Archive for July, 2009

JUST SAY: “GO TO HELL OBAMA!”

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Saturday, Jul 25, 2009
Posted on Thu, Jul. 23, 2009
Perry raises possibility of states’ rights showdown with White House over healthcare

By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.
Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.
“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”
Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.
Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama’s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.
‘Not the solution’
“It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class,” Perry said. “A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution.”
Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.
In expressing “unwavering support” for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said “federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state.”
Returning to the “letter and spirit” of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, “will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union.”
Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be “hypothetical.”
“I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it,” said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. “Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized.”
The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families “that are being clobbered by healthcare costs.”
High stakes in Texas
Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a “predictable and comprehensive benefits package” for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.
Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.
Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.
“There are good solutions” to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. “This isn’t it.”
Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s “massive takeover of the private-sector economy.”
“I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt,” he said.
Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. “I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican,” he said.
Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: “This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas.”

Monday, July 20th, 2009
Coming to a Clinic near you

Coming to a Clinic near you

Putting the Obama Puzzle Together

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

- Northeast Intelligence Network – http://homelandsecurityus.com -

Putting the Obama Puzzle Together
Posted By Randy Taylor On July 8, 2009 @ 11:46 am In Globalist Agenda, Intelligence Analysis, Iran, Iraq, Randy Taylor | Comments Disabled

By Randy Taylor

This has taken some time to put together, yet once you read this piece in its entirety, hopefully the puzzle of Obama will come into clear focus. I’ve been puzzled by his very presence, by his quick, unexplained rise to power, his predetermined placement in the mass of confusion we are experiencing.
The last eight years under Bush created great divides in this country on both sides of the American political spectrum. Most everyone was in favor of war in 2001 especially after we suffered the attacks of 9/11. Yet, as usual, America was quick to forget their initial reactions to 9/11 and as the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq waged on without measurable results, their interest in war diminished. This is understandable, as we are a results oriented society and culture and the results still aren’t clearly visible. We still have not killed or captured Osama bin Laden nor have we put much of a dent in the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world. Any claimable results we may have in Afghanistan and Iraq are overshadowed by the massive spread of Islamic terrorism in other regions of the world, which at best makes these wars a loss with the cost of trillions of dollars and the massive loss of life on US forces, Canadian forces, other coalition forces as well as civilian casualties. The Islamic terrorist are still very active and their presence is growing in Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Somalia, Yemen, Algeria and other countries in Africa and the Middle East. This is where we are today and this is where we stood on November 4, 2008. The entire world blamed Bush for this mess. It was time to put the George W. Bush puppet away and dig out a new one for the White House. Let’s see, the black one, controversial, hint of Muslim loyalty, birth certificate issues, and the polar opposite of Bush on campaign trail. Yep, that’ll work.

Out of obscurity a young, black politician emerges. He was completely opposite of George Bush and John McCain in all his campaign rhetoric. He made promise after promise to his ever growing voting base. He says the wars will be ended, the troops will come home, promises no more big government, says he believes in government transparency, etc. He woos the young voters like a rock star, uses the internet to secure votes and spread his lies. He makes promise after promise, knowing he will not keep any of them.

People were so upset with George Bush, they would have voted for Bozo the Clown if he had run against the Republican Party. This helps insure victory for this young unheard of politician. He takes the election with an estimated 51% of the nation’s vote, which even if the results weren’t exactly accurate; it doesn’t matter as Presidents aren’t elected anymore. They are chosen and the Electoral College insures this. The election process is a dog and pony show, as these decisions are made long before November 4 each election cycle. Even so, there still has to be the appearance that the “most popular” candidate wins so there isn’t an investigative review of the electoral process.

So why was Barack Hussein Obama chosen? This is actually quite obvious when you examine the case. The fact that he is a Muslim was hinted at during the elections yet never proven. This drew the support of the ever growing Muslim population in the US. Groups like CAIR and other Muslim groups very quickly threw their Saudi dollars into campaign support to sell Obama to the US voters. The very fact that he may not have even been born in America, but instead Kenya made him even more popular with Muslims.

The Muslim connection was the key in this process. George Bush wasn’t very popular with Muslims around the world and John McCain was viewed as an extension of George Bush and his policies. McCain never had a chance. Actually most of America was surprised when McCain was placed on the ticket as the Republican nominee. We all asked “Out of all the Republicans available to run, why McCain?” McCain was chosen because McCain would not win. This was predetermined.

