Saturday, November 08, 2008

What is Barack Obama's Agenda?

Congress approves Obama JugendPresident Obama’s National Service CorpsBy Klaus Rohrich
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The US Senate voted yesterday to procedurally clear the way for President Obama’s National Service Corps. The bi-partisan vote approved a $6 billion scheme to increase the number of “community service” jobs in America from 75,000 to well over 250,000. Presumably under the direction of this cadre, the plan is designed to enlarge the number of Americans engaged in “community organizing” to about 7 million.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have heartily endorsed the plan comparing it to the establishment of the Peace Corp by President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the 1960s. Supporters of the plan include Edward Kennedy (D. Mass.), John McCain (R. Nevada), Orrin Hatch (R. Utah), Barbara Mikulski (D. Maryland) and numerous non-politicians, including Rev. Rick Warren, author of the book A Purpose Drive Life. 14 Republican Senators opposed the bill, some because of the cost involved, while 11 Senators abstained.
Supporters of the National Service Corps claim the organization will encourage volunteerism in such areas as education, healthcare and the environment.
Looking at this scheme on its surface, it seems perfectly benign and if it is truly in the spirit of JFK’s Peace Corps, then it bears supporting. However, given what the Obama administration has advocated so far, one can’t be blamed for being leery of its end use.
It’s entirely possible that the National Service Corps will emerge as a kind of Obama Youth, with ACORN types teaching the volunteers the ins and outs of community organizing and the finer points of vote-getting. This National Service Corps could easily end up being an indoctrination centre for impressionable young people to be turned into unwitting advocates of socialism, to be molded into Democrat drones designed to infect the body politic for all eternity.
If the Obama administration really wants to do something useful with and for its young people, reinstituting the draft would be best for several reasons. First of all, it would take our clueless and largely narcissistic youth and instill in them a sense of self-discipline, which would be the first step toward achieving real self-esteem. Second, at the rate America’s enemies are mobilizing we are going to need a larger standing army to meet all the threats that will soon be confronting us. Third, the military would provide valuable educational opportunities, other than “community organizing”. Finally, the military is a non-partisan organization that cannot be usurped by overly ambitious politicians.
Drafting young people into the military and using their service in areas other than “community organizing” would certainly make me sleep a lot better. I don’t know about you, but there is something about the idea of an Obama Youth, no matter what its official name that makes me quite uncomfortable. And the constant comparisons to the program that JFK instituted in the 1960s make me even more uncomfortable. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen: “I knew Jack Kennedy and Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy”.
Obama and Acorn Officials Set Sights on GunownersBy NWV News Director, Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern, November 8, 2008©
ACORN, the publicly funded national organization linked to voter fraud in several states is now actively interfering with the exercise of firearm civil rights in New Jersey, and the Second Amendment Foundation is calling for an immediate federal investigation.
One example of ACORN's gun control activism is when its officials intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Jersey City, New Jersey's local gun control ordinance, which was struck down December 13, 2006 in New Jersey state court as a violation of state law pre-empting stronger local gun ordinances.
"ACORN has, since 1998, received an estimated $31 million in government funding," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Now they have intervened in a New Jersey gun rights case in defense of an illegal Jersey City one-gun-a-month ordinance that violates the state preemption statute."
"For the past few election cycles," Gottlieb noted, "ACORN has clearly grown more partisan toward the political Left. ACORN'S PAC has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president. That's hardly surprising since he used to serve as their legal counsel and he taught the group about community organizing. ACORN and Obama are lockstep in seeking to destroy our Second Amendment rights," he stated.
"The organization is currently under FBI investigation over allegations of voter fraud in several states," he added.
"Bad enough that ACORN is implicated in fraudulent activities in several states, but now an ACORN chapter in the Garden State is working against the ability of New Jersey gun owners to exercise a constitutionally protected individual civil right to own a handgun," said former NYPD detective, Sid Frances.
"It is an outrage that this group has intervened to defend an antigun ordinance that has already been declared illegal by the court," he observed. "So long as ACORN accepts one penny of public funding, the organization should remain absolutely neutral on social issues, political campaigns and especially legal actions defending the right to keep and bear arms."
"We call upon the FBI to expand the scope of its ACORN investigation and focus on the group's involvement in the Jersey City case," Gottlieb stated.
"We support Ohio Congressman John Boehner's request that the White House immediately block all federal funding of ACORN activities until this group's questionable activities are fully investigated. We want to know how they are paying for attorneys, and why Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice and the Public Interest Law Center are providing legal assistance to ACORN for this effort."
"This is still the United States, not a socialist gulag," Gottlieb concluded. "Public money should not be given to private organizations which then turn around and utilize that funding to usurp the electoral process and erode constitutionally guaranteed civil rights."
Other political observers see something more sinister at play with Obama and ACORN's interest in disarming law-abiding citizens.
"This gun control effort is part of an overall government takeover by the radical left who now control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The next part of the Obama-ACORN plan is a new military force separate from the US Armed Forces," claims political strategist Mike Baker.
"Obama has called for a 'civilian national security force' as powerful as the US military, comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but compared by conservatives to the Nazi Hitler Youth," warns Baker.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," said Senator Obama during his campaign.
The idea wasn't Obama’s but Robert Gates’ which might explain why Obama is toying with the idea of keeping him on in his administration, claims Det. Frances.
