konane's Blog

People were having a cow over "carnivore" being used in the Bush administration to track suspected foreign terrorists after 9-11.  Given such broad sweeping powers how can this be any different? 

Follow the crumb trail GPS mapping of every door in the US by ACORN census takers, Homeland Security labeling anyone not agreeing with the current administration a potential domestic terrorist and now this.

Guess since newspeak calls it something different it gets a free pass.

________

"Obama Set to Create A Cybersecurity Czar With Broad Mandate
Shielding Public, Private Networks Is Goal

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 26, 2009

"President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a "cyber czar," a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.

The adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council but will report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are not final.

The announcement will coincide with the long-anticipated release of a 40-page report that evaluates the government's cybersecurity initiatives and policies. The report is intended to outline a "strategic vision" and the range of issues the new adviser must handle, but it will not delve into details, administration officials told reporters last month.

Cybersecurity "is vitally important, and the government needs to be coordinated on this," a White House official said Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The report give conclusions and next steps. It's trying to steer us in the right direction."

The document will not resolve the politically charged issue of what role the National Security Agency, the premier electronic surveillance agency, will have in protecting private-sector networks. The issue is a key concern in policy circles, and experts say it requires a full and open debate over legal authorities and the protection of citizens' e-mails and phone calls. The Bush administration's secrecy in handling its Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, most of which was classified, hindered such a debate, privacy advocates have said.
ad_icon

The White House's role will be to oversee the process, formulate policy and coordinate agencies' roles, and will not be operational, administration officials have said.

Obama was briefed a week ago and signed off on the creation of the position, the sources said. But as of Friday, discussions were continuing as to what rank and title the adviser would have. The idea is to name someone who can "pick up the phone and contact the president directly, if need be," an administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Obama pledged during his presidential campaign to elevate the issue of cybersecurity to a "top priority" and to appoint a national cybersecurity adviser "who will report directly to me."

Having the adviser report to both the national security and economic advisers suggests that the White House is seeking to ensure a balance between homeland security and economic concerns, the sources said. It also indicates an effort to quell an internal political battle in which Lawrence H. Summers, the senior White House economic adviser, is pushing for the National Economic Council to have a key role in cybersecurity to ensure that efforts to protect private networks do not unduly threaten economic growth, the sources said.

The report suggests that although it is a key government responsibility to help secure private-sector networks, regulation should be the last resort, the sources said. The report touts the concept of public-private partnerships to protect nongovernmental systems. It discusses the need to provide incentives for greater data sharing and risk management, and to use the procurement process to drive greater security, they said.

The report recommends that members be appointed to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent executive branch agency created by Congress in 2007 to ensure that privacy concerns are considered in the implementation of counterterrorism policies and laws. The report suggests that the board's mandate expressly include cybersecurity, the sources said.

The document is based on a 60-day review of cyber policies, led by Melissa Hathaway, the interim White House cybersecurity adviser and former intelligence official who is a contender for the new position. During that review, Hathaway's team had dozens of meetings with representatives from industry, academia and civil liberties groups, and received more than 100 papers. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html

This one features a young William Shatner, real hair, slim physique.

 

Twilight Zone "Nick Of Time" PT.1 Air Date Nov 18,1960

 

Twilight Zone "Nick Of Time" PT.2 Air Date Nov 18,1960

 

Twilight Zone "Nick Of Time" PT.3 Air Date Nov 18,1960

Rod Serling a genius before his time passed way too young.  Wonder what tv would be like today were he still living?

Cloris Leachman and Billy Mumy are in this one.

____________

"Twilight Zone "It's A Good Life PT.1 Air Date Nov 3,1961

 

"Twilight Zone "It's A Good Life" PT.2 Air Date Nov 3 ,1961

 

 

"Twilight Zone "It's A Good Life" PT.3 Air Date

Nov 3,1961

 

Cartoon below for fun.  

8 part interesting interview for conspiracy theorists about global elitist agenda also naming players dates and times.  What is hype, what is accurate is up to your imagination.  Was sufficiently interesting for me to listen all the way through.