Obama was brought in for one reason and one reason only. The scope of work for Obama is make friends with key powers in the Muslim world while crippling America into economic depression to the point that a one world government will appeal to the people. The powers that be, the ones that are behind the scenes and dictate to the White House need to insure the support of all major Muslim countries, except for Iran. He United States is intent on seeing Iran brought down whether by the US or Israel, but brought down either way. The problem with attacking Iran though is the lack of support by the other key nations in the Muslim world. I’ll explain the necessity of either disarming or destroying Iran a bit later.

Bush used to dance around the subject of Islam and made feeble attempts at gaining support of the key Muslim countries by saying that Muslims were a peaceful people and that the religion had been hijacked by a few bad people. However, he was the one that initiated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so his credibility was severely damaged in that regard. He could say what he wanted but the bottom line is he signed the orders for war.

Obama on the other hand campaigned against the war. This made him a hopeful in the eyes of the Muslims from the onset. Since he took office he has bent over backwards to appeal to the Muslim world as an ally. Obama is appointing Muslims into key positions within the US government, is speaking out against Israel, is sympathetic to Palestinians and is pulling troops out of Iraq. Why? It is simply to look sympathetic to Muslims and as a gesture to show tolerance and gain their support. Classic bait and switch in progress.

Barack Hussein Obama is a plant, a Manchurian candidate of sorts. He was chosen by the architects and designers of this New World Government. I’m not 100% entirely sure who these people are but there is a group behind the scenes that are orchestrating key governments with the end result being a one world government. George Bush Sr. spoke of this new world government, Bill Clinton spoke of it and George W. Bush spoke of it and even the Pope states that this is the way to save the world economically. It’s not a conspiracy theory anymore, it is fact. The only question is exactly who is running the show. Many speak of the Bilderberg Group as the group behind the scenes and granted, they are behind the scenes but they are a distraction, a decoy. They are too obvious and too easily seen. The Bilderberg Group keeps the conspiracy theorists busy while the real powers operate without an audience. They are the front men for the real powers pulling strings.

Anyone who has studied Islam at all knows that Iran, the seat of hardcore Islam will never agree to a New World Government that isn’t 100% Islamic and under Sharia law. Islam is a religious system that encompasses government and every detail of life. It isn’t just a religion. Their entire political system is built around it. This does not fit in with the New World Government that is planned for us. But if we want to eliminate or disarm Iran, we will need the support of the other key Muslim countries in the Middle East. The countries that we are attempting to gain support from are all recipients of Western dollars and are interested in economic growth for their countries. They would entertain a world government as they would benefit from it. Iran has no interest in this plan. Not that it was ever presented to them, it is a given that they will not accept it. They would push the world into World War III before they would surrender their sovereignty to a New World Government run by non-Muslims.

Iran is a threat to the western world and Israel, make no mistake. The al Qaeda movement and militant Islam are extensions of this Islamic threat. Yet we have a unique situation where we have two huge threats to our freedom and our way of life. We have Iran, the seat of Islamic terrorism worldwide that would like to see us destroyed and at the same time, we have our own government stripping away our rights, systematically destroying our economy and rapidly surrendering our sovereignty as a nation in favor of a New World Government. The other threat is indeed our own government. The worst part is that our western leaders have taken the Islamic threat to western civilization and used it in their favor as a method of stripping away our rights, invading our privacy and surrendering our sovereignty to this New World Government, all under the guise of improving our security. Security at the sacrifice of basic freedoms isn’t really security. Placing Muslims into key government positions doesn’t exhibit clear thinking on security matters either, but it is a measured risk in the eyes of the powers that be.

All the focus is on Iran right now as it has been for the last seven years, immediately after we invaded Iraq. Obama keeps the focus on Iran too, offering to have dialogue with them, yet knowing they won’t accept. But to the Muslim nations, it looks as though Obama is trying. That is why he was brought in. To make the US look Muslim friendly to the Muslim countries that are not as hard core as Iran. He wants to see us merged with these “friendly” Muslim countries under a one world government. He is selling us out to our enemies.

We moved into Afghanistan and Iraq to gain strategic positions on Iran. This was obvious. Iraq didn’t have the weapons of mass destruction to the extent that we claimed. Bush even made several jokes about WMD’s at a speaking engagement when he was President as he knew damn good and well that Iraq wasn’t the threat he made it out to be. But Saddam had to go as he would have never subscribed to a new world government either. We now have airbases in both countries which allows for ground or air movement against Iran when the time comes. Even if we withdraw, we will never fully leave these countries. We will maintain a military presence there just as we have done with every other country we have “withdrawn” from.

