A Draft by any name is a Draft! Just so NO, Hell NO!

I will Not, my wife or my children will not serve a Fascist, Communist or Marxist Government. It is time to say, what the said in the 1960's

"Draft, Hell NO!"

WorldNetDaily
Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'
'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'

---

Posted: November 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

---

WorldNetDaily

A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

(Story continues below)

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here:

In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks.

"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."

Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."

He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible.

"We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I'm not going sit here and hold up [plans]," Emanuel said.

When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, "Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you're worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes."

He chuckled at the reporters concerns.

"Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience.

"There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained," he said.

But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic "force," has been raising questions.

The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"

Emanuel uses his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they "serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

A video of his comments is here:

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.

But Farah's call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

"You've got us surrounded, you poor bastards."

Memo for the Record to the Next Congress

To: The Victors of the Recent National Elections
From: Your gun-owning constituents
Subject: The so-called "Gun Show Loophole"

Congratulations. You have just been swept into power. Enjoy the feeling.

But come January, the special interests who put you there are going to be banging on your door asking for various favors. Some of them are going to be demanding more gun control legislation, among them a law to close the so-called "gun show loophole."

Heretofore, the bumbling GOP has at least been able to fend off these attempts at our liberties, but those corrupt incompetents have now been justifiably swept from power for their other numerous political sins. Neither Presidential candidate mentioned the subject much during the campaign (for good reasons), but both are on record as supporting previous bills aimed at exerting complete federal control over the private sale of arms.

You call this "reasonable regulation."

We call it tyranny, for not even King George III was so grasping. But since you won the election, it will be your candidate who takes the oath and signs the bill. It may be assumed that the new president will sign such a bill if you place it before him. However, we do not address this memo to him. It is the darker angels of YOUR nature we are seeking to save you from, as I will explain below.

The hubris derived from your own smashing electoral victory may incline you to listen to those voices demanding that you seize the moment for more gun control. If I may, let me explain the possible personal, unintended consequences of such an act to you.

There are in your district, in your state and indeed all over the country, a great number of gun owners just like me. I suppose if you added us all up there at least a million or two of us.

Maybe more, maybe less, but once you get into numbers like that, what's a million more or less?

We are the 'cold, dead hands" types, the men and women who have sworn, as the old bumper sticker said, "When guns are outlawed, I'll be an outlaw." We have fought a political delaying action against the enemies of our traditional 2nd Amendment rights for decades now. Indeed, we have been shoved back from the free exercise of our historic firearms liberty for 70 plus years.

Now it is plain that we have lost the argument at the polls.

No matter.

You feel a natural pride at having swept the GOP from the field. But you should know that in doing so you have removed any hope we ever had of successfully defending our right to armed self-defense in the political arena. You will also take up, and I'm certain you will pass, the Fairness Doctrine to shut up the talk radio hosts who have so bedeviled you these past twenty years. As well, you will pass an Amnesty Bill for illegal aliens, which you believe will make any further conservative success in national elections impossible. You are right on both counts. And, because you now have the votes, you will be successful. You will think you have a mandate for whatever you do. And yet . . .

Consider where this puts us. We will no longer have the possibility of stopping further attacks on our God-given liberties politically. We will not even be able to vent our frustration on talk radio. I'm sure you will also get around to "hate speech regulation" of the Internet. And in the middle of this you will try to disarm us by means of a "gun show loophole" bill, or a new tougher "assault weapons ban" or a ban on "assault weapons ammunition" and "armor piercing bullets" which will include simple hunting ammunition, or probably a combination of all three. Perhaps you will stealthily try to do these things by quietly having the ATF manipulate the regulatory process.

Quiet or not, we will notice.

You will do this because you think you can do it without political or personal retribution. I write you today to tell you that if you do so, you will be as wrong as you could possibly be.

You believe that if you pass a law backed by the threat of federal violence for non-compliance, that we will do what you order without resistance. You believe this because you are extrapolating our anticipated behavior from your own cowardice, You know that YOU would never do such a thing, so we won't either. This is a dangerous assumption on your part, perhaps fatally so. For if the discredited Republicans no longer protect us from you, then they no longer protect you from us, either.

You've got us surrounded, you poor bastards.

Remember that we consider our rights merely codified by the Constitution. They are, we sincerely believe, God-given and inalienable. Remember too that we are willing to die for our liberties rather than surrender them up meekly. Remember as well that men and women who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill for them too.

