Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Big Brother tightens choke hold on Internet U.N., FCC intensify efforts to regulate electronic speech

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and senior managing director of the Financial Services Group at Gilford Securities.

The United Nations is now joining the Obama administration and Democratic commissioners on the FCC in an attempt to regulate the Internet, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

"The U.N. is reacting to concerns of member governments, including the United States, that the Internet has made companies like WikiLeaks possible, while the FCC is more concerned about conservative news outlets on the Internet that are increasingly undermining government attempts to control the news through sympathetic mainstream media outlets," Corsi wrote.

"What is at stake is the future of electronic free-speech rights, as governments around the world realize how much less control government authorities have with a robust and critical press able to operate freely on the Internet."

Australia's reported that the U.N. is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to "harmonize" global efforts by policymakers to regulate the Internet.

The U.N. claims authority to regulate the Internet under a U.N. Economic and Social Council resolution passed in July that invited the U.N. secretary-general to begin discussions on coordinating government efforts to regulate the Internet on a global basis.

"Obviously, the U.N. is uncomfortable with anything like the Internet that the globalists cannot control," Corsi wrote.

Meanwhile, the FCC is preparing in its Dec. 21 meeting this week to vote on a proposal called "net neutrality."

For more information on the "net neutrality" rules and government attempts to regulate the Internet, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."

Red Alert's author, who received a doctorate from Harvard in political science in 1972, is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and (with co-author John E. O'Neill) "Unfit for Command." He is also the author of several other books, including "America for Sale," "The Late Great U.S.A." and "Why Israel Can't Wait." In addition to serving as a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily, Corsi is a senior managing director in the financial-services group at Gilford Securities.

Disclosure: Gilford Securities, founded in 1979, is a full-service boutique investment firm headquartered in New York City providing an array of financial services to institutional and retail clients, from investment banking and equity research to retirement planning and wealth-management services. The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author are his alone and do not necessarily reflect Gilford Securities Incorporated's views, opinions, positions or strategies. Gilford Securities Incorporated makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability or validity of any information expressed herein and will not be liable for any errors, omissions or delays in this information or any losses, injuries or damages arising from its display or use.

American slain in Israel to be buried in US

JERUSALEM (AP) - The reverend of an American tourist killed in an Israeli forest last week said Tuesday she will be buried in the United States after a memorial service in Jerusalem later this week.

David Pileggi of Christ Church in Jerusalem said the family of Kristine Luken has not said when or where she will be buried.

Luken's friend Kaye Susan Wilson said the pair were hiking on Saturday when two Arab men attacked them, binding their hands and stabbing them. Wilson, a naturalized Israeli citizen from the U.K., escaped after playing dead. Police found Luken's body the next day.

Police suspect the attack was politically motivated, though it could have been criminal. No arrests have been made.

Luken often visited Israel with a group that promotes Christianity among Jews.

Luken's family has declined to disclose her home town, but property and telephone records indicate that she lived in Loudoun County, Virginia, before moving to Nottingham, England, last year to work for a Christian group.

That organization, the Church's Ministry among Jewish People, said Luken was appointed administrator of its U.K. operations in October 2009.

The U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday the 44-year-old woman once worked for the agency.

Why! Tell Me Why? - U.S. armed 'peace partner' despite Israeli warning Concerned that American assault rifles, ammo would be used to kill Jews

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Palestinians hold posters of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Arafat at a rally in the Palestinian Authority's headquarters in Ramallah, West Bank, commemorating the sixth anniversary of the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, November 11, 2010. Thousands of Palestinians gathered from the West Bank to show support for President Abbas and his Fatah Party. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas police banned Fatah supporters from holding a rally to mark the anniversary of Arafat's death. - UPI/Debbie Hill Photo via Newscom

JERUSALEM – The Israeli government expressed deep concern that military equipment and assault rifles transferred to the Palestinian Authority by the U.S. will end up in the wrong hands and could be used against the Jewish state, according to secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks and reviewed by WND.

Despite this concern, the U.S. government continued to transfer large quantities of rifles and ammunition to the PA, with some Palestinian gunmen admitting to WND the rifles may be used to attack Israel.

Israeli Security Agency head Yuval Diskin told the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv in a June 2007 meeting that he was concerned about the transfer of American weapons to the PA, according to a cable of June 13, 2007.

Diskin noted that he had heard earlier that month from Palestinian sources that Hamas had succeeded in stealing some heavy machine guns from the U.S.-supported PA.

He noted the incidents as an example of why he does not support a U.S. proposal to supply ammunition and weapons to PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah militia.

"I support the idea of militarily strengthening Fatah, but I am afraid that they are not organized to ensure that the equipment that is transferred to them will reach the intended recipients," stated Diskin, according to the cable.

Diskin also warned Fatah-aligned security forces have been penetrated by Hamas.

He reiterated in the meeting that he does not want to see any equipment transferred to them before he is convinced that it will arrive at its intended destination.

Diskin was speaking after major clashes erupted between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip. The clashes eventually escalated, resulting in a Hamas takeover of Gaza.

Despite the Israeli warning, the U.S. in the summer of 2007 infused Fatah with thousands of American-made assault rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition, according to Israeli security officials speaking to WND.

WND published a series of exposes in 2007 showing how U.S.-backed security forces were infiltrated by Hamas.

WND also reported on numerous instances in which Hamas seized American weapons when it took over Gaza in 2007.

Since the late 1990s, the U.S. has run training bases for PA militias. The U.S. also has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid and weapons to build up the PA militias.

Over the past two years, the U.S. stepped up its efforts at training the PA, running more advanced courses guided by Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator to the Palestinian territories, who in 2007 initiated an advanced program for Palestinian police to train 500 to 600 cadets at a time at the American bases.

The U.S. currently operates training bases for the PA police and other militias, such as Force 17 and the Preventative Security Services in the West Bank city of Jericho and the Jordanian village of Giftlik.

Nevertheless, Israeli security officials here continue to warn they are concerned Abbas' Fatah organization in the West Bank is infiltrated by Hamas just as it was in Gaza in 2007.

Hamas' infiltration of Fatah in Gaza was so extensive, according to top Palestinian intelligence sources, it included the chiefs of several prominent Fatah security forces, including Yussef Issa, director of the Preventative Security Services, the main Fatah police force. Issa regularly coordinated security with the U.S. and Israel.

Terrorists double as police officers

Many members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist organization serve openly in the various PA militias, including in top positions. The Brigades, the declared military wing of Abbas' Fatah organization, is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks aimed at Jewish civilian population centers. Most Brigades members received U.S. or European training as part of the PA security forces.

While U.S. policy considers Abbas to be moderate, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

Abbas previously appointed senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Mahmoud Damra as commander of the Force 17 Palestinian security unit. Damra, who was arrested by Israel in November 2006, was on the Jewish state's most-wanted list of terrorists. In his role as Force 17 commander, Damra regularly coordinated security with the U.S.

Much of the senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leadership in the important West Bank Fatah stronghold of Nablus attended U.S.-run training courses, including Ala Senakreh, the former Brigades chief in Nablus, and Senakreh's deputy, Nasser Abu Aziz. Both Aziz and Senakreh in June 2007 received amnesty from Israel on condition they disarm and refrain from terrorist activities. The Al Aqsa Brigades chief in Ramallah, Abu Yousef, doubles as a senior leader of the U.S.-backed Force 17.

