Sunday, January 15, 2012

First NDAA; Now Enemy Expatriation Act

Some more words of wisdome from Chuck Baldwin.


On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial

See complete article at:

Chuck Baldwin live

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Raising The Debt; Lowering The Boom

If one has eyes to see let them see. If one has ears to hear let them hear.
All I can say is same old stuff but different day from those we elected, no matter which party it is. Come and see what a patriotic Pastor has to say about our mess today.

The big story this week is the decision of the US Congress and Senate to raise the debt ceiling. Did this really surprise anyone? Despite millions of pieces of communication from their constituents to the contrary, congressmen and senators voted by substantial margins to increase the debt ceiling by up to $2.4 trillion. The House vote was 269 to 161. The Senate vote was 74 to 26. Coincidentally, the amount of this increase to the debt ceiling is now the largest debt-limit increase in US history–all the rhetoric by politicians in DC that they are serious about “cutting” federal spending notwithstanding.

Full story and Links here.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Remember Dwight Eisenhower

A half century ago President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex. As the allied supreme commander from World War II who supervised sometimes fractious generals from different nations and later NATO commander who faced a far more hostile Soviet Union, Eisenhowever obviously was no wimp. Whatever one thinks of his administration's policies, he understood his duties as president--promoting peace, believing in civilian rule, and emphasizing congressional authority over the decision to go to war.

Three days before leaving office, he spoke to the American people. He feared the potential influence of the war lobby:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Unfortunately, we seem to have lost that "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" holding the military-industrial complex in check. But we still have time. Indeed, accountability in government is one of the basic missions of Campaign for Liberty.

Full article HERE.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

A Nation Of Truth-Rejecters

Truth is not always in the Majority and this is straight talk form Chuck.


By Chuck Baldwin January 6, 2011

A bedrock principle of Natural Law (the Law upon which WesternCivilization rests) is the primacy of truth. Without a desire for, and appreciation of, truth, society cannot sustain itself. Lies, deceit,duplicity, etc., are more than moral evils; they are the bane offreedom and liberty. Take away truth, and one is left without honor,justice, or decency. Truth is the cement that holds the bricks andstones of a sane and civilized society together. Remove the former andthe latter will crumble.

Years ago, a great, old preacher-warrior told my former churchcongregation, “People today love being lied to.” How right he was!For the most part, even professing Christian people today love beinglied to. It would seem that many people find deceit easier to digestthan truth. Maybe it’s because these people lack the aforementionedvirtues of honesty and courage.

Truth demands the virtue of honesty, because honesty requires thatinformation be objectively analyzed and studied; it requires that personal prejudices and proclivities be set aside; it requires that humility replace pride, which allows one’s opinions and conduct tochange in the face of truth.

Truth also demands courage, as courage is the active response tohonesty. To know what is right to do is great (many people do not evenknow this much), but to act upon what one knows to be right is evengreater--and also harder! Courage gives men the fortitude andconviction to suffer personal loss in order to be faithful to their own honesty. Courage places more value on honesty and truth than onpersonal prosperity or aggrandizement. Courage propelled Daniel intothe lion’s den; it drove Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into theburning fiery furnace; it placed a youthful David onto the battlefieldalone against a fierce and ferocious adversary; it gathered PastorJonas Clark’s congregants (mostly farmers and merchants) ontoLexington Green to face Britain’s highly trained, professionalsoldiers.

So, where are the virtues of honesty and courage in the desire fortruth today? Threaten the average pastor and church leader with someobscure IRS tax code and they will quickly turn their backs uponvirtually every principle of truth and honor that they once professedto believe. The mere threat of potential financial loss sends men(excuse me, males) scurrying for cover.

In this regard, when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson created the heinous501(c)3 IRS tax-exempt status for churches, he very cleverly (withassistance from Hades, I might add) planted the seeds that would growup to intimidate the vast majority of America’s pastors and churchleaders into becoming silent slaves of the state. In fact, if one hasan opportunity to ever bore deeply into the matter, he or she willdiscover that most pastors and church leaders today do not even regardthe Church as the institution of the living God, bound only to thelaws and principles of God’s Holy Word; they perceive it as acreature of the state, bound to the subjective machinations of IRSbureaucrats and their toadies in the law profession. And should achoice ever have to be made between the two, God, His Word, and HisChurch will be thrown under the bus in preference to the state-ownedcorporation. So much for truth--or honesty, or courage, for thatmatter.