What can this possibly have to do with you?

Well, it's like this. We have been doing a lot of thinking about what we would do if we ever found ourselves in this situation, and after considerable thought we have decided we agree with Bill Clinton. Back in 1999, when he was trying to pressure the Serbians into giving up Kosovo, then President Clinton expanded American rules of war to include -- as legitimate targets of deadly force -- the politicians and the news media that shaped and supported his enemy's war policy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you force us into resistance by further circumscribing our rights -- by sending federal police to our doors to enforce your will -- can't those same Clintonian rules of engagement be applied to you?

Oh, we could certainly defend ourselves by shooting back at the hapless instruments of your tyranny -- the sons and daughters of other Americans who happen to be in federal service.

But wouldn't it be wiser for us -- after the first, second or third time this happens -- to adopt Clinton's policy and go after the people who sent them? That is, to seek out the bureaucrats and politicians who decided to start the war? And, like Clinton, should we target the media talking heads and newspaper editors who clamored for it in the first place?

The advocates of citizen disarmament are probably willing to fight a war down to the last dead ATF agent, but are YOU willing to fight one past the first dead politician? And how many dead editors will it take to change an editorial board policy?

If you pass new gun control laws we will find out.

The president of course will be the safest personage in the country under this awful scenario. Killing a president, even if he signed such an unconstitutional law, would be tantamount to firing on Fort Sumter, a discrediting move no matter what the provocation.

But, one wonders, who would cry over a dead congressman or senator who voted to take people's liberty, property and lives? Especially after innocent victims of his predatory law-making were already littering the streets. You may recall the already lower-than-a-snake's-belly position in the polls that Congress currently holds.

Who indeed would mourn you, beyond your family, your mistress and a few lobbyists?

Also, it may be cold comfort, but we will make sure that your family remains behind to mourn you. We will do a far better job of protecting innocents than the federal government, perhaps because we don't own any Predator drones or F18s or Hellfire missiles or cluster bombs. You will get no terrorist outrages like Oklahoma City to easily discredit us - just remorseless and deadly accurate rifle bullets, one at a time. Those are OUR precision guided munitions.

Do you really think that in the long run that yours will be more effective than ours?

These are the uncomfortable questions that must be asked now rather than later. Unless, of course, you decide that discretion is the better part of valor and -- out of enlightened self-interest -- you refuse to meander down the bloody garden path toward civil war at the urging of the honey-tongued Sirens of "reasonable regulation" gun control.

It's always important for any card player to know the rules of the game before the deck is cut. By sweeping away the sorry GOP, and stacking the deck with the Fairness Doctrine and enfranchised illegals to toil on your political plantation, you will have changed the political rules fundamentally and, perhaps, forever.

Please understand that just because you can disenfranchise us, swamp us at the polls, silence us on the radio and Internet, despise us and ridicule us in the media, you still cannot take any more of our liberties without our acquiescence. And we do not, cannot and will not agree. We still get to vote with our rifles. You are welcome to believe that we are insane for adopting such a position, but even if you are right, we're still armed -- doesn't that just complicate your problem?

We are resigned to being a despised minority within our own country, as long as we are a despised and FEARED minority whose rights and property are respected.

You may kill us, but you cannot change our minds.

Kindly, for all our sakes, remember Bill Clinton's rules of engagement. A civil war is a two-way shooting gallery. Don't sign your own target.

Just so we're clear, the way you sign your own target is by voting for any bill which commands the government's seizure of power of the private, intrastate transfer of arms or for one banning the sales or possession of any kinds of heretofore legal weapons or ammunition, or for taxing them to death, or for any other combination of measures, official or unofficial which lead to the same things. Put your "Yea" on any of those, and when innocent Americans get killed by federal forces as a result, you will have placed the crosshairs over your own heart.

You have been warned.

If you want to curse anybody, curse Bill Clinton.

It was his idea.

Signed,

Henry Bowman

Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact

He is going to use Executive orders to take control and show his power. Guns will be high on the list of things he goes after. Ammo, parts kits, parts, semiautos and pumps shotguns will all be under the knife of his orders. if you don't have what you need now then good luck getting it.

Nov 9, 3:26 PM (ET)

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents - part of the broad coalition that supported Obama during the race against Republican John McCain. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been mentioned as a possible holdover.

(AP) President-elect Obama, left, leaves the gym following his workout Sunday, Nov. 9, 2008, in Chicago.... Full Image

"He's not even a Republican," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican."