_________

 

_____________________________________

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen part 1/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7X9VPIqRko

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen part 2/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k5jQzpyG2c&feature=related

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen part 3/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhHcACjhyGo&feature=related

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen part 4/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTp3EpvIklA&feature=related

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen Part 5/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfACOGjA4o&feature=related

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen Part 6/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeuxyOgD4kc&feature=related

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen Part 7/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIHV2XEhbbY&feature=related

Coast to Coast AM - May 12 2009 - World War III with Joel Skousen Part 8/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZp2hq_uZJ8&feature=related

Who we really are versus social conditioning, political social engineering designed to turn us out as cookie cutter replicas of one another.

________

Abraham-Hicks Daily Quote 

"Everyone doesn't have to be the same. Most say,"Well, it's so much easier if we're all the same." And we say, it is not easier when you're all the same; conformity is the thing that thwarts you most. That massive wanting to get you to conform - to all think the same way and want the same things - is what is causing the revolt that is happening within you. You are determined to be freedom-seekers in a Mass Consciousness society that is determined to make you the same."

_________

"Sheep in human clothing -- scientists reveal our flock mentality

February 14th, 2008
Source Physorg.com

"Have you ever arrived somewhere and wondered how you got there? Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found the answer, with research that shows that humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals.

Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd's direction - and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it.

The findings could have major implications for directing the flow of large crowds, in particular in disaster scenarios, where verbal communication may be difficult. "There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect," says Professor Jens Krause of the University's Faculty of Biological Sciences. "At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organising pedestrian flow in busy areas."

Professor Krause, with PhD student John Dyer, conducted a series of experiments where groups of people were asked to walk randomly around a large hall. Within the group, a select few received more detailed information about where to walk. Participants were not allowed to communicate with one another but had to stay within arms length of another person.

The findings show that in all cases, the 'informed individuals' were followed by others in the crowd, forming a self-organising, snake-like structure. "We've all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd," says Professor Krause. "But what's interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren't allowed to talk or gesture to one another. In most cases the participants didn't realise they were being led by others."

Other experiments in the study used groups of different sizes, with different ratios of 'informed individuals'. The research findings show that as the number of people in a crowd increases, the number of informed individuals decreases. In large crowds of 200 or more, five per cent of the group is enough to influence the direction in which it travels. The research also looked at different scenarios for the location of the 'informed individuals' to determine whether where they were located had a bearing on the time it took for the crowd to follow.

"We initially started looking at consensus decision making in humans because we were interested in animal migration, particularly birds, where it can be difficult to identify the leaders of a flock," says Professor Krause. "But it just goes to show that there are strong parallels between animal grouping behaviour and human crowds."

Source: University of Leeds "

http://www.physorg.com/news122212159.html

Via SteveQuayle.com 

 

"U.S. stirs a hornet's nest in Pakistan

ERIC MARGOLIS
Source uruknet.info

MAY 18, 2009

"PARIS -- Pakistan finally bowed to Washington's angry demands last week by unleashing its military against rebellious Pashtun tribesmen of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) -- collectively mislabelled "Taliban" in the West.

The Obama administration had threatened to stop $2 billion US annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan's political and military leadership and block $6.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan's turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier.

The result was a bloodbath: Some 1,000 "terrorists" killed (read: mostly civilians) and 1.2 million people -- most of Swat's population -- made refugees.

Pakistan's U.S.-rented armed forces have scored a brilliant victory against their own people. Too bad they don't do as well in wars against India. Blasting civilians, however, is much safer and more profitable.

Unable to pacify Afghanistan's Pashtun tribes (a.k.a. Taliban), a deeply frustrated Washington has begun tearing Pakistan apart in an effort to end Pashtun resistance in both nations. CIA drone aircraft have so far killed over 700 Pakistani Pashtun. Only 6% were militants, according to Pakistan's media, the rest civilians.