Barack Hussein Obama has not kept a single campaign promise and his supporters should take note of this. We are withdrawing some troops from Iraq yet we are beefing up in Afghanistan. He hasn’t done squat for the economy and is instead installing a Socialist agenda within our country. He is signing us up for Cap and Trade Agreements which has Americans being set up to pay taxes or penalties to a central world government body, which is obviously part of this new world government being imposed on us. He doesn’t place any value on any human life that is viewed as a burden or a mistake. He is manipulating the media ferociously and is censoring press conferences at the White House while saying he believes in government transparency. He is a liar and a fraud. That isn’t just my opinion, no, that is fact. Do the research. Go back and look at his campaign and then look at what he has done since he has been in office.

Beware of this person. Beware of all that agree with him or speak in a like manner of a one world government. They are a detriment to mankind as a whole. They are the precursors of the beast.

Be safe. Stay vigilant.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Article printed from Northeast Intelligence Network: http://homelandsecurityus.com

URL to article: http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2900

Click here to print.

Copyright (c) 2009 Northeast Intelligence Network. All rights reserved.

Finally, some insight into Obama’s past

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

Finally, some insight into Obama’s past
Posted: July 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009
My convictions that Barack Obama is hiding a virtual treasure trove of personal papers and documents that would cast his life in a different light than his self-serving autobiography did have been confirmed by the first leak of his college writings.

Not only my convictions have been confirmed – so have my worst fears.

Back on March 10, 1983, Barack Obama, minus the Hussein, published a bylined screed in the Columbia University Sundial that denounced U.S. defense policies and claimed that calls for a nuclear freeze might lead to peace.

Obama’s goal? Replace the Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to the “land of the free” with failed radical leftist beliefs – get Brad O’Leary’s “The Audacity of Deceit”

But, for those who may be too young to remember, let’s first recall what was happening in the world in 1983 when the 22-year-old Barack Obama was extolling the nuclear freeze movement and U.S. disarmarment.

That was the year President Ronald Reagan introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan dubbed by the inebriate Teddy Kennedy as “Star Wars,” for the allegedly fanciful idea that technology could be developed to shoot down incoming inter-continental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons. This was the ultimate plan not only to minimize, if not eliminate, the potential for nuclear war but one that led within the decade directly to the collapse of the totalitarian Soviet Union.

It was the year the Soviets shot down South Korean civilian airliner 007, killing all 269 passengers including a U.S. congressman.

It was the year the Cuban military, building a massive airport that could be used for Soviet military purposes, were ousted from the Caribbean island of Grenada by U.S. military forces. In the process, hundreds of U.S. college students who had been taken hostage by Cuban soldiers were freed.

It was also a big year for the nuclear freeze movement, which, as we know since the opening of the KGB archives, was an idea inspired, funded and controlled by the Soviets.

(Column continues below)

This was the movement Barack Obama was lauding in 1983. In fact, you could say from reading his article about the activities of two groups working within the freeze movement on the campus of Columbia, Obama wasn’t persuaded their calls for a freeze were radical enough.

“Generally, the narrow focus of the freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second-strike capabilities suit the military-industrial interests as they continue adding to their billion-dollar erector sets,” Obama wrote.

In other words, in Obama’s eyes, the Soviet apparatchiks working on behalf of this cause weren’t going far enough. He preferred to see deep unilateral disarmament by the U.S. – a cause that would have ensured the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall would still be around today.

I’m sure some will look at this article and say: “Hey, give the guy a break. He was 22 years old then. What bearing does it have on his presidency today?”

And that would be correct, of course, if Obama had publicly changed his mind on these issues. But he hasn’t. In fact, as late as 2008, during the presidential campaign, he affirmed those ideas in a video.

Here are his big ideas in that campaign commercial as they pertain to nuclear weapons and U.S. military policies:

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” He said this, mind you, after missile defense systems passed every imaginable test known to man – successfully shooting down missiles over and over again.
“I will not weaponize space.” This is right out of Ted Kennedy’s 1983 playbook. SDI was never about weaponizing space. It was about a space- and land-based missile defense.
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.” This illustrates the man sitting in the White House today believes America should disarm unilaterally.
“Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.” This strongly suggests Obama’s warped and anti-American defense views, shaped at a time when the U.S. was still deeply engaged in the Cold War with an evil and powerful adversary threatening our very existence, haven’t changed a bit.
Keep in mind, this is what we learned from the first document drop from Obama’s past.

We still don’t have his birth certificate.

We don’t have his Selective Service registration.

We still don’t have his passport and travel trail.

We still don’t have any of his records from Occidental College.

We still don’t have the rest of his Columbia records.

We still don’t have his Harvard papers – none, zip, zilch, nada.

We don’t have any of these things and we are more than six months into his first term.

What is this man hiding?

It’s scary to think about it – almost as scary as his first-term policies.

Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

- Infowars – http://www.infowars.com -

Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists
Posted By admin On July 6, 2009 @ 6:38 pm In Featured Stories | 282 Comments

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, July 6, 2009
Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.

Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.

The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race “extremists” and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.

The bill’s definition of “people associated or affiliated with hate groups” include, “Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or “Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.”

The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.”

The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.

Since the definition of an “extremist” has already been established by numerous federal documents over the last few years that list law-abiding citizens as domestic terrorists, Hastings’ amendments are simply an attempt to centralize the power to demonize such groups into the hands of the Obama administration.

“This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder — a Bill Clinton retread — will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists,” warns writer Mike Baker.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) expressed his concern about the amendment on the house floor, noting that under Homeland Security’s very definition of what constitutes an “extremist”, the majority of Americans will be characterized as hate criminals.

“While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as “extremists,” warned Franks.

“I take extreme offense that the federal government — through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official — would dare to categorize people who are “dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration” as “right-wing extremists” and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings’ Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged,” said Rep. Franks.

As we reported in April, a recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are “stockpiling” weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.

The document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, states;

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

A similar report was also issued by the DHS at the end of March which listed the “alternative media” with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists.

Both documents were just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement, and designates them under the umbrella term of “extremists,” in the same context cited in Hastings’ amendments.

As we have exhaustively documented with the MIAC report and a whole host of others, the federal government apparently has very little concern for any perceived terrorist threat to America coming from the MIddle East or Al-Qaeda cells within the country, and indeed if any such threat existed we are only in more danger, because the feds have been busy training law enforcement that law-abiding American citizens who exercise their legal right to purchase firearms or who exercise their first amendment right to discuss politics or run websites, are potential terrorists who want to instigate a violent revolution.

In addition, current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.

Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.

No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists.

The facilities for round-ups of “extremists” who dare to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights are already being prepared, again with the help of Hastings, who sponsored (HR 645) – the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act.

The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as “command and control” centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center” as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.

Hastings’ efforts to have millions of law-abiding American citizens lumped in with racist gangs and designated as “extremists” arrives on the back of Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” that has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).

S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”

In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the federal government’s final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the “war on terror” are now being targeted across the world – through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment.

RELATED: ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CLASSIFY PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN AMERICANS AS TERRORISTS

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/bill-gives-attorney-general-power-to-designate-gun-owners-tax-protesters-as-terrorists/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2008 Infowars. All rights reserved.

U.S. Senate screws American Citizens in favor of the benefactor the Federal Reserve

Monday, July 6th, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Reserve, facing growing pressure as it tries to heal the ailing economy, dodged a bullet on Monday when the U.S. Senate cast aside a new effort to increase scrutiny of the central bank.

On procedural grounds, the Senate blocked a bid to permit the U.S. comptroller general, who heads the investigative arm of Congress known as the Government Accountability Office, to audit the Federal Reserve system and issue a report.

Republican Senator Jim DeMint, who has been pushing for greater transparency at the Fed, failed to get the provision attached to the must-pass annual spending bill that includes funding for the GAO for the upcoming 2010 fiscal year.

The audit would have included details about the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments, DeMint said on the Senate floor.

“The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis,” DeMint said. “Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone.

“Allowing the Fed to operate our nation’s monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life,” he said.

Democrats who control the Senate blocked the South Carolina Republican’s amendment on the grounds that it violated rules prohibiting legislation attached to spending bills.

Fed officials were not immediately available to comment.

The move comes as some lawmakers have increasingly become wary of the Fed’s actions, particularly for its handling of the real estate market and the meltdown of major financial institutions like investment bank Bear Stearns and insurance giant American International Group.

A non-binding provision in the fiscal 2010 budget blueprint Congress approved in April called on the Fed to provide more information about collateral posted against Bear Stearns and AIG loans.

That measure also sought a study evaluating the appropriate number and costs of the regional Fed banks.