"An Obama Administration will accelerate the rush toward the New-World Order: first, by confiscating privately owned weapons, followed by creating a military force that would have jurisdiction within the US mainland. It will happen sooner than we believed," said the decorated former New York police officer.

Obama's 'civilian national security force'
by Joseph Farah
Posted: July 15, 2008, 1:00 am Eastern
With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.
For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.
In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.
Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?
What does it mean?
If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?
I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?
Are we talking about creating a police state here?
The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.
Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?
If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?
So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.
At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.
Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?
The questions are endless.
But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.
Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?
I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.
Help me out here. What am I missing?
Can I get a hand?

Obama’s Plans for the “Involuntary Servitude” of American YouthNovember 7th, 2008
Posted by Velvet Hammer
The 13th Amendment is clear:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States. or any place subject to their jurisdiction”
Some constitutional scholar. But then again Obama himself stated he feels the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
Coercive “public service” under Obama - Prairie Pundit
There’s a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would “set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.”
He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don’t make the kids report for duty, he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose. In short, he’ll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.
So when I’m President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you’ll have done 17 weeks of service.
We’ll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we’ll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
O went from his plan to “set a goal” to “require” nay to “force” the nations youth into “community service”You can find it on Obama’s brand spanking new Change.Gov website:Slaves of the State
servitude: the state of being a slave or completely subject to someone more powerful
involuntary: done contrary to or without choice 2: compulsory 3: not subject to control of the will Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
Of course what the “community service” will entail is yet to be known. Though I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that it will include indoctrination. Marxist boot camps(?) under the shiny happy face mask of “community service”
Will homeschooling keep your child under Obama’s radar? Heh. I can see the outlawing of homeschooling in the not so distant future…
Lo and behold, Obama’s plan is not original. Just a rehashed Kerry proposal from 2004.Which Jim Geraghty described as an “Orwellian call for mandatory volunteerism.”
I’m wondering about the President using federal funding to coerce schools into requiring community service for middle and high school students. Community service is (often) a noble act, but Obama appears to be very close to echoing John Kerry’s Orwellian call for mandatory volunteerism. Notice it’s always those who are old who are calling for mandatory time and energy commitments of the young.
As reported at LGF
John Kerry Outlines Plan to Require Service for High School Students
Part of 100 days Plan to Enlist One Million Americans in National Service A Year
On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.
Children in Cuba do NOT have a choice. But in America they damn well should. Before anyone gets all hot and bothered at my comparison. I agree “community service” is far from “farm labor” But involuntary is still involuntary –force is still force. Child Labor and Child Work in Cuba
Under the Labor Code stated in the 1997 Human Rights Report, fifteen and sixteen year old Cuban children receive training towards a job or can cover for absentees during a shortage of workers. This code also states that Cuban students over the age of eleven must devote between thirty and forty five days of their summer break to working on a farm. However, they are limited to a maximum of eight hours a day.
More of Obama’s speech at the University of Colorado in July 2008 American youth are not his only target…
And that is why I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate - I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.
This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program - this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.[…]And we’ll use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create an online network where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.
We need your service, right now, at this moment - our moment - in history. I’m not going to tell you what your role should be; that’s for you to discover. But I am going to ask you to play your part;[…]
Also at Obama’s Change.Gov, “The Obama National Service Plan” A blank slate without content…for now. My God, what does O have in store for us? Keep an eye on that one.
From the Communist Manifesto:
8. Equal obligation of all to work.
Lastly a poignant quote…
Submission to comment thread at “The Other Side of Change: Obama and Saul Alinsky”
Cardinal Ratzinger offered the ultimate warning against such ideology when he wrote in Truth and Tolerance,[W]here the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”
Spoken by one who witnessed demonic Nazism up close and personal.

Charlie Rangle has authored a bill that may be dusted off after Obama enters the Oval Office. It’s called the National Service Act and calls for a universal draft with two years of “service” for virtually all persons aged 18-42, with no deferment for college.
Obama's American Dream: Servitude
Kurt Nimmo, Infowars
November 7, 2008
“When you choose to serve — whether it’s your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood — you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That’s why it’s called the American dream,” declares Obama on the newly fashioned Office of the President-Elect website.
Charlie Rangle has authored a bill that may be dusted off after Obama enters the Oval Office. It’s called the National Service Act and calls for a universal draft with two years of “service” for virtually all persons aged 18-42, with no deferment for college.
Obama’s vision of the American dream, however, will not consist of Americans freely choosing to volunteer to work in their communities and neighborhoods. It will be a requirement. “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” (Emphasis added.)
And it will not simply be the young who will be “called” by government mandate to serve. It will be everybody, including senior citizens. “Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.” The words “call” and “require” appear to be interchangeable in this context.
As the Albuquerque Examiner mentioned yesterday, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, wants compulsory service imposed on eighteen and twenty-five year old Americans. “They’ll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community,” writes Emanuel in his book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America. “These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs.”
It now appears Emanuel’s version of mandatory servitude, masquerading as patriotism, will not be limited to the young but will be imposed on all Americans, including retirees.
In July, Obama revealed his plan for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. In the speech, Obama said “People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.” He also said this mass movement requiring servitude “will be a central cause of my presidency.”
