Monday, March 23, 2009

When the Absurd Becomes Reality! (Part 1)

******* *******
Eco-'Nuttery' & Global Warming Overreaches (Part 1)By William Hunt, M.S.
August 3, 2009
I am concerned about some really crazy laws being introduced and even passed in our state legislatures and U. S. Federal legislative branch. We are having an epidemic of “do-badders” (thinking they are "do-gooders"), primarily in Federal circles and blue states, coming up with “creative” and very inexpensive ways to “stop” the non-problem of global warming. There are ridiculous predictions of global warming-caused scary Venus-like conditions with dry desert-like areas interspersed with storms causing death and destruction on a Diluvian scale. You would think this was a bad movie script if it were not based on educated yet delusional thinking.
I have detailed the causes of such mis-thinking in my recent book release, Global Warming Challenged, and the results of such illogical thinking are not only all related, but have the same end effect: the increase of costs to taxpayers and businesses, restrictions on freedoms, resulting in NO effectual changes to the climate for the intended results. In our legislative fervor, based on myth and not truth, we are at risk of tearing down our precious personal American freedoms and our powerful free-market society. Let's not let this happen...
Cows: Not Just for Dinner Anymore
Did you know that a punitive tax on cow burps and cow flatulence was lifted at the last moment in the House version of the Waxman-Markey bill - led by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) just prior to it being approved by the House of Representatives. The bill creates a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions— a massive tax increase on all forms of energy— and has a large number of amendments whose ink wasn’t dry before the final vote was taken. Prior to Midwest Democrat congressmen complaining about this tax on cattle emissions, it was revealed that a tax aimed at cutting methane from cows, presumably by reducing the number of cattle , would actually force us to eat other foods. Oh my!
The idea behind that part of the bill was that cows produce methane from both ends, via the action of bacteria. Methane has a higher heat capacity than carbon dioxide and thus the pseudo-environmentalists were complaining that it was X times worse (depends entirely upon the group) than carbon dioxide that affect Global Warming.
Fact: Methane is produced abundantly by natural mechanisms, both biologic and geologic, but makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmospheric gases. Methane is quickly and naturally removed from the atmosphere by several pathways, including atmospheric processes and microorganisms. The factual science of methane creation and removal from the air doesn’t matter to the environmental lobby (environmentalists and the politicians who produce this sort of chartreuse legislation). These gastric (no pun intended) provisions were just recently removed from the Waxman-Markey bill that would have laid a large burden on farmers, ranchers and consumers countrywide.
The proposed tax would have increased the price of milk and milk products, such as cheese, beef and leather goods. The tax was $175 per dairy cow per year and $ 87.50 per year for beef cattle. This would have to be passed along to the consumers by the farmers, but some consumers would buy less, which would result in some of the smaller farmers going out of business.
To give an idea of how silly this is, if the idea of taxing cow burps and cow plops is not silly enough, let’s compare some numbers. According to various sources, there are roughly a billion cows in the world, used for milk, meat and religion (India). The U.S. has approximately a tenth of them with less than one hundred million head. If methane from cows were a problem, what about the other 90% of the cows?
What about the other ruminants in the U.S.? They produce methane the same way. Is there any concern for the thirty million white deer? Several million mule deer? A million elk? A million pronghorns? Moose? Caribou? Some of the eastern U.S. states have more deer than cows.
Why stop there? Non-ruminant mammals produce methane from digestion. Several billion mice, rats, squirrels, rabbits, foxes and other animals in this scenario also could be the culprits.
A Scary Side Note: Some have claimed to reduce the amounts of methane produced by feeding a special diet to cows, but this is expensive, and it would be difficult to verify their claims. The bacterial colonies in intestines are benign and help with food digestion. They have existed as long as intestines have and given what happens when antibiotics kill them off, it’s probably not a very good thing to tamper with them. I’m sure someone will eventually try to come up with a genetically-modified cow that uses some other system, perhaps the alkaline digestive tract that butterflies and moths use to digest food? Given the failure rate for genetically-engineered plants in the lab and the innumerable side effects and failures of engineered plants that are marketed have been shown to possess, that too, would not be a good idea.
Thankfully this particular bit of taxing nonsense was removed from the Waxman-Markey bill at the last minute. It’s frightening that Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and company wanted it in the first place.Beware, as the Environmental Lobby and its groupies are assuming that this or that awful thing will happen as the world “warms.” If the world was actually warming up do to man’s actions, their zeal would be understandable. Yet the preponderance of our science says that Global Warming/Climate Change is 'make believe' and not verifiably scientifically based.
Can You Say 'Insane'?By Lynn Stuter
July 14, 2009
A nominee to replace a retiring Supreme Court Justice is named. What, exactly, are the nominee's qualifications to hold the office? One, the nominee is female; two, the nominee is Hispanic.
These are the sole qualifications upon which Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter! Sotomayor certainly was not nominated for her understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; or her understanding of the rule of law; Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate on appeal of decisions rendered.
Now liberals are quietly suggesting that the media go after the plaintiff in the most recent Supreme Court reversal of a Sotomayor decision; the suggestion being that his history of litigation be used to divert attention from Sotomayor's lack of judicial experience and lack of understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the fact that she is an activist judge who has no respect for the rule of law.
One has to ask what has the plaintiff in Ricci v DeStefano got to do with Sotomayor's judicial record; unless, of course, Sotomayor is admitting that her decision in the Ricci case had more to do with her passions, opinions and prejudices than with the rule of law? Such certainly conforms to her record. And such certainly speaks to the fact that she should never have been even considered as a possibility to fill Souter's seat.
Is Sotomayor's nomination to the United States Supreme Court insane? How could one call it anything else? Insanity seems to be the norm these days!
Beyond her record, Sotomayor is a racist bigot, with connections to racist organizations such as La Raza. That the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) deems anyone opposed to Sotomayor as racist and contends La Raza is a "thoroughly mainstream human rights organization" is telling. But then, intelligent people take the SPLC and Morris 'Sleaze' Dees with the grain of salt they are due.
Sotomayor has no business on the United States Supreme Court.
Yet Senators like Patty Murray (D-WA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), both femi-Nazi's of the first order, go absolutely ga-ga at the very mention of Sotomayor's name! One can almost see the slobber dripping from their chins!
Speaking of Patty Murray, she has engaged in a campaign, in Washington State, to push the usurper's socialized medicine agenda. She is currently soliciting sob stories from people in Washington State regarding health care; claiming those sob stories are proof of a "health care crisis."
She went before the cameras recently to speak of an 11-year-old boy who approached her with the story of how his mother, 27, had died from lack of health care. Senator Murray told how this "hard working" mother, who was "trying to provide for her family" had become ill, lost her job due to her illness, and ultimately, died from her illness.
But folks, let's do the math. The boy was 11; his mother 27. That means she was somewhere in the vicinity of 16 when he was born. An un-wed mother? Maybe; no mention of a father or husband was made. A teenage mother? Definitely.
Why did this teenager end up pregnant? Was it what she was taught in the schools? Was she taught that she should refrain from sexual activity until married or was she taught that she should have sex when it felt right to her as is taught in too many of the government schools today; the same government schools that Patty Murray thinks are just doing a wonderful job of educating children? These are the same schools that view parents as the "silent partner" in the raising and education of the child; the same schools whose goal it is to inculcate in the child the attitudes, values and beliefs (that children are required to demonstrate mastery of) that promote the government agenda of increased power and control over people.
And because this teenager was obviously sexually active, but was neither mature nor responsible as most teenagers aren't, she ended up pregnant which is all too common under the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy of self-indulgence. This same philosophy extends to using drugs and drinking alcohol.
After becoming pregnant, did she finish high-school or did she drop out?
And even if she finished high school, when she started out with few skills and a child to support, what were her chances of getting a good paying job, one with benefits?
Instead of looking at the source of the problem — a teenager who, had she been taught self-discipline instead of self-indulgence, would have had a greater probability of being alive today with a good paying job, one with benefits — Senator Murray sees this situation as an opportunity to wrest more power to government under the claim that lack of health care caused her death. That simply is not true.
And while Senator Murray and her comrades claim there are approximately 45,000,000 uninsured in America today, what she isn't saying is that most of those are illegal aliens; that the illegal alien population is the unnamed reason behind the "health care crisis". Again, the truth that Senator Murray carefully conceals is that if we get rid of the 45,000,000 illegals in this country, that are here in violation of existing law, we get rid of the problem.
The truism that government serves to perpetuate its own interests of power and control is long established—the War of Poverty increased poverty; the War on Drugs increased drug usage; the War on Terror has spent a lot of money and accomplished nothing; Goals 2000 destroyed all vestiges of the ability of a child to receive competent education; and on and on.
The government does nothing that does not serve its purposes of justifying ever-increasing power and control.
