Spanish Delegate wants to Ban Public Protests

By LUIS MIRANDA| THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 3, 2012

Cristina Cifuentes wants to limit the right of the Spanish people to protest in public.

No self-entitled bureaucrat likes to be contested, questioned or responded to. Despite the existence of a constitutional right to publicly protest on the streets, there are people who think it is a good idea to limit or simply ban such action. In fact, there are people who support banning or limiting public protests while encouraging police violence against protestors.

This is the case of Cristina Cifuentes, a Madrid Delegate who last week praised the acts of police brutality against some of the thousands of protesters that arrived outside Congress to raise the heat against the deadly austerity measures imposed by the Mariano Rajoy administration. On Tuesday, Ms. Cifucentes went beyond its praise of violence to call for legal reform to limit and eventually ban public protesting.

It’s not me, it’s the law, said Cifuentes on Friday after a colleague of hers, Ana Botella, complained about “too many” demonstrations in the capital of Spain. On Tuesday, Cifuentes said that the law is “very permissive and wide” regarding the right of assembly and that the demonstration was out of control. She questioned whether it was necessary to debate and approve the imposition of limits to the right to protest.

Although Cifuentes commented on such limitations in a very spontaneous way, she rapidly proposed to put in place “modular” laws to “rationalize the use of public space.” The bureaucrat also attempted to clarify that it would not change the Constitution, but it would check out the Organic Law governing this right, not to “cut it” but to expand the room for maneuvering that the Administrations has to change routes and schedules.

Cifuentes’ speech is very well known in other parts of the world such as the United States, where the government called for ‘rational’ ways to limit free speech and protesting by designing a plan through which people could only protest in so-called ‘free speech zones’. These zones are designated by the government and are usually located far, far away from public offices or events such as G10 meetings or secretive encounters of world re-known philanthropists.

But what does the Spanish Constitution say about public protesting?

The right of expression and assembly, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which reads: “The right of peaceful assembly, without arms. The exercise of this right shall not require prior authorization.” Add that to the “case of meetings in public places and events,” will  need to inform “the authority,” which can only forbid it if there are “substantial grounds for disorderly conduct, endangering persons or property” .

This last sentence is very important, because it is from there where people like Cifuentes may seek the legal backing to impose limitation to  both free speech and public protesting. As it has happened in many occasions, governments could use agent provocateurs to cause disorderly conduct, hurt police or protesters in order to limit the right of the peaceful mass to protest in front of Congress, for example.

In an interview with National Public Radio (RNE), Cifuentes reiterated that Madrid is “a complicated city because demonstrations are permanent and disproportionate”, a view based on one fact that people in Spain are sick and tired of government robbing them of their livelihoods and decided to take to the streets in numerous occasions. There have been almost 2,200 rallies and demonstrations in Madrid this year. Last Friday alone 2732 stood outside Congress and thousands more occupied the same place on Saturday and Sunday. Back in  2011 there were 1380 public demonstrations.

“The theme of the protests is a timely issue that is given by the political moment and encouraged because there are groups trying to get on the street that have failed at the ballot box,” she argued, blaming the Socialists without naming them, for the increase of street protests.

Cifuentes said that she knows there is a Constitutional right to protest in public, but that the rights of the rest of the people are also as important, which is the reason why she is proposing to limit or ban such activity. This is the traditional collectivist point of view that seeks to impose a particular way of thinking and is often excused by the ‘it is in the best interests of the majority’ argument.

Cifuentes is proposing a ‘compatible solution’ with the right of the rest of the population “to be in a livable city.” According to her, this means that people are “able to move with ease, without incidents, riots, or problems of public order.” In this sense, Cifuentes defends changes in legislation, but has not detailed how it would work. “What I want is to open a debate because any amendment must be adopted by a broad consensus.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

NSA Whistleblower: “We are headed towards a Police State”

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

According to former National Security Agency employee, Kirk Wiebe, the agency had the capability to grab everyone’s data even before 9/11. He said that the terrorist events of 2001 were a trigger for the NSA to act with complete disregard for the US Constitution and mainly the Forth Amendment.

Wiebe and his fellow whistleblower Thomas Drake, explain that the terrorist attacks gave the NSA and the US government an excuse to get military contractors involved in the creation of a broader surveillance state that provides no limits whatsoever to what government agencies such as the NSA can do with any piece of information from US citizens or even people who reside abroad.