Charlie Rangle has authored a bill that may be dusted off after Obama enters the Oval Office. It’s called the National Service Act and calls for a universal draft with two years of “service” for virtually all persons aged 18-42, with no deferment for college. The language of Rangel’s bill states that “all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42″ be required to “perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”
In the months ahead, we can expect “public service,” i.e., compulsory servitude, to be a mantelpiece of the Obama regime. It will be necessary because Obama will undoubtedly soon have no shortage of enemies — that is to say, people opposed to his policies — and a national Stasi framework, under the rubric of a “civilian national security force,” will be required to ferret out enemies of the state. In addition, “carbon criminals” will need to be identified and rounded up and shipped off to re-education and forced labor camps.
Considering the emotional zeal of Obama’s kool aid drinkers — frighteningly on display as Obama swept the election — there will likely to be no shortage of recruits to enthusiastically enforce his decrees, actually decrees passed down by the globalist New World Order.
In a historical sense, this is fascism on steroids.
AddendumObama’s crew have reworded the text on the “America Serves” area of the Change-gov website. The word “require” has been removed, probably as a result of criticism, and other passages have been rewritten. Does this mean they no longer believe you should be a slave on an Obama work brigade? Hardly. Joe Biden has said “rich” people making over $250,000 need to work more for the state, not directly but by surrendering an even larger share of their personal income through confiscatory taxes, thus revealing a disturbing mentality: the state owns you. It’s patriotic to be a slave.
Teaching “Social Justice” in Schools
Social-justice teaching is shorthand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free-market economicsBy Phyllis Schlafy
Monday, November 10, 2008
Many voters didn’t think it important when it surfaced during the presidential campaign that Barack Obama’s friend, the 1960s radical William Ayers, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers’s preoccupation with inserting his ideas of “social justice” into public school curriculum didn’t seem an issue to make tracks in a national election.
Now we find that in election week, the most respected education journal, Education Week, featured a front-page article on “social-justice teaching.” This confirms that accusations about “social-justice teaching” are not inventions of John McCain’s partisan consultants, but are matters that vitally concern everyone who cares what the next generation is taught with taxpayers’ money.
“Social-justice teaching” is defined in Education Week as “teaching kids to question whoever happens to hold the reins of power at a particular moment. It’s about seeing yourself not just as a consumer [of information], but as an actor-critic” in the world around you. This revealing explanation comes from Bill Bigelow, the curriculum editor of a Milwaukee-based organization called Rethinking Schools, which publishes instructional materials relating to issues of race and equity.
Bigelow admits that this is “a subversive act in some respects because it is not always encouraged by the curriculum.” Apparently, he intends to provide the encouragement.
In Bigelow’s book “Rethinking Columbus,” he wrote that he encourages his students to walk in the shoes of groups that have been oppressed or disenfranchised. He assigns students to role-play various oppressed groups in the U.S. and foreign countries.
“Social-justice” lessons highlight past mistakes in U.S. history rather than our accomplishments and opportunities. Emphasizing problems and injustices rather than achievements is given the highfalutin label “critical pedagogy.”
David Horowitz of the California-based David Horowitz Freedom Center says that social-justice teaching is “shorthand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free-market economics.” He says it teaches students that “American society is an inherently ‘oppressive’ society that is ‘systemically’ racist, ‘sexist,’ and ‘classist’ and thus discriminates institutionally against women, nonwhites, working Americans, and the poor.”
Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute describes Professor Ayers as one of the leaders in “bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms.” Ayers argues in his books and articles that “social-justice teaching” should be injected into various curriculum subjects.
Education Week identifies the “special-interest groups” that promote “social-justice teaching” and provide curricular materials, online resources, and “professional development” (i.e., indoctrinating teachers). These groups include an affiliate of the American Educational Research Association, the Cambridge-based Educators for Social Responsibility, and the Washington-based Teaching for Change, in addition to Rethinking Schools.
The lobbyists for “social-justice teaching” and “critical pedagogy” sponsor well-attended conferences (no doubt at taxpayers’ expense) and publish magazines. Teachers 4 Social Justice attracted 1,000 educators to an October seminar in Berkeley, California.
Lesson plans are available from a 30-year-old magazine called “Radical Teacher,” which was founded as “a socialist, feminist, and anti-racist journal on the theory and practice of teaching.”
Education Week identifies Ayers-style “social-justice teaching” as rooted in the writings of the late Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire. His best-known book, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (1970), is considered a classic text of radical education theory and is regularly assigned in education schools.
After Freire’s theories took hold in teachers colleges, it’s no surprise that they made their way into public schools, especially where low-income and minority kids can be taught Oppression Studies. Schools that specialize in “social-justice teaching” exist in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia, among other cities.
The Social Justice High School in Chicago, for example, has a 100 percent Hispanic or black student body. The principal admits that the lessons taught there are often “atypical,” such as teaching the relative likelihood of whites and minorities being pulled over by police.
This district recently announced plans to open a “gay-friendly” public high school called Pride Campus with 600 students, half homosexual and half heterosexual. Official materials say that the curriculum will “teach the history of all people who have been oppressed and the civil rights movements that have led to social justice and queer studies.”
It is clear that “social-justice teaching” does not mean justice as most Americans understand the term. Those who use the term make clear that it means the United States is an unjust and oppressive society and the solution is to “spread the wealth around.”
Professor Ayers declined to be interviewed for the Education Week article. His comments were unnecessary since the article was generally favorable to “social-justice teaching” and dismissive of its critics.
Supreme Court Justice Souter: Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate by Dec 1November 7th, 2008
Wow! You could of knocked me over with a feather. Extremely anxious to see how this pans out.
