The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
by Mike Masnick

Thu, Nov 18th 2010 11:10am

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

 
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota

Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin

Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware

This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume

April 3rd, 2010 7:15 pm ET

In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'

His claim turns out to be false.

 

As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--

fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.

According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.

The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.

In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.

In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.

According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?

Further, consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.

(Click on pic to enlarge to read the title of book)

There is more from Ross, however: 

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video. 

You would THINK a former Constitutional attorney would NOT make up Constitutional quotes!  ("We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal...")

Um, wrong founding document, Mr. President. It is in our Declaration of Independence that we read: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.

BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. " ~ John Adams

 

SHARIA FOR DUMMIES

http://bigpeace.com/ndarwish/2010/08/26/sharia-for-dummies/
Posted by Nonie Darwish Aug 26th 2010 at 4:42 am

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the

US Constitution is Sharia compliant...

Now let's examine a few laws of Sharia below to see if

Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1- Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it.

A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

15-  It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

16-  A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money

(dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.

”The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life.

Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-on-sacred-sites-of-defeated-enemies              

by Gabriel Scheinmann

August 23, 2010 at 5:00 am

The real issue behind the controversy that has erupted over plans to build a 15-story cultural center, mosque and madrassa a few yards from Ground Zero is not only about the mysterious funding behind the Cordoba Center initiative, or whether or not its founders and backers have malign intentions. It is primarily about understanding how Muslims across the world, in particular Islamists, would view the conversion of the site of the greatest Muslim attack on U.S. soil into a Muslim house of worship. Given the long history of mosque-building following Muslim military victories, the building of the Cordoba House on Ground Zero will be seen in the same light as the Muslim conquests of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Whereas Americans hope that the attacks on New York City and Washington are seen as the clarion's call for aggressive American action to counter Islamist ideology, the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque will be seen by the same Islamists as its first step towards the decline of America.

Bin Laden and his Islamists would love nothing better to plant the flag of Islam in the cultural capital of the West. This would not be read in the Muslim world as a sign of the West's tolerance, but of its weakness. In its long history of conquest, Islam has habitually converted the scared shrines of its enemies into mosques and madrasas. A cursory look at the world's most famous mosques lays bare the fact that many were former houses of worships of defeated enemies.

Islam's most sacred site, al-Kaaba, in Mecca was a pagan shrine that predated Islam by hundreds of years. Mohammed himself, after his army's conquest of Mecca in 630, destroyed hundreds of idols, proclaiming the truth of his new religion, and, since, it has become the hub of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, hajj, and a core pillar of Islam. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayad Caliphate proceeded to build the Dome of the Rock, the Masjid Qubat al-Sakhra, on top of the Jewish Temple Mount in 689. Inscribed on the inner walls of the shrine are clear warnings to Christianity, professing Islamic supremacy. Sprawled on the inner octagonal arcade, flowing counterclockwise, the dedication warns Christians and Jews to "not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth" and threatens the Christian Trinity by insisting that "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God."[1] Whoever believes that God had a son, "whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!"[2] Having defeated their Christian enemies, the Umayyads built a grand mosque on top of Judaism's most sacred site that contained a clear declaration of Muslim supremacy over their brother Abrahamic religions.

Similar conversions were ordered as the Muslim conquests expanded across Africa and Europe. The Grand Mosque of Damascus, also known as the Umayyad Mosque, was converted from a church dedicated to John the Baptist in 705. The world-renown Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was a thousand year-old Christian church before being transformed into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was only converted into a museum in 1935 by ultra-secularist and Turkish founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Over the long history of Muslim territorial advance, thousands of mosques, from Spain to India, were built on sites of important religious or political value to their defeated foes.

Supporters of the project might argue that the actions of invading Muslim armies over a millennia ago are irrelevant to the issue at hand in lower Manhattan. However, it is impossible to separate the recent decline of such a trend with the parallel decline and territorial recession of Muslim lands in the second half of the second millennium. Moreover, recent territories that have returned to Muslim rule following decolonization have seen the return of the conversions of religious sites into mosques. Muammar Qaddafi, the ruler of Libya, converted 78 synagogues into mosques in the 1970s.[3] In 1975, the Great Synagogue of Oran was confiscated by the Algerian government and similarly transformed.

Proponents like to cite the namesake of the Cordoba House complex as evidence of its goal of tolerance and pluralism, referring to the relative tolerant attitude of Muslim Spain to its Jewish and Christian minorities. Those proponents, however, should recall that the Great Mosque, or Mezquita, of Cordoba was itself a Visigoth Church that was converted and rebuilt as a mosque following Muslim conquest in 784, lasting nearly 500 years before it was recaptured and converted back into a Catholic cathedral.