Pashtun, also improperly called Pathan, are the world's largest tribal people. Fifteen million live in Afghanistan, forming half its population. Twenty-six million live right across the border in Pakistan. Britain's imperialists divided Pashtun by an artificial border, the Durand Line (today's Afghan-Pakistan border). Pashtun reject it.

Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947, provided much of their homeland be autonomous and free of government troops. Pashtun Swat only joined Pakistan in 1969.

As Pakistan's Pashtun increasingly aided Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan, U.S. drones began attacking them. Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands. The result was the current explosion of Pashtun anger.

I have been to war with the Pashtun and have seen their legendary courage, strong sense of honour and determination. They are also hugely quarrelsome, feuding and prickly.

One quickly learns never to threaten a Pashtun or give him ultimatums. These are the mountain warriors who defied the U.S. by refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden because he was a hero of the anti-Soviet war and their guest. The ancient code of "Pashtunwali" still guides them: Do not attack Pashtun, do not cheat them, do not cause them dishonour. To Pashtun, revenge is sacred.

HAM-HANDED

Now, Washington's ham-handed policies and last week's Swat atrocity threaten to ignite Pakistan's second worst nightmare after invasion by India: That its 26 million Pashtun will secede and join Afghanistan's Pashtun to form an independent Pashtun state, Pashtunistan.

This would rend Pakistan asunder, probably provoke its restive Baluchi tribes to secede and tempt mighty India to intervene militarily, risking nuclear war with beleaguered Pakistan.

The Pashtun of NWFP have no intention or capability of moving into Pakistan's other provinces, Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan. They just want to be left alone. Alarms of a "Taliban takeover of Pakistan" are pure propaganda.

Lowland Pakistanis repeatedly have rejected militant Islamic parties. Many have little love for Pashtun, whom they regard as mountain wild men best avoided.

Nor are Pakistan's well-guarded nukes a danger -- at least not yet. Alarms about Pakistan's nukes come from the same fabricators with hidden agendas who brought us Saddam Hussein's bogus weapons.

THE REAL DANGER

The real danger is in the U.S. acting like an enraged mastodon, trampling Pakistan under foot, and forcing Islamabad's military to make war on its own people. Pakistan could end up like U.S.-occupied Iraq, split into three parts and helpless.

If this continues, at some point patriotic Pakistani soldiers may rebel and shoot the corrupt generals and politicians on Washington's payroll.

Equally ominous, a poor people's uprising spreading across Pakistan -- also mislabelled "Taliban" -- threatens a radical national rebellion reminiscent of India's Naxalite rebels.

As in Iraq, profound ignorance and gung ho military arrogance drive U.S. Afghan policy. Obama's people have no understanding what they are getting into in "AfPak." I can tell them: An unholy mess we will long regret."

http://uruknet.com/?p=m54366&hd=&size=1&l=e

In addition to being put last in line for any potential payback by surviving companies as stated in this article our children, grandchildren have been strapped with with paying back another $15.4 billion plus accrued interest.

"Thuggery And Mob Action, Government Style"

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogentry/29825 

Government plays but we pay.

_______________

"GM could be wholly owned by U.S. gov't after bankruptcy, $15.4 billion in loans forgiven

With General Motors' bankruptcy filing all but assured, details of the deal are being hashed out as you read this and sources are coming forward to secretly divulge some of the more critical aspects of the plan. The newest tidbit comes from an unnamed source familiar with the negotiations speaking with Reuters who said that GM's Chapter 11 filing would create a new company comprised of the General's positive assets and will be initially owned by the U.S. government. The report lends further credence to the "good" GM, "bad" GM plan we've been hearing about for weeks, with one company taking on all of GM's deficient assets and another separate entity comprised of the positive assets, the latter of which could honor the claims of secured lenders, possibly paying back most or all of the money owed. But what about the taxpayer loans?