If The Supreme Court Decides…?
At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.
If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.
“I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”
Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'
Posted: December 03, 20089:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily
An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombasa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.
The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet isn't considered by critics to resolve the issue, since during the 1960s when Obama was born, the new state issued the document to infants not necessarily born in Hawaii.
There also remain unanswered questions about his youth, when he lived and attended school in Indonesia and later when he traveled to Pakistan. The questions include whether he gave up a U.S. citizenship to attend school or traveled on another nation's passport to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports were unwelcome there.
Answers to those issues could determine whether Obama meets the Constitution's demand for a "natural-born" citizen.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory," and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
She blamed support for the constitutional provision on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."
WND called Herlihy's number listed on the law firm website, and a woman answered with, "Sarah Herlihy." But when WND identified itself as a news agency, the woman said she didn't think "Sarah Herlihy" was in, but would take a message. There was no return call.
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
A web blogger suggested, "So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked into the matter of 'natural born' as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of: 'If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!"
Chief Justice John Roberts Meets Obama in PrivateBy: Devvy Kidd, January 15, 2009
© 2008 -
"Is there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage to be a coward?" Peter Blaunder
CBS News reported that Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, Jr., would meet in private with impostor president elect, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, on January 14, 2009:
"At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says....The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present."
I called the media number at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The giddy operator confirmed they expected Obama at any minute!
To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit. Tomorrow is the fourth case; another from Phil Berg.
On Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! There is still the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Again, Chief Justice Roberts will sit in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments.
Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances? Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.
I hope you'll tune into my radio show tomorrow night because I'm going to cover some other things about this mess including the swearing in process. I'll also read my latest letter to James Burrus at the FBI in Washington, DC., and why there must be an investigation into Obama on several fronts - not the least being tampering with his passport records. There's a real outrage.
The "I'm mad as Hell and I won't take it anymore." Well, maybe. [Read entire article at:]
Who will Stand Up for the U.S. Constitution?By Lynn Stuter
December 30, 2008
What follows are the undisputed facts concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president. Any U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative is welcome to dispute these yet undisputed facts. In so doing, however, the American people demand that the evidence be produced:
1 - Barack Hussein Obama has not been vetted or certified eligible to the office of president of the United States by any agency tasked to do so or authorized to do so.
2 - Not one American citizen, not one Senator, not one Representative has seen, touched or examined Barack Hussein Obama’s vault copy Hawaii birth certificate. On October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health, Hawaii, issued a press release in which she stated that she had “seen and verified” that a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama did exist; she did not state what was on it nor did she state that it showed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
3 - The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama has been waving about is not a “birth certificate” as he claims, as the mainstream media claims, as and claims. The COLB is a short form, computer printed document deriving the information printed thereon from a database of information supposedly (See #13 and #14 below) taken from the original long form vault copy Hawaiian birth certificate.
4 - claims to be a non-partisan organization. is funded by the Annenberg Foundation on whose board Obama sat. is about as non-partisan as is Obama. The Annenberg Foundation has never passed up a chance to fund a “progressive” (a.k.a., Marxist) cause.
5 - Hawaii has a law, HRS 338-17.8, which allows for the birth registration of a child born in a foreign country so long as one parent is a U.S. citizen and so long as that parent claimed Hawaii as his or her permanent residence for one year prior to the birth. Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama met both of these requirements.
6 - If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is, at best, a dual citizen. At his birth, his father was a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. Dual citizenship precludes Obama from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Prior cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, involving the determination of “natural born” have used Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” definition which states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Part I, Chapter 19, Section 212). states that Obama was a dual citizen at birth.
7 - If Obama was born in Kenya, he was, at birth, a British subject as Kenya was a British colony. American law, at that time, required that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama be a minimum of 19 years of age at his birth to confer to him her American citizenship if he was born outside the United States; she was only 18 years old when Obama was born.
8 - Barack Hussein Obama’s paternal step-grandmother has stated before witnesses, said witnesses signing affidavits, that she was witness to the birth of Obama in Kenya. See here, here, and here.
9 - Michelle Obama has stated that Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
10 - When Barack Hussein Obama was registered at the Fransiskus Assissi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia, his father was listed as Lolo Seotoro; his citizenship as Indonesian; his name as Barry Soetoro.
11 - When Stanley Ann (Dunham) Soetoro divorced Lolo Soetoro in 1980, the divorce papers show they had two children: one minor child (Maya), one over 18 (Barack).
12 - When Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, became an Indonesian citizen, his British citizenship would have been terminated; if he was born in Hawaii, also his American dual citizenship. Indonesia does not allow for dual citizenship.
13 - Returning to the COLB. This document, as waved about by Obama, may be authentic on its face (See #14), but it is not accurate. Were it accurate, it would show Lolo Soetoro as his father; his name as Barry Soetoro.
14 - The COLB Obama waves about lists the race of his biological father as “African.” African is not a race any more than American is. This brings into question the authenticity of the COLB Obama is waving about as his “birth certificate.”
15 - If Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, did become an American citizen, he became a naturalized American citizen which precludes him from eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, United States Constitution. There has been no proof presented that he is even a naturalized American citizen.
16 - Barack Hussein Obama has multiple aliases: Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama, Barack Soetoro, Barack Dunham. When he registered with the American Bar Association, he listed none of these as is required by law. Unless he had his name legally changed to Barack Hussein Obama after his adoption, of which there has been no proof presented, Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barack Hussein Obama is an alias.
