debt: “The Federal Reserve, facing an economic recovery that it termed ‘more modest’ than anticipated, said Tuesday it will stop shrinking its huge portfolio of securities by reinvesting the proceeds of maturing mortgages in U.S. Treasury debt. The Fed move is largely symbolic and is unlikely to stimulate the economy significantly. But the shift in the management of its portfolio—and an accompanying statement—underscored Fed officials' concern about the vigor of the economic recovery.” (Wall Street Journal, 8/11/10)
Trade Deficit Continues to Widen, Points to Slower Growth: “United States is selling fewer products around the world and spending more on cheap imported goods, an imbalance that hurts the job market at home and means the economy is even weaker than previously thought. The trade deficit of nearly $50 billion for June is the biggest in almost two years, and economists fear that economic growth for the second quarter, which came in at a sluggish rate of 2.4 percent in early estimates, may turn out to be only half that.” (Associated Press, 8/11/10)
Home Foreclosures Rising: “Lenders repossessed 92,858 properties last month, up 9 percent from June and an increase of 6 percent from July 2009 … Economic woes, such as unemployment or reduced income, are now the main catalysts for foreclosures … The Obama administration has rolled out numerous attempts to tackle the foreclosure crisis but has made only a small dent in the problem. More than 40 percent, or about 530,000 homeowners, have fallen out of the administration's main effort to assist those facing foreclosure.” (Associated Press, 8/12/10)

Post a Comment ( No Comments )

With 2/3 of Muslims in a recent poll showing their disapproval of Obama, Obama blithely goes on about religious freedom and a mosque scheduled for completion on the 10yr. anniversary of 9/11, only two blocks away......
SO THIS IS OBAMA’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY???!!!
*
We-The-People-USA.com
Approve/Disapprove Pres. Obama handling mosque?
Your votes are shown as the selected radio buttons below. The total vote percentages are shown below each vote. Thank you for your participation!
Note: Percentages are based on total votes.
1. Do you approve/disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the building of a mosque near Ground Zero?
5%

Approve strongly
2%

Approve somewhat
91%

Disapprove strongly
2%

Disapprove somewhat
0%

No opinion

1,753 Total Voters



Moderates have funneled money to Jihad, (knowingly or unknowingly), and leaders of that movement and because so many of these radicals are hiding in houses of worship (mosques), putting everyone peacefully worshiping at risk. That is why I don't agree with Obama, as radicals look at it as a triumph, to be in the same place that they staged the attack by going unnoticed there in a temple by other sincere worshipers.


They are doing the same thing with C.A.I.R. facilities, using them to meet and connect and train. I just think we're giving up more ground that we took back from activities like that. It is one thing to do it covertly in the U.S. and be found out, it is another to use our religious freedoms and tolerance, as they already did, to set up shop to do it again.

check out the douche of the day on GOOGLE BUZZ:

CREATIVE INNOVATIONS - I think it's because moderates have been responsible for funneling money to Jihad and leaders of that movement, and because so many of these radicals are hiding in houses of worship, putting everyone peacefully worshiping at risk. That is why I don't agree with Obama, as radicals look at it as a triumph, to be in the same place that they staged the attack by going unnoticed by other sincere worshipers.
Edit8:15 pm
@trench hcnert@ - @CREATIVE INNOVATIONS So, punish the many because of the few?
8:26 pm
Adam S. - I think you will find Israeli sympathizers in congress are fronting this debate
8:33 pm
CREATIVE INNOVATIONS - No, but they are doing the same thing with C.A.I.R. facilities, using them to meet and connect and train. I just think we're giving up more ground that we took back from activities like that. It is one thing to do it covertly in the U.S. and be found out, it is another to use our religious freedoms and tolerance, as they already did, to set up shop to do it again.
Edit8:41 pm
@trench hcnert@ - @CREATIVE INNOVATIONS You do realize that laundry mattes have been Mafioso fronts since the 1920's, right? Crime Bosses have assailed this country many times over... yet, we still have laundry mattes. And you can rest assured that if you walk into any one of them, randomly, there is most likely no Godfather-esque activity happening in a back room.
8:51 pm
CREATIVE INNOVATIONS - Yeah, but I guess the mob hasn't capped 3,000 innocent people at one time... usually only Hitler and people like that fall into those categories, which is why they're called T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S !
Edit8:55 pm
CREATIVE INNOVATIONS - Your post sucks... in no way can you compare terrorists to the Salem Witch Trials.
Edit8:56 pm

HEY OBAMA: GET THE HELL ON OUT, BEFORE YOU ARE FORCIBLY REMOVED, AMERICANS ARE DISGUSTED AND RIGHTFULLY FEEL DISRESPECTED!