Reuters' source indicated that the new government strategy for GM would include extending the U.S.' credit line to the newly formed company and forgiving the majority of the $15.4 billion federal loans to the automaker. Additionally, the government could give both bondholders and GM's unions a stake in the company, and although a new board would be established - pending review from the government's oversight board - Rick Wagoner's successor and GM's new CEO, Fritz Henderson, would likely head the new company. Shocking? Hardly. Disturbing? Sound off in the comments below. Thanks to all who tipped in."

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/19/report-after-bankruptcy-gm-could-be-owned-by-u-s-govt/

Back to inspirational stuff, these videos are totally awesome!!!

Em, hope your kitties haven't chewed your speaker wires again.....

_______________

"What You Think Is  Reality Is Illusion

La Realidad es una Ilusión (1 de 2)

 

Member of another forum used the following quote as their signature ... found it appropriate for our new lesson in PC by the thought police.

__________

"Political correctness defined.

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

R. J. Wiedemann LtCol. USMC Ret."

_____________________________

Propananda-DisInfo
Source BlacklistedNews.com
-----

Newspeak: What's in a Name? Re-Branding Madness Consumes Washington

Published on 05-18-2009
Source: Fox News

"Global War on Terror is out -- "overseas contingency operation" is in.

Terrorist attack is out -- "man-caused disaster" is in.

Since the new administration took office, Washington has been consumed, on both sides of the aisle, by a kind of re-branding madness. This marathon in semantics has had a variety of tactical purposes, depending on who's got his Sharpie on the dictionary.

The Obama administration, through a string of delicate shifts in terminology, has softened -- or at least obfuscated -- the essence of the war against Islamic extremism.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, arguably the Washington equivalent to Madonna of re-branding, delivered an entire set of testimony without using the word "terrorism." She says she prefers "man-caused disasters."

And the administration as a whole phased out the term "Global War on Terror." "Overseas contingency operation" became the tag that is now used in budget documents to explain where billions of taxpayer dollars are going.

Napolitano told the German magazine Der Spiegel she's avoiding such hot-button words like "terrorism" to demonstrate the administration's desire to "move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave even less of an explanation, telling reporters in March that the name switch for the War on Terror "speaks for itself."

Republican marketing guru Pete Snyder, with New Media Strategies -- who called former President George W. Bush a "horrible" brander -- guessed that these new names serve a common purpose.

"The premise there is they want to confuse the public," he said, noting that Obama is pursuing a national security agenda not so far afield from Bush's.

Doing so under the title of "overseas contingency operation" might not draw the same backlash of Code Pinkers.

But re-branding fever has taken hold in other areas, in other departments and in the other party. Marketing wonks say this is leading to mixed results.

"What's in a name, it's hugely important," Snyder said. "Billions of dollars are spent by corporations every year to try to take a product or a concept that is complex and boil it down into something that is very succinct and burn [it] into the brains of Americans."

With public policy, Snyder said, branding is even more important, since lawmakers are selling products that are far more complicated.

Unfortunately, "politicians and policymakers tend to be absolutely horrible marketers," he said.

Bush drew criticism for the War on Terror title since it was essentially a war against an intangible force. Bush also took heat for such terms as the Clear Skies Act and Healthy Forests Initiative, both of which critics said obviously undermined their namesakes.

Similar title-tweaking is happening in Obama's White House.

The Treasury Department, for instance, tried to substitute the term "legacy assets" for "toxic assets" -- those stinky financial holdings that pollute the books of banks and that the government wants to take off their hands.

"Legacy" might connote "investment" rather than "risk." But few in the media are actually using the term on a regular basis.

Then health officials in the U.S. and the World Health Organization tried to rein in the media from using the term "swine flu" to describe the outbreak they feared would reach pandemic levels. H1N1, please, they said, as the pork lobby expressed concern that irrational fear of the pig was leading to international bans on U.S. pork products. But as one Associated Press report noted, "the virus that is scaring the world is pretty much all pig."

But there's another re-branding campaign, this one not yet official, coming out of the Republican Party, which is not trying to re-brand itself but the other guys.