And what Senator Murray isn't willing to say, but is the truth, is that 1) having health insurance is no guarantee against dying, and 2) under socialized medicine, this mother would have also died, for socialized medicine is about saving money, not lives. Under socialized medicine, those deemed "useless eaters" — the elderly, indigent, chronically ill, terminally ill — will be denied health care in the name of cost savings!
Senator Murray, and those like her, are playing a shell game. What they claim, and what the truth is, are diametrically opposed. But like the liar in the Oval Office, they will lie to get what they want: more power, more control.
Is it insane to encourage self-destructive behavior in the quest for power? Yes, it is. People who encourage this type behavior do so for their own purposes and not because they "care about people"—the mantra under which they operate. If they truly cared about people, they would do everything in their power to make people self-reliant, independent, and eternally free from the bondage that government, by its very nature, seeks. They would, in every instance, do that which limits the power and control of government.
As with everything the government does, illegal aliens serve a purpose in increasing government power and control:
1. Illegals bring communicable diseases that have to be addressed; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
2. Illegals come to America because of the "free" health care; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
3. Illegals get social benefits; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
4. The children of illegals must be educated; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
5. The more illegals who displace American workers, the more Americans who go bankrupt and can't meet their bills; requiring resources the illegals and their employers do not pay for.
6. Every day, legal citizens of the United States are victims of crimes (rape, murder, sodomy, identify theft, drugs, DUI … ) committed by illegal aliens; prosecuting and incarcerating them requires resources the illegals do not pay for.
Again, it's a shell game and the goal is control over people. Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell never saw an illegal alien they didn't just love; so long, that is, as the illegal didn't get so close to them that they might be sullied by the proximity!
Are the people pushing for amnesty for illegals insane? Isn't self-destructive behavior one of the symptoms of insanity? And isn't it self-destructive to allow illegals into this country, and to stay in this country, knowing full well the deleterious affect their being here has on this country?
And who but an insane individual would think up a scheme to tax the people for virtually every breath they take, for their very existence, which, I might add, they had no role in bringing about?
Recently, I suggested to both Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell that if they truly believe the global warming hoax behind the usurper's cap and trade bill (HR 2454), that they do what any decent human being would do and quit exhaling. So far, I've not heard that they've done that.
As such, it becomes readily apparent that they know full well that cap and trade isn't about the environment or global warming; that cap and trade is about government control over people.
Are they insane for supporting cap and trade? Let's put it a bit differently: would a sane person purpose or support legislation based on a hoax?
And what about the individual on whose behalf that legislation was written; who has supported it wholeheartedly: the usurper of the Oval Office, the occupier of the White House, who isn't sure which hospital in Hawaii he wasn't born at?
Is he any more sane than the legislation he supports?
Who, in their right mind, would
1. support the spending of money they don't have to spend?2. support policies specifically intended to destroy people's lives and enslave them?3. support the transformation of America from a constitutional republic to a participatory democracy such as the U.S.S.R. was?4. stand before the American people and state that America is the greatest nation in the world, "help me change it."5. travel about the world apologizing left and right for what he perceives are America's character flaws—freedom and liberty?6. paint a target on the forehead of every American serving overseas by releasing classified information regarding terrorist interrogations tactics?7. support legislation that will kill people in the name of cost savings?8. do everything within their power to destroy the economy of the United States of America?
Is the usurper insane? I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious!
When one puts the ideology of the left in context, it becomes very apparent that those who pursue the leftist ideology are truly insane individuals.
This gives a whole new perspective to the claim that Washington, DC is an insane asylum and the inmates are truly running the asylum. They make the character of Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look perfectly lucid!
The question is, why do the American people simply not fence DC in and keep the inmates from destroying the rest of the country?
Better yet, how about we give them a taste of their own medicine. Insane people, under universal health care, are deemed "useless eaters" and useless eaters are allowed to die to save money.
How can I say such a thing?
It's time people wake up to the reality. To quote Alan Stang's immutable laws of war:
• Law One: If you don’t know you are in a war, you will lose. • Law Two: If you don’t know you are in a battle to the death, you will die.
The usurper in the Oval Office, the occupier of the White House, and his minions in government, have declared war on the United States of America.
We have a choice; we can either fight to win or we can do nothing and lose our nation and our freedom.
More Scandals Haunt SotomayorBy Cliff Kincaid
June 11, 2009
Bill O’Reilly has declared, “I don’t think she’s a racist,” in regard to Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though it turns out that her comment about a Latina woman making better decisions than a white man was repeated on several occasions. O’Reilly turns a blind eye to her raw display of racism because he doesn’t want to be accused of being a racist himself. This is how cowardly the sponsor of the “No Spin Zone” has become in the face of a politically correct “debate” that has already forced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to retract his charge of racism against her.
False accusations against white people are tolerated by the media, even the conservative media. This is why Al Sharpton is a frequent guest on the O’Reilly show, despite his participation in the Tawana Brawley hoax, whereby he falsely accused a group of white men of raping a black woman.
But accurate accusations of racism against members of minority groups who make racist statements are not tolerated. That is why Gingrich backed away from his accurate comments, and why O’Reilly said he didn’t want to have anything to do with them.
“When I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist, but I applied it to her as a person,” Gingrich said on Face the Nation. “The truth is, I don’t know her as a person.” Gloria Borger on CNN reported that Republican senators had asked Gingrich to retract the charge. More cowardice.
Yet the words themselves were evidence of racism. What’s more, she had made the same kind of statement on different occasions.
It is obvious that Gingrich will never “know her” in the sense of sitting down with her for hours and exchanging views. Conclusions have to be based on what people say and do. And when someone assumes a position of gender and racial superiority over others, what other conclusion can you come to, except that he or she is a racist? Even Obama agreed that the statement was a poor choice of words. It was a controversy, if given the media coverage it deserved, that could have seriously damaged the nominee because it gets to the heart of what she personally believes and thinks about America.
However, there’s another major controversy lurking—her anti-American views, despite having benefited from extraordinary opportunities in America. And then there’s a political speech she made, in violation of judicial ethics, hailing Obama’s election and calling on the legal profession to implement the Obama agenda. Any one of these scandals could sink her nomination—if the media do their duty and cover them.
Ironically, some of this has already surfaced on a far-left radio show, where Puerto Rican political writer and analyst Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua said that Judge Sotomayor is “not a daughter of the American Revolution” but instead “a child of colonialism.”
He told Amy Goodman’s radio show, “Judge Sotomayor was a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, which meant three things: number one, that she was an ethnic national, a Puerto Rican; number two, that she felt that ethnic Puerto Rican deserved and needed a defense; and third, that she dedicated 12 years of her life to that defense, the defense of the Puerto Rican ethnicity within the United States of America.”
Sotomayor was not born in Puerto Rico. She was born in the Bronx in New York. Still, she apparently counts Puerto Rico, not America, as her home.
The United States “invaded her country,” said Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, reinforcing the point that she owes her allegiance to Puerto Rico. Her appointment, he said, touches on the “colonial relationship” between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. He was described on the show as someone who knows Sotomayor well.
This is a matter that must be covered by the media and explored by the Senate. The radical or Marxist view is that Puerto Rico is under colonial occupation and deserves independence. Sotomayor holds that view. Her 1976 thesis expressed support for Puerto Rican independence because she feared the “Americanization” of Puerto Rico.
In her thesis on Puerto Rico, Sotomayor came across as bitter, saying that “The experiences of Alaska and Hawaii since their statehood with cultural destruction has been indicative of the cultural loss Puerto Rico would eventually face if statehood for the island were chosen. Under the commonwealth status, there has been a gradual deterioration of the Spanish language among the Puerto Rican populace and a growing Americanization of the island. The loss of cultural autonomy has become the price of permanent union with the United States.”
Obama, still the source of controversy about where exactly he was born, said he wanted a nominee with empathy. But she didn’t have any empathy for Frank Ricci, the white firefighter who worked hard to pass an exam to get a promotion but was denied that promotion simply because a certain number of blacks didn’t score as high as he did. She ruled that Ricci and other firefighters didn’t have a case. This is what Sotomayor thinks of merit and hard work if you are a white male. It proves that her words mean something. It is racism, no matter how many convoluted arguments people like Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus try to make on her behalf.
In a column titled, “The ‘Radical’ Who Isn’t,” the liberal Marcus tries to rationalize a racist decision that she knows could seriously damage the nominee. The public would be advised to visit the website of the “New Haven 20” who were denied their promotions by ugly racism and understand how simple the case is.
Sotomayor was also a member of the National Council of La Raza, which claims that “La Raza” has been “mistranslated” as “the race” and actually means “the people” or the ”community.” They want to avoid the connotation that the group is racist. But the Webster’s New World Spanish dictionary defines “Raza” as race. The word for people is “gente.” The word for community is “comunidad.”
Once again, the truth has taken a back seat to being politically correct and masking the racist nature of an organization that Sotomayor belonged to.