In November 2007, Israel arrested two Palestinian police officers who had been accused that month of gunning down Israeli civilian Ido Zoldan in the northern West Bank. Immediately after the killing, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leaders called WND to take credit for the attack.

Israel captured two of Zoldan's murderers – Abdullah Braham and Jafar Braham – who were PA police officers and members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. A third terrorist, Fadi Jamaa, also a PA police officer, was later apprehended by Palestinian security forces.

Terrorist: 'U.S. training helped us kill Jews'

Abu Yousuf, a senior officer of Abbas' Force 17 Presidential Guard unit in Ramallah, previously described to WND how his U.S. training helped him kill Israelis.

"I do not think that the operations of the Palestinian resistance would have been so successful and would have killed more than 1,000 Israelis since 2000 and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without these [American] trainings," said Yousuf.

Yousuf received U.S. training in Jericho in 1999 as a member of the Preventative Security Services. He is a Brigades chief in Ramallah, where he is accused of participating in anti-Israel terrorism, including recent shootings and attacks against Israeli forces operating in the city and an attack in northern Samaria in December 2000 that killed Benyamin Kahane, leader of the ultranationalist Kahane Chai organization.

After the Kahane murder, Yousuf was extended refuge by Yasser Arafat to live in the late PLO leader's Ramallah compound, widely known as the Muqata. Yousuf still lives in the compound.

Then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert granted Yousuf amnesty along with 178 other Brigades leaders, reportedly as a gesture to Abbas.

Speaking during a sit-down exclusive interview for the book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Yousuf said his American training sessions were instrumental in killing Jews:

"All the methods and techniques that we studied in these trainings, we applied them against the Israelis," he said.

"We sniped at Israeli settlers and soldiers. We broke into settlements and Israeli army bases and posts. We collected information on the movements of soldiers and settlers. We collected information about the best timing to infiltrate our bombers inside Israel. We used weapons and we produced explosives, and of course the trainings we received from the Americans and the Europeans were a great help to the resistance."

Yousuf described his U.S.-provided training.

"I myself received American trainings in Jericho. Together with my Preventative comrades, I received trainings in intelligence methods and military trainings," he said. "In the intelligence part, we learned collection of information regarding suspected persons, how to follow suspected guys, how to infiltrate organizations and penetrate cells of groups that we were working on and how to prevent attacks and to steal in places.

"On the military level, we received trainings on the use of weapons, all kind of weapons and explosives," Yousuf said. "We received sniping trainings, work of special units especially as part of what they call the fight against terror. We learned how to put siege, how to break into places where our enemies closed themselves in, how to oppress protest movements, demonstrations and other activities of opposition.

"We also learned to discover agents that Israel tried to plant in our cells," he said.

Yousuf stressed he "isn't talking about U.S. training in order to irritate the Americans or the Israelis and not in order to create provocations."

"I'm just telling you the truth," he said. "We applied against Israel all that we learned from the Americans."

America is alone in the dark - Obama Dept of Home Land Security is a joke

Associated Press

After the nation's top intelligence official fumbled a simple question about terrorism on national television, the White House on Wednesday acknowledged that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had been in the dark about a terrorist plot disrupted in England.

It was an inconvenient distraction for the Obama administration, which had hoped to use the day to reassure Americans that it had fixed the mistakes that nearly allowed al-Qaida to take down a U.S.-bound airliner last Christmas.

Clapper appeared stumped Tuesday night when asked on ABC News whether a significant terror plot uncovered in London could have security implications in the United States. The plot had received huge news coverage this week and was a major focus in the U.K., America's closest intelligence partner.

"London?" Clapper asked, looking across the table at Obama's homeland security adviser, John Brennan, who was also being interviewed.

In practice, British and American authorities work hand-in-hand on such cases regardless of how involved senior intelligence officials get. But it was an embarrassing moment for the embattled position of director of national intelligence. The job, created after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has failed to live up to its billing as a central, strong overseer of the nation's intelligence infrastructure.

And the image of Clapper turning, perplexed, to Brennan, only reinforced the impression by many in the intelligence community that it's Brennan who really controls the nation's intelligence apparatus. Before his confirmation, one of the criticisms of Clapper was that he would not have the clout to take charge of the nation's far-flung intelligence network. With Brennan, a former CIA official, in the White House, and CIA Director Leon Panetta running the nation's spy agency, some lawmakers feared Clapper would be marginalized.

At a White House news briefing, Brennan said Clapper had been preoccupied with tensions between North and South Korea and helping ensure the passage of a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

"Should he have been briefed by his staff on those arrests?" Brennan said. "Yes."

In a city where television appearances are heavily scripted affairs and government leaders rarely get caught off guard, Clapper's misstep was as much a failure of media preparation as it was of actual intelligence. Nevertheless, it forced the White House off its message of reassurance to the American public.

The past year has been a formative period for Obama's counterterrorism strategy. After stepping up airstrikes against terrorism suspects in Pakistan early in his term, the administration has faced repeated threats at home.

Last Christmas a suspected al-Qaida operative with a bomb in his underwear slipped onto a plane bound for the U.S. and nearly detonated the device as the plane approached Detroit. In May, a Pakistani man attempted to set off a car bomb in Times Square. In October, al-Qaida in Yemen got sophisticated bombs onto cargo and passenger planes before authorities narrowly prevented their explosion.

In response, the administration has doubled the size of the nation's no-fly list. It has promised to better connect the dots to spot emerging terror threats. And it recently heightened security screenings at airports using new scanners and more invasive pat-downs.

With U.S. security officials on edge because of an increase in intelligence "chatter" about a possible attack, Brennan sought to allay concerns.

"We are in much better position today than we were last year at this time," Brennan said.

Officials have said there is no specific, credible threat this holiday season.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Ohh Nooo! Say it is not so! DREAM Act dies in Senate

Let's start this post by acknowledging the life and service of recently deceased Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, his recent death in the line of duty is a tragedy.

However having read some of the early reporting done on this has proven to be frustrating as some commentators have tried to conflate agent Terry's death with the current debate on the DREAM Act in congress.

It is necessary to highlight this particular disconnect because opponents of immigration reform have become so skilled at putting border security and pretty much any other legislation that tries to address immigration reform at odds.

It can not be said enough, border security is a component, an important one for reform, there are others, including figuring out what to do with the current 11 million people currently here. It is not impossible to do more then one at a time.

Michele Malkin, has released a blog hit entitled A dream denied: Border Patrol agent Brian Terry killed in Arizona. There is nothing wrong with the first part of this post, it is a simple explanation of what has occurred with a link to a USA Today story on what occurred in Rio Rico, Arizona:

A Border Patrol agent was shot and killed Tuesday night near Rio Rico after encountering several suspects, federal authorities said Wednesday. Agent Brian Terry was killed just 10 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, north of Nogales. Four suspects are in custody and one is being pursued, according to a press release from Customs and Border Protection. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office are investigating.

The above quote accurately presents all of the current information provided by Department of Homeland Security regarding the circumstances of Agent Terry's death. It is her next sentence that is egregious:

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats continue to push the pro-amnesty DREAM Act and security-undermining environmental land grabs. Priorities…

As someone who follows Immigration issues, and the DREAM Act in particular on a daily basis, the connection between the current legislation before the Senate and the death of a border patrol agent is baffling. These two issues have nothing to do with each other. For one thing the citizenship of the four suspects is not currently known. A fact corroborated by Fox News article on the shooting:

Agent Brian A. Terry, 40, was killed late Tuesday near Rio Rico, Ariz., according to a statement released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials. At least four suspects are in custody and another is still being pursued.