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end - an effort Obama supports. But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.

"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."

Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.

(AP) In this photograph provided by "Meet the Press," President-elect Obama transition team co-chair... Full Image

Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.

Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.

(AP) President-elect Obama, right, and Michelle Obama walk out of Spiaggia restaurant after having... Full Image

"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."

Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans.

In other transition matters, Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would not say whether Obama would return to the Senate for votes during the postelection session this month. Obama's presence would be extraordinary, given his position as president-elect, especially if Congress takes up a much-anticipated economic stimulus plan.

"I think that the basic approach has been he's going to be here in Chicago, setting up his economic, not only his economic team, but the policies he wants to outline for the country as soon as he gets sworn in, so we hit the ground running," Emanuel said.

Also, Emanuel would not commit to a Democratic proposal to help the auto industry with some of the $700 billion approved by Congress to for the financial bailout.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the bailout to include car companies.

Podesta appeared on "Fox News Sunday," as did Pence, and CNN's "Late Edition," where Reid also was interviewed. Emanuel spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CBS'"Face the Nation."

---

On the Net:

Transition office: http://change.gov/

Cities Declare Temporary Constitution Free Zones!

When and were do they next choose to declare this and conveniently take away your rights!

My Constitutional Rights are Inalienable!

---

---

LAW OF THE LAND
Atlanta officials declare
Constitution-free zone
'Your message is not congruent,' so
leave public property or be arrested

---

Posted: June 23, 2007
1:00 am Eastern

By Jennifer Carden
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Atlanta 'gay' pride poster

The city of Atlanta has created a Constitution-free zone on public property for this weekend's 2007 Atlanta Pride festival, according to pastors and lawyers who have been trying to secure an assurance that Christians' free-speech rights will be protected.

"The Constitution does not apply in Piedmont Park this weekend," attorney Joel Thornton, of the International Human Rights Group told WND.

"The city of Atlanta, whose attorneys I have been negotiating with for the past six months, has just sent me a letter saying that they 'will not be able to offer you or your client[s] any assistance in this matter,'" he said.

The theme of the Piedmont Park event for Atlanta's "gay" community may be: "Our Rights, Your Rights, Human Rights," but the pastors have no doubts their Christian message will be silenced by the authority of the city's police force.

An estimated 300,000 people from all areas of the country attend the festival, which is the culmination of Atlanta's "Gay" Pride month, an event welcoming "diversity," "tolerance" and "rights."

But, said Thornton, "when officers of the Atlanta Police Department threaten to arrest Christians for sharing their faith at the event there will be nothing stopping them from keeping the Gospel message from being heard in this community."

Thornton's conclusion is supported by the experiences of a number of pastors who at the 2006 event were restricted for delivering "incongruent" messages at the homosexual event. That scene was captured on videotape:

Click play below to start video

Dick Christensen said he and his small group of urban missionaries hadn't even unfurled their banners on the grassy knoll outside the festival gate a year ago before they were threatened with arrest.

Atlanta Pride Committee Executive Director Donna Narducci approached Christensen with a personal security guard and an Atlanta police officer, asking him to move from his place outside of the public park.

"It’s not like we had banners and bullhorns," Christensen told WND. "I was just wearing an ordinary shirt, no buttons, and I'm confronted before I even begin to exercise my First Amendment right to free speech."

"She was carrying a permit, and she said that I had to leave the public sidewalk surrounding the park," he recalled, "because, and I quote her, I was not 'carrying a message that is congruent with Atlanta Pride.' That is the reason I had to leave the public sidewalk or face arrest."

Passengers of Atlanta 'gay' pride float

"I do not want to be arrested for preaching the Gospel," Christensen responded, adding, "This is a public access/public street."

"What happens if I don't move," Christensen asked. "The police officer stood nodding when Narducci said 'Yes, you will be arrested...'" he remembers.

After the street ministry moved across the street, Christensen said they were "attacked" by festival attendees. "One of the more disorderly participants knocked down one of the preachers, attacked one of our banners and ripped it off the pole," he recalled.

Christensen later found the exact permit Narducci referenced, which she had used to banish pastors from sidewalks surrounding the park. Upon reading the permit, Christensen said, "There was nothing there that excluded anyone carrying other messages or any person in general from entering the park. She was basically ad-libbing."

Bill Adams, one of Christensen's fellow street pastors, also was threatened with arrest, but he feels he was targeted before the festival even began, primarily due to his efforts to rid the parade of female nudity.

"This will be my sixth or seventh 'Pride' weekend," he said, "and every Saturday they have an official 'Dyke March.' Routinely, many of the women in the parade will be bare-chested, sometimes with 'pasties' on. There is visible, flagrant, unquestionable nudity."

A friend of Adams' made a DVD of photos to document the nudity and obscene acts in violation of city and state indecency ordinances. After Adams and several of his compatriots appeared separately at city hall without success, they appeared en masse, asking the city to enforce its indecency ordinance at this year's rally. Adams said they were hoping to protect local families in the public park and ensure that lawless nudity would not again be protected as free expression.

But according to Thornton, the city did not even admit it had an ordinance about indecency until Adams showed them the section where it could be found.

After meeting with Robin Shahar, an open lesbian on the mayor's legal counsel staff, Imara Canady, of the cultural affairs office, and an Atlanta police sergeant, Adams realized the problem would come down to a skewed definition of decency.

"The immediate response…was that Robin Shahar would not admit that topless women violated the indecency ordinance," he said. "They told me they weren't concerned, and that they certainly wouldn't put a stop to it. Their ultimate response was to do nothing."

According to Georgia State Code, Section 16-6-8, "A person commits the offense of public indecency when he or she performs any of the following acts in a public place." The third act listed is "a lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity."

Atlanta City Ordinance Section 4, Section 106-129 regards as indecent exposure: "An exposure of one's genitals or one's breast, if female."

But according to GLBT Liaison Officer Darlene Harris, indecency is "tricky" to define in Atlanta, as it technically only requires that part of the female breast be covered in public.

Harris doesn't feel nudity was "a problem" last year, although she admits "there were a few isolated incidents."

While she would not comment about last year's First Amendment violations, Harris assured WND that police protocol had changed.

"This year," she said, "things are very different. It is very clear that the protestors have their First Amendment rights. They will not be stopped by the police. They will not be stopped by festival coordinators. That will not happen this year."

In fact, she said, "The protesters are more than welcome to come to the park. They have their First Amendment right to free speech, and they will not have to worry about being locked up and going to jail."

The main concern of the Atlanta Police Department, according to Harris, is the possibility of riots. "As long as [protesters] aren't inciting a riot, they are allowed to be there. They are welcomed to come and speak."

When pressed for a definition of "speech inciting a riot," Harris said protestors were free to express their opinion without regard to its content, as long as it is cannot be construed as "egging on" the festival attendees.

"You can say, 'I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and that means you're going to hell,'" she said, "and that is free speech."

But based on last year's unofficial standard of "congruency," Thornton believes Harris's terminology will be enforced differently than it is explained.

"They're trying to categorize 'noncongruent' speech as 'fighting words' intended to incite riots," he said. "You can't say something is 'inciting a riot' just because it's making people mad, which is what they tried to do last year. You can't penalize people for what you think they're going to say. You can't penalize people for the way you think others might react."

He continued, "The police shouldn't be trying to stop the speech, they should be trying to stop those trying to riot. You don't say, 'This bank robbery wouldn't have happened if the bank didn't have all of this money;' you try to catch the robbers."

"There is only one viewpoint allowed," concluded Thornton, "and rights only matter if they're expressed in a fashion appealing to the homosexual community."

Pastor Billy Ball, one of the known five men arrested last year, knows firsthand that rights haven't always mattered at all, no matter their fashion of expression.

Ball was arrested last year for "criminal trespass" after walking, accompanied by several other pastors, within 300 yards of the Dyke Parade. The arresting officer, an avowed lesbian, responded to his inquiries about compelling governmental interest with an angry brush-off: "I'm not taking questions today, I'm giving orders."

Within minutes, five of the men were handcuffed and locked in a stainless steel paddy wagon across the street, where they would wait in 100-plus degree heat until they were paraded through an Atlanta precinct. Ball required medical attention after his stay in the steaming, unventilated paddy wagon, and recalls that the men were required to remain handcuffed even when they needed to use the restroom.

After a night in the Fulton County jail, the men were released under the condition that they notify the city of Atlanta of their whereabouts every month. To Ball's chagrin, the men have not yet been arraigned, their $2 million lawsuit is hung up in red tape, and a year later, the case has not even gone to trial.

Dick Christensen calls the situation, "virtual probation," noting that several of the men have been denied jobs because of their "new prison record."