The rejection of truth seems ubiquitous in America today. When did itstart? Maybe when Abraham Lincoln turned the Constitution on its headand--at bayonet point--turned republicanism into nationalism; maybewhen Woodrow Wilson rejected thousands of years of human history andturned America’s sound money system over to the corrupt andillegitimate Federal Reserve; maybe when Wilson created the monstrousInternal Revenue Service; maybe when the 17th Amendment was adopted;maybe when the American media convinced people that Lee Harvey Oswaldacted alone in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; maybewhen the American people (including the vast majority of pastors andChristians) turned their backs (and their hearts) to the BranchDavidians, who were murdered by federal agents outside Waco, Texas;maybe when so-called “conservative” Senate Republicansdeliberately chose to cover up President Bill Clinton’s criminalconduct; maybe when the powers that be began demonizing anyone whodared to question the “official” story regarding the events on9/11/01; maybe when a vast majority of Christians and conservativesblindly followed and actively supported the unconstitutional,un-American policies of President George W. Bush. They supported Bushwhen he threw off Western Civilization’s time-tested Just Wardoctrine (and replaced it with an unconscionable Preemptive Warpolicy), and, again, when he officially began turning America into apolice state by creating the Department of Homeland Security,implementing the Military Commissions Act, introducing the PatriotAct, and dismantling Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus. Whenever itstarted, the sad reality is, America has largely become a nation oftruth-rejecters.

There is a passage of Scripture that I simply must interject here:“Because they received not the love of the truth . . . God shallsend them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (IIThess. 2:10,11 KJV)

This is one of God’s universal principles: when people deliberatelyreject truth, God will allow them to believe lies, which always leadsto ultimate destruction. I submit that is exactly where America istoday. As a nation, we have rejected truth, and God is giving us overto deceit and falsehood. And what is interesting to me is the way inwhich many unbelievers seem to have a thirst for truth that farsurpasses that of many professing Christians. This leads to an amazingparadox.

Think of it: when God is moving within a nation with His plan oftruth and justice (which He is always doing), then it stands to reasonthat the evil one is, likewise, resisting and countering God’s planthrough deceit and falsehood. This means that those unbelievers whoseek truth are allying themselves with God (maybe even unwittingly),while those professing Christians who have rejected truth are allyingthemselves against God (again, maybe even unwittingly). Remember, Godcalled the heathen king, Cyrus, “my shepherd.” (Isa. 44:28) Butone thing is constant: truth is like a magnet: one is always beingpulled toward it or away from it, depending upon the polarity ofone’s heart and mind. People who embrace truth tend to embrace itfurther, while people who reject truth tend to be continually hardenedagainst it.

Think of the conflicts of world and American history where brothersfought against brothers. Many of these brethren died at the hands ofbrethren fighting for truth, while other brethren died fightingagainst truth. And though men may be unable to discern the difference,God suffers from no such malady. He knows those who enable truth andthose who disable it. And many of those today that are resisting anddisabling truth call themselves Christians. There is anotherappropriate Scripture: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”(Matt. 7:20 KJV)

Again, the desire for truth is a bedrock principle of a free andindependent society. We must desire truth, first, in our own hearts.We must be willing to objectively analyze our motives and actionsbased upon this fundamental principle. How can so many people(including professing Christians) behave so dishonestly? How can theyact so cowardly? How is it that truth is only precious when itdoesn’t cost us anything? How can people be so unconcerned abouttruth and so spiteful toward those who seek it? How can those whoclaim as their Savior the One is “the way, the truth, and thelife” be so calloused against truth? How can those who claim to readthe word of truth (the Bible) be so ignorant of truth?

Look around you: our society is breaking apart due to a lack ofappreciation for truth. Small businesses are being put out of businessdue to a lack of truth. Families are being torn apart due to a lack oftruth. Churches are filled with bitterness, carnality, envy, deceit,duplicity, false accusation, greed, and cowardice due to a lack oftruth. Our political institutions mock the principles of decency andhonor due to a lack of truth. The national media loves to distorttruth; the federal judiciary loves to twist truth; and there is nosuch thing as truth to Big Business--only bottom line profits.

As we enter a new year in search of Heaven’s blessing andprotection, let us remind ourselves that God always judges people whoreject truth. Always! If we truly want Heaven’s blessing andprotection upon our land, we will start--each of us--by being willingto seek and embrace truth, even if doing so costs us something;because, in reality, people who reject truth lose a whole lot morethan whatever they had hoped to gain. Eventually, they lose, not onlytheir own lives, but also the life of their country.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

America’s Bread And Circus Society

By Chuck Baldwin November 10, 2010

The Roman poet Juvenal (circa 100 A.D.) wrote regarding the waylatter-day Roman emperors retained power and control over the massesthat were seemingly more than happy to obsess themselves withtrivialities and self-indulgences while their once-great-and-powerfulempire collapsed before their very eyes. He wrote:


“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the Peoplehave abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handedout military command, high civil office, legions--everything, nowrestrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread andcircuses.”

I submit that a good many in America are, like Rome of old,carelessly frittering away their God-given liberties, foolishlyclamoring for nothing more than government handouts and never-endingentertainment. Millions and millions of Americans (especially males)are literally intoxicated with sports. Sports are no longer a greatAmerican pastime; they are now a great American obsession.