The leader of a union representing Border Patrol agents said Terry was trying to catch bandits who target illegal immigrants for robbery.

In the Fox News reporting of the events that led to Agent Terry's death, it would seem that what most likely happened was that he was killed trying to protect immigrants from "bandits" who target undocumented immigrants crossing the desert.

In case Malkin neglected to read anything written about the DREAM Act, it only affects children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States who want to serve in the military or go to college. In no place within this legislation is there a provision to award "bandits" citizenship....

It is unfortunate what happened in Arizona, but it is irresponsible for anyone to conflate this act of violence with the current debate over the DREAM Act. It is entirely possible to secure the border and pass the DREAM Act. As they are both components of broad reform of our immigration system. Border security is a part of that and so is dealing with the current 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in America.

Why violent revolt lies in our future

© 2010

President Ronald Reagan used to say that the scariest words in the English language are: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Two hundred or so years earlier, our Founding Fathers had essentially the same thoughts when they declared independence from the British Crown based on its refusal to take into account the grievances of the colonies and its peoples, and instead attempted to beat them into submission.

Today, as we observe the holidays and ready ourselves for a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the New Year, in the face of continued control of the Senate and White House by the Democrats and President Barack Obama, these words and thoughts ring louder than ever. Never before in the history of our sacred nation has the "State of the Union" been worse and indeed more hostile to the needs of the American people. And both Democrats and Republicans are responsible!

I have written in earlier columns that I sincerely believe that we have entered a new revolutionary period in American history. With each passing day, I become more convinced of it. And, regrettably, I believe that we are only a year of so from violent revolt if things do not radically change "on a dime."

Here are the signs of the violent revolution to come:

First, the economy continues in a tailspin, with unemployment increasing. Families do not have the financial means, even assuming they are able to bring home a salary, to pay for their children's higher education, buy a new car, much less put good wholesome food on the dinner table. Couple this with glacial growth in the economy, our dependence on foreign capital to keep the nation afloat and the continued real-estate crisis and the picture is more than bleak. And God forbid we have another large terrorist attack or an oil field or two in the Middle East blows up – the entire world economy could easily go down for the count. People get real upset when they do not have money; plain and simple. Just ask any employer who has missed or is late on a pay period for his employees. He or she is lucky not to be lynched. Our government has not only missed several pay periods, it is taxing the populace into submission and wasting these revenues on projects and graft that return nothing but more hardship.

Get Larry Klayman's fascinating account of his battle with the powers that be: "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment"

Second, the prospect of war overseas looms large and is imminent. Thanks to the neglect of three successive administrations toward Iran, the fanatical mullahs of Tehran are on the verge of acquiring atomic weapons and undertaking in earnest their long-desired quest of worldwide Islamic rule. Because of President Obama's and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's policy of appeasement, the situation is now even more dire and will require almost certain military intervention by Israel and the Western powers to stop the potential Holocaust that looms on the horizon.

Then there is North Korea, which already has atomic weapons and had just this week threatened a nuclear war against its southern neighbor, the United States and its allies. Of course, that's not to forget about Hugo Chavez, that communist Venezuelan despot Obama hugged and fawned over at the Summit of the Americas a couple years back. He has just acquired hundreds of missiles from Vladmir Putin's Russia. Chavez is, not coincidentally, a close ally of not only Castro's Cuba, but Iran and North Korea. These "trouble spots" are on the verge of blowing up, requiring massive U.S. resources, financial and otherwise, to address. This in turn will put even a greater strain on the American economy and our nation's military, particularly with the continuing counterproductive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our government has more than failed big time; it has lead us into an international hellhole.

But the crises domestically and internationally are not all. "Above all," it's the arrogance, indifference, incompetence, immorality, corruption and slough of our government officials and their body politic, and the media, which are destroying the country.

Our Founding Father and perhaps greatest American president, John Adams, declared just days before signing the Declaration of Independence that without ethics, morality and religion, we can change our rulers and our form of government many times, but we will have no lasting liberty.

The cesspool of Washington and our state capitals, furthered by what is generally a degenerate mainstream media, has had more than a corrosive effect on our Judeo-Christian culture. The people have lost any respect for their so-called "leaders."

Last week I was watching an episode of Glenn Beck on Fox News. While I generally agree with Glenn and believe he has served the country well, he went off on blasting Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for releasing hundreds of thousands of allegedly classified government documents into the public domain. Beck called Assange a "traitor!" Then, turning to the studio audience, Glenn asked them, with a confident air that they would agree with him, what they thought of Assange. All but a few in the audience refused to condemn Assange and WikiLeaks, despite the respect and adulation they have for their television mentor. The response of the group was telling and scary. The American people sided with Assange and WikiLeaks and threw cold water into their adored host's face. And why was this? Because "We the People" have come to see the government as so evil that even if it takes allegedly illegal means to bring it to its knees, to prevent its further oppression, this seems justified.

There we have it in a nutshell. No matter how hard the conservative and leftist media may try to twist the minds of the American people, they have a mind of their own. And, as of today, that mind is on rebellion against the government, at all costs.

Larry Klayman is a former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. His latest book is "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."

Hey Muslims are all about peace Man! Mullah offers $6,000 for Christian's death Woman accused of blaspheming Muhammad by calling Jesus 'true prophet'

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Supporters of Islamic political party Jamaat-e-Islami protest in Peshawar against an online competition to draw pictures of Prophet Mohammad on Facebook which Muslims deem blasphemous May 20, 2010. Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube indefinitely in a bid to contain blasphemous material, officials said on Thursday. The blockade came hours after the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) directed Internet service providers to stop access to social network site Facebook indefinitely on Wednesday because of an online competition to draw the Prophet Mohammad. REUTERS/Fayaz Aziz (PAKISTAN - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST SCI TECH)

New threats to the life of a Christian woman in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for saying that Jesus is alive and therefore the "true prophet" have erupted, according to sources of Voice of the Martyrs.

The organization works with Christians throughout the world where governments, religious establishments and others persecute believers.

VOM officials have revealed that their sources in Pakistan are reporting the new concerns for the life of Asia Bibi, who actually was sentenced to death for blasphemy, but now apparently is the subject of a clemency effort.

Contacts told Voice of the Martyrs earlier this month that a mullah, an Islamic leader, had offered more than $6,000 for her death.

VOM contacts are concerned for Asia's safety. In the past, Christians have been killed in jail, on their way to court, and even after being released from jail, the report said.

"There is threat that she can be killed even after her releasing from the jail," VOM contacts said. "It's not just a statement … but we have examples of previous blasphemy cases."

After the offer was made known, Muslims, including representatives from extremist groups, protested against Bibi and a proposed amendment of the blasphemy law.

VOM reported Bibi had been arrested by police in June 2009 following a discussion between her and her co-workers about their faith.

"Asia told the Muslim women about her faith in Christ, explaining that he had died on the cross for our sins. Then she asked them what Mohammed had done for them, according to VOM sources. She told them Jesus is alive, but Mohammed is dead. 'Our Christ is the true prophet of God,' she reportedly told them, 'and yours is not true,"" the VOM report documented.

The organization said Muslim women then beat her, and some men locked her in a room.