The presence of Ball, his Sons of Thundr, and other pastors at the event has been an increasing source of angst for event organizers, Donna Narducci, executive director of the Atlanta Pride Committee, told "Southern Voice."

"It became of greater concern to the Atlanta Pride Committee over the past few years because the numbers of protesters has increased each year," she said. "We dealt with this issue [in 2006] in a more in-depth way [than previous years], and the city law department helped us with that."

Atlanta Council President Lisa Borders' shows support for the 'gay' pride event

Earlier this month, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin was forced to back down from a proposal to create "free speech zones" that would actually limit where pastors and other "protesters" can demonstrate during large city festivals. The mayor's proposal stemmed from incidents at Pride in recent years, but the measure was widely rebuked as Orwellian doublespeak.

The proposed ordinance would have allowed large event organizers to request the creation of "free speech zones," where protesters espousing viewpoints contrary to the overall theme of the event would be restricted to demonstrating. The ordinance would have also empowered event organizers to determine "who is authorized to exercise her/his First Amendment rights as part of the outdoor festival on that day, and shall issue such people a badge to be worn indicating such authorization."

While the ordinance was unanimously struck down in the city council, Bill Adams and other pastors fear it serves as clear evidence of the Atlanta city officials' slant towards the homosexual agenda.

Mike Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund confirmed this is a common occurrence. "There have been city officials who have enlisted as volunteers to promote the homosexual agenda," he said. "It doesn't work out well for them in the courts. In fact, it almost always turns against them because the Constitution is so clear."

Catherine H. Woodling, media relations officer in the mayor's office says that fear is unfounded, telling WND, "Free speech is treated the same by the city, regardless of the content of the speech. The Atlanta police department will enforce the law at this and all other festivals in the city. The city permit process and the Atlanta Police Department are guided by the law and not arbitrary enforcement of the law targeted to any one group."

Despite all of the assurances, Adams remains unconvinced. "We want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt," he said, "but this weekend, we're not quite sure what will happen. We're happy to comply with the law, but we're not here to be bullied and have our First Amendment free speech rights violated."

Constitution Free Zone!!

THERE ARE NO SUCH PLACES FOR A CITIZEN!

OUR RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE!!!



http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/cfz_map/Image-Map.gif

THIS IS ILLEGAl, DO NOT SUBMIT!

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders. The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas. We urge you to call on Congress to hold hearings on and pass legislation to end these egregious violations of Americans' civil rights. LEARN MORE > Fact Sheet on Border "Constitution-free Zone" > Border Security Technologies > Remarks of Craig Johnson > Constitution-Free Zone: The Numbers

rue Stories of Violation Please note that by playing this clip You Tube will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube's privacy statement on their website to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

In the News "Public Meeting on Olympic Peninsula Border Patrol Checkpoints," KUOW News (National Public Radio,) November 3, 2008. Online> "Homeland Security Assuming Broad Powers, Turning Vast Swaths of U.S. into “Constitution-Free Zone”," ACLU Blog of Rights, October 22, 2008. Online> "ACLU Assails 100-Mile Border Zone as 'Constitution-Free'," Wired (Blog,) October 22, 2008. Online> "Expanded Powers to Search Travelers at Border Detailed," The Washington Post, September 23, 2008. Online> "Citizens' Border Crossings Tracked, Data From Checkpoints to be Kept for 15 years," The Washington Post, August 20, 2008. Online> "Ferry worker denounces Anacortes patrol agent," Associated Press, June 19, 2008. Online> "Checkpoint Sticks In Forks' Craw," The Seattle Times, March 21, 2007. Online> Fact Sheet on U.S. "Constitution Free Zone" The problem Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches. The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.” But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States. As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit. Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts. However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing. The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets. Much of U.S. population affected Many Americans and Washington policymakers believe that this is a problem confined to the San Diego-Tijuana border or the dusty sands of Arizona or Texas, but these powers stretch far inland across the United States. To calculate what proportion of the U.S. population is affected by these powers, the ACLU created a map and spreadsheet showing the population and population centers that lie within 100 miles of any “external boundary” of the United States. The population estimates were calculated by examining the most recent US census numbers for all counties within 100 miles of these borders. Using numbers from the Population Distribution Branch of the US Census Bureau, we were able to estimate both the total number and a state-by-state population breakdown. The custom map was created with help from a map expert at World Sites Atlas. What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders. Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Part of a broader problem The spread of border-search powers inland is part of a broad expansion of border powers with the potential to affect the lives of ordinary Americans who have never left their own country. It coincides with the development of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems such as the Automated Targeting System (ATS) traveler risk assessment program, identity and tracking systems such as electronic (RFID) passports, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), and intrusive technological schemes such as the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet) or “virtual border fence” and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka “drone aircraft”). This illegitimate expansion of the extraordinary powers of agents at the border is also part of a general trend we have seen over the past 8 years of an untrammeled, heedless expansion of police and national security powers without regard to the effect on innocent Americans. This trend is also typical of the Bush Administration’s dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security. Instead of intelligent, competent, targeted efforts to stop terrorism, illegal immigration, and other crimes, what we have been seeing in area after area is an approach that turns us all into suspects. This approach seeks to sift through the entire U.S. population in the hopes of encountering the rare individual whom the authorities have a legitimate interest in. If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of “border protection,” we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.