Both survivors and the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks, as well as most prideful New Yorkers, have strongly objected to what they see at best as an insensitive project to, at worst, a malicious broadside against those who suffered tremendously on that day and since.

It has even divided the organized Jewish community, pitting a vehemently supportive J Street against a nuancedly opposed Anti-Defamation League. The mosque, run by the Cordoba House, claims to be promoting the project not only for functional reasons, but also for civilizational ones. Its supporters say that its aim is to use the 9/11 tragedy and the location of the Ground Zero Mosque as a message of tolerance and compromise in America. By hoping that Americans would never buy into the "Us against Them" rhetoric espoused by Islamists, supporters are seeking to demonstrate the superiority of Western culture and liberalism. The fact that this is even a debate in America demonstrates American tolerance; it is illegal to build a church or synagogue anywhere in Saudi Arabia.

American government officials have been divided over the plan, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Governor Deval Patrick, and, most recently, President Obama himself in support and many local and national politicians, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and Olympia Snowe, Congressman Peter King, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, in opposition.

But the symbolism could not be clearer: If the Cordoba's House supporters seek to emulate the tolerance of al-Andalus, the Arabic term for Muslim Spain, they are unwittingly declaring their possible acceptance of Muslim rule.

[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[2] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[3] http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=623&PID=0&IID=1901&TTL=The_Final_Exodus_of_the_Libyan_Jews_in_1967

Dear Failure In Chief...

Dear Failure in Chief…

I was appalled but not shocked as to your statement that supported the building of the 13 story Mosque just 600 feet, where the Twin Towers fell. You have proven your ignorance and allegiance to Islam. You said it had to do with Freedom of Religion. No moron, Islam is a Political System that wants to impose Sharia Law on our Nation. But of course, you already know that because you are a Muslim. We The People of the United States of America will fight you on this. If at all possible, we will remove you from office before 2012. You have become a danger to this Country and to its people. By allowing this Mosque, it will accomplish two things…

 

One, it will defame and dishonor all the victims of 9/11 and their families. Secondly, it will open up this Country to terrorists that will slowly and in an evil strategic manner, take over this Nation and abolish our existing laws. You have done nothing but cause dissention and division in this Country. You have failed in all of your Campaign promises. You have refused to denounce terrorist acts and in fact, have made excuses for them. You refuse to speak out against Islam and Sharia Law. Your wife has done nothing to help those women around the world and even in this country that have been abused, scarred, and murdered, by Honor Killings. You both have been silent, when it comes to the atrocities of Islam. As far as We the People are concerned, you are not only a Muslim, but you are perpetrating the biggest hostile takeover that this Country has ever seen. You are well aware that your political career is over and that you will never be reelected, so you don’t care what damage you do to this Country. You are more than a Lame Duck….You are a Rabid Duck. The Mosque is your way of “marking” your territory as a Muslim man. We The People are on the War path. We are awake and aware. And we are ready and empowered for the fight ahead. You will NOT succeed. We Will Win. Mark this down….November is just the beginning….Your days are numbered….We The People Will Have Our Say and Our Day….It’s coming!

 

Dawnellen Pappalardo

(Posted on Face Book)

 

Warning: Do NOT use the "M" or "L" word!!!

The Obama administration has acknowledged its continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, in total violation of his Oath of Office to protect the Constitution of the United States and the right of citizens (*5th Amendment) to a trial when accused of a crime.

(* "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"...)

The act of assassination is obviously much worse than public outcries against unlawful detention or torture.

The confirmation came from Director National of Intelligence Dennis Blair in Congressional testimony last week. Blair said: Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich said it is not much of a stretch, in that terrorist cells have been said to be working within the United States, to expect the administration to conduct these assassinations of citizens in our country. Furthermore it is also conceivable that anyone SUSPECTED of being or acting with a administration designated terrorist organization to be murdered while sleeping or taken from their home in the middle of the night and assassinated.

This is especially worrysome considering the recent Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) information.  MIAC is part of the federal Fusion Center effort now underway around the country.

See http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_

Obama has joined the Bush policy of using the war on terror to violate the rights of American citizens.  The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report in conjunction w/the Department of Homeland Security  has issued a report which specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, & Bob Barr as militia influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called militia movement and conflates it with supporters of legitimate Third Party candidates, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

Police are educated in the document that people who are anti-abortion, own gold, display an assortment of U.S. flags, or even those that talk about the film Zeitgeist, view the police as their enemy and conflates them with domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph and other domestic militia groups who have been charged with plotting terrorist attacks. FOX News reports, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano called Fusion Centers the "centerpiece of state, local, federal intelligence-sharing" in the future.