In a 1996 speech, “The Genesis and Needs of an Ethnic Identity,” she talks at length at the Third World Center about her own ethnic identity, even how she eats ethnic foods, and goes on to say, “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and color-blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud.”
One might argue with justification that she is the one who has a confused or warped image of America.
There are, of course, some “white rights” or “white pride” organizations around, but they are shunned, criticized or condemned, even by whites. For the most part, white people think of themselves as Americans, and not as European-Americans.
But affirming one’s Latina identity is perfectly acceptable, and is apparently considered a qualification for the Supreme Court. That is because, in the Marxist view, she is a member of an oppressed group who needs to express herself against white supremacy.
Her 2002 Berkeley Law Review article, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” goes into substantial detail regarding her complaints about the allegedly low number of Latinos and women on the courts. In this article she repeats her statement about a “wise” Latina woman making better decisions than a white male.
But none of this really bothers the media. “The Latina Justice” proclaims the cover of Time magazine, as if confirmation is all but certain.
But the “Latina Justice” is generally considered liberal. So she will vote like the liberal “white male” she is replacing. Still, the point is that she looks different, and that is apparently what counts with the media.
In my previous column on this nomination, I noted that Sotomayor had delivered a speech entitled, “Being the Change We Need for Our Communities.” It sounded like something delivered by a political candidate or Obama himself. We now have a copy of that speech.
Just about two months ago, this sitting federal judge, who is supposed to be above politics, told the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association that “The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven.”
“On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences,” she said, hailing Obama’s election.
She added, “What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence. We have to continue to work together for our common goal of bringing the promise of America’s greatness and fairness to all members of our society.”
Notice how she referred to herself as a “citizen of the world,” not as a citizen of the United States. This takes on significance in her case because she wrote a foreword to a book called The International Judge. Does she believe in American sovereignty?
Calling for more “change,” she said, “It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed. We must devote ourselves to bettering the lives of all the needy of our society and we must do it together.”
She is openly advocating using the courts to push Obama’s political agenda.
Based on these comments, which violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Sotomayor should not only be forced to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, she should be impeached.
Canon 7 says a judge should refrain from political activity. It explains that she should NOT “make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office…”
The fact that her speech occurred after the election should not affect the severity of the offense. It sent the message that she is a liberal judge who will legislate for Obama from the bench. No wonder she got the nomination. She seemed to be auditioning for it.
In light of this and other controversies, it’s also no wonder Senate liberals are trying to rush this nomination through. This nominee has a lot of obvious baggage that has only begun to be examined for contraband.
In terms of media coverage, we will probably be seeing more “American dream” stories about her, and how she made something out of herself in the U.S. This is a tremendous achievement. It would be relevant were it not for the evidence suggesting that she seems to have no real allegiance to the country whose government she views as oppressing her people.
Sotomayor’s 60% Reversal Rate
Obama selected a very unqualified Judge for SCOTUS
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, yet three out of five of her majority opinions written for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court have been reversed. Based on the bare facts, this says that she is unconstitutional 60% of the time - and we are supposed to welcome her to the high court?
It is bad enough that her history of racist remarks brings to question her ability to be impartial, and that she has stated in the past that she believes it is up to the courts to make policy, which is unconstitutional. Now, it turns out, the Supreme Court has had to reverse over half of her rulings. Sotomayor is unqualified, and should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
Problem is, the scales over the eyes of the Democrats, and their leftist counterparts in the media and on the liberal blogs, are too blind to recognize the sad truth.
Attorney General to Classify Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Americans as TerroristsBy NWV News writer Jim Kouri
July 5, 2009© 2009
An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.
Impeached Florida judge -- now a Democrat Party member of the House of Representatives -- Rep. Alcee Hastings introduced what some claim is a disturbing piece of legislation. Hasting's amendment calls for the Attorney General to have discretion over who is called a terrorist and what groups will be treated as terrorist groups.
"This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder -- a Bill Clinton retread -- will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. He's also proposed the creation of "emergency camps" that are nothing more than prisons," warns political strategist Mike Baker. "This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists," he added.In an unclassified report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her agency included the following description of "extremists:" "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."Last Thursday, Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) made the following remarks on the House Floor regarding Congressman Alcee Hastings’ (D-FL) amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill:
"The Hastings Amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill (which now is being considered en bloc) prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons with known affiliations to "groups determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.""Members on both sides of the aisle support the purpose of this amendment because we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about the enlistment of persons who may seek to use their military training to cause harm to innocents, but we should take pause to consider the breadth of this amendment carefully. I just want to express concern about the language of this amendment, and my concerns are shared by many in this House," said Rep. Franks. "While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks."I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks."I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates as extremists under the bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make our intentions clear. If the intent of this amendment is to go after citizens because of their political views and moral convictions, then the amendment is unconstitutional. I hope that the sponsor of the Amendment will make clear tonight that this is not the intent," he added.Rep. Alcee Hastings also introduced what many say is another disturbing piece of legislation. That new bill calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to build at least six facilities that can be designated as "emergency centers. Hastings rationale for such facilities is to gather and "house" civilians on what are basically detention centers guarded by armed soldiers or paramilitary troops.
The House bill (HR 645) -- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act -- is not even on the radar of members of the elite media. According to critics of the plan, if passed the government will create camps or centers that by their nature restrict the activities of US citizens herded into them.
In fact, one provision -- Section 2 (b) (4) -- states: "[To] meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."
One critic, political strategist Mike Baker claims the idea of such detention center smacks of the type of concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany, Americans find repugnant.
"Why aren't the news media covering this story? Could it be because they fear being the first occupants of these so-called emergency installations? Where is the outrage by our nation's Fourth Estate?" asks Baker.
Hastings bill is suspected of attempting to help expand the President Obama's military and law enforcement powers. While Hastings pushes this bill, even Republican congressmen are hesitant to remind one another and the nation that this Florida congressman was impeached while he sat on Florida's federal court bench.
Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American federal judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years. He’s still called “Judge” by some of his colleagues, but one would think he’d rather forget his days on the federal bench.
In 1989, Judge Hastings was impeached by the US House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case. Hastings said the charges against him smacked of racism.
Even Rep. John Conyers, who is also black, said he “found no trace of racism during the investigation.” He urged his colleagues to remove Hastings from the bench. He said, “[Hastings] is unfit to serve.”
When the ultra-liberal Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi nominated Hastings for the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, even members of her own political party balked.
"The prospect of Rep. Alcee Hastings becoming the chairman of the House of Representative’s Intelligence Committee was proposed by Congressional Black Caucus, who had been pressuring the new House Speaker Pelosi to appoint blacks to key leadership positions and Hasting benefited from the pressure on the radical left Pelosi," said former Detective Sidney Frances (NYPD-ret.), himself an African-American.
While Hastings did not become chairman of that committee, he is a ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
As if It Needed to, Virginia Bans Smiles at the DMV
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Few places in Virginia are as draining to the soul and as numbing to the buttocks as the branch offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles. And yet, until recently, smiling was still permitted there.
No more. As part of the DMV's effort to develop super-secure driver's licenses and foolproof identification cards, the agency has issued a smile ban, directing customers to adopt a "neutral expression" in their portraits, thereby extinguishing whatever happiness comes with finally hearing one's number called.
The driver's license photo, it seems, is destined to look like a mug shot.
DMV officials say the smile ban is for a good cause. The agency would like to develop a facial recognition system that could compare customers' photographs over time to prevent fraud and identity theft. "The technology works best when the images are similar," said DMV spokeswoman Pam Goheen. "To prepare for the possibility of future security enhancements, we're asking customers to maintain a neutral expression."
At a Manassas DMV branch yesterday, that translated to a simple directive: "Don't smile."
That's exactly what a DMV attendant told Manassas resident Maria Quispe when she sat down against the white backdrop and attempted to look happy for the photo she would be carrying around for much of the next eight years.
"Say cheese," said her stepdaughter, Alexandra Lopez.
"No cheese today," the DMV attendant said.
The shutter clicked, and the attendant consulted a computer monitor, then shook her head disapprovingly.
Quispe's teeth had been visible. Strike one. "Your mouth was open," the attendant said.
Quispe's second attempt turned out sufficiently dull. "It's going to be so ugly," Quispe said afterward. "This is like being in the Army!"
When asked how DMV employees are able to determine when customers might be smiling too much, Goheen explained that the process is automated. Naturally, the new software is programmed to reject attempts at exuberance or human warmth. "It will send an error message if it detects a non-neutral expression," she said.
The ban is in effect at more than half of the agency's 74 offices statewide, Goheen said, including most Northern Virginia branches. It is expected to be in place at the remaining branches by the end of next month.
Nationwide, 37 motor vehicle agencies use facial recognition technologies, said Jason King, a spokesman for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. "Some focus on the entire face, and the states using those technologies find they work better for fraud prevention when customers have a neutral expression," he said.