Mind you, this writer has been a sports fan all of his life. I beganplaying organized basketball in the fifth grade; I was on the highschool wrestling team; I played football in high school and college;and I ran track. Still today, I enjoy watching a good NFL game (yes,I’m still a Green Bay Packers fan), a good college game when theGators are playing, a good NCAA men’s basketball game (especiallyduring the tournament--even more so when the Hoosiers are in it), andany NBA championship series between the Celtics and Lakers (I root forBoston). And I even like to watch a round of professional golf once ina while (it helps me go to sleep when I’m trying to take a nap). Butnone of the above will interfere with anything that is important, andI am not going to plan my whole universe around any of it. If it isconvenient, I will watch. If it’s not, I will read about it in thesports section of the newspaper. And I’m certainly not going tospend my hard-earned money following any sports team (even those Ilike) all over the country like some rock band groupie.

I am not talking about sports in general; I am talking about the waymany American men have allowed sports to control and dominate theirlives. With many, sports are not just a hobby; they are a religion. Icannot count the number of conversations between men that I overhearin restaurants, airplanes, boardrooms, and, yes, even church houses,in which every man in the circle is literally consumed with all sortsof sports facts, information, and opinions. In many such discussions,these men will talk about nothing else. To these men, there isabsolutely nothing in the world more important than the latest sportsscore, announcement, or trade. NOTHING!

And there is also a very real psychological pitfall associated with aman’s intoxication with sports. I submit that an obsession withsports gives men a false sense of masculinity and actually serves tosteal true manhood from them.

For example, it used to be when men stripped their shirts off andpainted their faces, they were heading to the battlefield to kill thetyrant’s troops. Now they are headed off to the sports coliseum towatch a football game. A man’s ego and machismo was once used toprotect his family and freedom; now it’s used to tout battingaverages and box scores. The fact is, if we could get the averageAmerican male to get as exercised and energized about defending thehistoric principles upon which liberty and Western Civilization arebuilt as he is in defending his favorite quarterback or NASCAR driver,our country would not be in the shape it is in today.

The sad reality is that much of today’s masculinity is experiencedonly vicariously through a variety of sports teams and personalities.Instead of personally flexing our muscles for God and country, freedomand liberty, or home and hearth, we punch the air and beat our chestsover touchdowns and home runs (even though we had absolutely nothingwhatsoever to do with them ourselves). Instead of getting in the faceof these would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., who are doingeverything they can to steal the American dream, we get in the face ofthe poor umpire who makes a bad call or the Little League coach whodoesn’t play my son enough. Our happiness, well-being, and mood arenot determined by anything personally achieved (or lost), but by whatothers accomplished (or didn’t accomplish) at the ball park. Whetherour children inherit a land of liberty and freedom does not seemnearly as important as whether they make the starting lineup on thefootball team.

Add to an epidemic obsession with sports the demand for more and morehandouts from Big Brother and the outlook for liberty is not good.Everywhere we turn, we seem to hear people clamoring for government togive them more and more. They expect government to supply their everyneed and meet their every demand. They then have the gall to turnaround and say, “God bless America: land of the free”?

Ladies and gentlemen, one cannot have it both ways. If we expectgovernment to be our supplier, we cannot expect that it will notbecome our master. Always remember this: government has nothing togive except that it first takes it from someone else. Every dollar andevery job that government gives is first taken from someone else.Furthermore, every job given to government is another freedom--andanother dollar--taken from the citizenry. Every government job bringswith it a restriction, a prohibition, a regulation, an inspection, afee, a tax, an assessment, etc. As government grows, freedom shrinks.As government spends, wealth shrinks. And as government hires,opportunity shrinks.

Most historians agree with Juvenal that the mighty Roman Empirecollapsed from within due to a morally reckless, selfish,pleasure-crazed, sports-obsessed, bread and circus society thatwillingly surrendered the principles of self-government to aninsatiable central government that, through perpetual wars andincessant handouts, destroyed a once-great republic. By all appearances, the bread and circus society has reared its uglyhead in America. And make no mistake about it: if the people of theUnited States do not quickly repent of this madness, the consequenceswill be just as destructive for our once-great republic as it was for Rome.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Establishment Republicans Poised to Take Control of House from Establishment Democrats

For the most part this headline is true, but their is some non-establishment Republicans poised to win. Those are the ones being attacked from both sides of the so-called political divide.

Here is an article from Kurt Nimmo, and pay attention to a quote by Bill Clinton's former Professor Carol Quigley. There is also other links in this article to support what Quigley asserts. Sometimes the deception is write out in front of us in plain view.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” Quigley wrote. “Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Full article
HERE.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Obama Seeks Sweeping Power for Internet, Cell Phone Wiretaps

My honest conclusion is that they are already doing this and they includes the former republican administration. The point is that they are just trying to make legal what they have been doing for years. Just because legislatures pass a bill does not make it a lawful law or Constitutional. But I guess tyranny is okay as long as it comes from your little tyrant.

Report: US Would Make Internet Wiretaps Easier

WASHINGTON — Broad new regulations being drafted by the Obama administration would make it easier for law enforcement and national security officials to eavesdrop on Internet and e-mail communications like social networking Web sites and BlackBerries, The New York Times reported Monday.