"They announced from mosque loudspeakers that she would be punished by having her face blackened and being paraded through the village on a donkey. Local Christians informed the police, who took Asia into custody before the Muslims could carry out their plan," the report said.

Bibi was charged with blasphemy, and on Nov. 8, 2010, she was sentenced to death.

There were reports several weeks ago that she had been released, but it apparently was just that there were talks about clemency for her.

The Pakistan website International News Network Online and Daily Christian News both reported at the time Bibi had been pardoned.

But the Pak Tribune website echoed an Agence France Presse report that while the request for a pardon has been submitted and the process of consideration begun, it has not yet happened.

Sources close to the situation say that Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer has submitted a petition to free Bibi and that the case is on Zardari's desk.

Jonathan Racho of International Christian Concern warned earlier that even if she was released, her life was not assured.

"In Pakistan, there are a number of Islamic radical groups and even if the government has already released and pardoned Asia Bibi, the Islamic radicals may take the law into their own hands and kill her and members of her family," Racho explained.

"Many Islamic radicals will use any opportunity to carry out vigilante justice against our brothers and sisters in Christ in that country," Racho asserted.

"They will use any excuse even if the courts don't find them guilty," Racho said.

Racho cited the July gunning down of Pastor Rashid Emmanuel and his brother Sajid at the courthouse after their acquittal on blasphemy charges as an unfortunate example of Pakistan's vigilante mindset.

Racho says that it's the radicals who hold the power and it doesn't matter how many radicals there are.

Obama can't run because many states are now going to demand proof, well unless ?

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

It just doesn't appear to be going away.

The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.

Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again
Taitz's case distributed for conference among justices on Jan. 7
Posted: December 18, 2010
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

It just doesn't appear to be going away.

The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the highest court in the land.

According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.

This particular case has had a long proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt. Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined $20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.

Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen. But even if this case falls, it doesn't appear the issue itself will fade.

Read the full report on Obama's eligibility yourself.


* More than a year ago, polls revealed that a bare half of the people in the United States even knew there was an issue over Obama's eligibility but recent polls have indicated up to 58 percent of Americans now have doubts over that issue.

* Fining attorneys, even jailing defendants, as happened in this week's high-profile case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin at Ft. Meade, Md., hasn't caused the issue to disappear.

* A billboard campaign that simply asks "Where's the Birth Certificate" has appeared in many dozens of locations, and one billboard company that a year ago concluded it was more or less a settled issue now has asked to be allowed to participate in the campaign.

* Various officials have "verified" Obama's eligibility but have declined to document their statements.

* Extensive examinations of the available record suggest Obama likely is, in fact, ineligible.

* There remains a multitude of lawsuits still making their way toward Supreme Court review:

* In Congress, a pending proposal would require all candidates for the office of president to document their eligibility under the Constitution's requirement that they be a "natural born citizen."

* Similar plans are moving even more quickly at the state legislature level.

* And there even are predictions that Congress will take up the dispute.

Retired Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, whose legal challenge to Obama's eligibility recently was turned back by the Supreme Court on a vote that included two members of the bench appointed by Obama and therefore holding an apparent conflict of interest, said the problems will just get bigger the longer the issue remains unresolved.

"The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama's documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn't done," he said.

"Congress should have addressed when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to [do] so under the 20th Amendment. It didn't," he continued. "Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.

Orly Tait

"Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law," he said.

That decision not to address the uncertainty of Obama's background now, "will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty," he said.

Taitz, who was among those who brought concerns to the Supreme Court at the time of the election on an emergency basis – all of which were refused by the Supremes, told WND that she's convinced ultimately the Supreme Court will review Obama.

"I don't believe they can continue avoiding this issue," she said. "They have to show integrity, have to show that the Constitution of the United States matters."

She said also the case has been getting "ripe," or coalescing into a specific dispute. There now are disagreements among court rulings, she said. She cited a California court ruling that there could be a door for the courts to determine the issue but only after Congress has acted, even though another judge ruled the matter should have been brought to the courts before the election.

Further, one judge has ruled that the military should resolve the question over Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief while the result from the recent Lakin court martial was that Judge Denise Lind refused even to allow his defense arguments, evidence and witnesses in her courtroom, essentially withholding related due process and discovery procedures.

Taitz said one of the largest issues that remains a roadblock to the case being resolved is that Obama's two appointees to the Supreme Court apparently are participating in cases in which they have an interest.

"In my opinion they [Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, both appointed to the bench by Obama] should recuse themselves," she said. "However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases."

Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.

Kerchner brought forward the same concerns.

"The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and they did not recuse themselves even though they should have!" he wrote.

"Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. … I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayor and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against certiorari, and to require 4 votes instead of 3."

Taitz v. MacDonald, the case now pending before the Supremes, originally was brought on behalf of Rhodes, an Army flight surgeon questioning the validity of deployment orders issued under Obama's signature. The case argues that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural-born citizen" of the United States, which Article 2 of the Constitution requires any president to be.

A "natural born citizen" was considered at the time the Constitution was adopted as an individual whose parents are both American citizens. Obama's father was a British subject when Obama was born in 1961.

But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama's legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud.

"Legitimacy is a theoretical question," Taitz told WND earlier. "This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted."

Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that the Social Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.

"It cannot have been legally obtained," said Taitz.

Her brief asserts that Obama's Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.

"This is evidence of fraud," Taitz said.

More legal documents related to Taitz v. MacDonald can be found on Taitz' website.

According to Taitz, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the merits of Taitz v. MacDonald is increased because she personally has legal standing to bring the case. Taitz was fined $20,000 by Judge Clay D. Land in connection with the case, and she's appealing the fine, which she contends violated her civil rights.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

One other prominent case in which a judge threatened sanctions against an attorney involved attorney John Hemenway. He brought a challenge on behalf of retired military officer Gregory S. Hollister.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

This case also remains in the court system heading for the Supreme Court.

Why and for what end? North American Union: Why the U.S. coverup? Memory hole? Obama administration replaces content of official website

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Operating much like a "memory hole" in George Orwell's classic novel "1984," the Obama administration has replaced the content of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America website, providing additional evidence the White House intends to implement the SPP agenda by executive action, below the radar of public opinion and outside the framework of congressional approval.

The SPP website, under the title "Commerce Connect," now reflects totally different content, announcing its purpose as "a one-stop shop for information, counseling and government services that can help U.S. businesses around the country transform themselves into globally competitive enterprises."

Learn a strategy to protect yourself and your nation: Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

WND reported in September 2009 that the Obama administration has "rebranded" and "refocused" the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to advance the Bush administration's agenda of North American integration under the rubric of the "North American Leaders Summit," a less controversial banner, according to confidential sources in the U.S. Department of Commerce and State Department who agreed to speak with WND only if their comments were kept off the record.

Beginning in September 2009, the SPP website included a disclaimer that read: "This website is an archive for SPP documents and will not be updated."

Still, even in September 2009, the SPP website maintained the appearance it had when it was launched April 15, 2005, and it continued to carry an extensive set of documents that since have been scrubbed from the Internet, including Web pages describing the SPP's "prosperity agenda," its "security agenda," and a comprehensive list of SPP working groups.

Currently, clicking the URLs for these SPP documents produces a Commerce Connect page that says, "404 Page Not Found. The page you are looking for is currently unable to view."

For example, here is the current result when the URL that previously contained the SPP prosperity agenda is searched today:

The White House's handling of the SPP agenda sharply contrasts with Canada, where the SPP website retains its original character, openly proclaiming North American community objectives, much like the U.S. website did prior to September 2009.