17 - All his passport records, education records, medical records, birth records have become “not available” to the public. Those records show where he was born, if he applied for or received aid as a foreign student, the country or countries from which he has received passports.
18 - His selective service registration appears to be fraudulent. If he was a naturalized American citizen when he turned 18, and he failed to register with the selective service, he is barred from holding any position in government, elected or otherwise.
19 - If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is barred from holding any elected office.
20 - If he is not even a naturalized citizen, he is an illegal alien. Every U.S. Senator and Representative has taken an oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. In consideration of the above undisputed facts and the failure of any body, agency, or office so tasked or so authorized, to vet Obama’s eligibility to the office of president; every U.S. Senator and Representative has a sworn duty to write, sign and file an objection in accordance with 3 USC, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15.
Another response concerned Americans are receiving from their U.S. Senators and Representatives claims that the eligibility issue has been addressed by several lawsuits which have all been dismissed. It is true the lawsuits have been dismissed, but every U.S. Senator and Representative making this claim also knows that these lawsuits have not been dismissed on merit but rather on standing, which does not mean the lawsuits do not have merit, that the evidence presented in these causes is not true. And what SCOTUS has denied, to date, has been the applications for injunction to stop the certifying of the election until said time as Obama produces the evidence proving his eligibility. If Congress refuses to uphold the U.S. Constitution on January 6, 2009, SCOTUS will then have the jurisdiction to move on the evidence. Whether they will or not is to be seen. [Read the entire article at:]
U.N. American Agenda
Getting to work during the Obama administration
By Anne Bayefsky
November 10, 2008, 5:00 a.m.
Nobody is happier about the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States than the folks at the United Nations. It is as if they finally discovered kryptonite, and Superman will soon be disabled. The U.N. is an uncomplicated place. Every sick, unsatiated tyrant, European has-been, or miserable wretch brainwashed about the Great Satan wants to take America down – unless they are able to immigrate of course. Their modus operandi? The United Nations.The beauty of it, from the perspective of the majority, is that Americans are paying for their own demise. Americans are even convinced that the flagellation must be deserved.President Obama will take over from where what might be called “Bush III” left off. The foreign policy of Bush II was so different than that of the man currently in office, it’s hard to ascribe them to the same human being. Even die-hard U.N. enthusiasts admit they were pleased with many aspects of the American-UN relationship over the last few years, particularly after Bush III fed Bush II’s U.N. ambassador John Bolton to the wolves. Ongoing genocide in Darfur was shuffled off to the ponderous International Criminal Court. The Israel-Lebanon war was “solved” with a Security Council resolution. The U.N. reform package, and any serious effort at economic oversight after Kofi Annan’s Oil-for-food scandal, was tossed out the window. The green light was given to a multi-billion dollar renovation of U.N. headquarters in midtown Manhattan, notwithstanding advice that it could have done for a fraction of the cost. Efforts to tie reform or accountability to American U.N. contributions were abandoned, and five billion a year flows smoothly from American taxpayers to U.N. bank accounts. On November 13, 2008, Bush III will chum around with Saudi mobster King Abdullah at U.N. premises in New York. The occasion is a Saudi-initiated event on “a culture of peace” which a U.N. spokesperson describes as “religious dialogue, plus.” The spectacle completes the Bush III metamorphosis. Think back to the image of Christian American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia in order to protect the country from Saddam Hussein, but forced to hide the crosses around their necks because their public display is a criminal act in the Kingdom?
Bush III notwithstanding, President Obama will have what his friends will call an unprecedented opportunity to tie American foreign policy to the U.N. ship of state, lance it down, and sail off into the sunset, never to be separated again. The predicament of the Saudi wife would be an apt comparison.
The U.N. apparatus has mapped out the priorities for President Obama’s early days in office (taking it for granted he’ll be hightailing it out of Iraq), and the only question is how fast President Obama will say “I do.” Here’s the plan now sitting on the President-elect’s desk: Run for election to the U.N. Human Rights Council as a vote of confidence in the U.N. “human rights” apparatus and the ability to change it from the inside. (Forget that the U.S. would have one vote, that the Western regional group of states is overwhelmingly outnumbered, and that reform of an agency serving the human rights abusers is the last thing of interest to the abusers firmly in control.)
Decide to participate in the Durban II “anti-racism” conference in April 2009, and send along a high-level emissary such as the Secretary of State. It would be hard to run for re-election to the Human Rights Council without attending the Council’s number-one priority, which is scheduled to take place shortly before the election. (Ignore that Durban II is a unredeemable and dangerous fraud. It adopts an anti-racism mantra to foment racism, the demonization of Israel and the defeat of free speech.)
Revitalize the Middle East Quartet, which drives the Arab-Israeli conflict through a multilateral prism with the U.N. as a full and equal partner. (Dismiss the fact that the U.N. partner always weighs in on just one side of the conflict, adopting the predetermined position that Israel is the “root” of the problem and any Arab “peace” proposal is the solution.)
Put Israel on the chopping block. “Israel first” has long been the calling card of the UN. The U.N. governing principle is this: “if only Israel did x, y, and z,” (the list to be expanded in response to successive Arab no’s), animus against the West would cease, terrorism would stop, the messiah would appear, and there would be no more war. (This might be called the “ass-backwards approach to Middle East politics,” since Israel is actually on the front line of the war against democracy and America’s way of life, not bringing up the rear. Serving up an Israeli hors d’oeuvre is just that – first course.)