King said he wasn't sure how many states had a smile ban. Maryland and the District do not have such bans and have yet to implement facial recognition software.
As for DMV patrons in Virginia, there is further cause for disappointment beyond the anti-smile rule. With the new system, state residents can no longer get their licenses and identification cards on the same day as their visits.
Instead, licenses and identification cards are now processed at a central facility in the southern Virginia city of Danville, then mailed to the customer's address a few days later. The new cards are loaded with security features, including tactile lettering, secondary photos and anti-tampering measures, and they will be phased in as state residents renew their licenses and ID cards, Goheen said.
Customers don't have to frown or anything like that, she said, and they can even grin a little, as long as they don't show any teeth.
"It's weird that you're not allowed to smile," said Christopher George, a 22-year-old from Manassas who had also been scolded when he tried to put forward a good face for his portrait. He worried that that the dour expression he had to adopt would put him at a disadvantage.
"I mean, when you get pulled over, you want a friendly picture for the cop to look at," he reasoned. On the loudspeaker overhead, a robotic voice summoned customers to the attendant windows by number, guided by some mysterious algorithm.
"It makes everyone look like criminals," said Arthur Freeman, 18, who needed no prompting to appear unhappy after waiting two hours for a motorcycle license. "I don't usually smile for these pictures anyway."
Nearby, 19-year-old Robert Nuckols, also of Manassas, returned to the waiting area after posing for his learner's permit photo. "We're at the DMV," he said. "Why would we smile?"
Nuckols said that when he took off his hat and sat down in front of the camera for his photo, the attendant directed him to look at a specific spot on the lens, between a pair of stickers. The stickers were smiley faces.
The Quackery of Chemotherapy, Gunpoint Medicine and the Disturbing Fate of 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) You see it in newspapers and websites across the 'net: People insisting that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must be injected with chemotherapy in order to "save his life," and that anyone refusing to go along with that is a criminal deserving of arrest and imprisonment.
What's most astonishing about the mainstream reaction to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser is not merely that they believe states now own the children, but that they believe in the entire world there exists but one single treatment for cancer, and it happens to be the one that makes pharmaceutical companies the most money. The arrogance (and ignorance) of that position is mind boggling.
There was once a time when western medical doctors believed that the heavy metal mercury was a medicine, too. They methodically used mercury to treat hundreds of different diseases and conditions, oblivious to the fact that they were actually poisoning people with this toxic heavy metal.
And yet, imagine if authorities had arrested parents for not treating their children with mercury. Imagine if they threw parents in prison for refusing their "mercury medicine." That would be equivalent to today's arrogant, misguided and extremely dangerous campaign to outlaw saying "no" to chemotherapy.
A brief history of medical quackeryIt was mercury, in fact, that led to the term "quack." Mercury is called "quicksilver," and those doctors who prescribed it were eventually discovered to be pushing toxic chemicals rather than any real medicine. They were initially called "quicks" and then later "quacks."
The quackery of those doctors prescribing mercury wasn't hard to miss: People taking the mercury would get extremely ill. Their hair would fall out. They would lose their appetite and experience extreme loss of body weight. Many would simply die from the toxicity.
Remarkably, these are the same side effects produced by chemotherapy. And today, chemotherapy doctors describe these side effects in precisely the same terms as the mercury quacks of a century ago, claiming the effects are "part of the healing process" and encouraging patients to find the courage to "just go through with it."
But let's pull our heads out of the muck here and acknowledge the obvious: Poisoning patients -- whether with mercury or chemotherapy -- will never produce healing. And the prescribing of such toxic chemicals to patients is little more than sophisticated quackery, backed by seemingly convincing data (which is actually based on scientific fraud) along with the urgings of cancer doctors who rely on highly manipulative fear tactics to corral patients into treatments that will only harm them.
Do parents have the right to protect their children from poison?
Today, the mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is on the run, having skipped out on the Minnesota court that ordered her to poison her own child. She is now considered criminally negligent by the state -- a parent who belongs behind bars and will likely be imprisoned when she is arrested at gunpoint.
And yet, I ask you this: What else could she have done? To appear in court and submit her child to chemical injections of a toxic substance would amount to child abuse. She is doing what any sensible parent would do: She's protecting her child from the poisons of the world, and standing up against the tyrants of modern medicine who so desperately seek to exploit her child for profit that they have actually turned to enforcing their business at gunpoint in order to do so.
It is interesting that pharmaceutical medicine is the only industry in America that's forced to recruit its patients at gunpoint.
I call it Gunpoint Medicine, and it is exactly as it sounds: The enforcing of medical quackery at gunpoint. It is also interesting that conventional medicine is so utterly (and arrogantly) convinced that its chemicals are the one and only solution for any disease, it now believes those who seek other healing modalities should be arrested and imprisoned.
It puts the operations of conventional (pharmaceutical) medicine in a whole new light (or darkness, as it were). Now, conventional medicine requires armed enforcers -- medical mercenaries who push patented chemicals at gunpoint. After all, without the threat of firearms toted by local law enforcement, the courts of Minnesota would have no leverage over the Hauser family. Conventional medicine is now paired with armed foot soldiers who effectively enforce the marketing of their products at the barrel of a gun.
And let's be clear about this: The decision of the Minnesota court is little more than the marketing of a modern form of quackery, enforced with the threat firearms.
I'll ask the obvious question: When faced with being threatened at gunpoint by doctors pushing toxic chemicals onto children, with their freedoms taken away and their parental rights trampled beyond recovery, do not these parents have the right to defend the lives and safety of their children with their own firearms? If an intruder barges through your front door armed with a syringe filled with toxic chemicals, and he tries to inject those chemicals into your son or daughter, you are well within your rights as a free citizen to shoot that intruder before he can harm your children.
Guns work both ways, after all, and firearms remain the last-ditch defense of citizens attempting to protect their lives and freedoms from tyrannical governments. The United States of America, of course, is founded on precisely such principles.
The State as criminalIt is never lawful or just for a government to kidnap children at gunpoint, to imprison their parents and injected their children with toxic chemicals merely because those parents seek more natural healing modalities. Technically, any citizen who is subjected to such tyrannical treatments has every right, under the U.S. Constitution, to defend their family members with the use of lethal force against such intruders. Just because those intruders happened to be on the state payroll does not make them any less criminal in their actions.
By comparison, car companies don't market their products at gunpoint. If you showed up at a car dealer and said, "I want a pickup truck," but they shoved a gun in your face and said, "No, you will buy a sedan or you will go to prison," you would probably think that's a bit insane.
Tourism companies don't market their services at gunpoint, either. If you went to a travel agent and said you wanted to take your family to Disneyland, but they whipped out a Colt 45, shoved it in your face, and said, "You're going to Alaska," you might be taken aback.
But modern medicine is now operating with the same terrorizing threat: You take your son to a doctor, asking for help, and he calls gun-toting law enforcement officials who essentially threaten you at gunpoint, saying, "You will choose chemotherapy or lose your children." That's what's happening today, right now, with the Hauser family and the state of Minnesota.
It just goes to show you how desperate the cancer industry is to thwart free choice. The most dangerous threat to pharmaceutical medicine is an informed mother who chooses to say no to toxic chemotherapy. And that is precisely why such choices are being criminalized.
It has nothing to do with the health of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser. It has everything to do with monopolizing the medical industry, putting fear into the minds of parents, and continuing a tradition of outright quackery that sells poison to patients while calling it "treatment."
And it has everything, of course, to do with asserting the power of tyrannical government over the People, controlling their behavior, erecting virtual prisons in their own minds that prevent them from venturing outside the bounds of "accepted" behavior. Modern medicine, in this way, is working in conspiracy with tyrannical government to turn People into medical slaves, and it is stripping away their freedoms, their choice and their very children in the process.
Top 10 Ways to Know You're Living in a Medical Police StateThursday, May 28, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Are Americans really living in a medical police state? The recent news with Daniel Hauser and his family's fight over chemotherapy seems to indicate so. Here are ten ways to recognize whether you're living under the oppressive tyranny of a medical police state.
#1 - If an armed U.S. Marshall is posted outside your house at night -- just to make sure you don't escape "treatment" -- you're probably living in a medical police state. Source: "Daniel was allowed to spend the night at home, but County Attorney James Olson said a deputy was posted at the Hauser farm in Sleepy Eye." (FoxNews)
#2 - If saying "I'd rather not inject my child with that poison" to your doctor results in him calling Child Protective Services, you're most likely living in a medical police state.
#3 - If a nationwide manhunt (involving FBI agents) is unleashed just to find you and drag you back to the hospital to submit to dangerous pharmaceuticals, there's little doubt you're living in a medical police state.
#4 - If you find yourself suddenly wondering if you should flee to Mexico in order to find freedom, you're probably living in a medical police state.
#5 - If doctors call the police to prevent you from visiting competing cancer clinics outside the country, that's a warning sign that you're living in a medical police state.