Politico.com reported that the Republican National Committee plans to approve a resolution to rename its rival the "Democrat Socialist Party."

This comes after the GOP tried, to little avail, to rename the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. A few lone conservatives still use the term, but party members declined to codify the change last year and mainstream Republicans generally call the party by its real name, for now.

Snyder said this latest move inevitably comes off as petty and misguided.

"If the dog food we're making is being recalled, just changing the tagline isn't the best way to go about it," he said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has distanced himself from the impending decision, telling NBC's "Meet the Press," that "if they do that, they do that."

But party members opened themselves up to endless Democratic ribbing with the apparent name-change.

"Given the challenges they face, seems exactly the way I would be using my time, too," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs joked on Friday.

Eric Swartz, founder of the San Francisco-based brander TaglineGuru, said the GOP needs to focus more on reinventing itself than the Democrats.

"You just can't throw a word against the wall and expect everyone to fall down and fall in love with it," he said.

There needs to be an infrastructure behind it. For this reason, branders see a more promising campaign in the nascent attempt to overhaul the so-called War on Drugs.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that new drug czar Gil Kerlikowske wants to drop "War on Drugs" from the national lexicon.

"We're not at war with people in this country," he told the paper, summing up the longstanding criticism of the term.

Swartz said a new name for the War on Drugs could be effective if paired with new policy.

He attributed the intense interest in Washington branding lately in part to President Obama's successful campaign, which he said showed Washington what good branding can do.

"He owned the word 'change.' Other people tried to encroach on that -- I guess he was there first," Swartz said. "He had the logo, he had a great motto."

So what's next?

There's still plenty of other security-related terms to toy with, and lawmakers could certainly benefit from new terminology to soften the impact of their ongoing spending binge.

Swartz took a crack at rebranding some key policy terms for the Obama administration, or anybody else, to use. His suggestions:

Detainees: Custodial informants

Terrorists: Improvised ideologues

Deficit: Long shortfall (or inverted surplus)

One trillion dollars: Nth power financing

Abortion: Reproductive choice

Earmarks: Allocators

Bailouts: Stop-gappers

Border violence: Territorial imperative

Torture: Non-verbal questioning

Taxes: Income tweaks

Have at it, Washington. "

Copyright © 2006-2009 BlackListedNews.com

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-4261-0-21-21--.html

For those interested in preserving their rights as enumerated under the US Constitution, this is suggested reading.

____________

"Legal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control

by Brian Darling 05/04/2009
Source HumanEvents.com

"Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled "A World Drowning in Guns" where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international "marking and tracing regime." He complained that "the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way." Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. "to submit information about their small arms production."

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power "to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations." Koh feels that U.S. should "establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters" of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh's ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech 

http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub11111.pdf   (pdf). 

Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh's extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America.

FDA Regulation of Tobacco

As if the federal government weren't interfering enough in your daily decisions, now officials want to greatly expand the FDA's regulatory power over tobacco. The House has passed a bill that would, among other things, allow the FDA to regulate nicotine and mandate more warnings about the health risks of tobacco. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is spoiling for a fight when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid schedules a vote on the bill. Let's hope others join the fight against an ever-expanding federal government.

The First Amendment Under Attack

Many conservatives are aware of the now-infamous DHS report on "rightwing extremism" -- as well they should be. This report said that the possible passage of gun control legislation, the election of the first African American president, the economic downturn and the return of military veterans could lead to domestic terrorism: "Rightwing extremism in the United States ... may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single, issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." This report serves to demonize many elements of the conservative movement by characterizing them as potential radical domestic terrorists.

Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) have introduced a resolution requesting that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issue a formal apology to the nation's military personnel and veterans whom the report deems extremist because they are pro-life and/or hold other conservative views. It's an outrage that those who served this country honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan would be scrutinized by federal officials. Conservatives should be wary that the federal government may be monitoring conservative groups who differ with the president on policy grounds.