Drive the effort to stop terrorism through the 2006 United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. (The strategy contains no definition of terrorism since U.N. members can’t agree on what counts as terrorism. It inverts priorities by focusing first and foremost on alleged “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism,” such as “poverty” and “youth unemployment” “religious discrimination” and “socio-economic marginalization.” Plain old Jew-hatred or enmity of freedom and equality are mysteriously absent from the list of causes.)
Agree to some form of global taxation, giving rise to an even more powerful, wealthy, and undemocratic U.N. fiefdom (and a poorer America). All that remains is for President Obama to put a date beside each one of the items on the U.N.’s first “to do” list. And down we’ll go.
Kenya banking on Obama payback
Odinga says his effort to block WND reporter helped Democrat win White HousePosted: November 09, 200812:25 am Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – Kenyan Prime Minister
Raila Odinga is demanding payback from President-elect Barack Obama for silencing WND staff writer and bestselling author Jerome Corsi, who investigated Obama's links to the authoritarian African official.
Odinga told Kenya's newspaper, The Nation, that he expected Obama's election to provide a windfall of U.S. trade, tourism and investment.
"What we want to see is the expansion of relationships in terms of trade and direct investments," said Odinga. "We want to see more of our products finding markets in the U.S. and expect more direct investments by the Americans in the country."
Odinga made it clear he played a small role in helping Obama win the White House – specifically by detaining Corsi and preventing him from holding a press conference in Kenya to disclose the findings of his investigation.
In addition, Odina said he made a deliberate decision to minimize his relationship with Obama – even while previously claiming to be related to him.
As WND had reported exclusively, Odinga is a Luo tribesman affiliated with Obama's father when Odinga's communist father was Kenya's first vice president after Kenyan independence and Obama's father was a Harvard-educated economist working in the Jomo Kenyatta government.
Obama campaigned openly for Odinga for president in 2006 when Obama was in Kenya on a U.S. Senate "fact-finding" mission. Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki asked Obama to stop interfering with Kenyan presidential politics. Obama raised an alleged $1 million for Odinga to run for president in Kenya in December 2007, adding to the $1 million raised for Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
When Odinga lost the December 2007 presidnetial election by approximately 233,000 votes, Odinga called for protests which led his Luo tribesmen to murder approximately 1,000 Kikuyu tribesman, displace another 350,000 Kikuyu tribesmen and destroy 800 churches, while not a single mosque was destroyed. Obama helped negotiate a settlement in which Odinga was appointed co-head-of-state and appointed prime minister to end the violence, even after it became publicly disclosed Odinga signed a letter of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya in return for their votes.
Odinga said he stayed away from the August Democratic National Convention, to which he was invited by Obama, for fear the association would hurt the Democratic presidential nominee.
"That is why I did not go to the convention," Odinga said. "I felt if I went they would try to use my presence to mud-sling Mr Obama."
WND also reported that Odinga signed a written agreement with Muslim leaders during his campaign, stipulating that if they delivered the Muslim vote, he would change the constitution to declare Islamic law as the ruling authority in Muslim-dominated regions, protect terrorists and muzzle Christian evangelism.
According to a BBC report, Odinga says Obama's father was his maternal uncle. Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan, married the Democratic presidential candidates' American mother while both were attending the University of Hawaii.
In addition to promising to re-write the Kenyan constitution and enshrine Islamic Shariah law, Odinga promised to immediately "dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenya Muslim community."
Secret Police? Obama Selects Dirty Trickster Panetta to Head the CIABy NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern, January 10, 2009
On Tuesday, former Clinton Administration adviser Dick Morris told Fox News Channel that President-elect Barack Obama's motive for his nomination of Leon Panetta to the important post of Director of Central Intelligence is to tear that agency apart.
While many conservatives may concur with Morris' assessment, it is hoped that Panetta will be either turned away during his confirmation hearings or his name will be withdrawn altogether.

Many political observers believe Panetta is the wrong man at the wrong time for the wrong job. And rather than tear the CIA apart he will rebuild it into a secret police force for his radical boss in the White House.
Efforts to combat terrorism have become an increasingly important part of government activities. These efforts have also become important in the United States' relations with other countries and with international organizations. However, according to former military intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sid Frances, rebuilding the CIA and other intelligence agencies so that they actually serve Americans is more important than seating an intelligence chief who believes in dirty tricks to further his goals. "The United States' intelligence community is undergoing the most extensive — perhaps even radical — transformations since the Office of Strategic Services gave way to the Central Intelligence Agency," said Det. Frances. During Panetta's days in the Clinton White House and during the Clinton scandals, Human Events said this about Panetta: "The media has lost count of all the shills the Clintons have sent out to do their dirty work with the press and the talk shows, from Leon Panetta and Lanny Davis to David Kendall and Jim Carville. There is no end to the line of opportunists prepared to face the public in defense of a rogue President and a corrupt administration.""Recognizing that people are the critical element in transformation initiatives is key to a successful transformation of the intelligence community and related homeland security organizations. However, an agency headed by a politically motivated party hack is a dangerous thing for the American people," political strategist Mike Baker told"
[Dick] Morris may be partially right, but I believe Obama's ultimate goal is to turn the CIA into his personal secret police," warns Baker.The CIA is responsible for coordinating US counterintelligence activities abroad. Each of the military departments also has a counterintelligence element that operates domestically and overseas.