Pictures from the past in Our Future

Next Obama's Youth!

What will you and your kids do?

Web faux pas: Plan leaked for 'civilian security force'? Before blogs caught it, Obama site told of requiring students to serve

Posted: November 08, 2008
3:36 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Get the book that started it all – Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed

Gateway Pundit called the Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"

Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.

The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.

The original wording is captured below:

The current website's content now reads:

The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.

Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."

J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'

"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.

Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."

In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."

Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

A video of his comments is here:

Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation of what this security force would be or whether this force would be "required" or "encouraged."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

His call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."

Previous stories:

Dollars lining up for 'civilian national security force'?

Obama's training program described as 'Big Brother'

Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech

New Yorker reprints discredited Obama Holocaust distortion

Obama: Immigration enforcement equals terror

CONSERVATIVES LOST MORE THAN AN ELECTION

By Chuck Baldwin
November 7, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He didn't. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a "wasted" vote, was it not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did. The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives.

For all intents and purposes, conservatism--as a national movement--is completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed conservatism in America.

Soon after G.W. Bush was elected, it quickly became obvious he was no conservative. On the contrary, George Bush has forever established himself as a Big-Government, warmongering, internationalist neocon. Making matters worse was the way Bush presented himself as a conservative Christian. In fact, Bush's portrayal of himself as a conservative Christian paved the way for the betrayal and ultimate destruction of conservatism (something I also predicted years ago). And the greatest tragedy of this deception is the way that Christian conservatives so thoroughly (and stupidly) swallowed the whole Bush/McCain neocon agenda.

For example, Bush and his fellow neocons like to categorize and promote themselves as being "pro-life," but they have no hesitation or reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in reckless and unconstitutional foreign wars. By the same token, how many unborn babies were saved by six years of all three branches of the federal government being under the control of these "pro-life" neocons? Not one! Ask the more than eight million unborn babies who were killed in their mothers' wombs during the last eight years how "pro-life" George W. Bush and John McCain are.

As a result of this insanely inconsistent and pixilated punditry, millions of Americans now laugh at the very notion of "pro-life" conservatism. Bush and McCain have made a mockery of the very term.

Consider, too, the way Bush and McCain have allowed the international bankers on Wall Street to bilk America's taxpayers out of trillions of dollars. Yes, I know Obama also supported the Wall Street bailout, but it was the Republican Party that controlled the White House for the last eight years and the entire federal government for six out of the last eight years. In fact, the GOP has won seven out of the previous ten Presidential elections. They have controlled Supreme Court appointments for the past thirty-plus years. They have appointed the majority of Treasury secretaries and Federal Reserve chairmen. They have presided over the greatest trade imbalances, the biggest deficits, the biggest spending increases, and now the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.

Again, the American people look at these so-called "conservatives" and laugh. No wonder such a sizeable majority of voters yawned when John McCain tried to scare them by accusing Barack Obama of being a "big taxer." How can one possibly scare people with a charge like that after the GOP has made a total mockery of fiscal conservatism? That's like trying to scare someone coming out from a swim in the Gulf of Mexico with a squirt gun.

Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as John McCain.

Advertisement

But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives--especially Christian conservatives--surrendered their principles for the sake of political partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!

In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S. Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.

The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.

Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey Graham, of course.

Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham! No matter. A majority of evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted for Graham.

Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth, and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.

Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W. Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to blame but themselves.