The newspaper said the White House plans to submit a bill next year that would require all online services that enable communications to be technically equipped to comply with a wiretap order. That would include providers of encrypted e-mail, such as BlackBerry, networking sites like Facebook and direct communication services like Skype.

Federal law enforcement and national security officials say new the regulations are needed because terrorists and criminals are increasingly giving up their phones to communicate online.

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

The White House plans to submit the proposed legislation to Congress next year.

The new regulations would raise new questions about protecting people's privacy while balancing national security concerns.

James Dempsey, the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the new regulations would have "huge implications."

"They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function," he told the Times.

The Times said the Obama proposal would likely include several requires:

-Any service that provides encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them.

-Any foreign communications providers that do business in the U.S. would have to have an office in the United States that's capable of providing intercepts.

-Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services would be required to redesign their products to allow interception.

The Times said that some privacy and technology advocates say the regulations would create weaknesses in the technology that hackers could more easily exploit.

© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Conspiracy Fact or Conspiracy Theory

Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque

Not all Conspiracies are a theory, some are fact. It is those who cannot accept the facts that cannot accept the conspiracy. A law enforcement officer told me that one should pursue the truth based upon the evidence. You be the judge of the facts here. It is very interesting though of the connecting the dots. Perception and reality are not the same thing, most of the time.

Full article with links HERE.

By Mark Ames
September 10, 2010 2:36 p.m

So far, the debate over the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has unfolded along predictable lines, with the man at the center of the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, drawing attacks from the right painting him as a terrorist sympathizer with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But meanwhile, links between the group behind the controversial mosque, the CIA and U.S. military establishment have gone unacknowledged.

For instance, one of the earliest backers of the nonprofit group, the Cordoba Initiative, that is spearheading the Ground Zero mosque, is a 52-year-old Scarsdale, New York, native named R. Leslie Deak. In addition to serving on the group's board of advisors since its founding in 2004 by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Deak was its principal funder, donating $98,000 to the nonprofit between 2006 and 2008. This figure appears to represent organization's total operating budget—though, oddly, the group reported receipts of just a third of that total during the same time period.

Deak describes himself as a "Practicing Muslim with background in Christianity and Judaism, [with] in-depth personal and business experiences in the Middle East, living and working six months per year in Egypt." Born into a Christian home, Deak became an Orthodox Jew and married a Jewish woman before converting to Islam when he married his current wife, Moshira Soliman, with whom he now lives in Rye.

Leslie Deak's resume also notes his role as "business consultant" for Patriot Defense Group, LLC, a private defense contractor with offices in Winter Park, Florida, and in Tucson. The only names listed on the firm's website are those of its three "strategic advisers." These include retired four-star General Bryan "Doug" Brown, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command until 2007, where he headed "all special operations forces, both active duty and reserve, leading the Global War On Terrorism," and James Pavitt, former deputy director for operations at the Central Intelligence Agency, where he "managed the CIA's globally deployed personnel and nearly half of its multi-billion dollar budget" and "served as head of America's Clandestine Service, the CIA's operational response to the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Besides Pavitt, Brown and a third advisor, banker Alexander Cappello, the Patriot Defense Group is so secretive it doesn't even name its management team, instead describing its anonymous CEO as a former Special Forces and State Department veteran, the group's managing director as a former CIA officer experienced in counter-terrorism in hostile environments and the group's corporate intelligence head as a "23-year veteran of the U.S. Secret Service who worked on the personal security details of former Presidents Bush and Clinton."

But meanwhile, links between the group behind the controversial mosque, the CIA and U.S. military establishment have gone unacknowledged.

Patriot Defense Group's primary business involves leveraging its government connections and know-how. The firm is divided into two divisions: one that "focuses exclusively on the needs of the U.S. military and law enforcement communities as well as the requirements of friendly foreign governments," and a corporate division, which "provides business intelligence and specialized security services to corporate clients and high net-worth family enterprises."

So, to recap: From 2006 to 2008, R. Leslie Deak worked as a "business consultant" to this super-secretive security contractor with ties to the CIA and counterterrorism forces, and in those same three years he also donated nearly $100,000 in seed money to the foundation now advocating the construction of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

Interestingly, during the same three-year period during which the Deak Family Foundation was financing the Cordoba Initiative, Deak also donated a total of $101,247 to something called the National Defense University Foundation. The National Defense University is a network of war and strategy colleges and research centers (including the National War College) funded by the Pentagon, designed to train specialists in military strategy. The organization recently announced a November 5 dinner gala in honor of Defense Secretary and former CIA chief Robert Gates. Sponsors include Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and...the Patriot Defense Group.