Energy Tax Hikes

This week, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and his top climate deputy, Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will try to advance the innocuously named American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACES). The bill, a de-facto energy tax, would undermine America's economic recovery and punish low- and middle-income families with staggering electricity price hikes.

A handful of moderate Democrats have joined Republicans to oppose such a scheme. The key difference is that, according to Roll Call, Waxman and Markey are meeting with hesitant Democrats members to find a bill that protects their own districts. This amounts to picking winners and losers behind closed doors, giving the politically connected a chance to avoid (if only for a year or two) the massive economic harm likely to occur.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the need for transparency. Americans should demand similar, if not greater, transparency from Reps. Markey and Waxman. If they're going to pick winners and losers, they should do so openly."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31711
_____

"IT IS GETTING VERY SERIOUS NOW

By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

"First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'"

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now."

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin511.htm

Via SteveQuayle.com.  Pithy information everyone should know.  Live links for reference.

____________

Interesting video interview Sen. Kit Bond first article. 

Second one Pelosi doing the backstroke fast as she can.   Way too power hungry for any high position, she does not wear it well. 

Wish she'd do the honorable thing and resign.

____________

Video: Sen. Kit Bond on Pelosi's CIA Claim

http://thepage.time.com/video-sen-kit-bond-on-pelosis-cia-claim/

__________

"Hoyer wants Pelosi facts out

By Jared Allen and Mike Soraghan
Posted: 05/12/09 07:53 PM [ET]
Source The Hill

"The No. 2 Democrat in the House on Tuesday said Americans should be provided answers on what Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about interrogations of suspected terrorists and when she knew about it.

But he also indicated that those answers might give the embattled Speaker political cover.

"I think the facts need to get out," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters on Tuesday when asked about calls from both sides of the aisle for congressional investigations into the formulation of the so-called torture memos.

The Pelosi interrogation controversy has become a major distraction as the White House and congressional Democrats are seeking to move their top agenda items, most notably healthcare reform and climate change legislation. It is likely that Pelosi (D-Calif.) will be grilled about interrogations at her weekly press conference on Thursday.

Hoyer accused Republicans of creating a diversion by focusing on what information leading Democrats received about interrogation techniques. But he is now the highest-ranking Democrat to say that such information should be made public.

"I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when," Hoyer said. "The issue is not what was said or what was known; the focus ought to be on what was done.

"But I think, frankly," the majority leader added, "the information about what was said and when it was said and who said it - I think that probably ought to be on the record, as well, so the American public knows that rather than what I think is somewhat of a distraction rather than a substantive debate."

Since the release of Bush administration memos authorizing interrogation practices that President Obama has deemed "torture," Republicans have deflected the heat back at Democrats.

Over the last couple of weeks, they have highlighted a steady drip of revelations that have undercut Pelosi's statement that she was told that waterboarding had been declared legal in 2002, but not used on prisoners. She has also said she had no power to stop it, and little ability to protest.

Republicans claim that Pelosi has known for years that intelligence agents were waterboarding terrorism suspects, but waited to complain until years later, when the practice was made public. The revelations have infuriated liberal activists.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, has pushed for hearings after engineering the release of CIA documents that say Pelosi, the panel's ranking Democrat in 2002, was briefed on interrogation techniques used on a terrorism suspect who is now known to have been waterboarded.

But former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who received a similar briefing at the time, has also said he wasn't told that prisoners were being waterboarded.

Pelosi did join in a protest filed after the first briefing that specifically mentioned waterboarding in 2003

Democrats are stressing that Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who became ranking Democrat when Pelosi became minority leader, were not explicitly told of waterboarding until the 2003 briefing, when it had been used for six months, and that it continued after Harman protested.

They also note that the House passed legislation that would have banned waterboarding months after Democrats took control of the chamber in 2007.

Pelosi herself has not asked for any information about the briefings to be made public. And on Tuesday the respected political fact-checking website PolitiFact deemed Pelosi's explanations on waterboarding "false," in light of the CIA documents released last week and even in spite of CIA Director Leon Panetta's letter accompanying the documents saying agents' memories about the briefings could be faulty.