And since it is unlikely that the Republican Party has enough sense to understand any of this and will, therefore, do little to reestablish genuine conservative principles, it is probably best to just go ahead and bury the scoundrels now and move on to something else. Without a sincere commitment to constitutional government, the GOP has no justifiable reason to ever govern again. Therefore, put a fork in them. They are done. Let a new entity arise from the ashes: one that will stand for something more than just "the lesser of two evils." As we say in the South, That dog just won't hunt anymore.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

COMRADE BARAK OBAMA IS NOT AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT

By: Devvy
November 6, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain, Notebook, 1904

I'm not going to comment on the carefully orchestrated show put on yesterday by the media; that will be my next column. What a scam. As I have covered in previous columns, between dirty voting rolls, voter registration fraud, illegals voting and corrupted electronic voting machines and scanners, we have NO idea who was legally elected yesterday. I updated the compilation of vote fraud links; see here. There are more at the bottom.

There is still the unresolved issue of Obama providing a COLB - Certification of Live Birth - to prove he is a natural born citizen. Not a "birth certificate," but the COLB. The fact that this thug from Chicago refuses to provide this document since June, 2008, says it all. The second issue is if Obama were born in the U.S., but was automatically made an Indonesian citizen by virtue of his mother's marriage to her Indonesian husband and Obama's legal name change, he is ineligible to run for the presidency. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the highest office in the land.

Contrary to the propaganda spewed last night by the pimps who work for corporate media, Obama is not the next president. We need to remember how the system actually works:

The Electoral College:
November 5, 2004
Thomas H. Neale
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS Report for Congress

"When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive....

"It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November....

"Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win."

Until those electors meet on December 15, 2008, cast their vote and those votes are counted on January 6, 2008, Obama is not the next president.

Phil Berg's lawsuit is still active with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Andy Martin's lawsuit: The next hearing date is November 18, 2008.

I fully realize that Americans who haven't joined the Obama cult are stunned at what happened on Tuesday, but we must remember it was all in the game plan. I have used this metaphor before to describe the illusion of fair and impartial elections: It's like a student taking driving lessons. The first time out, the student gets the fake steering wheel while the instructor is actually controlling the vehicle. But, the fake steering wheel makes the student "feel" he has control and that perception is all important when evil forces take over a country. That's what we saw yesterday. The fact that Mcain conceded around 8:30 pm CST before half the states west of the Mississippi had even counted 20% of their votes, only confirms what millions of us already knew - he was the designated loser.

America took the single largest step towards becoming a communist nation in my life time with this alleged election of a Marxist-Leninist. In April, I began describing Obama as a Marxist. My mail box filled up with angry email insisting that Obama is a "progressive," liberal Democrat. This is the ignorance of a dumbed down population who have no idea what Marxism means: The political and economic ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as developed into a system of thought that gives class struggle a primary role in leading society from bourgeois democracy under capitalism to a socialist society and thence to communism. Redistribution of wealth is the major tenet of communism. It is also Obama's plan. Right up to the day before the election, a few braves souls in the media were finally referring to his real political ideology. Of course, Obama's cult followers immediately attempted to ridicule or slap them down.

It's easy to get depressed over last Tuesday. Don't. That's what the shadow government wants. We are warriors, not cry babies. I know the rage is blowing out there like a hot furnace, but the fight is not over. We're entering the next phase: the electors. We're also entering the most dangerous time in this nation's history since Lexington and Concord. Now isn't the time to throw in the towel. Now is the time to fight.

In my last column, I provided a link on auditing the vote and how to do it. The Democrats made vote fraud a national issue in 2000 and 2004. The Republican Party has never made vote fraud a national issue. Oh, sure, FAUX News Network and Lou Dobbs (CNN) pounded on it the past six weeks, but it's the Democrats who mobilized, ignored the vote fraud by their party and blamed it on all the Republicans. Yes, the last three presidential elections were rigged, but it was done by the forces who control the political system in this country and have for 40 years.

The pointing the finger exercise is a distraction. Just like the bull, the cape and the matador. Technology has simply made it easier than stuffing ballot boxes and having everyone in Chicago vote twice, including residents of their local cemeteries. Of course, now that a Democrat has allegedly "won" the White House by vote fraud, helped along by legions of ignorant, uninformed voters, some racists and those who voted for skin color only, they could care less about fairness in 2008.

Right now they're basking in their arrogance, but the wrath of the American people is just warming up. If Republican and 'third party' candidates who allegedly lost on Tuesday do not pursue catching the vote fraud in their election instead of just shrugging their shoulders and walking away, the destroyers win. Here is the link. I updated it slightly. Time is of the essence due to drop dead dates for certification. If you supported a candidate by a vote and/or working for their campaign, help them prove the fraud.

This is critical for all 434 seats in the House of Representatives (excluding Ron Paul). Here is the logic-free zone:

In 1994, voters were fed up with the communists, socialists and big spenders in Congress and "swept them out of power." In came the Republicans touting the farce called a 'Contract with America,' who bloated the budget and continued down the same path under a different label. They held power until November 2006. Voters wanted change! Voters wanted change so badly, they voted back in all the long time Democrats with a few "new" faces. In past two years a Democrat controlled Congress representing 'change' has done what? NOTHING except loot this country and continue funding the immoral, unconstitutional invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Advertisement

Americans were outraged over the rape and pillage called 'the bail out." A colossal failure that continues to drain the life blood of Americans. Yet, with the exception of 17 seats in the House and 5 in the unlawfully seated seated U.S. Senate, voters allegedly voted them all back into office on Tuesday! With the lowest approval rating in the history of the U.S. Congress, allegedly the American people once again rewarded these crooks by rehiring them and bringing in even more Democrats to join the grand larceny stealing the fruits of our labor! Quite a difference between from what polls indicated:

3 in 5 voters: Boot every congressman. 59 percent say they'd kick out all members of House, Senate. October 5, 2008: "If given the choice, a new poll reveals, 59 percent of Americans would sweep Capitol Hill clean of the current batch of senators and representatives to elect an entirely new Congress. Only 17 percent of voters polled said they would be willing to keep the current legislature."

Yesterday I filed four Freedom of Information Act requests and sent them over night mail. One: Illinois Secretary of State to obtain all documentation, applications, forms, electronic and hard copy, including proof of citizenship for Barack Hussein Obama for his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. I filed two with the U.S. State Department (1) Stanley Ann Dunham, married name Stanley Ann Obama to obtain her passport application and all travel records; departure and entry into the U.S. during the year 1961; and (2) Barack Obama, Sr., to obtain his travel records, entry and departure records for the year 1961. Four: I filed a State Records Act request with the University of Hawaii to obtain Stanley Ann Dunham, then married, Stanley Ann Obama's enrollment applications and list of classes, and any and all documentation regarding her departure from the University for good.

I also sent another letter over night mail to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, DC. This is a follow up to my letter of October 30, 2008. I enclosed a copy of the transcripts of the interviews in Kenya (see bottom links in this column), an article from NewsMax.com regarding hundreds of millions of dollars illegally donated:

"In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack. That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

"For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

"Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis."

I reminded Burrus of the birth certificate issue and that he must investigate this while investigating possible violation of the wire fraud statute: 18 U.S.C. §1343. I reminded him of his oath of office and that this is not about politics or party loyalty, it's about the law. We cannot have an illegitimate president in the White House.

Please don't send me email about the FOIAs. I am aware documents can be forged or altered, but the truth will come out. Those who choose to participate in such unlawful activities will eventually get caught. I'm also aware of the uphill battle. However, my last FOIA against the FAA regarding 9/11 went to a lawsuit and I won. It is better to spend your time helping candidates prove vote fraud and with the plans regarding electoral college delegates.

Phil Berg is putting together the strategy for the electoral college delegates for all the states Obama allegedly won. This involves action before and on December 15, 2008, the date all electors meet at their state capitols to cast their votes for president and vice president. Remember: They are not bound to cast their vote for the candidate presented as a result of 'election day.' Electors who stand up for what is right are called "faithless." Does it ever happen? In 1976, a Republican elector in Washington voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford. This year we intend for it to be a landslide. What's right and for the good of our republic must trump worrying about staying in the good graces of some political party. Obama is gambling he can stall the birth certificate issue until coronation day and steal the White House under the idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law. We intend to stop him legally.

As soon as Phil has drafted his plan, I will get it into a column right away. I believe there are some other groups working on this issue and I hope they will join with Phil and let him be the central point of contact for this effort. That way we're all on the same sheet of music and it's done correctly. We will not get a second chance.

More vote fraud:

1 - Tampa: Hundreds of voter registrations with personal information scattered across Interstate.
2 - A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud
3 - McCain campaign sues over overseas military ballots
4 - Early Voting Turnout Could Skew Preliminary Election Returns
5 - Voting Intimidation By Black Panthers In Philadelphia
6 - Virginia voters face wet ballots
7 - Judge Orders Va. to 'Preserve' Late-Arriving Military Ballots

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

---