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.

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.

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

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

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.

Food The Ultimate Secret Exposed

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.

Give the American people accurate information

Exposure of the truth.

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.

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?

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.

"The Federal Reserve is the Culprit."

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

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.

Dollar to be Replaced with IMF’s SDR as Reserve Currency?

We will see. IMO it is not a matter of if but of when.

Jim O’Neill, who did not make any friends within the bear community earlier today, has written an interesting paper on the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights, and whether this hypernational currency can ever become a reserve currency as is, and/or with the CNY as a constituent member. While O’Neill as usual focuses on the angle of the “next paradigm” BRICs, and how they will increasingly dominate global economics, he does pose an important question: with the dollar likely to suffer the side effects of either hyperdeflation, hyperinflation, or hyperstagflation, will the next reserve currency be a diluted melange of other flawed fiat constructs (i.e., the SDR), or the currency of the one country, which for all its flaws, still has the cleanest balance sheet backing its own fiat construct. On the other hand, the question of whether this analysis is moot to begin with, and the world will revert to the gold standard as the ongoing crisis of confidence in all paper money flares up, is not raised even once… We wonder (not really) what Jim O’Neill would have to say on that particular issue.

Here are the main bullets:

— The issue of the ‘international reserve currency’ and the possible role of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) has moved from obscurity to the centre of discussions about the future.
— Given China’s importance in terms of its share of world trade, the CNY should now be part of the SDR. The case for including it can only become more obvious as this decade progresses.
— However, actually including the CNY as a constituent of the SDR is likely to remain a challenge without the CNY becoming more widely used internationally, including as a reserve asset.
— The case for including other BRIC currencies in the SDR, especially the RUB, is also likely to become stronger over the coming decade.
— Although the Dollar will probably not be as dominant in 2020 as it is today, it is far from clear that it needs to be replaced by the SDR—or by anything else—as the main reserve currency.
— For the SDR to be attractive to private users, it will need to include the CNY and possibly other BRIC currencies. However, this alone would not guarantee that the SDR would be more attractive to private investors.

The paper is a critical follow up to anyone who found Albert Edward’s earlier analysis of collapsing global FX reserves relevant.

Full story HERE.

State Pensions Now Federal Issue as Bailouts May Top $1 Trillion

IMO, the feds may end up taking all of our pensions, 401k's, IRA's, and dump them into social security. How would you like that?

U.S. states reportedly face a funding gap of at least $1 trillion for the retirement benefits they have promised teachers, firefighters and other public sector employees.

With financial year 2011 less than six weeks away, Illinois, for example, faces unfunded liabilities of about $78 billion, the biggest pension hole in the United States, and contributions of more than $4 billion for 2011, the largest single element of its $13 billion budget deficit, the Financial Times reports.

Illinois is the poster child of unfunded pensions in the United States. But state retirement systems could become a national concern, the Times reported, citing new research.

Joshua Rauh, associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University said that, without reform, some state pensions might run out within the decade, the Times reported.

By 2030, as many as 31 states may not have the money to pay pensions.

And, if these funds exhaust their assets, the size of payments for the benefits they have promised will be too large to cover through taxes, putting pressure on the federal government for a bailout that could potentially cost more than $1 trillion, he says.

“It is more than a local problem,” Rauh told the Times. “The federal government could be on the hook.”

Robert Megna, New York’s budget director, said his state had had to make “tough choices” to keep funding its pensions despite budget shortfalls over the past few years.

On March 31, the state made a nearly $1 billion payment for the last fiscal year.

“We had to make cuts: education, healthcare, local government support and not-for-profit providers,” Megna said of the last year’s budget process.

This year, a dozen states have enacted pension reforms more substantial than the minor ones of the past, stateline.org reports.

Among these are Illinois, which raised its retirement age to 67 from 62 for new hires, Wyoming, which began asking current state workers to contribute to their retirement, and Utah, which closed its defined benefit plan to new workers.

© Moneynews. All rights reserved

Ron Paul: Euro Bailout Will Lead To Currency Collapse

When men give warnings they are not usually acted upon until it is too late. Well, it may be getting to late but we shall see.

By Paul Joseph Watson

As Europe is bailed out to the tune of nearly $1 trillion dollars, Congressman Ron Paul warns that the constant monetization of debt, allied with taxpayer-funded bailouts, will inevitably lead to runaway inflation and the collapse of paper currencies.