The U.S. central bank has a seven-member board in Washington whose members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It also has 12 regional banks whose presidents are appointed by banks and other businesses in their local districts, with the consent of the Washington board.

Aafia Siddiqui: Deep Ties to Al-Qaida Resurface Yet Again

Monday, July 6th, 2009

Aafia Siddiqui: Deep Ties to Al-Qaida Resurface Yet Again
Posted By Sean Osborne On July 5, 2009 @ 12:31 pm In Domestic Terrorism | Comments Disabled

5 July 2009: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, it was not quite one year ago, on July 17 2008, when the female Al-Qaida terrorist, Aafia Siddiqui, was arrested due to suspicious behavior in Ghazni, Afghanistan by Afghan National Police (ANP). Siddiqui was arrested as she loitered outside the provincial governor’s compound. A search of her handbag revealed documents on the manufacture of explosives in addition to data on chemical, biological and radiological weapons; descriptions of various landmarks in the United States, including New York City, and other unidentified “substances” which were sealed in glass bottles.
The next day a party composed of two FBI special agents and several U.S. Army personnel arrived at the ANP facility where Aafia Siddiqui was being held unrestrained in a second floor room behind a curtain which was directly adjacent to the room where the American’s were meeting with ANP officials. Within moments of the meeting’s commencement Aafia Siddiqui burst through the curtain and grabbed an M4 assault rifle belonging to one of the U.S. Army officers and fired two rounds before being struck by a round fired by another officer’s 9mm side arm. Aafia Siddiqui was finally in American custody.
Since her arrival in the United States to face charges of attempted murder in this incident, Siddiqui has been defended by lawyers who are challenging the charges on the basis of Siddiqui’s mental competency to stand trial. The defense lawyers cite a psychologist’s expert conclusions that this Al-Qaida terrorist suffers from a “delusional disorder and depression.” It is the opinion of this writer that these defense lawyers and their defense psychological experts are totally incompetent when it comes to evaluating the mental state of a committed Al-Qaida terrorist and there is nothing in their formal education which would have even remotely prepared them to make such psychological evaluations.
It is also important to note that the mental competency aspect of this legal charade followed the failure of initial defense tactics which included the claims that U.S. government had planted physical evidence on her and various other “dirty tricks,” and that she had been in the custody of a “foreign military intelligence authorities” for several years and during that time was subjected to “torture, sexual abuse and beatings.” None of these defensive claims have any merit whatsoever. This woman has been and still is a fully committed female Al-Qaida terrorist directly linked into the family of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, her terrorist activities date to the early 1990s when she raised funds for Bosnian jihadi’s in the former-Yugoslavia under the guise of “Islamic charities.”
It is known by the U.S. government that Aafia Siddiqui separated from and divorced her first husband, Mohammed Amjad Khan; also a terrorist directly linked to the Boston, Massachusetts-based Institute of Islamic Research and Teaching, sometime in late 2002 and remarried one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s nephews, Ammar al-Baluchi (aka Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali), and prior to his capture in April 2003. At the time of his arrest in Karachi, Pakistan in April 2003 al-Baluchi was involved in a plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy there and remains one of a dozen high-value Al-Qaida terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He is the cousin of Ramzi Yousef who was one of the terrorists brought to trial and convicted of the World Trade Center bombing of February 1993. Aafia Siddiqui also has direct ties to another Guantanamo terrorist, Majid Khan, formerly of Baltimore. Maryland and for whom Aafia Siddiqui rented a city post office box.
Now it comes to light that Aafia’s 5-year long disappearance from Karachi coincides with the arrest of Ammar al-Baluchi. It has also been entered as evidence in her trial that she admitted to the FBI that she returned to Karachi to work in that city’s Institute of Technology, that she had traveled to Afghanistan and even lived in Quetta, Pakistan for some period of time. So much for the horse hooey being propagated by the terrorists and their dhimmi allies of Aafia Siddiqui’s capture, torture, sexual abuse and beatings between 2003 and 2008. She was free and continued her terrorist activities until caught outside the governor’s compound in Ghazni, Afghanistan and made one last desperate attempt to kill American soldiers at that time. Aafia Siddiqui should receive the same sentence as her husband and his infamous uncle and his other infamous cousin should receive: life in prison, no parole, no islamic martyrdom. May she rot in an American jail cell until her death.
Article printed from Northeast Intelligence Network: http://homelandsecurityus.com

URL to article: http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2894