Deak also sits on the NDUF's board of directors, the chairman of which is Mark Treanor, the former general counsel for Wachovia bank from 1998 through its collapse in 2008 and a major bundler of campaign donations for the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. Wachovia, now owned by Wells Fargo, was recently fined $160 million for laundering "at least $110 million" in Mexican drug money between 2003 and 2008, while Treanor was Wachovia's general counsel, though the figure is likely higher since Wachovia admitted it didn't put any controls on at least $420 billion—that's billion—in cash moved through its network of Mexico currency exchanges.

Which leads to another odd coincidence: Laundering money for drug lords is what brought down Deak & Co., the company run by Leslie Deak's father, Nicholas Deak, years ago. The elder Deak, a former top intelligence commander during World War II for the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA), was the founder of Deak-Perera, which became for a time one of the world's biggest foreign currency and gold dealers. But in 1984, a Presidential Commission on Organized Crime accused the firm of acting as a money laundering operation for Columbia drug cartels, who reportedly brought sacks of cash containing tens of millions of dollars into Deak's Manhattan offices. By the end of 1984, Deak & Co. had declared bankruptcy, and a year later, Nicholas Deak was murdered in the company's headquarters at 29 Broadway by a deranged homeless woman.

After the firm went bankrupt and Leslie Deak was left on his own, the corporation was broken up and sold off in pieces. One company that traces its beginnings to the defunct Deak empire is Goldline International, a business concern well known to fans of Glenn Beck as well as California investigators. Goldline is to Glenn Beck what General Electric was to Ronald Reagan: The company sponsors Beck's TV and radio shows as well as his touring act, and Beck is its public face. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, along with the Santa Monica City Attorney's office, are currently investigating Goldline for defrauding customers by railroading gullible customers into buying their most debased products.

Speaking of Glenn Beck, it has been reported that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent company Fox News, which airs Beck's program, is also a major funder of Imam Rauf's projects, as Jon Stewart viewers heard all about last week.

Coincidences happen, of course. (For instance, Pamela Geller, the blogger who's become the leading voice denouncing the mosque project was once, bizarrely enough, associate publisher of The New York Observer.)

But add to this array of unexpected connections the work of Imam Rauf on behalf of the U.S. government—which includes serving as an FBI "consultant" and being recruited as a spokesperson by longtime George W. Bush confidante Karen Hughes, who headed up the administration's propaganda efforts in the Muslim world—and a compelling picture begins to emerge. Bush's favorite Imam, with backing from a funder with connections to the CIA, the Pentagon and the currency trading company that now sponsors rightwing firebrand Glenn Beck, proposes to build a mosque around the corner from the site of the most devastating terrorist attack ever visited on America. In the name of "[cultivating] understanding among all religions and cultures," he puts forth a project that offends a majority of Americans and deals a significant setback to the broader acceptance of Muslim-Americans. It's a little like Billy "White Shoes" Johnson claiming the only reason he moonwalks after scoring a touchdown is to lower tensions on the football field and raise the other team's spirits.

Whether the Cordoba Initiative ever gets its way with the Ground Zero Mosque, it may well have a lasting legacy at odds with its stated intention: By damaging the very moderates and progressives who actually view New York, and the nation as a whole, as a tolerant melting pot, and strengthening the position demagogues on both sides, it will almost certainly deal a setback to interfaith relations. It will also help to hobble the Democratic party. Which just might have been the point all along.

Either that, or it's merely a coincidence that this controversy has erupted now, during crucial mid-term elections. In which case we can all go back to what we were doing before—either denouncing the Park51 Mosque as an affront to Americans, or championing it as a symbol of our fundamental rights-playing our accustomed roles in a drama that seems too perfect, somehow, to believe.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Iraq: An End or an Escalation?

First, I am glad that some of our troops are coming home from Iraq. Second, their is no such thing as non-combat troops. I was in the U. S. Army and all of the soldiers have weapons.

Dr. Pual makes some very great points in his article. Here is some highlights: "50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay.One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations...Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!"


By Ron Paul
Amid much fanfare last week, the last supposed "combat" troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq War and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort, and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.

After eight long draining years, I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war, to most people, means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous "mission accomplished" moment of the last administration, this "end" of the war also means none of those things.

50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!

Of course the number of private contractors -- who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money -- is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!

The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever, and getting worse! Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that ships hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of foreign policy is way overdue.

A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health

Monday, August 23, 2010

Will Republicans Save Us?

I highly doubt it but we shall see. We must remain extremely vigilant upon the success of the Republicans taking control of the Federal Government. We must not turn a blind eye to Liberty killing legislation (like the USA Patriot Act. and FISA Act.) no matter whether they have D or an R in front of their names. We The People must remain nipping on the heals of our elected public servants no matter what party we identify with. If we don't, then we will continue the down hill slide toward total tyranny.

Will Republicans Save Us?
By Walter E. Williams (Archive) · Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Democrat control of the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate has produced an unprecedented level of political brazenness and contempt for the limitations placed on the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. As such, it has raised a level of constitutional interest and anger against Washington's interference in our lives that has been dormant for far too long.

Part of this heightened interest and anger is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen receive when they return to their districts and at town hall meetings. According to the most recent Gallup poll, only 20 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, but that's up from a March 2010 low of 16 percent.

The smart money suggests that there will be a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate. The question is what can liberty-minded Americans expect from a Republican majority? Maybe a good starting point for an answer might be to examine how Republicans have handled their majority in the past.

Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's term of office saw massive increases in federal spending. When Johnson was elected into office in 1964, federal spending was $118 billion. When he left office in 1968, federal spending was $178 billion, a 66 percent increase. Worse than the massive increase in federal spending, his administration and Democratically controlled Congress saddled us with two programs that have helped fuel today's fiscal disaster -- Medicare and Medicaid.

The 1994 elections gave Republican control of both the House and Senate. They held a majority for a decade. The 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That's a 60 percent increase in federal spending, closely matching the profligacy of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.

During the Republican control, the nation was saddled with massive federal interference in education through No Child Left Behind. Prescription drug handouts became a part of the Republican-controlled Congress' legacy. And it was during this interval that Congress accelerated its interference, assisted by the Federal Reserve Bank, in the housing market in the name of homeownership that produced much of the financial meltdown that the nation suffered in 2008.

During the last two years, Democrats have amassed unprecedented growth of federal government power in the forms of bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies and nationalization of our health care system. My question is how likely is it for Republicans to behave differently if they gain control? Their past behavior doesn't make one confident that they will behave much differently, but I could be wrong.

If Republicans win the House of Representatives, there are measures they should take in their first month of office, and that is to undo most of what the Democratically controlled Congress has done. If they don't win a veto-proof Senate, they can't undo Obamacare but the House alone can refuse to fund any part of it. There are numerous blocking tactics that a Republican-controlled House can take against those hell-bent on trampling on our Constitution. The question is whether they will have guts and principle to do it. After all, many Americans, including those who are Republicans, have a stake in big government control, special privileges and handouts.

Ultimately, we Americans must act to ensure that our liberty does not depend on personalities in Washington. Our founders tried to do that with our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson offered us a solution when he said, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then."

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Thursday, August 12, 2010

TARP Billions Shipped Overseas Can't Halt Global Slowdown

Nothing surprises me anymore. It should be obvious now if it hasn't already, that the TARP was for the banks not "We The People." Yet again through a crisis the fat cats get fatter and the rest of us foot the bill. There should be Grand Juries convened over this, but I bet you they won't. Why, because in Dick Durbins own words, "The banks own the place."

By: David A. Patten

Economists and conservatives reacted sharply Thursday to reports that tens of billions in TARP bailout money flowed out of the United States and into the coffers of big banks in France, Germany, and other nations during the government rescue of the U.S. financial system.

That news came as the U.S. economic picture continued to worsen, with rising unemployment claims and a surge in U.S. homes lost to foreclosure.

CATO Institute budget analyst Tad DeHaven tells Newsmax: “The economy has become increasingly global, so it’s not shocking that TARP bailout money ended up at foreign financial institutions. Nonetheless, bailing out U.S. financial firms was bad enough — that foreign institutions also benefitted from the largesse just adds insult to injury.”

J.D. Foster, senior economics fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said: "The overwhelming force slowing the economy down now is a lack of confidence among American businesses and consumers. The primary reason for that lack of confidence is the policies out of Washington seem completely out of touch with that reality."

That reaction follows Thursday's report from the Congressional Oversight Panel report that, when the United States injected hundreds of billions of TARP money to stabilize the U.S. financial system in September 2008, it also bailed out more than 40 major institutions based overseas that had invested in collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities.

"There were no data about where this money was going," Elizabeth Warren, head of the panel investigating the bank bailout, explained in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. "The American people have a right to know where the money went."

The TARP money flowed to overseas banks largely because of their investment in AIG, which received about $182 billion in federal bailout funds. Roughly half of the 87 banks and investment firms who would have lost billions without the AIG bailout were headquartered overseas, the Oversight Panel reports.

The major foreign beneficiaries included the French bank Societe Generale ($11.9 billion in AIG money), the French bank BNP Paribas ($4.9 billion in AIG funds), and Germany's Deutsche Bank ($11.8 billion), according to The Associated Press. Banks in Canada, Switzerland, and Britain cashed in on the AIG rescue as well.

Many economists credit TARP with staving off a worse financial crisis. But TARP, and the subsequent $862 billion stimulus, also failed to lift the economy out of chronic, massive joblessness and spiraling federal debt.

"TARP was a waste of money and should never have been implemented," Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Employment Policy for the Hudson Institute, tells Newsmax. "Rather, the funds should have been spent on tax cuts to stimulate the economy."

The news that foreign as well as U.S. firms were bailed out by TARP, a program already unpopular with voters, is expected to add intensity to the recent Republican mantra of House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner and RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who continue to demand, "Where are the jobs?"

The Oversight Panel offered the veiled criticism that U.S. leaders should have asked the countries whose banks received the most benefit from TARP to share in its cost.

One criticism of the global bailout is that the United States contributed more, via is action to salvage AIG and other institutions, than foreign governments spent on their entire bailout plans. France spent $35 billion on its financial rescue plan, for example. Germany spent $133 billion. The Oversight Report states the TARP bailout probably helped overseas banks more than their own nations' financial rescue packages did.

Reports on the economy issued Thursday, meanwhile, indicate the nation's economic problems continue to worsen.

The RealtyTrac organization reported that July marked the 17th consecutive month when foreclosure activity exceeded 300,000 homes. The company reported "near-record levels of bank repossessions," which have increased for eight months in a row.

One a brighter note, total foreclosure filings dropped down 9.7 percent compared to July 2009. That marks the second straight month of year-to-year declines.

Adding to the overall sense of economic malaise, the Labor Department released weekly jobless numbers that show an uptick in first-time claims for unemployment benefits, which reached 484,000 last week. That's a seasonally adjusted increase of 2,000 from the week before. Those claims have increased three of the past four weeks. The Dow Jones Industrial average reacted to the economic news by dropping over 70 points before rebounding.

Thursday's economic news also indicates the global economy now appears to be softening, making it unlikely that economic growth in China or India can stimulate business in America.

Derek Scissors, the Heritage Foundation's international economic analyst, tells Newsmax that the notion that strong economic growth overseas, in China for example, could be relied upon to boost the U.S. economy was always suspect and based on "misinformation."

"China's economy is slowing," Scissors confirms. "We continue to be an engine for the world economy, and China continues to benefit from that. It doesn't work the other way, and it's not going to work the other way this year, or next year, or for the foreseeable future."

Adds Scissors: "All of this is very easy to anticipate. You have this massive government stimulus, and it automatically works for a while because they're injecting money into the country, then it doesn't work as well. That happened in the U.S. and it happened in China and it happened everywhere where government stimulus was relied upon as the savior. When you spend a lot of money the first year it has an effect, then the next year it doesn't have that much of an effect. And that's what we're seeing now."


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: I'll Enforce Arizona's Immigration Law

A message from a true Sheriff.

Sheriff Arpaio doesn't need the feds permission to enforce illegal immigration. He already has that authority in Article 1 section 9 first paragraph of the United States Constitution. Which has made illegal immigration illegal since 1808. Since Sheriff Arpaio has taken an Oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. All the authority to enforce illegal immigration rest with all law enforcement officers, because they all have taken an Oath to the Constitution.

Article Six of the United States Constitution mandates by law that all of our elected, judicial and executive (law enforcement) take an Oath to the Constitution. So, that means that Congress, the Senate, and the Administration is not upholding their oath and the Constitution. Is this not treason?


By: Jim Meyers

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the controversial top cop in Maricopa County, Ariz., tells Newsmax he will jail any protesters who attempt to block his jail on Thursday when provisions of his state’s tough new immigration law take effect.

Arpaio also says it’s “great” if undocumented aliens react to the new law and his strict anti-illegal immigration agenda by moving back to Mexico or to the “sanctuary state” of California, and challenges President Barack Obama to invite him to the White House for a “wine summit” to discuss illegal immigration.

Arpaio, whose county includes most of the Phoenix metropolitan area, promotes himself as “America’s toughest sheriff.” He has limited county inmates to two meals a day, banned “sexually explicit material” in prison, reinstituted chain gangs, and set up a “tent city” as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail.

Full story and video HERE.


Thursday, July 1, 2010

Obama Wants The Oil Spill Crisis To Get Worse

This whole situation is making the statement "Never let a crisis go to waste," true. Here comes carbon taxes and another marital law crisis like Katrina.

Why has President Obama waited over two months into the BP oil spill crisis before accepting offers of international assistance that were there from the very start, seemingly waiting for hurricanes to hit the region which will only make the crisis worse?

Obama’s acceptance of international help is too little, too late – over two months late to be exact.
We now learn that he is starting the process of allowing international help, a process that will take weeks or months and will likely be strangled and restricted by the EPA anyway.

Full story Here.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

BP Oil Spill is not a Katrina; It is a huge Chernobyl

If this information is correct Chernobyl is an understatement. Could this be the waters from Revelation 8:11?








Wednesday, June 16, 2010

We are effective and now we are being attacked

This is proof that the Patriot movement, Tea Parties, Campaign for Liberty, Oath Keepers, and others is being effective. We are being attacked by the main stream media. This is also another example of the establishment trying to pump up the false left-right paradigm. Example the left protested the war until Obama took office but Obama has expanded the wars but no protest out of the left. Yes it is true that Obama has removed troops from Iraq but has inserted Black Water and other mercenaries in their place (They take no oath to the Constitution.) Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

MSNBC In Cover-Up Of Manifestly Provable Population Control Plan



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

As part of his obsessive drive to smear anti-big government activists as insanely paranoid and dangerous radicals, Chris Matthews and his guest, establishment neo-lib David Corn, previewed tonight’s “Rise of the New Right” hit piece by claiming that the elite’s agenda to enact dictatorial population control measures was a “conspiracy theory”.