Under the terms of the Federal Reserve’s credit swap deal with the EU – in addition to an additional IMF bailout of which U.S. taxpayers will be picking up 20 per cent ($57 billion dollars) of the tab, Paul pointed out that not just taxpayers but “anybody that buys anything” will be funding the European bailout because of the attendant inflationary consequences.

“The prices are going up already, producer prices are going up, the cost of living will go up so everyone in American will suffer and eventually the whole world will suffer because we cannot carry the whole world with our dollar,” Paul told Fox Business, adding that eventually people will lose confidence in the dollar

The Congressman agreed with the host that the bailouts would lead to the crash of paper currencies, noting that last week’s stock market turmoil was accompanied by gold acting as a currency rather than just reacting to the value of the dollar.

“Gold has been money for 6,000 years and it will remain that way and it will rule the roost,” said Paul, adding that the dollar was weak in comparison with the strength of gold.

“All paper currencies are under attack and this cannot be sustained,” said the Congressman.

Paul then explained how the ECB has completely reversed its promise that it wouldn’t monetize debt and how Bernanke had also gone back on his word that U.S. dollars would be use for this purpose. “When I talked to Bernanke last time in the Committee he said they had no intention of bailing out Greece but they are, through the IMF as well as opening up these swap lines to all the central banks, so it is on the shoulders on the burden of the American taxpayer and our dollar so all we’re doing is perpetuating a very very bad system and this is not a solution at all,” he said.

Paul agreed with the host that the bailout was merely a stunt to buy time while failing to address the underlying problem of European socialism and the entitlement culture, which is fast running out of money with which to keep itself ticking over.

The True POWER And The RIGHT of The JURY

Why Judge Fogleman needs to be voted out of office

I am doing this for two reasons. First it is my duty to inform my fellow citizens of the truth. Second this is to inform the voters of Arkansas of an Arkansas Supreme Court Candidate who doesn't believe the truth about Jury Nulification. That man is Judge John N. Fogleman.

I had a discussion with Mr. Fogleman in Clinton Arkansas on March 13th 2010 over Jury Nullification. I asked the Judge if he believed in Jury Nullification and he said no he does not, because they are only to judge the facts of the case, (not the validity of the law).

I challenged him over the issue because our founding fathers have said the Jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts. The Judge challenged me back with his version of the facts and that Mr. Thomas Paine is a founder that would support his view. I responded with some other founding fathers to support my view.

NOTE: Not all the founding father agreed on all the issues. Jury nullification was decided by consensus.

We ended the discussion with an agreement to research the matter: "The Power and the Right of the Jury to judge both the law and the facts is the issue that will be decided." I just hope that Mr. Fogleman has done his own research to double check himself. I also hope that upon the facts I have found that he would change his position. If he changes his position then a citizen should consider voting for him. However, if he does not amend his erroneous view, then a citizen should not vote for him because that would be re-installing a judge who does not uphold the Constitution.

You may be asking why are you doing this? I am doing this because the truth needs a crusade and I am a firm believer that the "Truth is not always in the majority." Just because the majority says so does not always make it right or the truth. Also this has to do with tyranny and liberty. His position is one of tyranny (It may not be purposeful but his viewpoint could be one of ignorance.) My position is one of freedom, liberty, and the American way and these liberties are in jeopardy in direct proportion to the deviation from the Constitution.

I have collected the quotes from several sources to keep from being accused of cherry picking. The founding Fathers, Supreme Court Justices, Court Rulings, news articles, and The JURY HANDBOOK.

First here is some quotes from some founding fathers and etc.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court, 1789.

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U. S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of The unanimous Declaration.

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, U. S. supreme Court Justice, 1902.

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlon F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court, 1941.

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
U. S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)

"Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off... This gives me comfort-that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me."
Patrick Henry (Elliot, 3:545, 546).

Links for verification: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

You see it is you the jury that have the final say. Our founding fathers put the power in to the people’s hands. Why? To keep us safe from bad law and tyranny of the government. It was also to protect us from corrupt judges, prosecutors, city councils, city boards, county boards, county quorum court, state legislatures, and federal legislatures.

Army Report Says Christians Threaten US Foreign Policy

Another message and warning from Chuck Baldwin.

Last Friday, I told readers of this column that I had come across a very disturbing government report and that I would be exposing that report during my Sunday address this past Sunday morning. I did exactly that, and anyone wishing to see an archived video of that address can do so by using this link (the video should be uploaded by this weekend):

Video message by Chuck Baldwin HERE

The report’s header reads, “Strategic Implications of American Millennialism, A Monograph by MAJOR Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army. This monograph was defended by the degree candidate on 01 May 2008 and approved by the monograph director and reader named below. Approved by: Timothy Challans, Ph.D., Monograph Director; Robert Taylor, COL, MI, Monograph Reader; Stefan J. Banach, COL, IN, Director, School of Advanced Military Studies; Robert F. Baumann, Ph.D., Director, Graduate Degree Programs.” The School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, produced the report.

Here is the TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Why Millennialism Matters
The Role of Civil Religion and Culture
Millennial Theologies in America
Post-Millennialism and the Founding of America
Civil War, World War and the Rise of Pre-Millennialism
Israel, Nuclear War and the Last Days
Contemporary Pre-Millennialism in the American Electorate
Contemporary Pre-Millennialism and American Culture
The Holy Land and Armageddon: U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Anti-Christ, Gog, Magog, and Armies From the East
Conclusions and Recommendations
Bibliography

Remember, this is not a Christian university report or even a secular university’s religion department report, but rather a report written by an active duty Army major (who is now stationed in Afghanistan, I am told) for one of America’s war colleges. Before analyzing this report, here are some questions to ponder. Whose brainchild was this report? Did the major select the topic himself or did a superior assign it to him? To whom exactly was the report distributed? How was the report used? What are the interconnections between this report and the MIAC and Department of Homeland Security reports that draw similar conclusions? And perhaps the biggest question is, What does this report portend for government action in the future?

When Major Stuckert speaks of millennialism, he is referring to the Biblical doctrine of Eschatology–specifically, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to the earth to institute a 1,000-year (millennial) reign. He recognizes some of the nuances of this doctrine in his study, most notably post-millennialism and pre-millennialism. His report is heavily focused on pre-millennialism, however.

At this point, I feel it is necessary to make this observation: whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist, the fact that we Christians believe in the literal return of Jesus Christ to the earth to establish His Kingdom puts us in the same boat, as far as the ramifications of Major Stuckert’s report–and similar reports–are concerned. We Christians need to recognize that, as far as the Stuckerts of this world are concerned, because we believe the Bible and we believe in the literal return of Christ, we are considered an enemy. We can disagree with one another all we want to about whether there is a Rapture (and if there is one, when it will occur), whether Christ will return before or after a millennial kingdom takes place, and scores of other theological differences, but none of that is important to the events at hand: there is a growing sense among many governmental and military leaders in America that Bible-believing Christians are an enemy that must be marginalized, warned about, watched, and even controlled. And it does not matter to a tinker’s dam to these Machiavellians whether one is a post-millennialist or a pre-millennialist. If we believe the Bible and believe that Jesus is coming again, they consider us “dangerous.” And we Christians better wake up to this stark reality, stop fighting each other, and focus on working together to preserve our liberties!

And one more early observation: there is an eerie and uncanny connection between the verbiage and spirit of Stuckert’s report and the now-infamous MIAC and Homeland Security reports. The timing, too, is significant. The MIAC and Homeland Security reports were produced shortly after Major Stuckert’s report was produced. A coincidence? Not on your life!

Here are some excerpts from Stuckert’s report:

“Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.” (Abstract, page iii.)

“These factors [results of millennial belief] can be problematic for any military leader or planner attempting to achieve U.S. Government policy objectives through strategy, operations and programs.” (Abstract, page iv.)

Notice that from the very outset of this report, Stuckert asserts that Christians who believe in the Second Coming create circumstances or conditions that might be “problematic” for America’s military leaders. We Christians also create “potential vulnerabilities” that America’s enemies may “exploit,” according to Stuckert. Furthermore, Stuckert laments that we Christians may even interfere with “U.S. Government policy objectives.”

Pray tell, exactly what are those “U.S. Government policy objectives” that Christians might prove to be “problematic” for? And is Major Stuckert suggesting that those Christian military officers currently serving in the US armed forces are somehow “problematic” to “U.S. Government policy objectives”? And do these same Christian officers make America “vulnerable” to our enemies? Is he suggesting that military officers in the US armed forces who believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ be expunged from military service, because of their beliefs?

As one will observe when reading the 61-page treatise, Major Stuckert, with a broad brush, paints millennialist Christians as being serious problems for America’s foreign policy and for “U.S. Government policy objectives,” and that we must be dealt with; but he offers no details on what, exactly, should be done. Or if he did, that part of his treatise is not a matter of public record.

More quotes:

“The impact of American millennial religious ideas on U.S. Government policy will add to strategic hubris, compel increasingly reckless international action, and continue to over-commit the military in ways the Nation cannot afford.” (Page 1)

Again, notice that Christians who believe in Christ’s return add to pride, recklessness, and war. Good grief! I suppose that we Christians are also responsible for the escalating price of gas and oil too–and maybe even global warming!

Stuckert continues:

“First, millennial thought and its policy implications may create strategic transparency that affords adversaries an advantage in decision-making. Second, an understanding of American millennial thinking may provide adversaries with the means to manipulate American policy and subsequent action. Third, the enemy may exploit American millennialism to increase the fragility of and even disrupt coalitions. Fourth, adversaries may exploit American millennialism to demoralize or TERRORIZE joint forces and the American people. By recognizing these potential vulnerabilities, military leaders and planners may TAKE ACTION NOW to mitigate the effects.” (Page 2. Emphasis added.)

Dear reader, is the hair standing up on the back of your neck yet? If not, it should be!

According to Major Stuckert, the belief in Christ’s Second Coming makes us vulnerable to America’s adversaries. In fact, these adversaries (are they foreign or domestic? He doesn’t specify) might even exploit this belief to “TERRORIZE . . . the American people.” (Emphasis added.)

There’s that “T” word again! Do you now see the connection to the MIAC and Homeland Security reports? Is it all starting to make sense now? Because we believe in the literal return of Christ to the earth, do people such as Major Stuckert consider us to be potential terrorists?

And just what does Stuckert mean by the statement, “Military leaders and planners may take action now to mitigate the effects”? Does he propose that we Christians be rounded up and put in all these FEMA camps (that don’t exist)? Just how does he plan for the US military to “mitigate” the effects of us Christians? This statement is downright chilling!

In this report, Major Stuckert specifically mentions the holiness and Pentecostal churches; as well as the Assemblies of God; non-denominational churches; and Independent and Southern Baptists. Again, anyone who believes in the Second Coming of Christ is targeted in this report. According to Stuckert, “Millennialism actually refers to any system of belief or interpretation that employs a literal thousand years, or chiliad, in reading and applying Revelation 20:1-7.” (Page 9)

Stuckert even went so far as to say that Christian “mission work, especially overseas, [has] significant implications for U.S. foreign policy.” (Page 27)

I bet that when you folks make that financial donation to your church’s foreign missions program you have no idea that you are causing significant (negative) implications for US foreign policy. Well, Stuckert thinks you are.

Stuckert also berates Millennialists for “[driving] the U.S. further from the U.N. in the near future since many pre-millennialists have to come to view that body as a platform for the Anti-Christ.” He went on to say, “American pre-millennialists will also feel increasingly threatened by the E.U. in coming years.” And, “Pre-millennial interpretations of biblical prophecy that predict the emergence of a one-world government led by an anti-Christ causes distrust and even antagonism toward organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the European Union, NAFTA and OPEC.” (Page 52)

In other words, folks, Stuckert is greatly chagrined that we Christians do not, and will not, accept the push toward global government being orchestrated by institutions such as the UN, the EU, et al. He feels that because we oppose NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the FTAA, and the overall NEW WORLD ORDER agenda, we are “problematic” and must be “mitigated.”

Stuckert goes on to blame Christians for “problems for relations between the U.S. and Russia” (Page 53), problems in the Middle East and China (Page 56), as well as coming “global disaster.” (Page 55)

Major Stuckert then makes an incredible admission on page 58. He said, “War is primarily about politics. While geography and technology play a role, in order to be successful military leaders must be able to see the political goals as clearly as possible. Because of the influence of pre-millennialism, it can be difficult for military leaders to see themselves and their government accurately and state policy goals objectively.”

What did he say? “War is primarily about politics”? I thought war was about defending the people and territory of the United States. I thought war was about protecting freedom and liberty. War is about politics? So that’s why our young men are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? It’s all about politics? If so, whose politics? Major Stuckert’s? Barack Obama’s? George W. Bush’s? The CFR’s? The UN’s? Exactly whose politics is sending our sons and daughters to fight and die? The good major doesn’t say.

But did you catch that last sentence? “Because of the influence of pre-millennialism [and he could just as easily have said post-millennialism], it can be difficult for military leaders to see themselves and their government accurately and state policy goals objectively.”

Holy cow! Belief in the Second Coming blinds military leaders? They cannot see themselves or their government accurately? What the heck does this mean? Is Stuckert saying that because a military officer believes the Bible–believes in the return of Christ to the earth–he or she cannot see themselves and cannot “see” their government properly? Exactly what is it about his or her government that cannot be accurately seen? Maybe Stuckert means that because a Christian military officer believes in God, he or she cannot recognize government to be his or her god. Is that it, Major Stuckert? You want us all to see the US federal government as god?

On page 59, Stuckert accuses belief in millennialism of producing “pessimism and paranoia.” On the same page, he accuses people who believe in millennialism of causing a “predisposition toward pessimism in world affairs and a general worsening of international relations.”

Yeah! That’s right, Major! You devote 61 pages (and untold hours producing them) accusing Christians of bringing “global disaster” to the world, but we are the ones who are paranoid? If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.

On page 60, Stuckert blames Christians for having a “proclivity for clear differentiations between good, evil, right, and wrong [which] do not always serve us well in foreign relations or security policy.” Oh! Really?

Is Stuckert saying that there is no right and wrong in regard to America’s policies with foreign nations? Is he saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong in regard to security policies? Is Stuckert saying the US government should be able to do whatever it likes, regardless of right and wrong? Is he saying that anything done in the name of “security” is right, regardless of what it is? Is it right to lie to the American people, Mr. Stuckert? Is it right to violate the US Constitution? Is it right to murder? If there is no such thing as right and wrong, moral and immoral, in regard to the waging of war and other security matters, pray tell, what were those Nuremberg trials all about?

In researching this column, I found a World Net Daily report written by Bob Unruh on December 19, 2009. In his report, Unruh said that an Army spokesman “could not say whether any other writings ever had attacked a religious belief as Stuckert’s work.” That’s a good point. Where is the Army report that singles out people who embrace Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, or liberal Protestantism as being “problematic” to America’s foreign policy? Why is it that only people who embrace conservative Christianity, or fundamentalism/millennialism were singled out?

Unruh’s report also notes that “no study or article refuting” Stuckert’s report has been discovered. Therefore, absent a counterpoint, it might be accurate to conclude that Stuckert’s report has become de facto US government policy. It certainly does appear that the particulars of Stuckert’s report made their way to both the MIAC and DHS reports.

See Bob Unruh’s report at:

HERE

See Major Stuckert’s report at:

HERE

My Sunday address exposing Major Stuckert’s report will be uploaded to my web site later this week. When it is posted, it will be available to download and distribute. It will be titled, “Seeds of Christian Persecution Growing in the US.” Watch for it at:

HERE

P.S. I am very sorry that a hacker has inflicted serious disruption to the server that hosts my web site, Chuck Baldwin Live. As a result, my site is temporarily off line. We hope to have this situation resolved within the next day or two. In the meantime, you can access a skeleton version of my web site at:

HERE

A.M. Kitco Metals Roundup: Gold Higher as U.S. Dollar Index Weakens, Crude Oil Rallies

Hold on to your boots, because oil prices are going up. One should ask why? Because our government keeps running up the debt and jobs are disappearing faster than the truth.

Economic disaster is coming. It is not of matter of if but when. Every step our elected officials have taken has only delayed the problem, and once it gets to a point where the bubble burst, it will be very painful.

A.M. Kitco Metals Roundup: Gold Higher as U.S. Dollar Index Weakens, Crude Oil Rallies

By Jim Wyckoff
14 April 2010, 8:23 a.m.

A weaker U.S. dollar index and higher crude oil prices are supporting fresh buying interest in Comex gold futures Wednesday morning. June gold was last traded up $5.70 an ounce at $1,159.10. Traders viewed Tuesday's price setback as a buying opportunity as the overall technical picture for gold remains fully bullish.

Underlying support for gold continues to come from Greece's sovereign debt situation and the efforts of the European Union to deal with it. While more steps were taken this week to offer financing to Greece, many gold traders remain very skeptical that Greece can ultimately get out from under its huge debt burden without further economic and financial harm to the EU. That is leading to further buying interest in gold as a hedge against European currencies...

Just be prepared because we are next.

Read full article HERE.

Also check out this article "IMF Prepares For Global Cataclysm" .

N.Y. TIMES VOLUMNIST SAYS DEATH PANELS WILL SAVE A LOT OF MONEY'

The government and their control over your health care. I will let the video do the talking.