Hoyer's comments seem to indicate that Pelosi may be vindicated at the end of the day.

"To some degree she was in a position where ... she was bound by requirements of secrecy as a condition of those briefings, so it's a little bit of a conundrum there as well," he said.

And when asked if the controversy surrounding what the Speaker knew about interrogation tactics was damaging her support among House Democrats, Hoyer answered flatly: "No."

Yet Hoyer left unclear the manner in which he would like to see such information made public, and did not directly answer a question about whether Pelosi and other members of Congress should have to testify publicly, as Republicans have called for.

While calls for a "truth commission" have faded, congressional hearings are already under way on the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

The Senate Judiciary Administrative Oversight and the Courts subcommittee will hold a hearing Wednesday billed as the first hearing on the "torture memos" since their release.

Subcommittee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who also is a member of the Intelligence Committee, told The Associated Press that he offered legislation in the committee to ban the harsh methods, which was later incorporated into broader legislation.

But Whitehouse said he never protested to the Bush administration because "it never crossed my mind that it would make the least bit of difference."

Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday to discuss the memos. "

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/hoyer-wants-pelosi-facts-out-2009-05-12.html

__________

"Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employees_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html?showall

Technology is a wonderful thing otherwise Big Brother could 'burn all the books.'

_______

"Flashback: Gore Calls Bush Policies "Un-American" In 2002 Speech

******  AUDIO  *******    Wasn't able to embed it.

On CNN Friday morning Former Vice President claimed he "waited two years" to criticize the Bush administration. In fact, In September of 2002 he trashed then President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the cabinet for their handling of the war against terrorism. "From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right," Mr. Gore said. Gore called the Bush administration's "attack on fundamental constitutional rights" beyond the "pale and un-American." The Weekly Standard has more quotes of Former Vice President Al Gore speaking out against the Bush administration prior to the two-years he claimed to wait. Transcript:

AL GORE: Vice President Cheney said after the war against terrorism began, "This war may last for the rest of our lives." I kind of think I know what he meant by that, but the apprehensions in the world that I spoke of earlier are not calmed down any by this doctrine of preemption that they are now asserting. By now the Bush Administration may now be beginning realizing that national and international cohesion are indeed strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies. On the domestic front, the administration, having delayed for many months before conceding the need to pass Joe Lieberman's bill and create an institution outside the White House to manage homeland defense, has actually been willing to see this legislation held up for the sake of an effort to coerce the Congress into stripping civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal employees. Now which is more important: passing the Homeland Security Act, or satisfying a relatively small yet powerful member of the right-wing coalition that has as its number-one priority dismantling labor unions? If that's the most important priority in that legislation, that explains why they're refusing to let the bipartisan consensus in favor of it go forward.

Far more damaging is the administration's attack on fundamental constitutional rights that we ought to have and do have as American citizens. The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American and it ought to be stopped. "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/flashback_gore_calls_bush_policies_un-american_in_2002_speech.html

__________

"Al Gore to Dick Cheney: 'I waited two years'

Al Gore said Friday that fellow former Vice President Dick Cheney has jumped back into the political fray too soon into the new administration's term.

"I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical," Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on "policy."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22568.html

_________

"CNN's John Roberts Fails to Press Gore on Bush Criticism Whopper
By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
May 15, 2009 - 17:14 ET

"CNN anchor John Roberts failed to catch former Vice President Al Gore make a significant exaggeration about his criticism of the Bush administration in its early years during an interview on Friday's American Morning"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/05/15/cnns-john-roberts-fails-press-gore-bush-criticism-whopper

___________

Two very interesting articles about mind control.  Live links for reference.

_________

"Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push

"Dead People Get Stimulus Checks

Updated: Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:30 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT

"MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.

WATCH DICK BRENNAN'S REPORT (VIDEO, LEFT)

Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United Stated for a seven-month visit in 1969.

The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.

The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system."

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/your_money/consumer/090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks