ENRAGED BY FASCIST INSURRECTION

 

 

By Andrew C. Wallace
October 4, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

I refuse to accept the Unconstitutional and Fascist Government put into power by the FASCIST INSURRECTION and will resist these Traitorous Usurpers who make War on us in every possible way.

I expect to be taken out, one way or the other for this, or if my writing is effective in helping to defeat the Insurrection of our Republic, and the looting of trillions of dollars; but I won’t lose much of my allotted time to live because the unconstitutional stimulus bill has been passed directing that us old people be killed by denial of care.

The Super Rich Elitist Families, who hide from public exposure, control both political parties and have instituted a comprehensive INSURRECTION of our Republic by putting Traitors into all branches and levels of government who support unconstitutional laws, repress and loot our people while denying us the Rule of Law.

Let’s get one thing absolutely clear, “Barack Obama is not the Constitutional President of the United States for the simple fact that he refuses to meet the Constitutional requirements to be President” PERIOD. He is a usurper, puppet, criminal and traitor in the office because not a single official or judge at any level of government, nor any member of the media, or party leader would dare challenge the Elite Super Rich Families who pull Obama’s strings and pay them.

It is TREASON and INSURRECTION when Usurpers routinely enact and enforce Unconstitutional laws and otherwise commit criminal acts that loot and destroy our Republic while depriving us of our constitutional rights. For their ill gotten gains, they have made war on the people, and for that there is a sure and certain retribution in common law and in hell.

Every Monetary and Financial action taken, or proposed by this government, excluding parts of the recurring budget, are unconstitutional, and will facilitate the looting of this country by traitors resulting in total economic collapse, third world status and Fascism.

There is no possible upside to be found in the history of Economic Theory and Practice; every action taken is designed to destroy and loot our economy. As an Economist, I read 10-15 articles a day by other Economists I respect, and they all reinforce what I just said. The talking heads in government, big business and the media are mostly well paid liars, who know they are lying for money and power.

Elitist Super Rich Families controlled Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama which allows them to loot this country, and every man, woman and child to the point of abject poverty. Their objective is obvious for all to see from their actions—destruction of America resulting in Fascism and Slavery. In fact the Elitist Families have been controlling the Progressives, Communists, Fascists and Marxists in both Democrat and Republican parties for at least 100 years. They can do this because they own our Officials and judges, the Federal Reserve Bank, large Corporations thru tax free foundations, the Media and most everything else of value in the world. Recent studies show that just a few criminal families control most of the world’s stock and 100% of our Federal reserve bank.

Our entire election process, from nomination to election was fraudulent because it was controlled by the elitist owned propaganda media, unlimited funding, vote fraud and intimidation by Acorn and Union “rent a mobs”.

A delicate and temporary balance now exists in this country between Patriots and the Traitors in the Insurrection. If one side or the other should upset this balance before the traitors surrender, the result will be a civil war on the order of the French Revolution when many Americans will die, but the traitors will all be dead. The Usurpers have initiated their criminal actions against the American People and must realize that they have committed treason without a constitutional leg to stand on; their actions are criminal and untenable , and everyone knows it, they overplayed their hand. Many in Congress who support this Fascist Insurrection and Unconstitutional laws are even afraid to meet with their constituents.

We will proceed to defeat this INSURRECTION in several ways simultaneously with the Rule of Law. The most Obvious is to force Obama to prove he is constitutionally qualified; and when he fails, everything he has done is null and void and we will proceed with countless criminal prosecutions against him and his associates, including most Officials and of course the Elite Super Rich Families who for the first time in history will be called to account. Next we will proceed to do everything possible to defeat every traitorous member of congress so we can impeach those we did not defeat. We will fire or impeach every single corrupt judge at every level; especially those who refused us access to the judicial system to settle the issue of Obama’s qualifications and those who allowed Obama to unconstitutionally nationalize private corporations while rewarding his Union supporters at the expense of others during bankruptcy proceedings.

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of The union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” The preceding is a direct quotation from the Constitution of the United States and requires the cooperation of only one state government. This is not the established National Guard. The Militia has the specific constitutional responsibilities as indicated, and should be able to arrest and prosecute traitors without interference from military or police units unless those units were willing to commit treason. This Militia is not independent and takes orders from the state. Our military could have demanded proof from Obama ; but they chose instead to punish subordinates who demanded proof. Our top military officers are a disgrace with a total lack of testicular fortitude. Unlike the military, the Militia will not take orders from an unlawful pretender President.

Tea Parties are great, but home delivery of your Contempt is more Effective. 

As Ron Ewart said, you must show our Traitors the great depth of your contempt and loathing, up close and personal, where they cannot ignore reality. This also means the legal picketing of homes and offices of government and media officials using the same tactics that Acorn used on the Bankers resulting in the economic meltdown. Keep it legal, don’t harm them. Go to www.opensecrets.org for names of financial supporters and discourage them from further support.

Our Federal Government has unconstitutionally taken powers from the people and the states. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr, a leading Constitutional Scholar and writer on this subject said “1. Identify a State in which a sizeable segment of the population will support—yea, will demand—two measures:

(a) regaining the Power of the Purse through the introduction of an alternative-currency system based on silver and gold; and

(b) regaining the Power of the Sword through revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” in that State.”

President Calderon and the Catholic Church of Mexico have demanded an end to United States government corruption and protection of drug traffickers by the highest levels of government power. Reported by Michael Webster, americanchronicale.com.

Close the Borders, End all Immigration, Deny Birth Citizenships and Deport every last Illegal, our survival depends on it. We can’t afford to subsidize illegal slave labor for Corporations at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $25,000 a year, $1,250,000 in a lifetime per household.

Robert Rector, heritage.org reports that the new Amnesty bill would cost Americans 2.6 Trillion dollars. These illegals are a criminal plague on our country, 28% of convicts are foreign born. If you think I am a racist, tell that to the millions of Americans who have either been murdered, killed, raped, robbed, or molested without compensation by the illegals, who don’t take our jobs. cis.org is best single source on illegals.

There would be no unemployment if illegals were deported as Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower did. Brutal Illegals are also Ethnic Cleansing neighborhoods by killing and driving Whites and Blacks out. Jack Lee, norcalblogs.com.

Failure of Government Officials to use the deadly force required to stop the invasion and to round up and deport illegals on sight, is Treason.

This Insurrection would not have been possible without a Propaganda Media owned by the Elitist Super Rich Families, which contrary to constitutional intent withhold truth from the people.

© 2009 Andrew Wallace - All Rights Reserved

Andrew C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor, Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research and writing. E-Mail: natlmktg@gte.net

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wallace/andrew120.htm

Richard M. Keefer Veteran, US Army CHARGES OBAMA WITH TREASON, AS FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY

RISE UP AMERICA!

http://www.riseupforamerica.com/newtreasoncomplaints.html

Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges

Saturday June 27, 2009 05:28 EDT

updated below - Update II)

When Obama first unveiled his "preventive detention" policy, many defenders praised him (and claimed he was different than Bush) because of his vow that -- as he put it -- "my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime." But now, relying exclusively on three Obama officials speaking behind a veil of anonymity, Peter Finn and Dafner Linza of The Washington Post and ProPublica report that the White House is "crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely." TPM calls this "the latest installment in the Obama administration's tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics." And the article itself points out the obvious: "Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war." Revealingly, the article quotes two Bush national security officials justifying the need for detention without charges.

Anonymous trial balloon articles like this one are difficult to comment on because it's obviously designed to announce that a certain policy is being considered before it's actually written, and so none of the key details is known. Would Obama's new detention powers apply only to current "War on Terror" prisoners at places like Guantanamo and Bagram, or would they also apply to future, not-yet-abducted detainees as well? Would these powers apply to detainees picked up anywhere in the world, far away from "war zones"? Would there be any judicial review or other meaningful oversight provisions so that -- even in theory -- this was something other than the unilateral, unchecked presidential power to detain indefinitely without charges? None of these important details is known (though the article notes that, under one White House proposal, "ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review"; the Emperor, sitting alone, will decree once a year whether they must remain in a cage).

This specific article is even worse than the usual one of its type, since it's particularly uncritical in passing along administration claims without any skepticism (I addressed each of the "justifications" for Obama's preventive detention proposal -- Obama has to do this because of what Bush did; we can't get convictions because of Bush's torture; it's common in War to do things like this, etc. etc. -- here). Worse, the article does not provide any information about the Obama officials whose mission the reporters are dutifully carrying out, so there's no way to assess their motives.

Those journalistic practices produce egregious sentences like this: "'Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order', the official said." I'd love to know which so-called "civil liberties groups" are pushing the White House for an Executive Order establishing the power of indefinite detention. It's certainly not the ACLU or Center for Constitutional Rights, both of which issued statements vehemently condemning the proposal (ACLU's Anthony Romero: "If President Obama issues an executive order authorizing indefinite detention, he’ll be repeating the same mistakes of George Bush").

All of that said, we already know that Obama wants a system of preventive detention without charges -- because he said so explicitly in last month's "civil liberties" speech ironically and cynically delivered in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives. And it's hard to imagine how he won't get what he wants: Republicans are eager to grant the President this detention authority (Sens. Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham have both gushingly praised Obama's proposal) and, as the Bush era proved, there are always more than enough Congressional Democrats to join with the GOP caucus to enact any new system of expanded detention and surveillance powers. Absent serious public opposition (and one recent poll shows overwhelming opposition), it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will wield the power to imprison people indefinitely without charges of any kind.

* * * * *

There is one point in particular I really want to highlight about all of this:

There has now emerged a very clear -- and very disturbing -- pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he's assured that he'll get the outcome he wants. If he can't get what he wants from those processes, he'll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway. In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants. But where those processes impede Obama's will, he'll just bypass them and assert the unilateral power to do what he wants anyway (by contrast, the first-term Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded powers even where Congress was eager to give them to him; the second-term Bush, like Obama, was willing to allow Congress to endorse his radical proposals: hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc.).

That, for instance, is the precise pattern that's driving his suppression of torture photos. Two federal courts ordered the President to release the photos under the 40-year-old Freedom of Information Act. Not wanting to abide by that decision, the White House (using Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman) tried to pressure Congress to enact new legislation vesting the administration with the power to override FOIA. When House progressives blocked that bill, the White House assured Lieberman and Graham that Obama would simply use an Executive Order to decree the photos "classified" (when they are plainly nothing of the sort) and thus block their release anyway. In other words:

We'll go to court and work with Congress so we can pretend that we're not like those bad people in the last administration, but if we don't get what we want by doing that, we'll just do it anyway through unilateral Presidential action, using the theories that the last administration so helpfully left behind and which we've been aggressively defending in court.

This was also the mentality that shaped Obama's "civil liberties" speech generally and his "prolonged detention" policy specifically. In that speech, Obama movingly assured us that some of the Guantanamo detainees will be tried in a real court -- i.e., only those the DOJ is certain ahead of time they can convict. For those about whom there's uncertainty, he's going to create new military commissions to make it easier to obtain convictions, and then try some of the detainees there -- i.e., only those they are certain ahead of time they can convict there. For the rest -- meaning those about whom Obama can't be certain he'll get the outcome he wants in a judicial proceeding or military commission -- he'll just keep them locked up anyway. In other words, he'll indulge the charade that people he wants to keep in a cage are entitled to some process (a real court or military commissions) only where he knows in advance he will get what he wants; where he doesn't know that, he'll bypass those pretty processes and assert the unilateral right to keep them imprisoned anyway.

A government that will give you a trial before imprisoning you only where it knows ahead of time it will win -- and, where it doesn't know that, will just imprison you without a trial -- isn't a government that believes in due process. It's one that believes in show trials.

And here again, with this Executive Order proposal, we see this same mentality at play. According to the Post article, one motive behind the Executive Order is that "White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible." In other words: we'll be happy to work with Congress as long as they give us what we want; if they don't, we'll just do it anyway using unilateral presidential powers. It's certainly possible -- in fact, I'd say it's likely -- that if Congress passes a preventive detention law, it will be even more Draconian than the one Obama wants. But a President who recognizes Congressional authority only when he likes the outcome -- and ignores it when he doesn't -- isn't a President who actually recognizes Congressional authority at all.

* * * * *

What ultimately matters here is that we not lose sight of the critical point: no matter the form it takes, and no matter which route is used to implement it (act of Congress or executive order), indefinite detention without charges is a repugnant and tyrannical power. Democrats and progressives had no trouble understanding that fact during the last eight years, so they should have no trouble understanding it now. As The New York Times columnist (and Obama supporter) Bob Herbert put it this week: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." Herbert also wrote:

Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention , imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.

And yet we’ve embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we’ve tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible, or whatever. President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it "prolonged detention"), but he wants to make sure it is carried out -- here comes the oxymoron -- fairly and nonabusively.

Proof of guilt? In 21st-century America, there is no longer any need for such annoyances.

Human rights? Ha-ha. That’s a good one.

Just look at the rationale being invoked by Obama officials to justify all of this, from the Post article:

Tawfiq bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

Little information on bin Attash's case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

I thought Democrats (and Obama himself) believe that information obtained via "harsh interrogation" is unreliable. Isn't that supposed to be a core Democratic belief? If so, why would we want to imprison someone as "dangerous" based on unreliable information obtained using those methods? If the accusations against someone were drowned or beaten out of another person, shouldn't we consider those coerced accusations too unreliable to justify keeping the accused in a cage for years with no trial? And if they're willing to repeat the accusations in court now that they're not being tortured -- and if we have independent, non-coerced evidence to prove the accusations -- why would past abuse bar the use of their testimony (as Marcy Wheeler suggests, the real reason why we'd want to prevent witnesses who were tortured from testifying in a court seems to be "because we're covering up our own torture")?

More important, look at the mentality being expressed -- and about to be implemented -- here: there may be instances where we cannot get convictions because of witness unavailability or other logistical problems, so we'll just imprison them anyway. Does it really require any effort to demonstrate how dangerous that mentality is -- that the President will have the power to order people imprisoned wherever there are some logistical barriers to obtaining convictions? If there's one principle that can be described as fundamental to the American founding, it's that the state -- and certainly the President -- do not have the power to order people imprisoned without charges. Thomas Jefferson said that trials by jury is "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Why is this painfully obvious proposition still necessary to defend after the November election?

UPDATE: I posted this before, but Rachel Maddow's 7-minute commentary on Obama's preventive detention proposal was really superb and well worth watching:

On a related note: as I've written many times, the area in which Obama is replicating Bush abuses most egregiously is his embrace of Bush's secrecy obsessions. Jon Stewart last night had much to say on that topic. That Obama is adopting approaches similar to Bush's in these areas is a view that is obviously spreading -- even among Obama supporters -- and is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

UPDATE II: Digby, today:

The irony, of course, is that the man who ran on transparency is actually turning out to be less transparent than the president he excoriated on the campaign trail for his secrecy. Bush and Cheney were pretty upfront about the fact that they believed they had the constitutional right to act in any way they saw fit, regardless of the accepted understanding of the constitution or congressional and judicial prerogatives. Bush declared "I'm the decider" and he meant it. This administration obviously believes it has that right as well --- it just pretends otherwise.

I suspect they understand that keeping the folks from losing that freedom loving, patriotic illusion of American exceptionalism is an important part of exercising American political power. And they're probably right. Bush and Cheney's biggest mistakes were in being honest about something nobody wants to know.

Relatedly, Booman -- a very enthusiastic Obama supporter -- documents multiple reasons to be suspicious of the claim that the DOJ cannot prosecute Tawfiq bin Attash (the example Obama officials cited in the Post article). That's why excessive secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power -- it allows government officials to make dubious and misleading claims without any ability to verify them, all while they operate in the dark.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/27/preventive_detention/

PLUTOCRATS TO MEET IN GREECE

AFP on the trail of Bilderberg group: Site near Athens, Greece, is verified to be scene of 2009 globalist Bilderberg meeting.

By James P. Tucker, Jr.

Bilderberg will return to its 1993 crime scene when it attempts to meet secretly in Vouliagmeni, Greece, May 14-17. Bilderberg will return to the grounds of Nafsika Astir Palace hotels in Vouliagmeni, 20 miles outside Athens, and meet behind guards at the Westin Nafsika.

High on the Bilderberg agenda will be how to manipulate the global economic crisis for their selfish interests. They will pressure both European and North American nations to pull back from “protectionism” in the later meetings of heads of state. Since the international financiers and high officials of government see themselves as “citizens of the world” and scorn “nationalism,” their only loyalty is bankrolls, not their country. They love free trade, essential for world government.

Thus, they are determined that the United States and other nations refuse to impose tariffs that would equalize competition at the water’s edge. They want to continue shipping U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas where cheap labor may be exploited. They want to continue importing products made by slave labor in China and Africa, underselling domestic products.

Bilderberg, a secret elitist group that meets each spring at posh resorts protected by armed guards, uniformed police, sometimes the host nation’s military plus a brigade of private, plain-clothes guards, tries hard to keep its deliberations secret. But, with help from the European media and with inside sources, their mischief is always revealed to this newspaper.

Bilderberg has a dutiful son in President Barack Obama who will be told to press ahead with the North American Union, which is to be expanded throughout the Western Hemisphere into an “American Union” similar to the European Union. Ultimately, with creation of an “Asian-Pacific Union,” the world is to be divided into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a global government of the UN. Following orders, Obama has a platoon of Bilderberg luminaries in his administration.

But Bilderberg has had problems for years in trying to impose its will on the globe. When meeting in Greece 19 years ago, it was celebrating President Bill Clinton’s promise to sign the Rio Treaty on global warming, which would have surrendered U.S. wealth and sovereignty to international bureaucrats.

Clinton, who attended Bilderberg in 2001 and was elected president in 2002, did sign the Rio Treaty but a test vote in the Senate showed ratification would be overwhelmingly rejected. It is still pending and Bilderberg boys are depressed.

AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S. (Issue # 14, April 6, 2009)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/meet_in_greece_173.html

Obama's Blackwater? Chicago Mercenary Firm Gets Millions for Private "Security" in Israel and Iraq

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted April 2, 2009

Federal records obtained by AlterNet reveal a multi-million dollar contract for a private U.S. paramilitary force operating out of Jerusalem.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama's advisers said he "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using mercenary forces, like Blackwater. Now, it appears that the Obama administration has decided on its hired guns of choice: Triple Canopy, a Chicago company now based in Virginia. It may not have Blackwater's thuggish reputation, but Triple Canopy has its own bloody history in Iraq and a record of hiring mercenaries from countries with atrocious human rights records. What's more, Obama is not just using the company in Iraq, but also as a U.S.-government funded private security force in Israel/Palestine, operating out of Jerusalem.

Beginning May 7th, Triple Canopy will officially take over Xe/Blackwater's mega-contract with the U.S. State Department for guarding occupation officials in Iraq. It's sure to be a lucrative deal: Obama's Iraq plan will inevitably rely on an increased use of private contractors, including an army of mercenaries to protect his surge of diplomats operating out of the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

The Iraq contract may come as no surprise. But according to federal contract records obtained by AlterNet, the Obama administration has also paid Triple Canopy millions of dollars to provide "security services" in Israel. In February and March, the Obama administration awarded a "delivery order" to Triple Canopy worth $5.5 million under State Department contract SAQMPD05F5528, which is labeled "PROTECTIVE SERVICES--ISRAEL." According to one government document, the contract is scheduled to run until September 2012. (Another document says September 2009.) The contract is classified as "SECURITY GUARDS AND PATROL SERVICES" in Israel. The total value of the contract was listed at $41,556,969.72. According to a January 2009 State Department document obtained by AlterNet labeled "Sensitive But Unclassified," the Triple Canopy contract is based out of Jerusalem.

According to federal records, the original arrangement with Triple Canopy in Israel appears to date back to at least September 2005 and has been renewed every year since. The company is operating under the State Department's Worldwide Personal Protection Program (WPPS), which provides for private security/military companies to operate on the U.S. government payroll in countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, and Israel. Triple Canopy, according to an internal State Department report, also worked under the program in Haiti, though that task order is now listed as "closed." In State Department documents the WPPS program is described as a government initiative to protect U.S. officials as well as "certain foreign government high level officials whenever the need arises." The State Department spent some $2 billion on the WPPS program from 2005-2008.

Triple Canopy's Growing Footprint in Iraq

Triple Canopy is hardly new to the Iraq occupation. Founded in Chicago in 2003 by "U.S. Army Special Forces veterans," the company won its first Iraq contract in 2004. In 2005, with its business expanding, Triple Canopy relocated its corporate headquarters from Obama's home state to Herndon, Virginia, placing it much closer to the center of U.S. war contracting. (On several U.S. government contracts, however, including the Israel security contracts, its Lincolnshire, Illinois address is still used.) 

Along with Blackwater and DynCorp, Triple Canopy has had armed operatives deployed in Iraq on a major U.S. government contract since the early stages of the occupation. At one point during this arrangement, Blackwater was responsible for Baghdad (the largest share of the work), DynCorp covered northern Iraq and Triple Canopy southern Iraq. Triple Canopy also worked for KBR and other corporations. As of 2007, Triple Canopy had about 2,000 operatives in Iraq, but only 257 on the State Department contract. However, its new contract, which takes effect May 7, will greatly expand Triple Canopy's government presence in Iraq. (Meanwhile, Blackwater is scheduled to continue to work in Iraq under Obama through its aviation division and in Afghanistan, where it has security and counter-narcotics contracts. It also holds millions of dollars in other U.S. government contracts around the world and in the U.S. In February alone, the Obama administration paid Blackwater nearly $70 million in security contracts.) The Obama administration may have traded Blackwater for Triple Canopy in Iraq, but it is likely that some of Blackwater's operatives, too, will simply jump over to Triple Canopy to keep working as armed security guards for occupation officials.

Like Blackwater, Triple Canopy has had its share of bloody incidents, among them  allegations that operatives have gone on missions where they shot at civilian vehicles, including one after a briefing where a team leader cocked his M-4 and said to his men, "I want to kill somebody today. ... Because I'm going on vacation tomorrow." (The man in question denied any wrongdoing). While Triple Canopy fired some employees for not reporting shooting incidents in Iraq, none have been criminally prosecuted in Iraq or the U.S. (For a full report on this and other incidents involving Triple Canopy, check out the great work of Washington Post foreign correspondent Steve Fainaru, author of Big Boy Rules.)

Also like Blackwater, Triple Canopy has hired mercenaries from countries with atrocious human rights records and histories of violent counter-insurgencies. Among them: Peru, Chile, Colombia and El Salvador. In fact, in Iraq, Triple Canopy hired far more "Third Country Nationals" than Blackwater and DynCorp and has used more TCNs than US citizens or Iraqis. As I reported in my book, Triple Canopy used the same Chilean recruiter (who served in Augusto Pinochet's military) Blackwater used when it hired Chilean forces, including some "seasoned veterans" of the Pinochet era. In El Salvador, the company reportedly used "a U.S.-trained former paratrooper and officer of the Salvadoran special forces during the country's civil war" where the U.S. backed a brutal right wing dictatorship in a war that took the lives of some 75,000 Salvadorans. A Triple Canopy spokesperson reportedly said of the Salvadorans, "They've got the right background for the type of work we are doing." A Triple Canopy subsidiary in Latin America has also reportedly used a former CIA base in Lepaterique, Honduras as a training center. In the 1980s, the facility was used by the CIA and Argentinian military intelligence in training Contra death squads to attack Nicaragua. The base also served as the headquarters for the notorious Battalion 316, a CIA-trained Honduran military unit responsible for torture and disappearances.

There is also cause for concern about Triple Canopy's attitude towards accountability for its forces in Iraq, particularly in light of new rules which, on paper, give Iraqi courts jurisdiction over contractor crimes. Blackwater has, at times, conspired with the U.S. State Department to whisk its forces out of Iraq when they are facing potential prosecution for alleged crimes committed in the country, as in the case of a drunken Blackwater operative who was alleged to have shot and killed a bodyguard to Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdel-Mahdi on Christmas Eve 2006.

According to one Triple Canopy operative, "We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night." Another Triple Canopy operative said U.S. contractors had their own motto: "What happens here today, stays here today."

The use of mercenaries by Hillary Clinton's State Department stands in stark contrast to her co-sponsorship as a Senator of a bill last year that sought to ban the use of such companies in U.S. war zones, specifically Iraq. Last February Clinton said, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." Now, Clinton will be relying on these hired guns for protecting her and her staff in various countries.

It's hardly a surprise that Obama is continuing the use of mercenaries in Iraq and beyond (Triple Canopy itself maintains offices in Abu Dhabi, Nigeria, Peru, Jordan and Uganda); nevertheless, members of Congress -- whose actions when Bush deployed these private armies were too little, too late -- have a responsibility to investigate his use of companies whose profits are intimately linked to a continuation of war. Moreover, Obama's choice of this particular company should be investigated, both by the House and Senate, before May 7th when Obama's mercenaries become the official paramilitary force in Iraq. As for Triple Canopy's role in Israel, Obama's administration should explain exactly what these forces are doing on the U.S. government payroll.

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/134594/obama%27s_blackwater_chicago_mercenary_firm_gets_millions_for_private_%22security%22_in_israel_and_iraq_/

World Bank President Admits Agenda For Global Government/Global Dictatorship

Bilderberg elitist Zoellick calls for IMF, WTO & World Bank to regulate national policy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, April 1, 2009

World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.

Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”

In other words, give global institutions the power to regulate national policy as part of the creation of global government.

What Zoellick is outlining is essentially the end of national sovereignty and the reclassification of national governments as mere subordinates to a global authority that is completely unaccountable to the voting public of any country.

The more cynical amongst us would call this a global dictatorship. Zoellick couches the plan in flowery rhetoric of helping the poor and alleviating poverty, but as we have documented for years, the global elite’s goal of world government has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with creating a global fascist state.

Zoellick, former Executive Vice President of Fannie Mae and advisor to Goldman Sachs, is a top elitist who was intimately involved in the Enron scandal and the 2000 presidential election debacle. He was also a signatory to the Project For A New American century document that called for invading Iraq as part of implementing a brutal world empire in 1998. He was later a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush.

As to be expected, Zoellick is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. He also attended the annual invitation-only conferences of the Bilderberg Group in 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will use the G20 summit in London to extend an olive branch to China, offering them a central role in the construction of a new world order and a global government, according to reports.

“Brown will hold talks with Hu Jintao, China’s president, following discussions with Barack Obama, amid signs that developing countries see the G20 summit as a chance to impose a new world order and end the era of Anglo-European dominance,” reports the Guardian.

Under the proposal, China will vastly increase its IMF funding in return for more voting rights.

A central focus of the G20 summit will be the proposal to supplant the dollar with a new global currency. Both the IMF and the United Nations threw their weight behind the implementation of a new global reserve currency system to replace the dollar, in the same week that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CFR globalists that he was “open” to the idea.

China and Russia brought the issue to the forefront of this week’s G20 when they jointly called for a new global reserve currency a week ago.

Brown has consistently called for global regulation of the financial system as a means towards global governance. In a speech at St Paul’s Cathedral in London yesterday he again called for a new “global society”.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/world-bank-president-admits-agenda-for-global-government.html

Research related articles:

1. Financial Times Editorial Admits Agenda For Dictatorial World Government
2. UN & IMF Back Agenda For Global Financial Dictatorship
3. CNBC Analyst: Global Bank, Global Currency Within 15 Years
4. Brown: World needs ‘global New Deal’
5. World Bank offers dire forecast for world economy
6. Bankers Want World Economic Government To Solve Financial Crisis They Created
7. Summit that’s hard to swallow - world leaders enjoy 18-course banquet as they discuss how to solve global food crisis
8. EU President Calls For “Global Governance” To Solve Financial Crisis
9. China Voices Support For New Global Currency To Replace Dollar
10. Slimeball Rachman Aghast At Reaction To “Global Government” Editorial
11. Obama’s Energy Czar: Socialist Agent For World Government
12. World Leaders Agree to Seek Major Global Reform

Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him

Reports incidents involving county, federal agents

Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
©2009WorldNetDaily

A lawyer spearheading the effort in Washington state to bring light to the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says he was shadowed all day today by officers with the federal Department of Homeland Security, the Snohomish County sheriff's office and the Everitt city police department.

"There's definitely observation," attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. "Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest."

Pidgeon has been the attorney for Washington state plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for that office to be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen. Dozens of similar cases have been filed around the country since the election and many have been dismissed, often because judges rule the plaintiffs don't have "standing" to bring a complaint.

The Washington state case, however, cites state law that vests in citizens the right to raise questions about an elected official's authority, effectively granting standing to those plaintiffs.

The case, although it has been filed, has not been brought to court for hearings yet.

Pidgeon told WND today he contacted his personal defense attorney, and also was in contact with the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization advocating for civil liberties and religious and personal freedoms.

Pidgeon is affiliated with the organization and told WND that there would be a letter sent inquiring about the surveillance.

He said he first became aware of the situation when his wife left their rural home early in the day and reported there were three law enforcement vehicles parked nearby, along with three black Suburban-style vehicles carrying camouflage-wearing agents, apparently from Homeland Security.

Pidgeon said he has been "outspoken" about the Obama administration and its validity due to the eligibility questions, but didn't realize he was "qualifying as an enemy of the state."

He immediately reached out to a number of individuals through email.

"My only protection is to contact the people I know," he said.

Officials of the Department of Homeland Security did not return multiple WND messages seeking a comment on the situation. Officials with the Snohomish sheriff's office and the Everett city police department said they didn't know anything about it.

"Where Homeland Security is concerned, obviously there are people working for the Obama administration with little consideration for free speech," Pidgeon told WND.

He said when he left his home, he had a sheriff's vehicle "marking every turn that I made."

"There's definitely observation," he said.

"The fact of the matter is that we have taken the position and it is consistent with Orly Taitz' position that Barack Obama failed to establish his bona fides by the election on November 4," he said. "We alleged under Democratic National Committee rules he had a burden to establish to the DNC's satisfaction his eligibility. He never did.

"As a consequence the burden remains on him. He didn't meet the burden of proving his eligibility to hold the office."

He said voters cannot simply rewrite the Constitution's eligibility requirements in a presidential vote. For one thing, only 52 percent voted for Obama, and the Constitution requires approval from three-fourths of the states for an amendment.

He also cited U.S. senators and congressman who have credited the online "fact" organizations such as snopes or factcheck for authenticating Obama's eligibility.

"Any senator who would rely on snopes or factcheck to establish a judicial opinion whether or not this person has documented his eligibility is a fool," Pidgeon said. And citing a federal judge who said the issue of Obama's eligibility already had been "twittered," he said that is "tantamount to malpractice."

Several hours after Pidgeon returned WND's call, he called again.

"We are definitely under surveillance and it's coordinated with Homeland Security," he said.

He said one of his associates had been followed from his home to the law firm's downtown office, and the associate was stopped just outside the building.

"The police officer claimed he didn't have brake lights working," Pidgeon said. "But he does."

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 legal challenges 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.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission, and they have not revealed the information it contains.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

Officials for the Obama campaign repeatedly have refused to comment on the questions, relenting only once to call the concerns "garbage."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92865

Taitz to FBI: Investigate 'tampering' at Supremes: 305 million Americans need to know if foreign national is usurping presidency'

Posted: March 21, 2009
12:15 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Orly Taitz

A California attorney battling on a number of fronts to obtain documentation of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president is asking the FBI and U.S. Secret Service to investigate suspected "tampering" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Orly Taitz, who is pursuing nearly half a dozen causes through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, says the issue of Obama's eligibility to meet the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" president has been before the Supreme Court at least four times.

But she wonders whether the justices actually were given the pleadings to review.

"I believe … that there was tampering with documents and records by employees of the Supreme Court and the justices never saw those briefs," she alleges in a letter to the FBI's Robert Mueller, the Secret Service's Mark Sullivan and Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Three hundred five million American citizens … need to know whether a foreign national is usurping the position of the president and the commander in chief," she wrote.

Taitz raises questions about "forgery of court records, tampering with court records, cyber crime, erasing of court records from the docket, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and other related crimes."

Specifically, she points to the handling of her own case, Lightfoot v. Bowen, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. Although it was scheduled for a conference, no hearing ever was held.

Join one third of a million people who are seeking the truth on whether Obama meets the Constitution's "natural born" citizenship clause.

Taitz notes that references to the case were erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, shortly after Obama, the defendant, met with eight of the nine justices behind closed doors.

It happened just two days before her case was scheduled to be reviewed in conference.

Secondly, Taitz notes that in her conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia at a book-signing in Los Angeles several weeks ago, he appeared to have no knowledge of the cases that had been submitted.

She said she mentioned her case and those brought by Cort Wrotnowski, Philip Berg and Leo Donofrio.

"In the presence of several attorneys, law students and Secret Service agents Justice Scalia kept saying that he didn't know anything … even though all of the plaintiffs have received notification that all of those cases were reviewed by all nine justices," she said.

Taitz said she's also concerned that the Supreme Court docket was somehow modified.

"Did somebody from outside break and enter into the computer system of the Supreme Court or was it done by one of the overzealous employees who wanted to keep Obama in the White House?" she asked.

"I demand to see the printout of entries of both internal docket seen by justices and the external docket seen by the public to verify if those were identical at all times, particularly between January 20th and January 23rd," she said.

She also raised the possibility that justices' signatures may have been "stamped" on documentation.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts

Her allegations, she said, were part of what she submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts when she met him at the University of Idaho a week ago.

"Due to the … great urgency of the matter in relation to the national security of the United States … I demand immediate investigation of this matter," Taitz wrote.

Taitz also is developing a Quo Warranto case that has been submitted to Holder.

Essentially, the case demands to know what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

As WND reported, Taitz already has submitted a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through Defend Our Freedoms alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

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, some 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.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  
• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  
  
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.
• 
  
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  
  
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  
  
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  
  
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  
  
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  
  
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  
  
• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  
  
• In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  
  
• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

 

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92393

Obama plans huge pledge drive for his policies

Gag me with a pitchfork!...

Obama plans huge pledge drive for his policies

Matthew B. Stannard,Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, March 20, 2009

President Obama's appearance on "The Tonight Show" - the first ever for a sitting chief executive - was only a small part of the president's so-called permanent campaign. A bigger move comes Saturday, when Obama will ask 13 million people on his campaign e-mail list to go door-to-door to raise support for his agenda.

The Pledge Project Canvass is an unprecedented effort by a president to reach beyond Congress and tap grassroots supporters for help. Volunteers recruited online by Obama's Organizing for America, a post-election group, will ask citizens to sign a pledge in support of the president's policies on energy, health care and education.

Those who pledge will be asked for their e-mail addresses so the Obama-ites can keep in touch.

"This is just the beginning for us," said Jeremy Bird, deputy national director of Organizing for America, in an online video to Obama supporters this week. "The establishment in Washington won't welcome this new direction easily. We can't let this plan be debated solely behind closed doors in Washington, D.C."

Analysts marvel

Technology and political analysts marvel at the potential of Obama's attempt to transfer his successful campaign techniques - a melding of street-level community organizing and new media tools - to advance his policy agenda.

"What Obama is doing is a very new approach," said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota.

That approach began during the campaign, when Obama tapped into an array of social networking tools on sites such as Facebook and Twitter to rally voters and raise funds. This weekend's effort is the next logical step, Bird said in an interview.

"This is taking that online social networking and moving it to offline social networking," he said.

But beneath the excitement over the White House's virtual populism is the question: What effect will it have? What's the difference between Saturday's door-knocking and petition-signing effort, however digitally organized, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of radio to rally the country around his New Deal proposals?

Also, the outreach effort could have a boomerang effect. If the same individuals who joined Obama's army of supporters feel he has overly compromised on some issues, such as health care, they could use those same networks to lash back at him.

"It could be like Frankenstein's monster coming back at him," said Mike Franc, a former staff member for Capitol Hill Republicans who is a congressional liaison for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Administration concerns

The most immediate concern for the administration is making sure the outreach doesn't look to Congress like a postcard-writing campaign by "the usual suspects," Franc said. "If it creates a cross-section of support in a district, then a politician will start looking into his political soul and wondering if he should start supporting Obama."

The challenge will be to reignite the passion that propelled Obama's presidential campaign - but on specific issues.

"The idea of volunteering to help pass a health care plan or help pass a budget is something fewer people have had experience with," said Justin Ruben, executive director of the online liberal organizing site MoveOn.org.

Indeed, Saturday will mark "the first big test of Organizing for America and whether the base that they built during the campaign is still there," said Micah Sifry, editor of TechPresident.com, an online hub for the study of how technology affects politics. "I think there are reasons to believe that it's ebbed quite a bit since the election."

For example, Sifry said, house parties organized last month were sparsely attended in some cases. And the YouTube videos announcing this weekend's pledge drive were receiving less traffic than past Obama videos have.

That could be because Obama is not pitching the pledge drive, Sifry said. (Organizing for America's Mitch Stewart and Bird are the video's stars.) Or it's possible that in the months since the election, Obama's social network has been a little turned off by frequent fundraising appeals and a lack of real opportunity to influence Obama's agenda.

3,500 house parties

But where some saw sparseness in last month's events, Bird said he saw an "unbelievably phenomenal" response: about 3,500 house parties across the nation and 80,000 personal stories uploaded by citizens to the Organizing for America site - with no paid staff or organizers.

In the past, Bird said, "nothing like that would ever happen without a massive number of staff, organizers making countless phone calls. Particularly around something that's not necessarily that sexy when you just see it on face value."

David All, who heads a conservative Web 2.0 agency, said it's almost irrelevant whether this weekend's push results in a horde of canvassers and calls to Congress. Obama's team has taken the long view, he said, and is more focused on continuing to build its social network than on scoring splashy successes.

"It's already succeeded," he said. "Even if they had 100 (participants), that is 100 more than what would have happened without it."

It's a lesson, he said, the conservative opposition has yet to fully grasp. Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele now posts to YouTube, and GOP.com is scheduled for an overhaul. But Obama, he said, remains far ahead in his ability to repeatedly tap the grass roots and maintain what Jimmy Carter adviser Patrick Caddell dubbed the permanent campaign.

"Republicans are still sitting around saying, 'What happened?' " Steele said. "If I were a 2012 candidate, you'd better believe I'd be out there today working against this thing."

Other presidents with direct appeals

Previous U.S. presidents who sought citizen support for domestic agendas:

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Shortly after taking office in 1933, Roosevelt began to broadcast a series of "fireside chats" to rally Americans about his New Deal package of legislation. Congress passed 15 of Roosevelt's major bills in his first 100 days in office.

Ronald Reagan: The former actor was comfortable on camera and used television addresses in his first months in office to connect with viewers - most successfully when he asked voters to write their legislators and urge them to repeal taxes. Measures to do that were passed.

Bill Clinton: Clinton traveled the country in 1993 to push for health care reform. But he, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their surrogates often were met by well-organized opponents. Their package never got a congressional floor vote. Wrote Hillary Clinton in her 2003 memoir: "We soon learned that nothing was off limits in this war and that the other side was far better armed with the tools of political battle: money, media and organization."

George W. Bush: In early 2005, Bush used the "political capital" he asserted he had received from his 2004 re-election to promote a revamping of the Social Security system. He crisscrossed the country to drum up support for his proposal, but after GOP defections, it never even got a vote in Congress.

E-mail the writers at mstannard@sfchronicle.com and jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/20/MNMO16JJDF.DTL&tsp=1

Also Read:

Barack Obama and The Altar of Greed

It is no exaggeration to say that this vibrant and well-liked president, who carries the hopes and aspirations of a nation on his shoulders with a robust foundation of good will to match, is potentially giving away everything in order to make sure that a band of corporate pirates keep their stolen taxpayer money. And doing that, ladies and gentlemen, is as dumb as... Well, you know...a bag of hammers.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20862

Paul Krugman: Obama bank plan a total "fantasy."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/more-on-the-bank-plan/

While the Nation Cries Foul Over AIG, House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

Legislation intensifies fears about Obama’s civilian national security force

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009

The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.

The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.

Fears about Obama’s plans to create involuntary servitude were first stoked in July 2008, when Obama told a rally in Colorado Springs, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006.

“The bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service,” reports Fox.

“We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn’t emulate and probably can’t imagine,” said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. “The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative.”

Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker warns that Obama’s agenda is to, “tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda.”

CFR luminary Gary Hart hit back at critics, claiming in a Huffington Post piece that, “Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy.”

The frightening prospect of Obama’s mandatory government servitude is covered in-depth in Alex Jones’ new documentary blockbuster, The Obama Deception. Subscribe to prison planet.tv now to watch the film in high-quality, watch it for free here or buy the DVD, make copies and spread the word.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/house-passes-mandatory-national-service-bill.html

Research related articles:

1. Democrats Introduce Public National Service Bills
2. Obama Website Scrubs Mandatory Community Service Call
3. Bill to help remove people remove themselves from TSA watch list passes House
4. “National Service” and Conscription: A Question of Ownership
5. Obama’s chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service
6. Net Neutrality Bill Passes
7. House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition
8. USDA Backs Off Mandatory National Animal Identification Registration
9. Senate passes $612 bln defense spending bill
10. New Jersey parents protest mandatory flu shots
11. Georgia Rep. Issues Warning on National Security Force, Gun Ban
12. Government To Confiscate 401(k)s and IRAs For Mandatory Savings Tax?