#6 - If your doctor claims to be practicing "integrative medicine" but then calls the police when you don't submit to chemotherapy, you're definitely living in a medical police state.Quote from Daniel Hauser's oncologist, Dr. Bostrom: "Although I've had patients concerned about getting chemo, this is the first time I've ever had to report someone." Source:
#7 - If you're blasted by the mainstream media for supporting a mother's right to protect her teenage son from an injection of toxic chemicals, you're almost certainly living in a medical police state (populated by sheeple).
#8 - If you walk into a hospital and they handcuff you, steal your child and forcibly inject him with dangerous poisons while explaining, "It's for your own good," then you're almost certainly living in a medical police state.
#9 - If the State calls you "medically negligent" for feeding your child raw foods, or medicinal herbs, or holistic diets that are free from sugar, red meat and chemical additives, then you're definitely living in a medical police state. (Fact: Parents who feed their children diets of raw, living foods have been accused of medical neglect.)
#10 - If you disagree with your psychiatrist, and in response he diagnosis you with "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" and demands you take his mind-altering psych drugs, you are absolutely living in a medical police state!
S. 909 Pedophile Protection Act
Democrats Ensure Hate Crimes Bill Includes Protecting Pedophiles
By Douglas V. Gibbs
May 7, 2009
As expected with the creeping incrementalism of the degradation of morality in America, under this sinister bill that accompanies H.R. 1913 (Hate Crimes Bill), S. 909 will give heightened protection to pedophiles. The Pedophile Protection Act, as some conservatives are calling it, along with the Hate Crimes Bill, is the first step toward criminalizing Christianity, and protecting all sexually deviant activities and behaviors.
“But how does this bill protect pedophiles?” one may ask.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, submitted that a simple sentence, an amendment, to H.R. 1913 in the House Judiciary Committee to read the following: The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
His suggestion was rejected. As the bill stands, if it passes for law, if you catch an adult in the act of raping a child, and use force to remove that person from the child, the pedophile can turn around and accuse you of assault, and claim it was a hate crime.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., in response to the outcry by King, and others, stated that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or “Paraphilias” listed by the APA. Hastings said on the House floor: This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘Philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
And now they are trying to ram this insidious bill through the Senate.
Call your Senators and scream out to them, “No, this bill cannot become law!”
‘Hate Crimes’ Bill is Full of Swill
Preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers, deviant sexual fetishes and perversionsBy Matt Barber
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal “hate crimes” bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I’ll join their little soirée, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.
To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups – including veterans, the elderly and the homeless – S. 909, in its current form, would grant special federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and – as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted on the House floor – a host of other APA recognized “sexual orientations” (i.e., deviant sexual fetishes and perversions).
Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required “equal protection of the laws;” it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government’s authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s how they’re doing it: In order for the feds to usurp the States’ police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly place, within the very language of the bill, a series of transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal power grab, they’ve been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce Clause.
In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement, S. 909’s sponsors have made – within the bill’s “Findings” section – several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to “interstate commerce.” So outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the Senate.
But since the bill’s Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy “findings” immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.
First, while addressing “hate crimes” allegedly motivated by so-called “sexual orientation” bias, the bill asserts that existing law is “inadequate to address this problem.” This is patently untrue. When the legislation’s 1968 “hate crimes” forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific wrong.
The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law. Victims are granted “equal protection of the laws” regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.
Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual activists and the mainstream media as the latest “hate crimes” cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down alleged “gay-bashing” assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations of systemic “homophobia.”
To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed “hate crimes” victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.
This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard’s memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being “gay.” Indeed, this very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”
The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation. Justice prevailed and existing law was undeniably “[adequate] to address this problem.”
In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was a homosexual or a cross-dresser. They won’t. They can’t.
But back to the interstate commerce charade: Here, the federal government’s own statistics serve to derail the “hate crimes” gravy train. According to the FBI, in 2007 – out of 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. – there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by the victim’s “sexual orientation.”
Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such “hate crimes.” So many, in fact, that it “poses a serious national problem.” The bill hysterically declares – while providing zero evidence – the following nonsense:
Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;
[T]he movment of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;
Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;
And, here’s the kicker. Wait for it …. Wait for it:
Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
So there you have it, folks. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be comical. But let’s make sure we have it straight. According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because right here, right now in America, it’s not at all unusual to witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed – yet wrongfully unemployed – “gays” and otherwise gender confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps, frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they’ve even had a chance to make a purchase, while inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them across state lines.
Don’t think I’ll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.
Administering Food and DrugsBy Nancy Levant
May 1, 2009
We need to step back and look at very fundamental clues which led to the freakish ignorance of the American people. Let us begin with health.
We the American people are the most drugged people on the planet. Senior citizens, bar none, are walking chemical experimentation organisms. With or without all the drugs, most seniors still die between the ages of 70 and 80, but the drugs that infect their systems are bizarre chemical cocktails and many are drugged to lethargy and death under the umbrella of humaneness or clinical trials.
For decades and decades, American women have been the recipients of sleeping pills, and anti-depression/psychotropic/mood-altering drugs. Today, it is sheik to partake in depression therapy and normal menstrual and menopause conditions have led to disease-style diagnostic chemical treatments. By default, American women may be the largest diagnosed (mental) population on the planet. As mental cases, make note they are also the mothers of American children. And these children are the most regularly and routinely-drugged children on the planet. Therefore, it is no surprise that schools partner with the mental health community as diagnostic gatekeepers for the drug industries that target our children and very often their mothers.
Couple all of this with America’s epidemic cancers, diabetes, hypertension, and multiple forms of old age and youth dementia, and the blurry drug trails from health to sickness come into controlled focus. We the people are the most regularly and routinely-drugged people in the world and we are also the largest global population of recreational drug users. In a nutshell, we are not ourselves; we are, in fact, chemically-altered.
Think, if you will, of the absolute and unquestioned reality of American parents who mass-drug their infants beginning at birth, and continuing this mindless pattern throughout childhood. American drugging does, in fact, begin at birth and continues full out through death, unquestioned. We are not ourselves; we are an induced population.
Next, we must look at the American diet. The last three generations of American people ate primarily non-foods. Grocery store breads, pastas, crackers, snacks, breakfast cereals, soda pops, and over-the-counter candies are not food. Most grains that we now eat are not food. Prior to the food pyramid, we were a far, far healthier population. But our national health plummeted with the onslaught of genetically-modified produce, coupled with the infamous food pyramid which encouraged our grain spaced (translation: vegetarian) diets.
When our grandparents were eating non-hormoned, non-vaccinated meat, genetically-pure produce, lard and butter, whole milk, and home made desserts, there were no epidemic cancers, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, old age and youth dementia, and there was no mass drugging of the population. However, we now have three to four generations of change to deal with and that change is clearly, absolutely evident in the intellectual dulling of we the people. We are not ourselves.
No matter what you believe or disbelieve about chemtrailing, something is sprayed from very high-flying jets into the atmosphere, all over the nation, in all 50 states, and for years. No one can seemingly pin down these events, rumors abound, but something is sprayed from jets, and that something spreads from horizon to horizon in all 50 states. Weather modification? Who knows? Our government certainly does not clarify, nor even mention the non-stop spraying campaign. But as we can see the chemtrail substances, let us therefore assume they are substances.
City water is treated. Bottled water, who knows? Third world produce, who knows? But the facts remain that we the people are sick in strange and unusual ways and depopulation of the planet is a global agenda item. The United States, as we know, is the sacrificial lamb of the global vision, including the Constitutional nation and her Americanized people.
When you look at the change vision, you must also look back several generations to capture the essence of this change. People themselves have changed. We are an unhealthy population by virtue of corporate power and federal intervention and mandates. We are a weaker people than we once were because we are chemically-altered by design and often times by law. A vision has many, many meanings. Look it up. You will find the word “trance” for instance. Just remember this, mass population-reduction is a mandate of the global vision. Equally, pandemic has been media-hammered for at least a decade and experimental super-virus manufacturing is: 1. Reality, and 2. One more impending crisis.
Funny how the only growing job markets are: 1. Government jobs, and 2. Health care jobs. Therefore, expect a government-controlled crisis in health care. Oh, gosh, right again.
Also, never forget that Agenda 21 calls for vegetarianism. Mad Cow, Swine Flu, Bird Flu, mercury in fish. Does that not just about cover our animal food products? When you think of “visions”, think of agenda, agenda, agenda.
So, is national ignorance bliss when coupled with epidemic alcoholism, epidemic drug addiction, both prescription and recreational, fast-acting caffeine addictions to supersonic caffeine drinks marketed to kids, psychotropic and anti-depression drugs, our new-fangled sex drive and anti-pregnancy drugs, mandatory and life-long vaccines, and old age and infant chemical cocktails?
And what are the results of chemically-based living coupled with the most powerful and far-reaching addictive drug of all called tell-a-vision? The drug that tells you what to think, what to believe, what is right and wrong, what your opinions are and are not, what to wear and how to look, what to weigh and what to eat and not eat, what to do and not do, where to live, how to travel, how to spend your money, what to drive, and to worship nature.
Nature? Meaning “natural”? How blissful do you feel right about now, or more specifically, how stupid? Well, dream on visioners! You are indeed “visions” by design. You couldn’t have an independent thought if it smacked you in the face. Have a drink. Take a pill. Watch your tell-a-vision. Do as told. Think as told. Be as told. Mass ignorance is somebody’s bliss. Can you say food and drug enforcement, or shall we say administration?
And Now for Meghan McCain’s Plan to Save the Republican Party
By Daniel Greenfield
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Satire - (Sultan Knish was not available to write a blog post today. In his place we present this insightful piece from guest columnist Meghan McCain)
How I Can Save the Republican Party
By Meghan McCain
So today I was like in the bathroom, brushing my teeth and thinking about what’s going to be in my memoir (which by the way I just sold to Hyperion for 600 thousand. Nice, right?) and I had a great idea how to save the Republican Party. What was that? No I’m busy right now.
You know my generation doesn’t like the Republican Party and the name is totally a huge problem. Who wants to vote for people named “Republicans” anyway? What is a Republican? What does that word even mean? I opened up a dictionary and it said something about a Republic, which is some kind of magazine or something. And if I don’t know what it means, no one knows what it means. So why do we even have the name? It’s like all those weird signs on the back of a dollar bill which I swear begin to hypnotize me if I look at them for too long. So I totally am in love with the Republican party, but the name has to go. We need to call it something short and cool, like Google. I mean if the Republican Party was called something like Google or Prada or Yahoo, it would have a much better image.
Hold on a second I have to get the phone… yeah what? No I’m ordering in. Is this thing still typing? No don’t type that. How do I shut this off? Okay back to the issues. You can’t graduate from the Fashion Institute of Technology and not learn a thing or two about politics. Also I spent a lot of time with my dad, who’s big in politics and stuff. He has his own office in Washington D.C. and ran for President a few times. So I’m completely up on this stuff, you don’t have to worry.
Lately I’ve been working on helping the Republican party (which I totally love) back on track with my columns, and my blogging and twitter. And also going on CNN and morning shows to denounce everyone in the party who sucks. Which is basically everyone except my dad. The Republican party is stuck. It has a dumb name and no one likes us. Which sucks because we could totally rock if they gave us the chance. But we need to make some major changes around here.
First thing we gotta dump all this family values stuff. No one likes that except old people. And who needs their votes anyway? If the party’s gonna connect to people under 25, we’ve gotta be the party party. (Memo, what if we just call ourselves “The Party” with no name. Like “Le Bag” or “The Club”. I should totally twitter that.) Also we have to stop being against illegal immigration. I mean where are we going to get the help from? There’s some things you can’t pay American citizens 3 dollars an hour to do. Like put citrus peels wrapped in cabbage leaves between your toes.
And intolerance. I have lots of gay friends and I hate that we’ve become the intolerant party. What’s the big deal about recognizing gay marriage anyway? It’s like reporters who keep spelling my name Megan McCain, instead of Meghan McCain. Hello, there’s an H in there. Are you people blind or something? Why can’t you recognize that it’s Meghan. It’s the H that makes me special.
And we gotta do something about the economy. It’s not like I’m strapped for money or anything. (600,000 dollar advance from Hyperion, Hello!) but once I went to buy some lipstick and I left my American Express at home and that moment I knew how poor people felt. Some of them don’t even have American Express cards!!! ):
I have lots of great ideas like that, but the Republican party is old and won’t listen to me. That’s why I have to go out there and tell off all those stupid radio talk show people (Hello, who even listens to the radio anymore? If Rush Limbaugh wanted to matter, he should be on Twitter like me. 25,000 followers and counting! :D) and Karl Rove and the Christians.
The only way the Republican party is ever going to matter to bored rich twenty somethings like me, is if we stop being old and start being cool. Forget Joe the Plumber, we need Will Smith. Lincoln, take a hike. Hello, no one uses pennies anymore. Or five dollar bills. Except maybe in North Phoenix.
Anyway I gotta go write my memoirs now. I’ve got a whole two chapters in them about not being able to find a date, and I’m working on a third one now telling off people who think I’m fat. Sure you might not think that’s important, but I do. And like that black guy who has his own holiday, I have a dream.
I have a dream that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be our candidate in 2012. The candidate of “The Party.” And he’s not even going to have a platform. We’ll just have magazine covers with his face on it on every poster that will say “Arnold 2012”. Nothing else. Because you don’t need policies or issues anymore to be President, just a cool image. And action figures. Stop thinking and start talking a lot about yourself. It’s not about America anymore, it’s about You. And mainly me. It’s about being exciting and cutting edge. Everyone wants to be a celebrity (not me, because I already am :) and if we harness that power, we can win. I just know it. But first we’re going to have to get rid of everyone who isn’t with it. I’m working on that right now. Off to do CNN.
Megan McCain is a columnist for the Daily Beast, whose insightful columns continue to educate dozens of Americans about the dangers of hair extensions and Republican extremism, and will shortly be talking to a very drunken Jack Cafferty shortly about how much trouble she’s having finding a date for her book release party.
Deeper Digital Penetration
The expanding invasion of the naked body scannersBy William Saletan
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The naked body scanners are taking over.
When we first checked in on them two years ago, the scanners, which see through clothing, were being deployed at a single airport. A few months later, they were upgraded to millimeter-wave technology, which delivered similar images with even less radiation—"10,000 times less than a cell phone transmission," according to the Transportation Security Administration. At the time, TSA assured us that the scanners would be used only as a "voluntary alternative" to "a more invasive physical pat-down during secondary screening." Only a few passengers, the ones selected for extra scrutiny, would face the scanners. The rest of us could walk through the metal detectors and board our planes.
Surprise! Two months ago, TSA revised its position. It began testing millimeter-wave scans "in the place of the walk-through metal detector at six airports." At these airports, everyone—not just people selected for secondary screening—would face the see-through machines. Anyone who objected would "undergo metal detector screening and a pat-down." You might even get the "enhanced pat-down," which includes "sensitive areas of the body that are often used by professional testers and terrorists," such as "the breast and groin areas of females and the groin area of males." Show us your body, or we'll feel you up.
Now the plan is going nationwide. Joe Sharkey of the New York Times reports that TSA "plans to replace the walk-through metal detectors at airport checkpoints with whole-body imaging machines—the kind that provide an image of the naked body." All passengers will "go through the whole-body imager instead of the walk-through metal detector," according to TSA's chief technology officer, and the machines will begin operating soon after orders are placed this summer.
When the scanners first appeared, I endorsed them. When they were upgraded to millimeter-wave technology, I endorsed them again. I gave two reasons. One reason was that a scan was less invasive than a pat-down. The other reason was that TSA promised to blur your face and keep your scan private, so that nobody would ever connect your name to your revealed body. That, I argued, was a sufficient kind of privacy in the age of terrorism.
Now I'm having second thoughts. I still like the technology. It's the people behind it who worry me. Yes, the scan is less invasive than the pat-down. But TSA has just demonstrated its ability and willingness to move the goalposts. When TSA offered pat-downs as the alternative to body scans in secondary screening, the scan sounded pretty good. Now TSA is offering pat-downs as the alternative to body scans in primary screening, and again, the scan sounds better. And if TSA announces tomorrow that pat-downs are the new alternative for all train or bus passengers, body scans will seem preferable there, too. Anywhere we're threatened with pat-downs, we'll settle for body scans. Where does it end?
And what about the content of the scans? Two years ago, I linked to a scan that seemed to expose every intimate body contour of TSA's research lab director. TSA argued that the picture was moot because its machines (which at the time used backscatter technology) had been upgraded with a "privacy algorithm" to obscure such features. But you won't find the phrase privacy algorithm on that page anymore; it's been scrubbed. In fact, privacy algorithm has completely disappeared from TSA's Web site. So have the images that used to show a frontal backscatter image of a male passenger. All you can find on TSA's millimeter-wave page are four scans shrunk to a size so tiny you'd need a magnifying glass to make sense of them. Good luck figuring out how much they show—and why they look nothing like the image depicted in a video (WMV file) on the TSA site.
Why should I care what the government says or depicts about its latest scanner image or blurring technology, when the technology and the depictions keep changing? The lesson of the escalating body scans, like the escalating pat-downs, is that TSA will do whatever it thinks it needs to do. Last year, when the agency announced its "enhanced" pat-downs, it explained:
As the ongoing terror trial in London clearly illustrates, terrorists actively look for ways to manipulate security protocols. Intelligence has also shown for decades, terrorists' manipulation of societal norms to evade detection or use social engineering techniques to their advantage. Terrorists have successfully hidden explosives in these areas. ... TSA developed this pat down as a measure to close the gap on items hidden on sensitive areas of the body.
In other words, any detail omitted by airport screeners—a blurred crotch in the body scan, an untouched groin during the pat-down—becomes a "gap" exploited by terrorists or testers, which must then be closed.
"The enhanced pat-down will be used only after all other screening methods have been used and the alarm remains unresolved," TSA promised last year. It added: "This new procedure will affect a very small percentage of travelers."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what you said about the body scans. Just put on the gloves and get it over with.
Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!
Green Gestapo, EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant”By Alan Caruba
Saturday, April 18, 2009
If the Environmental Protection Agency were some benign government unit tucked away in the corner of some massive federal government building, we could safely conclude it was doing its job to keep the nation’s air and water clean.
It is the very antithesis of that. It is a Green Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with all aspects of the nation’s industrial and agricultural communities, run roughshod over property rights, declared puddles to be navigable waters, and removed invaluable, beneficial chemicals from use to protect the lives and property of all Americans.
In much the same way as the FBI maintains a “Ten Most Wanted” list of criminals, so does the EPA.
The EPA’s former director, Carol Browner, was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International, described by Steven Milloy of as “a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause.” Socialist International’s principles are the communist principles set forth by Karl Marx.
Browner is presently the chief White House advisor to the President on environmental issues.
The announcement that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and all so-called greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare now clears the way to regulate every single economic activity in the nation, most notably the emissions from automobiles.
The EPA is poised to further ruin the quintessentially American auto industry with regulatory power that will determine what kind of automobile Americans will be permitted to drive, limiting the use of internal combustion, and forcing the purchase of high cost hybrids and those run on massive batteries.
Naturally, the announcement was greeted with joy by the likes of the demented Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and a panoply of environment organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund.
The EDF hailed the announcement saying “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change.” Vickie Patton, EDF’s deputy general counsel, went on to say “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity.”
Only there is NO global warming and there is NOTHING that the U.S. government or all the governments of all the nations of the world can do about “climate change.” This is a “threat” that does not exist!
What the EPA and other elements of government can and will do is use the international “global warming” hoax to pass new laws and more regulations to destroy the economic viability of all activities that utilize energy.
Here’s why CO2 and the so-called “greenhouse” gases do not perform a “greenhouse” function. As explained by retired analytical chemist, Hans Schreuder:
“With no atmosphere at all, our moon is very hot in sunshine (over 100°C) and very cold in the shade (less than minus 150°C).”
“With earth receiving as good as the same amount of solar irradiation, our atmosphere thus acts as a cooling medium during the hours of sunshine and a blanket during the hours of darkness.”
“Global warming, global cooling and all climate change is caused by the daily revolutions of our earth around its own axis, throughout which time the varying amounts of heat gained during the day and similar variations of heat lost during the night make the weather what it is: ranging from plus 50°C to minus 50°C (even more extreme in places), unpredictable beyond a few days and at times violent or totally quiet.”
“That’s quite apart from the seasonal differences caused by the annual trip around the sun and the varying distance that our planet revolves around our sun and we’re not even considering even greater forces of influence.”
The entire white paper is available at
Throughout its history the EPA has deliberately distorted actual science to advance its own warped “environmental” agenda. This EPA ruling permits the government to control all aspects of CO2 emissions, short of the exhalation of CO2 by human beings.
Humans emit CO2. Animals emit CO2. And energy use emits CO2.
It is not a “pollutant” or a threat to health; it is a natural gas vital to all life on Earth via the process of photosynthesis by all plant life. Without CO2 all vegetation dies and with it all animal life.
Congress has a long record of restricting access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Our “dependency”; the importation of these energy sources is entirely the result of national policies. Now add thousands of regulations on all USE of energy.
Some will mark the announcement as the beginning of the decline of the American economy, but the U.S. government has long been engaged in all manner of control over everything required for a successful economy.
What begins is the end to the abundant choices Americans have always had regarding the manufacture, distribution, and purchase of anything and everything common to our present lifestyle.
It is a cruel despotism that has been unleashed on all Americans.
EPA Says CO2 a Threat to Human Health, Paves Way For Backdoor Tax on All Sectors of U.S. EconomyCarbon Dioxide regulated, rationed and restricted by the federal governmentBy Institute for Energy Research
Friday, April 17, 2009
Washington, D.C.—Institute for Energy Research (IER) president Thomas J. Pyle today issued the following statement in response to the announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that carbon dioxide is a threat to human health and welfare, and as such: must be regulated, rationed and restricted by the federal government.
“Carbon is lighter than oxygen, more abundant than nitrogen, and forms the basis of all human, plant and animal life on earth. At least it did yesterday. Today, it’s a danger to human health and, upon meeting air, a clear and present threat to our existence. That was the pronouncement made by the EPA today, and it will be one this generation and others that follow will not soon forget.
“In defending today’s decision, EPA was quick to promise that the rationing of carbon dioxide would only have limited application. This is incorrect. EPA will start by issuing new regulations on cars. Next will come restrictions on stationary sources. After that: the wholesale regulation of anything that uses oil, natural gas, or coal. And it won’t end there. If carbon dioxide is deemed a threat, other greenhouse gases like water, vapor and methane must be too.
“While the American people will need to wait a few more months to see how today’s announcement manifests itself in their daily lives, we know one thing for sure: EPA is about to become the largest, most powerful and most distended government agency in American history. And that alone should give every American who has a job, or may want one in the future, reason for serious concern.”
7 Senate Republicans Reply to DHS ‘Rightwing Extremists’ Scaremongering
Asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory reportBy Warner Todd Huston
Friday, April 17, 2009
Seven Republican Senators have this week signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory report on so-called rightwing extremism in the Untied States.
The seven scold the DHS and the Obama administration for its over-broad generalizations that seem to assume that nearly half the electorate is prone to becoming terrorists merely because they hold right of center political views.
The letter alludes to the central point in this whole episode: that the U.S. government has now determined that the traditional American beliefs of small government and adherence to the Constitution is now suddenly a determinant in forming citizens into homegrown terrorist groups. After 200 years, all of a sudden believing in run-of-the-mill American beliefs makes you a terrorist! These seven Senators want to know why.
Text of the Letter:Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.
First, your report states that “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.” Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS’s independent data.
Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.
In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.
David Vitter (R, Louis.) Sam Brownback (R, Kansas) Jim Demint (R, So Car.) Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma) Richard Burr (R, No. Car.) Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska) James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)
Let’s hope that far more than a mere seven Congressmen find this “report” more than a little distasteful.
My Response to M.I.A.C. Report
By Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2009
By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Illegal Immigration
Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."
However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."
The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?
Accordingly, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I wrote a formal letter to the above-named Missouri officials demanding "that the following-described document be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC; that the said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof or associated therewith; and that the state of Missouri repudiate its references to the three of us contained therein."
To view the full text of our letter to Governor Nixon of Missouri, click here.
Ladies and gentlemen, we simply cannot allow this kind of police profiling to continue. I assure you, this phenomenon is not limited to the State of Missouri. Every state that has a "Fusion Center" is being fed this kind of nonsense on a regular basis. You and I are commonly referred to as "extremists" in these secret police reports. This has been happening in earnest for the past couple of months and is operating under the auspices of the federal Department of Homeland Security. And people with a public platform (such as myself, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and a host of others) are now being singled out by name. How long will it be before police agencies begin "picking up and hauling away" those people whose names are mentioned in these reports? It may be sooner than we think.
To see if your state has a "Fusion Center," click here.
The only thing that will stymie this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. Yes, the people of this country (that means YOU) still have the power to put a stop to this kind of totalitarian thinking. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to stop it. We either stop it now, or it will quickly mushroom into a leviathan that will both monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country. No, I am not exaggerating.
The Feds already monitor virtually every phone call, email, and public speech in the country. How long before these secret police reports will be used as justification to arrest and incarcerate people because of their ideas and opinions, labeling them as a "threat" or as "dangerous" to society?
Here is the contact information for the appropriate officials in Missouri:
Email address:
Missouri Information Analysis CenterDivision of Drugs & Crime ControlP. O. Box 568Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568Phone: 573-751-6422Toll Free: 866-362-6422Fax: 573-751-9950
And while you are at it, you should also contact the state police agency as well as the governor's office in your state, especially if your state has a "Fusion Center" (see web site above). Mark it down: if you have ever publicly opposed any of the above-mentioned issues or organizations, or have ever publicly supported an independent Presidential candidate, You Are Being Profiled Right Now!We await the State of Missouri's response. In the meantime, what are you going to do?
P.S. Even as this column is being distributed, we have just received a reply from the Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety, John Britt. I will analyze and respond to this statement in my next column.

Missouri State Police Think You and I are TerroristsBy Chuck Baldwin
March 17, 2009
Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as "'militia' influenced terrorists." The report, he said, "instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties."
Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called "militia movement" and "conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order."
This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated "defenders" of the Constitution as "right-wing extremists." However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.
According to the MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a potential threat to the police. The MIAC report also refers to Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism."
The story exposing the MIAC report states, "The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists."
See the report here:
The Columbia Daily Tribune also carried the story last Saturday. It quoted Missouri resident Tim Neal of Miller County. "When Neal read the report, he couldn't help but think it described him. A military veteran and a delegate to the 2008 Missouri Republican state convention, he didn't appreciate being lumped in with groups like the Neo-Nazis.
"'I was going down the list and thinking, "Check, that's me,"' he said. 'I'm a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I've got the "America: Freedom to Fascism" video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I'm a domestic terrorist? Because I've got a video about the Federal Reserve?'"
The Tribune's report also acknowledges, "The [MIAC] report's most controversial passage states that militia 'most commonly associate with third-party political groups' and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional [sic] Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year."
The Tribune report also said, "Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won't know whether it's because he was speeding or because of his political views."
See the Columbia Tribune report here:
I realize that there are people who will dismiss this kind of story as insignificant. They shouldn't. This is very serious and should be treated as such. Anyone who knows anything at all about history knows that before a state or national government can persecute--and commit acts of violence against--a group of people, they must first marginalize the group from society's mainstream and categorize it as dangerous.
Rome did exactly that to Christians, as did Mao's China; Hitler's Germany did the same thing to Jews; Stalin's Russia did the same thing to political dissenters, etc. That a State police agency in America would actually infer that people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself in a political campaign are somehow indistinguishable from violence-prone "militias" is beyond insulting: it is a smear campaign, and might should even be regarded as a hate crime!
Beyond that, the MIAC report paints with a very broad brush. In addition to supporting Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, a review of the report reveals that opposition to any of the following risks someone being classified as a potential "domestic terrorist":
The New World OrderThe United NationsGun ControlThe violation of Posse ComitatusThe Federal ReserveThe Income TaxThe Ammunition Accountability ActA possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)The North American UnionUniversal Service ProgramRadio Frequency Identification (RFID)Abortion on demandIllegal Immigration
Again, if you oppose any of the above, or if you supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, you risk being labeled a "domestic terrorist," according to the MIAC.
Do you not see how dangerous this kind of slanderous labeling can become? It could affect your flight status when you try to board an airline. It could affect your application for sensitive jobs. It could affect your adjudication before a court or judge. It could make you a target for aggressive law enforcement strategies. It could affect your being able to obtain a passport. It could affect one's ability to purchase a firearm or receive a State concealed weapon permit.
This is very serious business! We are not talking about private opinions. We are talking about law enforcement agencies. And remember, most law enforcement agencies share these types of reports; therefore, how many other state police agencies have similar reports floating around? Probably several. Plus, how do we know that this report was not influenced by federal police agencies? We don't.
Rest assured, I do not plan to take this lying down. As one who is personally named in the above report, I demand a public retraction and apology from the MIAC and Missouri State Police. I can tell you that my family is extremely distraught that their husband, father, and grandfather would be labeled in such a manner. I am also not ruling out legal action. In addition, I am discussing an appropriate response with Ron Paul and Bob Barr. I will keep readers posted as to what comes of these discussions (as I am at liberty to do so, of course).
In the meantime, I encourage everyone who believes in the freedom of speech and who believes that the MIAC report is an egregious miscarriage of justice to contact the appropriate Missouri police officials. Here is the contact information:
Email address:
Missouri Information Analysis CenterDivision of Drugs & Crime ControlP. O. Box 568Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568Phone: 573-751-6422Toll Free: 866-362-6422Fax: 573-751-9950
And lest one thinks that none of this concerns him or her, I would like to remind you of the lament of Martin Niemoeller back in the days of Hitler's Germany. Niemoeller was a decorated U-Boat Captain and pastor of great distinction. An avid anti-communist, Niemoeller at first supported Hitler's rise to power and was hesitant to oppose the violations of civil rights against various groups he personally found distasteful. It did not take long, however, before Niemoeller realized that when laws protecting the rights of all were removed from some, no one was safe--including him. Unfortunately, he learned his lesson too late, as he, too, was persecuted and imprisoned by Hitler's State Police. Here is what Niemoeller said about his indifference:
"They came first for the communists, and I did not speak up-because I was not a communist;And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up - because I was not a trade unionist;And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew;And then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak up."
So, those of you who think you have nothing to fear because you did not vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or me, or because you do not live in the State of Missouri need to think again. As I have repeatedly said, we either have freedom for all, or we have freedom for none. Truly, secret police reports such as the one above threaten the liberties of us all.
So, will you speak up now or wait until they come for you and no one is left to speak up?
Did Obama Say We Should Kill the Old Folks to Save Money Last Night?Healthcare could be cheaper if we don't give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now getBy Warner Todd Huston
Thursday, June 25, 2009
I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don’t give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren’t worth the effort. Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn’t have hesitated to call him any manner of names.
Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that “evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve” the patient’s health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Obama offered a question on the efficacy of further care for his grandmother saying, “and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?”
But who is it that will present the “evidence” that will “show” that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.
Does your homebuilder negotiate with your city hall over whether you get a building permit, or does the permit get levied no matter what? Does a cop decide if you really broke the law, or does he simply arrest you and let the courts hash it out? Does your tax preparer negotiate with the IRS or is he supposed to just calculate your tax bill on their terms and have you pay the required amount?
Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won’t be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else’s.
Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the “murderer”?
So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren’t worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won’t be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won’t be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won’t be Obama’s buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.
Ah, but we are told that Obama’s ideas on healthcare are “evolving,” dontcha know? During the recent campaign for president (that was only 7 months ago, if you’ll recall) Obama insisted that he would never tax your healthcare benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan. Lately, however, he’s “evolved” toward saying that such a new tax is on the table. What about his stance against fining people and businesses that don’t join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before. Now he’s “evolved.”
Originally, he said it was “healthcare for all,” but as of Wednesday night, it seems he’s “evolved” to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to died and/or suffer. If he does any more “evolving” we’ll all be finding just who is “worth” what as far as he and his Democrats are concerned. Somehow I’d guess that many of you reading this today won’t quite be worth as much as certain others!
Let’s hope none of us are ever in a position to find out if Obamacare deems our grandmothers worth saving.
And what ever happened to the left’s mantra that healthcare is a “right” and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it’s just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm? Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the “murderer”?
Stimulus Bill: Democrats Calling for Elimination of Senior Citizens?Obama’s faux “stimulus bill”, Socialist Universal HealthcareBy Sher Zieve
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Covertly slipped into GL Obama’s faux “stimulus bill” last weekend—by leftist Democrats—was the Socialist Universal Healthcare program. Contained within the bill is the provision that doctors will now be forced to report any and all of their patient treatments to the federal government for approval to treat.
Also contained within this portion of Obama’s non-stimulus bill is the rationing of healthcare services to senior US citizens and the withholding of potentially life-saving measures. As Democrat Tom Daschle wrote in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” senior citizens “should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age.” Daschle does not appear to believe that senior citizens (apparently the government’s definition of “senior citizen” is not defined) that seniors should accept their inevitable deaths without complaining. That is, senior citizens who are not members of the elite ruling class. Daschle’s medical conditions, of course, would not be applicable to these provisions.
Note: Edward G. Robinson’s death scene in the movie ‘Soylent Green’ comes immediately to mind.
Contained within this anything-but-job-stimulus-bill is—I gather—the ability of another of the Obama Administration’s soon to be formed departments that will determine who can and cannot receive medical treatment. This is not only Socialized medicine but, provides the inherent ability for Obama and his minions, yet, another way to rid themselves of those deemed to be political enemies. For example, if someone who vocally opposes the Democrats’ secular messiah has a medical condition that requires treatment, the now-in-charge-of-all-treatment-options-for-ALL-OF-the-American-people federal government can and will determine whether or not that individual can receive any treatment at all! It also has the added benefit—as Daschle seems to be pushing in his book—of eliminating those pesky seniors. And—for decades—seniors have voted en masse for Democrats over Republicans. This is another Democrat Party “thanks now go away and die.” Is anyone out there getting scared yet?
Were those of you who voted for Obama expecting this? Do you agree that Obama should have the power to tell your doctor if he or she can treat you for illnesses? Are you in favor of this and the other non-economic stimulus portions of Obama’s bill—portions that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars that we and generations to come will all have to pay? Is this really what you had in mind when you voted this entity into office?
Did you who cast your ballots for Obama really vote for a dictator? Well…it’s what you and we who didn’t vote for him now have. If you want to know your future, look to an even more tyrannical Venezuela than Hugo Chavez has created. And three Obama-adherent Senators voting for Obama’s bill are named Specter, Collins and Snow. Sickening …