The mission of intelligence agencies is to collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence to their "consumers." Human sources and technical collection systems can be developed only over long periods of time and often at great cost. They are easily compromised and, when compromised, often cannot be replaced. Accordingly, intelligence agencies are by nature reluctant to permit consumers, including law enforcement agencies, to use intelligence in any way that might result in the loss of a source or collection method.
These elements have offensive and defensive missions. Offensively, they attempt to recruit agents within foreign intelligence services to ascertain what, if any, operations are being undertaken against the United States; they monitor the activities of known or suspected agents of foreign intelligence services; and they undertake operations to ascertain the targets and modus operandi of foreign intelligence services.
Defensively, they investigate cases of suspected espionage and prepare analyses for government and industry concerning the foreign intelligence threat. While the FBI has principal jurisdiction to investigate suspected espionage within the United States, all intelligence agencies maintain internal capabilities to undertake preliminary inquiries of their own employees. Military counterintelligence elements have concurrent jurisdiction to carry out counterintelligence investigations of their respective military personnel.
"Counterintelligence, as a function of intelligence agencies, however, goes well beyond detecting and monitoring the activities of foreign intelligence services and investigating employees suspected of espionage. Counterintelligence is an integral part of the entire intelligence process," said Lt. Stephan Rodgers of the New Jersey police.
"Historically, intelligence agencies have not performed this crucial function very well. Virtually all have suffered severe losses due to a failure to recognize anomalous behavior on the part of their own employees. The agency ends up spying on political enemies rather than true enemies. And into this mix, President Obama wishes to insert the likes of Leon Panetta, a left-wing Democrat Party operative," said Detective Lt. Rodgers, also a former military-intelligence officer.
One of the major challenges facing the intelligence community is moving from a culture of "need to know" to a "need to share" organizations, while maintaining secrecy. The experience of leading organizations suggests that performance management systems — that define, align, and integrate institutional, unit, and individual performance with organizational goals — can provide incentives and accountability for sharing information to help achieve this shift.
Some critics of the CIA claim that over the years it has become more of a liberal-left "think tank" than an intelligence gathering and counter terrorism organization. One official alleges that politics within "The Company" resembles the politics exhibited at American universities, with bureaucrats "living in ivory towers far removed from the real world of espionage, terrorism and the people they're supposed to be serving."
Significant changes have been underway in the last 3 years regarding how the federal workforce is managed. The Congress passed legislation providing certain government-wide human resources flexibility, such as direct hiring authority by agency executives. While many federal agencies have received such flexibility, others may be both needed and appropriate for intelligence agencies, such as providing these agencies with the authority to hire a limited number of term-appointed positions on a noncompetitive basis.
One former CIA intelligence officer, on condition of anonymity told, "Mark my words: Panetta will turn the CIA into Obama's own secret police. Couple that with Obama's plans for a 'civilian security force' and you have the ingredients for an oppressive, neo-Stalinist society," he said.
Obama Health Plan Poses Danger to American Freedomsby NWV News director, Jim Kouri
January 13, 2009© 2008
“This system will be implemented, sooner or later, since it will be part of the mechanism to control the people.
”First, control all the medical records. Next, control access to the records by use of a card containing an rfid chip. After enough folks lose, forget, or for whatever reason, show up at the emergency room without their card, the government will require that the rfid chips be implanted in peoples' bodies.
”No implanted chip, no health care.
”Another step towards the mark of the beast.”
--Pastor Tom Guest
Soon to take the oath as President, Barack Obama has promised a massive change to “modernize health care by making all health records standardized and electronic.”
Part of his ambitious health care program will be the computerizing of medical records of all Americans in order to make the health care process more cost-effective.
But even proponents of Obama's plan have mentioned that ensuring the privacy of patients' records in a nationalized computer network will be tricky. There are obvious concerns about hackers and system failures. And new online health record systems, such as Google Health are not currently subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the national health privacy law.
“This is especially true when you consider the advocates of implementing a program using so-called ‘v-chips’ inserted into people and containing all their medical information. No one has said how much information will be contained in those implants. DNA? AIDS information?” asks political strategist Mike Baker.
“With so much information already being compromised within government security systems, how can Obama possibly promise confidentiality of such records?” he asks.
Although in five years the VeriChip Corp. — the US company creating microchip implants — has yet to turn a profit, it has been investing heavily — up to $8 million a year — to create new markets.
The company's executives have said their present push is the tagging of "high-risk" patients — diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease.
In a medical emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient's arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person's identity and medical history.
To doctors, a "starter kit" — complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader — costs $1,400, according to information on the Verichip web site. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren't covered by private healthcare insurance companies, or by Medicare and Medicaid.
For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company's most recent SEC quarterly filing, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.
Some patients and their families are wondering why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition for the microchip implants.
In early September, up to 200 Alzheimer's patients living in the Palm Beach, Florida area were implanted with the microchip by the company VeriChip absolutely free.
The chip, which is about the size of a grain of rice, contains a 16-digit identification number which is scanned at a hospital. Once the number is placed in a database, it can provide crucial medical information. People are already lining up for the VeriChip, but it's already stirred up controversy.
The story, carried by ABC TV News, caused one reporter to ask, "Is Big Brother watching?"
The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients' records.