Will Obama Suspend the November Mid Term Election?

Author: J.D. Longstreet

June 12, 2010

Western Front America

Situational awareness is brought to the forefront by the author. Would it ever happen? With this administration anything is possible. As noted below, The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government – for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in the Congress have done. My gut tells me this is a line the administration will not cross. Our military defends the Constitution, they have sworn no oath to carry out illegal orders from a completely corrupt President. The military has read the findings of the Nuremberg Trials.

Rational thoughts while observing the ongoing national charade.

More and more politics-watchers are coming around to the conclusion that the scheduled Mid-Term Election in November of 2010 will be a political bloodbath for the Democratic Party. It is beginning to appear as if the democrats may, indeed, lose control of BOTH houses of theCongress. As a conservative I can only hope and pray they do.

But – the democrats lust for power is so great and their zeal for socialism so intense, that I cannot see them allowing their hold on power to be placed in jeopardy by, of all things, an election where the voice of the people is actually heard.

So, the question must be asked: Will Obama and the socialist/democrats in our government suspend, postpone, or “call-off” the Mid Term Election scheduled for this coming November?

First we must remember that Obama promised during the presidential campaign to bring “Fundamental Change” to the United States. I do not believe a person alive in America today could doubt his sincerity when he said that. Plus, the evidence of that fundamental change is right before our eyes, and in our wallets. In less than eighteen months the Obama Regime has managed to take America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic. That accomplishment alone should give you reason enough to suspect that when their power is threatened they will use the full force of the Central Government to ruthlessly crush any and all who they perceive as a threat. At this moment in history, a threat is anyone, any American, who does not agree with them.

What the Obama Regime needs is a national crisis of some kind, a national emergency, in order to suspend the election in November. There is much talk about the Obama Regime declaring marital law as the result of a national emergency. That would take care of the election.

Next question: Who decides what a national emergency is? You’ve got it — the Obama Regime!

Ok. So now I am worried about a natural disaster such as a major hurricane striking the Eastern Seaboard this summer or this fall. As all of us who live in Hurricane Alley will attest, we know from experience that we are due a major strike.

All right, already! I KNOW this all sounds paranoid as the dickens! But understand this: A little paranoia in the face of danger can save your butt! Lord knows — we are starring danger in the face every day the Obama Regime enjoys in power.

Will there actually be a Mid Term Election this year? I honesty wish I could answer affirmatively, but I fear the raw power on which the democrats are drunk may decide that for us. Understand this: there is nothing as dangerous to freedom in the US as a Progressive (Socialist) Democratic Party inebriated on raw power.

I can say this: The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government – for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in theCongress have done. There is a seething rage in America today. It has cut to the quick many a patriotic American’s soul. There is a tidal wave of unrequited anger, roiled up and posed, ready to fling itself at a government it sees as a threat to America’s freedom and liberty. Woe be unto him who is caught in the deluge.

Look, some of us have a knack, a talent, a curse, call it what you will, of sensing huge changes around us well before they actually occur.

During the past few months I have sensed a change in the American atmosphere. Where there was anger, there is now rage. Believe me, there is a HUGE difference between anger and rage. Both are great motivators, but motivation by anger can be considered and well thought out. On the other hand, motivation by rage (or outrage) is often not well considered and thought out. It is more akin to lashing out, and is, therefore, to be avoided when it is possible.

But, my senses tell me it is too late to avoid the “lashing out” Americans are about to unleash.

Why do I even bring this up? I bring this up because — at this very moment that tidal wave of anger and outrage is damed up, increasing in power and intensity, waiting, just waiting, for an incident that will knock the chocks from the dam wall holding back the cascade. Postponing, or suspending, the Mid-Term Election, currently scheduled for this coming November, would be the spark that ignites a firestorm that will consume all in its path.

But those in our nations legislature, intoxicated on their acquisition of more and more raw power, haven’t seemed to notice the shadow of liberty loving Americans looming over them as they celebrate.

Elections are a sort of safety valve in America. Without a safety valve to release unwanted pressure a boiler would soon explode. This coming Mid Term Election, in November, is one of the most important safety valves ever to exist. Shut it, remove it, or disable it, and believe me, the boiler will explode with unimaginable force.

If America was one huge computer, we could simply “reboot.” Of course we cannot do that – but many are saying we CAN “reset.” That is the aim of Americans in the coming Mid Term Election.