As we have documented on numerous occasions, while Matthews points fingers at his political adversaries for preparing to engage in violence, the only real violence we’re witnessing out on the streets is being committed by Obama supporters, MSNBC thugs and other leftists who refuse to tolerate free speech that counters their propaganda.

However, MSNBC’s goal is not just to demonize the Tea Party and anti-big government activists as dangerous radicals as an avenue through which to sick the police state on them and crush their free speech, they’re also desperate to prevent Americans from lending any credence to what people like Alex Jones have to say by acting as gatekeepers to prevent such information from becoming mainstream.

A perfect example of an issue that Matthews and his ilk want to sideline is the manifestly provable fact that elitists have for decades publicly stated their desire to reduce global population by around 80 per cent and as much as 99 per cent.

During MSNBC’s Hardball show on Tuesday, Corn characterized the notion that “there is a planetary elite that literally has a secret plan to kill 80 to 99 percent of the population,” as a conspiracy theory....


Full article HERE.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

"The Federal Reserve is the Culprit."

The truth and nothing but the truth. This is a correct analysis of our current predicament.


Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Calls Increase for Government to Regulate Internet Journalists and Bloggers

Another attack on our rights. It seems to never end. We must stay vigilant and resist any and all attempts at expanding tyranny.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 2, 2010

Outrage is rising over a Michigan lawmaker’s plan to introduce a bill to license bloggers and internet-based journalists.

“State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets — traditional, online and citizen generated — and an even greater amount of misinformation,” Fox News reported on May 28. “Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

The establishment idea that “legitimate” media sources “are critically important to our government” is hardly a new idea.

Obama’s man at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, is on record as advocating holding blogs and alternative internet news media “responsible” for the information they publish. Sunstein penned a book entitled “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done.” Sunstein’s book is essentially a blueprint for imposing online censorship. Kyle Smith, writing for the New York Post, notes that Sunstein would force bloggers and others not connected to the corporate media to prove criticism of the government and government officials.

“The litigation expense would be daunting,” writes Smith, “the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth ‘won out’. The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism” and would result in self-censorship.

In order to enforce the government world view and its demands for political correctness, Sunstein has suggested infiltration of the blogosphere and dispatching covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.”

Sunstein’s program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” in other words “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

“Sunstein’s closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote,” writes Glenn Greenwald.

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, also shares the mentality calling for government imposed censorship, specifically as it relates to the government assuming authority to prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

In March, Infowars.com reported on Rutgers University law professor Ellen Goodman, who is a “distinguished” visiting scholar with the FCC’s Future of Media Project. Goodman submitted a proposal for a government takeover plan targeted at the internet called the National Broadband Plan.

Commissar Goodman said the government needs to provide “narrative content necessary to involve the entire population in democratic decision making or to foster widespread economic and social flourishing.” She said there are “information gaps” in the investigative journalism arena, especially in regard to “undeserved, minority, and poor populations.” Goodman wants to “transcend” the “legacy public broadcasting system” in order to “correct these deficits,” including a government takeover of commercial television.

This “narrative,” of course, would be dictated by the government and the corporate and banking elite that controls and steers it.

Goodman is not alone. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has also come out in favor of government control of internet journalism. Coops told PBS’ Bill Moyers that the government has an interest in how the internet is used to “serve the American people.”

The government and especially the corporate media have pushed the idea that “citizen journalism” is dangerous and should be licensed and regulated if not eliminated altogether.

In 2007, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a column suggesting citizen journalism “isn’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse.” David Hazinski said the corporate media must act to ensure its monopoly on news by advocating the regulation of bloggers and alternative journalists.

It can be argued that the corporate media engages in fraud and abuse continually, although this does not seem to be a concern for Mr. Hazinski. Case in point: the patently false claims made by neocons ensconced in the Bush administration and the Pentagon in order to provide a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. One culprit in particular, Judith Miller of the New York Times, was not punished for engaging in fraud and abuse. She is now a regular fixture on the neocon television network Fox News.

Corporate media is not about journalistic standards, objectivity, and an unbiased search for the truth, as Hazinski would have us believe. It is about propaganda in the name of the state. As Walter Lippman noted, corporate media is concerned with “the manufacture of consent,” not truth. Lippman argued that the people are incapable of accurately understanding the complex “unseen environment” of public affairs and the modern state without a professional and “specialized class” of technocrat-journalists.

Internet journalism has displaced this “specialized class” and has up-ended the once taken for granted primacy of the corporate media. This is why we are experiencing increasing calls by bureaucrats and the mandarins of the corporate media for a concerted effort to regulate bloggers and alternative journalists.

Manufactured consent for endless war, world government, and engineered control schemes such as climate change and deceptive economic palliatives designed to benefit bankers and the elite will not be successful if alternative media is allowed to question these policies and directives.