The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a "one-pager" on its database — a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver's license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual's full medical history. In recent days, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere, of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S. soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.
Last May, a protest outside the Alzheimer's Community Care Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, drew attention to a two-year study in which 200 Alzheimer's patients, along with their caregivers, were to receive chip implants. Parents, children and elderly people decried the plan, with signs and placards.
"Chipping People Is Wrong" and "People Are Not Pets," the signs read. And: "Stop VeriChip."
Dr. Katherine Albrecht, the RFID critic who organized the demonstration, raises similar concerns on her web site.
"Is it appropriate to use the most vulnerable members of society for invasive medical research? Should the company be allowed to implant microchips into people whose mental impairments means they cannot give fully informed consent?" she wrote.
As the polemic heats up, legislators are increasingly being drawn into the fray. Two states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, recently passed laws prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in humans. Others states — Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida — are studying similar legislation.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma legislators are debating a bill that would authorize microchip implants in people imprisoned for violent crimes. Many felt it would be a good way to monitor felons once released from prison.
But other lawmakers raised concerns. Rep. John Wright worried, "Apparently, we're going to permanently put the 'mark' on these people."
Rep. Ed Cannaday found the forced microchipping of inmates "invasive.... We are going down that slippery slope."
Rep. Wright and many Christians throughout the United States believe the push to have microchips implanted in human beings is a fulfillment in prophesy.

"And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand or on their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." --Apocalypse/Revelations Chapter 13: 16-17
Another drawback to microchip implants is the suspicion that they are linked to cancer in test animals. Opponents of human microchipping are concerned with the speed with which these chips received approval from the (FDA) US Food and Drug Administration. Opponents such as Dr. Albrecht believe the FDA approval has more to do with politics than medicine.

Opponents believe the government is choosing the most vulnerable citizens for the initial implants — Alzheimer's patients, the handicapped, retarded, the elderly — but eventually every human being in the US, Mexico and Canada will be required to have the microchip implants if only to keep track of them and their activities.
"Under the federally supported National Animal Identification System (NAIS), digital tags are expected to be affixed to the U.S.'s 40 million farm animals to enable regulators to track and respond quickly to disease, bioterrorism, and other calamities," according to a Business Week article.
"Opponents have many fears about this plan, among them that it could be the forerunner of a similar system for humans. The theory, circulated in blogs, goes like this: You test it on the animals first, demonstrating the viability of the radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) to monitor each and every animal's movements and health history from birth to death, and then move on to people."
Betraying the Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther KingMartin Luther King Day precedes the historic inauguration of America's first African American PresidentBy Andrew Hughes
Global Research, January 18, 2009
Martin Luther King Day in 2009 precedes the dawn of the historic inauguration of America's first African American President. This inauguration is lauded as the realization of Dr. King's dream, a defining moment in the cultural paradigm, a tectonic shift in race relations and a beacon of real change for the plight of the poor and oppressed. Infusing the dreams and ethos of Dr. King in to the presidential persona demands a confluence of ideals and actions to truly deserve the association. To betray the dream, to profit from the sacrifice is to insult the legacy. To be worthy of the torch demands integrity.
"Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
This speech by Dr. Martin Luther King in 1967 is as poignant today as it was back then. The names change but the nightmare remains the same. Today's Iraq and Afghanistan replace yesterday's Vietnam. Today's increased level of poverty and imprisonment of a hugely disproportionate number of African Americans in the prison system, the slaughter of millions more of the world's poor and Dr. King's subsequent murder at the hands of his own government bear witness to exactly which initiative was taken.
President-Elect Barack Obama, in his speeches, expresses his desire to inculcate the ideals of Dr. King in to his decision making and his attitude to his fellow human beings. He "chokes up" repeating the words of this Man of Peace, but he'll "hold it together" on Inauguration day. He'll make America, in Dr. King's words "a land no longer torn asunder with racial hatred and ethnic strife, a land that measured itself by how it treats the least of these, a land in which strength is defined not simply by the capacity to wage war but by the determination to forge peace - a land in which all of God's children might come together in a spirit of brotherhood."
He stands silent as his country aids in the genocide of the Palestinians. He will forge peace by sending 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan to intensify the massacre that has left nearly 800,000 of his brothers and sisters dead. He stands silent on the more than 700,000 of his brothers and sisters who have been murdered in Iraq. He threatens War against Iran, Syria and already destroyed Lebanon. He remains silent on the murder of his brother Oscar Grant III by police officer Johannes Mehserle in California. He perpetuates what Dr. King called "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift".
"Many of the ugly pages of American history have been obscured and forgotten....America owes a debt of justice which it has only begun to pay. If it loses the will to finish or slackens in its determination, history will recall its crimes and the country that would be great will lack the most indispensable element of greatness--justice" Martin Luther King, 1967.
The President-Elect refuses to bring George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and the rest of the War criminals to justice as he looks forward from the mountain top and points the way to spiritual death.
Would Dr. King, if he actually held public office, have voted for invading Iraq, invading Afghanistan, sending arms and money to Israel and remained silent as his poverty stricken brothers and sisters were slaughtered?
The words of Martin Luther King have been hijacked by those would would use his message to further their narcissistic goals. His peaceful supplication has been betrayed by lies and a sickening adulation of meaningless oratory. His greatest statements of love and humanity have been relegated to sound bites for mass consumption by a deceived public who have put their faith in a man who represents all that Dr. King was fighting peacefully against.