The Canadian government website today continues to archive the security agenda, the prosperity agenda, trilateral meeting summaries going back to 2007 and key SPP reports and documents – all content that has been scrubbed from current U.S. government websites.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Who is Jonathan Kay? Why should you know?

By Joseph Farah
World net daily

Did you know you could earn a decent living and win accolades from peers in the media by pretending to be a "conservative" who loves trashing conservatives and defending socialists?

That is who Jonathan Kay is – in addition to being managing editor of the opinion pages of Canada's National Post.

When Kay set his sights on me last May in a piece called "Cult of the False Prophet," I didn't even respond. Who would care enough to read what would have to be a lengthy column pointing out numerous falsehoods, ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizations and religious bigotry he displayed in the piece? After all, who was Jonathan Kay?

But now, I suspect, Kay has crossed a bridge too far – at least for his fairy tale about being a "conservative" to have any traction, at least on this side of the border.

Not content to go after those asking legitimate questions about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama – and doing some darned good reporting on those questions, I might add – Kay has taken to attacking American conservative icon Glenn Beck and defending the meddling globalist billionaire George Soros. (Watch this guy wind up working for Media Matters or Huffington Puffington Post, one of these days, when Toronto tires of his politically correct "gay" obsession and the "conspiracies" he finds under every bed.)

Last month Beck did an admirable job recounting George Soros' history and illustrating what a force he has been in undermining the precepts and institutions that have made America exceptional in the world.

Kay doesn't actually counter a single accusation Beck made in his thorough and well-researched profile of Soros. Instead, he attacks the messenger by all but accusing him of anti-Semitism.

The December issue of Whistleblower shines a thousand-watt spotlight on the "dark lord" of the left – billionaire investor George Soros

"According to Beck's conspiracist (Kay's favorite word) narrative, there seems to be no sin that cannot be laid at Soros' feet – even "the crimes of the Nazis," writes Kay. "Soros is Jewish. When the Nazis occupied his native Hungary, Soros, like some other Jewish children, was recruited to help deliver deportation notices to Jewish families. Out of this fact has grown a mythology that paints Soros (who was 14 at the time) as a full-blown Nazi collaborator. Beck wallowed in this material during his Fox broadcast."

Beck did no such thing. He didn't wallow in this material. In fact, he simply recounted Soros' own description of this period in his young life – pointing out that he "enjoyed" working for the Nazis and victimizing his fellow Jews.

Kay continues in his smear of Beck: "Of course, lots of people casually throw around Nazi references these days. The anti-war left likened Bush to Hitler during the Iraq war, and the tea-party movement returned the favor with Obama. Yet there is something especially unsettling about Beck's smear on Soros. Despite Beck's upbeat, high-energy, everyman schtick, his case against Soros unwittingly taps into some very dark ideological currents. The idea that a secret cabal of all-powerful financiers and 'puppet masters' is deliberately seeking to crash the world's economies and thereby create a 'one-world government' has been kicking around right-wing conspiracist (there's that word, again) circles since the publication of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion – in which the fictional Jewish 'Elders' are shown as plotting to render 'all the goy States to bankruptcy,' and to create a 'Super-Government Administration.' This helps explain why the Anti-Defamation League described Beck's rants against Soros as 'offensive' and 'horrific.'"

Here Kay marches right up to the point of labeling Beck an anti-Semite and then cowardly backs down with this slam: "Yet no one can say Beck is anti-Semitic (not even the ADL makes that claim). The man is too ignorant to understand the historical origins of his conspiracist (there's that word, again) mythology."

Now, I've made no secret of the fact that I have bones to pick with Glenn Beck. But I'd pay to see Jonathan Kay match wits with him. My guess is he wouldn't have the courage to make these charges to his face. And my second guess is that Beck would eat his lunch.

But I think it's about time someone blew the whistle on this phony – even if he is just a second-rate columnist pretending to be something he's not and who has been shamelessly promoting a book he has written for a year before its publication date.

Opps - Really we missed this one- U.S. flight crew held by foreign authorities for 'insulting' Chavez

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

ITAR-TASS: MOSCOW, RUSSIA. OCTOBER 15, 2010. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez attends the opening ceremony of the foundation stone for the monument to Simon Bolivar. (Photo ITAR-TASS/ Vladimir Astapkovich) Photo via Newscom

The Venezuelan government once detained an American Airlines pilot and crew on suspicion that one of the crew members "insulted" Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez by calling him crazy, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable posted today by WikiLeaks and reviewed by WND.

The cable revealed that on Sept. 30, 2008, the U.S. embassy in Caracas received word the American Airlines crew had been detained, apparently after a friend of a Venezuelan politician believed he heard a crew member insult Chavez.

As of 2006, it became a crime in Venezuela to insult the country's president.

The cable related that a passenger who had been on American Airlines flight 903 to Caracas claimed he overheard a crew member announce the current local time as "loco Chavez time."

"Loco "in Spanish means "crazy."

The cable explained the crew member, who was informing passengers of the local time, may have been misheard stating "local" Chavez time. In December 2007, Venezuela created its own time zone, moving the clock back half an hour on a permanent basis.

"The crew member was likely trying to remind passengers of this and to suggest they turn their watches back 30 minutes," stated the cable.

Passenger Nestor Maldonado, however, a friend of Venezuelan National Assemblyman Carlos Echezuria Rodriguez, called the assemblyman to report he heard a crew member refer to Chavez as "loco."

Rodriguez called all the way up the political chain to Venezuelan Vice President Carrizales to report the incident. Carruzales then called the president of the country's civil aviation authority, who went to the airport and turned over the investigation to the Venezuelan Immigration Authority, which may have distorted what happened.

The U.S. embassy in Caracas says it later obtained a report from Venezuelan immigration officials that claimed the crew announcement had instead been, "the hour of the crazy Chavez and his women".

According to American Airlines Country Manager Omar Nottaro, Rodriguez demanded to hear the on-board recordings of in-flight announcements and wanted each crew member to give a statement about the incident.

Nottaro was able to diffuse the situation by promising to put the crew back on the empty airplane as soon as it was refueled and get the captain and crew out of the country immediately, stated the cable.

According to the embassy cable, Nottaro apologized in person to Venezuelan governmental officials and committed to writing several letters of apology on October 1.

Venezuelan authorities accepted Nottaro's offer, and the crew left Venezuela hours later.

The leaked cable explains, "American made the decision to turn the plane around even though it meant canceling AA flight [903] out of Caracas the morning of Oct. 1, at considerable cost to the airline."

Did you really think they would let Mark Madoff live.. You cant' fight fate!

This is what is called a professional mercy killing. Leave the family alone and take out the target neat and clean....Amazing on the two year anniversary of his dad's arrests he decides to end it all.. No note,no good by to wife and child ??? REALLY!* Oh that's right he and his brother turned dear old dad in and nobody at the office knew anything about the family secret!


His 2-year-old son Nicholas was sleeping in a nearby bedroom and was unharmed, as was Grouper, their labradoodle.

It was Mark and younger brother Andrew who first heard their dad’s astonishing confession — and dropped a dime to the feds on one of the biggest investment fraud schemes in history.

"No one wants to hear the truth," the despondent 46-year-old scion wrote his lawyer in one of three wrenching emails dispatched around 4 a.m., a law enforcement source told The Post.