The federal government MUST be brought back under the control of the citizens and limited to only that power, and those particular powers, granted by the US Constitution. If Americans can accomplish that — then most everything else can readily be taken care of — and a return to a constitutional republic in an America restored.

I don’t even want to think about what will happen if we are unsuccessful in saving and restoring America at the ballot box in November. It MUST happen if America is to survive.

Remember in November!

Rise Up! Well Regulated Militias!

Check out "Rise Up!" on WELL REGULATED AMERICAN MILITIAS !

http://wellregulatedamericanmilitias.com/video/rise-up-1


These remarks were delivered by Paul E. Vallely,


MGEN, (ret) former Deputy Commanding General, Pacific at the Lincoln Reagan Dinner Saturday June 5th, 2010 in Virginia City, Montana.




I will be shoulder to shoulder with my Patriot Brothers,
AR in hand and at the ready when necessary.
MANY OTHER AMERICAN WOMEN will be at your sides as well!
I hope we never have to, BUT WILL DO SO IF NECESSARY!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Aly

Senators propose granting President Internet power!! A KILL SWITCH FOR THE INTERNET !!!

See the original story at:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html

WELCOME TO AMERIKKA, KOMRADS!

June 10, 2010 8:25 PM PDT

Read between the lines and see the potential for ABUSE!!

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the federal government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats.

 

Do you REALLY want THIS MAN

TO HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL

OVER THE INTERNET???

Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

We can only HOPE!

TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power." And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an Internet "kill switch" that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites.

(They try to discredit any one or thing that doesn't agree with their position on things NOW, do you REALLY want them to have THIS KIND OF POWER??)

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources."

SOUNDS like a CONVENIENT EXCUSE TO ME to limit your

1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON THE INTERNET!

Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized.

Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

AND DON'T FORGET THE "OTHER" CRIMINALS, THE PEOPLE WITH OPPOSING OPINIONS THAT  MAKE THE CITIZENRY AWARE OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE DOING !!

Ahmadinejad Stresses Need for New World Order

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8903171502

19:21 2010-06-07

Ahmadinejad Stresses Need

for New World Order

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday called for cooperation among world states to forge a new world order.


"The conditions we are experiencing today need planning for new orders in the world and (our) cooperation and co-thinking for organizing the conditions," Ahmadinejad told reporters before departing for Istanbul, Turkey to take part in the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA).


Reminding that major world and Asian players will take part in the Istanbul conference, the Iranian president underlined that "Iran, too, will have active participation in drafting the final statement, taking stances as well as mutual consultations" with participants in the conference.

Ahmadinejad said that his visit will take place at the invitation of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, and pointed out that he is slated to meet other foreign officials during the visit.

Ahmadinejad further confirmed his subsequent trip to Tajikistan, saying the visit will come in response to Tajik President Emomali Rahmon's visit to Tehran in March 2010.

The Iranian president mentioned that he will take part in the 'Water for Life' international conference in Tajikistan.

The CICA Conference is underway in Istanbul on June 4-10.

Turkey will take over the rotating term presidency of the CICA from Kazakhstan during the conference.

Last year, Gul accepted Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev's offer to take the presidency of the body.

CICA is an inter-governmental security forum in Asia which was initiated by Kazakhstan's then president in 1992 and currently has 18 member states, including Iran, Russia, China, South Korea and Turkey.

Obama seeks power to Imprison without cause, indefinitely!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/05/25/obama

(Check out the above links for more information...)


June 8th, 2010, by Lstone
(WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW)

Obama called for new legal system to allow for Prolonged Detention of enemy combatants outside the Military or Civilian Court system. This will be a Presidential power not afforded by the constitution that has never been attempted in Amercian History even by George W. Bush & Dick Cheney. the power to imprison someone without cause and hold them indefinitely. I am not against holding enemies of war in detention for interrogation for a period of time, and trying them through a military tribunal. However, This may be the literal death of habeaus corpus that safeguards our individual freedom against unlawful detention. Why create a new legal system? Why not work within the one we have used for centuries? I don’t trust this. It smells rotten and it probably is. “The concept of preventive detention is at the very boundary of American law” -NY Times.

(You know this must be REALLY RADICAL when even Rachel Maddow is Alarmed!)

Both parties have contributed to the destruction of liberty and the rule of law through their insatiable thirst for control and power over the very people who they are supposed to serve.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority…” – Lord Acton

ASK ME AGAIN WHY I THINK GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER!


Remember to VOTE in November and to take out the trash in Washington!

May God bless You, Your Family & America!


-Lawrence