"Take care of my family."

In two messages sent to wife Stephanie he said, "I love you" — and then alerted her to "send someone to take care of Nick," the source said.

A freaked out Stephanie — at Disney World in Orlando with her mom and 4-year-old daughter, Audrey, at the time of the suicide — then dispatched her father, high-powered lawyer Martin London, to the apartment in the swank building that’s home to rocker Jon Bon Jovi.

London made the grisly discovery and called 911, said police sources.

No note was found with Madoff’s body; he was clad in khaki pants, blue pullover shirt and white socks, sources said.

The eldest son of Bernie, Mark was "upset" over the two-year anniversary media coverage of his father’s massive fraud and subsequent arrest on Dec. 11, 2008, the source said, noting a front-page story of the scheme and its aftermath in today’s Wall Street Journal.

The source said London had told cops Madoff had gotten a heads-up the article was going to run. The story was posted on-line by midnight.

But London also told cops his son-in-law had already been disturbed about events in the case — though never, he thought, to the point of suicide, the law enforcement source said.

Cops are trying to get a subpoena for Madoff’s computer and check its contents, including his e-mails, other sources said.

"It’s a terrible and unnecessary tragedy," said Mark Madoff lawyer Martin Flumenbaum.

"Mark was an innocent victim of his father’s monstrous crime who succumbed to two years of unrelenting pressure from false accusations and innuendo."

The stunning twist in the Madoff saga came two years to the day after Bernie Madoff was arrested for running a pyramid scheme that bilked some $65 billion from gullible investors all over the world.

Friday, November 26, 2010












Want to know how the lame ducks in Congress plan to "cut" federal spending – which seemed to be a dominating theme of the 2010 elections? They're proposing a plan to take upwards of $44 billion a year from taxpayers and hand it over to illegal aliens who are in the United States so they can go to college.

The plan is called the Dream Act, for Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors, and its critics know it as an amnesty program for illegal aliens. Its supporters say anyone who doesn't want to spend the money on college subsidies for illegal aliens is "racist."

But policy experts are warning the act is truly transformative and in the end, among other things, would authorize federal loans to literally millions of newly qualified applicants and provide a preference for the children of illegal aliens in state college admissions.

Get "The Late Great USA" and find out how America is giving away its sovereignty

According to the Department of Education, the maximum amount one can borrow per year for undergraduate education from the federal government is $21,000. And the Dream Act would incorporate some 2.1 million new "students" into programs under which they would qualify for those loans.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-Nev.] has placed S. 2837, the Dream Act, on the legislative calendar, and has indicated he will seek a vote during the lame duck session of Congress," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking GOP member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an immigration alert. "The Dream Act will give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans and federal work-study programs."

The education provisions are buried deep within the text of a general, overall amnesty bill, which may make the U.S. the new legal home for millions of now-illegal aliens, including criminals, Sessions said.

Opponents say the lame duck session of Congress should not move forward on issues that previously were rejected by lawmakers, especially on such monumental and controversial topics.

While the issue needs to be addressed, they said, it needs a full discussion.

True immigration reform "deserves comprehensive legislation that addresses all aspects of the subject, balancing all legitimate interests," said Joseph A. Morris, a board member of the American Conservative Union and a former associate attorney general of the U.S. under President Reagan.

"It should go to the head of the agenda in the new Congress, so that there is plenty of time for thorough hearings and an open and informed national debate," he said.

But many say plans to address the landmark change not only are being pushed now by Reid, who failed to get it through the U.S. Senate earlier, and outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but they are planning to march it through the process without hearings.

Sessions said some of the more stunning provisions of the plan are:

* Section 3 of the bill repeals Section 505 of the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996" (8 U.S. Code 1623) which currently prohibits the government from giving educational benefits to any "unlawfully present individual," thus ensuring that illegal aliens will qualify for "in-state tuition," at the state college of their choice, even if they live in another state.

* Section 10 of the act enables illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the bill's general provisions to apply for federally guaranteed student loans under Title IV of the "Higher Education Act of 1965" (20 U.S. Code, et seq.), including Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford loans, federal work-study programs and federally sponsored tutoring and counseling.

* Another section of the bill ensures that illegal aliens can continue to receive these federal student loans, which are often used to cover living expenses, as well as tuition, over the course of eight years, even if they do not complete a college degree.

An earlier version of the bill failed in the Senate in September, garnering only 56 Democratic votes, when it needed 60 to prevent a GOP filibuster.

Reid, with his renewed push for the drastic changes, is believed by some observers to be paying back Latino supporters, who helped him narrowly defeat tea party favorite Sharron Angle in the Nevada senate race a few weeks ago, by bringing the controversial measure back, and enhancing it with additional goodies.

Other radical left politicians, like Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., a key ally of Pelosi, D-Calif., are also publicly supporting the bill in the House.

"At a time when natural born Americans cannot afford to send their kids to college, watching the federal government take their tax dollars to pay for tuition on behalf of illegal aliens is a clear slap in the face," Rev. Isaac C. Hayes, the GOP nominee against Jesse Jackson Jr. this past fall and an emerging voice in the African-American conservative movement, told WND.

"Jesse Jackson Jr. is a staunch supporter of this amnesty bill and has demonstrated the ultimate betrayal to his community," he said.

Democrats, however, are feeling pressure. It appears clear if President Obama, a supporter of amnesty, does not get the bill through during the lame duck session of Congress, he will not see it passed at any time during the remaining two years of his term.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, author of the 1986 immigration reform bill and incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has signaled that liberal spending programs that put taxpayers on the hook no longer on the table in the U.S. House, where Republicans will be the majority. His comments came when he said this week that he and his colleagues would be "moving forward with our agenda to rein in government spending and create more jobs."

It was Colin O'Donohoe, artistic director for the Pangean Orchestra, an all-illegal alien performing troupe, who said, "I believe the issue is purely racist in nature and does nothing more than stir up hatred for Hispanics.

"Our country has hundreds of years of history in allowing people to immigrate. Now that the economy is weak we are turning our anger towards the easiest target which is the people least able to defend themselves," he said.

E.W. Jackson Sr., who works with STAND PAC, recently wrote the Dream Act is a nightmare that will lead to chaos.

"I know why Reid and his liberal Democrats want to pass the Dream Act. They just lost an election, and they're scared. When they look at 2012, they see their prospects for success are dismal, because Americans aren't coming on board with their big government agenda.

"They desperately need to gather up millions of new voters who will support them. What better way to do this than to open up a wealth of entitlements for millions of people here illegally, making them beholden to Democrats and their socialist agenda!"

He warned, "You are going to pay for it … Dream Act recipients will immediately become eligible for federal student loans, work study programs and other forms of financial aid – all on your dime."

Iran, North Korea, Cuba teach U.S. human rights America told to ensure food supplies, stop 'natural disasters' in poor nations

The results of the Obama administration's decision to submit the United States to the evaluation of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, a procedure snubbed by the Bush administration because of the records of those on the panel, are starting to appear, and they include harsh condemnation from such human rights "leaders" as Cuba, Libya, and Iran.

Before the report was unveiled, experts predicted that it would be used as "cannon fodder" by critics of the U.S.

It seems that those forecasts are coming true, with nations such as Egypt, where the government arrests Christians who complain of being attacked by Muslims, and China, which has harshly limited couples to one child with forced abortions, lining up to instruct the U.S. on human rights.

"Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!"

A video has been prepared by an organization called "eyeontheun" that highlights the more egregious comments:

The Universal Periodic Review report itself has been posted online by the Heritage Foundation.

As Esther Brimmer, an assistant secretary in the bureau of international organization affairs under Obama, talked about what an "honor" it was for the U.S. to be put under the scrutiny of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Castro regime and others, the criticism, relayed through interpreters, started.

* From Cuba came a recommendation "to end the blockade against Cuba, which is described as a crime of genocide … to put on trial the perpetrators of torture … to halt the war crimes of their troops abroad … to put an end to the persecution and execution of mentally ill persons and minors and discrimination against persons of African origin." Additionally, the Cuban delegation insisted the U.S. "ensure realization of rights of food and health of all who live in their territory."

* From Iran was a call "to implement the following recommendations … to halt serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law … Legislate appropriate regulations to prevent the violation of individual privacy … to take effective measures to counter insults against Islam and the holy Quran as well as Islamophobia … and effectively combat violence against women."

* Nicaragua tagged the U.S. with the blame for, well, almost everything: "The United States of America, since its very origin, has used force indiscriminately as the central pillar of its policy of conquest and expansionism, causing death and destruction … The United States of America, which pretends to be the guardian of human rights in the world, questioning other countries, has been and continues to be the one which most systematically violates human rights. Nicaragua therefore makes the following recommendations: To immediately halt the unjustified arms race and to judge those responsible for all war crimes and massacres against unarmed civilians, women and children, as well as torture. …. Assume its responsibilities which have been caused by capitalism, causing natural disasters, particularly in the poorest countries."

* North Korea: "The DPRK remains gravely concerned by persistent reports of systematic and widespread human rights violations committed by the United States of America, and recommends as the following: Take legislation and administrative measures to address a wide range of racial discrimination and inequalities in housing, employment and education…. Prohibiting and punishing the brutality… by law enforcement officials. Take effective measures to put an end to gross human rights abuse, including violence against women."

* Egypt: "We remain concerned about certain U.S. policies and practices in the field of human rights, and therefore Egypt presents the following recommendations to the United States: Review its laws at the federal and state levels with a view to bringing them in line with its international human rights obligations. To devise specific programs aimed at countering growing Islamaphobia and xenophobic trends in society. To end the use of military technology and weaponry that have proven to be indiscriminate and cause excessive and disproportionate damage to civilian life."

* Not to be outdone, China said: "We have also noticed with concern that there are gaps in the U.S. laws protecting human rights … there is also a serious discrimination against Muslims and minority racial groups … in the name of fighting terror. The United States is also monitoring the exercise of its citizens' freedom of expression and the right to free Internet access. We have the following recommendations … ending excessive use of force by law enforcement agents .. modify the definition of discrimination in its laws to bring it in line with … international standards."

* Said Libya: "The United States need to accede to international human rights instruments. … it should prosecute those responsible for violations of human rights in American prisons."

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, another U.S. spokesman dispatched by the Obama administration, said the U.S. was "humbled by the recognition that we need to continue and even redouble our efforts as we strive to make ours a more perfect union."

At the Powerline Blog was this conclusion:

"The Obama administration has a message for the world. The message is something along these lines: The United States is very bad, but Barack Obama is very good. He seeks to redeem America from its evil."

In its official respond to the criticisms, the U.S., through State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, said, "Civil society has made invaluable contributions to our UPR report and presentation and will continue to be our partner as we consider these many recommendations."

At Hot noted that among the critics, Iran "currently [is] poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery" and North Korea "systematically starves a captive population."

"The temptation here is to frame this as an Obama problem, part of his world apology tour, etc, but that's only half the equation. His deputies could have and should have treated this 'critique' with the utter contempt it deserved, but as I noted above, we're now obliged by resolution to account for our sins periodically to vastly worse offenders," the commentator wrote.

According to a Fox News analysis of the presentation, "what really is under review is the gamble by the Obama administration to join the council in the first place, rather than shun it in disdain, as the Bush administration did, along with its predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, because of its roster of despotic members and unbridled antagonism toward Israel."

The Heritage Foundation reported that in earlier reports to the same group:

* China claimed that it "adheres to the principle that all ethnic groups are equal and implements a system of regional ethnic autonomy in areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities" and that its elections are "democratic" and "competitive."

* Cuba claimed its "democratic system is based on the principle of 'government of the people, by the people and for the people.'" Cuba also claimed the rights to "freedom of opinion, expression and the press" are protected.

* North Korea claimed it "comprehensively provides" for fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedoms "of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association … work and relaxation, free medical care, education and social security."

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Muslim pupils learn to cut off hands of thieves

Muslim children are being taught how to chop off thieves’ hands and that Jews are plotting to take over the world at a network of Islamic schools, it has been disclosed.

By Graham Paton

Up to 5,000 pupils attending weekend schools across Britain are being exposed to textbooks claiming that some Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and that some offences could be punished with stoning. One book for six year-olds warns that those who do not believe in Islam will be condemned to “hellfire” in death.

Another text for 15 year-olds teaches that thieves who break Sharia law should have their hands cut off for a first offence and their feet amputated for a subsequent crime. Teenagers are presented with diagrams showing where the cuts should be made.

Tonight’s Panorama on BBC One will claim that the books were discovered at a network of 40 private schools teaching the Saudi Arabian national curriculum. The programmed claims to have uncovered evidence apparently linking the schools to the Saudi embassy. Officials at the embassy deny any link.

Panorama also found examples of private Muslim schools using extremist sentiments on their websites.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said last night that extremism, homophobia and anti-Semitism would not be tolerated in schools.

However, researchers claimed in a separate report that the education system was “not equipped” to deal with the threats posed by extremist organisations. The Policy Exchange think-tank said the Coalition’s new free schools, run by parents, teachers and charities, could be exploited by organisations seeking to indoctrinate young people. It also claimed that checks on groups running private schools were “piecemeal, partial and lack depth”. Mr Gove said Ofsted had been ordered to monitor part-time education providers closely.

The schools featured on Panorama were apparently organised under an umbrella group called Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland. They give Muslim children aged six to 18 a grounding the Islamic faith.

According to the BBC, a book for 15 year-olds teaches about Sharia law and its punishments. “For thieves their hands will be cut off for a first offence, and their foot for a subsequent offence,” it says. Two diagrams show where cuts should be made.

For acts of sodomy, children are told that the penalty is death. A textbook says there are different views on whether this should be done by stoning, or burning with fire, or throwing over a cliff. Textbooks for 15 year-olds revive the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which teach that Jews want world domination.

In a statement, the Saudi embassy said: “Any tutoring activities that may have taken place among any other group of Muslims in the United Kingdom are absolutely individual to that group and not affiliated to or endorsed by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia.” The Saudi Ambassador told the BBC it was “dangerously deceptive and misleading” to discuss some of the texts outside of context.

Friday, November 19, 2010

This could be the End of The Free Press and America I kid you not

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

COICA is the latest effort by Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies to stem the tidal wave of internet file sharing that has upended those industries and, they claim, cost them tens of billions of dollars over the last decade.

The content companies have tried suing college students. They’ve tried suing internet startups. Now they want the federal government to act as their private security agents, policing the internet for suspected pirates before making them walk the digital plank.

Many people opposed to the bill agree in principle with its aims: Illegal music piracy is, well, illegal, and should be stopped. Musicians, artists and content creators should be compensated for their work. But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea. COICA must still be approved by the full House and Senate before becoming law. A vote is unlikely before the new year.

Among the sites that could go dark if the law passes: Dropbox, RapidShare, SoundCloud, Hype Machine and any other site for which the Attorney General deems copyright infringement to be “central to the activity” of the site, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that opposes the bill. There need not even be illegal content on a site — links alone will qualify a site for digital death. Websites at risk could also theoretically include p2pnet and or any other website that advocates for peer-to-peer file sharing or rejects copyright law, according to the group.

In short, COICA would allow the federal government to censor the internet without due process.

The mechanism by which the government would do this, according to the bill, is the internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), which translates web addresses into IP addresses. The bill would give the Attorney General the power to simply obtain a court order requiring internet service providers to pull the plug on suspected websites.

Scholars, lawyers, technologists, human rights groups and public interest groups have denounced the bill. Forty-nine prominent law professors called it “dangerous.” (pdf.) The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch warned the bill could have “grave repercussions for global human rights.” (pdf.) Several dozen of the most prominent internet engineers in the country — many of whom were instrumental in the creation of the internet — said the bill will “create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation.” (pdf.) Several prominent conservative bloggers, including representatives from,, The Next Right and Publius Forum, issued a call to help stop this “serious threat to the Internet.”

And Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web, said, “Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” He added: “In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that no person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty.”

Critics of the bill object to it on a number of grounds, starting with this one: “The Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment,” the 49 law professors wrote. “The Act permits the issuance of speech suppressing injunctions without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the Attorney General’s allegations of unlawful content.” (original emphasis.)

Because it is so ill-conceived and poorly written, the law professors wrote, “the Act, if enacted into law, will not survive judicial scrutiny, and will, therefore, never be used to address the problem (online copyright and trademark infringement) that it is designed to address. Its significance, therefore, is entirely symbolic — and the symbolism it presents is ugly and insidious. For the first time, the United States would be requiring Internet Service Providers to block speech because of its content.”

The law professors noted that the bill would actually undermine United States policy, enunciated forcefully by Secretary of State Clinton, which calls for global internet freedom and opposes web censorship. “Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere,” Clinton said in her landmark speech on global internet freedom earlier this year. She was referring to China. Apparently some of Mrs. Clinton’s former colleagues in the U.S. Senate approve of internet censorship in the United States.

To be fair, COICA does have some supporters in addition to sponsor Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) and his 17 co-sponsors including Schumer, Specter, Grassley, Gillibrand, Hatch, Klobuchar, Coburn, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez and Whitehouse. Mark Corallo, who served as chief spokesperson for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and as spokesman for Karl Rove during the Valerie Plame affair, wrote Thursday on The Daily Caller: “The Internet is not at risk of being censored. But without robust protections that match technological advances making online theft easy, the creators of American products will continue to suffer.”

“Counterfeiting and online theft of intellectual property is having devastating effects on industries where millions of Americans make a living,” wrote Corallo, who now runs a Virginia-based public relations firm and freely admits that he has “represented copyright and patent-based businesses for years.” “Their futures are at risk due to Internet-based theft.”

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record labels, praised Leahy for his work, “to insure [sic] that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish.”

Over the course of his career, Leahy has received $885,216 from the TV, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The TSA must go - We are not slaves to the goverment or of Islam

Did you know that U.S. airports could choose to kick the TSA program to the curb? According to the 2001 law that created the TSA, after two years of using TSA screeners to check passengers at security checkpoints, airports have a right to opt-out of the TSA program and instead hire private screeners.

According to Washington Examiner, Rep. John Mica wrote to heads of more than 150 U.S. airports, reminding airports that they have a choice and suggesting that they opt-out of TSA screening. Mica will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He wrote, "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees. As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision' and use private screening."

In past years, some airports have cited liability concerns if they hire private screeners and a terrorist would get through.

Mica said the TSA is counting more on humiliating passengers with the grossly invasive "naked scanner" machines and groping searches than practicing proven airport security. Yet TSA's Blogger Bob insists, "There is no fondling, squeezing, groping, or any sort of sexual assault taking place at airports."

Back in 2003, during a hearing, Mica said of TSA airport screening, "We've created a multi-billion-dollar mirage." That seems true. Even the government seems unable to keep some facts straight. TSA previously claimed "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded." But then the feds admitted to storing body scans, and Gizmodo published the leaked images of one hundred naked citizens. Although the University of California biochemistry faculty members wrote that the x-ray "dose to the skin may be dangerously high," the White House stated that full body image scanners are safe and have been "studied extensively for many years" by FDA, DHS, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

If the TSA program is meant to make us feel safe, security theater with high-tech scanners, buzzers and gadgets, alarms and blinking lights, then it seems like an utter fail. Goonish intimidation tactics of being groped and "sexually assaulted" do not stir up feelings of safety. A TSA agent admitted the enhanced pat downs were supposed to make everyone walk into the body scanners. That happened after TSA met "Resistance." The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg asked a TSA screener, "In other words, people, when faced with a choice, will inevitably choose the Dick-Measuring Device over molestation?" The TSA screener replied, "That's what we're hoping for. We're trying to get everyone into the machine."

To appease pilots who have protested continued exposure to backscatter machines and virtual strip searches or invasive pat downs, TSA administrator John Pistole said the agency will soon announce "some new policies." However, CNET was told by a TSA source that the changes won't affect the public. "A revised screening process for only pilots could involve a biometric ID card that would allow security to be bypassed at high-traffic airports."

TSA's Pistole told The New York Times, he was "specifically worried about the Internet-based campaign encouraging fliers who opposed the new machines to observe a 'national opt-out day' on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving." An estimated 24 million travelers will fly over the Thanksgiving holidays.

In a way, I feel a bit sorry for TSA agents who conduct the rub-downs . . . but then I saw a 3-year screaming, "Quit touching me" during a pat down and Tyner's controversial video evidence. Then it really seems just way, way out of control as the public was never supposed to see those. Mostly, I feel sorry for Americans who have to endure virtual strip searches or being felt up. Some travelers report no issues at airports. Some critics say if you don't like it, then don't fly. That argument is about as ridiculous as Eric Schmidt's, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" statement. Flying is the only option sometimes. I disagree with the TSA supervisor who told Tyner that he gave up a lot of rights by buying a ticket. This is still the USA.

Not everyone, but millions of people are not pleased with the government screening. The TSA wants to try to fine John Tyner after they let him leave the screening area and then claimed TSA agents "didn't know the rules." After all that has happened with TSA and the loud public outcry for everything from privacy invasion to abusing civil liberties, perhaps it is time for airports to kick the TSA program to the curb and hire private screeners? Will private screeners do a better job than the TSA? Who knows, but it seems unlikely they could muck it up any worse. Airplanes will not be 100% secure even if travelers were stripped naked and cavity searched.

So what's it going to be, America? TSA RIP? Should U.S. airports hire private screeners or should the TSA buy the rights to the song "Pants on the Ground" and blare it from speakers at security checks so passengers can make TSA's job that much easier?

Other nations are laughing at us and our predicament. The video below was created by Taiwanese animators to represent the TSA and Tyner's "touch my junk" incident. Why not try private airport screeners? Would we surrender our freedom any more, or have our privacy invaded any worse, if we stopped trusting TSA to protect us from the bad guys? Some people claim the terrorists have won and that the TSA are the bad guys.