As it stands today, the power of the NSA is simply unchecked. Drake says that inside the agency there is a widely held belief that it is necessary to trade anonymity for security, which is the opposite of what the United States founding fathers advised people to do. When asked about whether the United States could unwind the powers afforded to the NSA and other government agencies, he referred viewers to the secretive ways in which the NSA misbehaved in 1960s and 70s to conclude that it is not possible to simply trust the agency or anything it does today.

The questions back in the 60s and 70s was whether or not the availability of a technical capacity to spy on everyone, as it is done today, could be manageable to avoid abuse, or even further, if it could be rolled back. According to Drake, the question is why would people trust the NSA anymore than it did in the 60s and 70s, when it was well-known that the agency was operating above the law?

When questioned about whether the United States was moving towards becoming a tyrannical state, just as other nations like North Korea or China, Kirk Wiebe was clear and succinct: “In my estimation we are. We are headed towards a Police State.” Wiebe candidly recounted how the current intelligence operations led by the NSA look a lot like Gestapo or like Stasi in Germany. “We are moving in that direction. People are trashing the Constitution. They’ve lost their respect for it.

He also told viewers how he had written congressman Rosco Bartlet about his concerns and how the answer he got back from Mr. Bartlet was as astonishing as the concerns he posed on the letter regarding privacy and legislation. Congressman Bartlet responded that the thing that gave him confidence about the creation and approval of spectacular powers given to the NSA and other government agencies was that “everything was being done in good faith.”

 

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

Impeachable Offenses by Obama and the U.S. Congress

The time for informing and educating is over. The time to hold government accountable for their unconstitutional actions is here.

By LUIS R. MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 12, 2012

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” How could George Washington get it so dead on right? Everything that government is known better for in modern society is its use of force to impose unreasonable policies and rules — not laws — to clamp down on personal freedom and individual rights. I am not talking about the government of the people, of course, but the corporate whore government.

When two branches of government, in any kind of setting — a Republic, a Tyranny, a Socialist nation, a Communist nation and so on — are controlled not by the people who gave it the right exist, but by corporate interests, the result is what we see growing today in countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, the UK and Russia, to cite a few. When the office of the president and the offices of congress are revolving doors for corporate puppets to go in and out at will, the people’s grip on government has been lost.

If the people allow this to happen and to continue without any checks and balances, it will grow into the kind of invincible monster that will transform any self-fulfilling nightmare prophecy into reality. This is the stage where we are now, no matter where you live. Corporate control of government has gone from rare to absolute. Corporate-controlled government has many faces, among them: Communism, Socialism and Fascism. They were all creations of ancient schools of thought that saw an opportunity to become masters through division, balkanization and conquest. Those ancient schools of thought evolved into a XXI century perverse technocracy which is now almost 100 percent in control of the planet.

It is because humanity has lost sight of what government should do and should not do, that people now need to do their due diligence as it should have done it many years ago. It is time to put checks and balances on government.  Many years have gone by since individuals woke up to the abuses of the corporate-controlled State in all its shapes and forms. Corporations grew off government as rampant tumors that were never treated, much less healed. Apathy and ignorance fueled those tumors just like any chemotherapy toxicity does in a human body; except that this toxicity is social toxicity. Conformed, ignorant and apathetic people allowed the tumors to spread wide and at will throughout the complete ‘social body’ and now, the cancer is in stage 3, continuing to take over.

The only medicine available that will help cure the rotting ‘social body’ is swift but decisive action. The time to inform and educate is over. Those who are not with us need to be left behind in order for the informed, growing minority to act. Action must start where the cancer originated a long, long time ago.

Whether you like it or not, the United States was for many decades — not by chance — artificially sustained as the shiny white house on the hill. It was there that modern Fascism began. Borrowing Dave Mustane’s words: “You take a mortal man, and put him in control, watch him become a god, watch peoples heads a’roll.” This scenario runs over and over in both government and privately owned corporations. Given the United States privileged position in the world today, even with so much decadence going on there, it is in the United States where the main battle to curb tyranny will take place. It is certainly there where many have gotten inspiration to become powerful and rich, and not necessarily for the better.

After passing legislation such as NAFTA, CAFTA, the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization, The Cybersecurity Bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, ACTA, and many other bills that basically rendered the Constitution obsolete, both the US Congress and the US presidents who participated of these actions, must be held accountable. Action has begun, although it needs much support. In response to Barack Obama’s and his cabinet’s dismissal of the Constitution and Congress itself, Representative Walter Jones, recently introduced House Resolution 107, a bill that seeks to enforce what laws that are already in place explicitly condemn and prohibit, but that the accomplice Congressmen and women, and for that matter the American people have failed to enforce: That it is unconstitutional for a US president to carry out military actions without a previous declaration of war by Congress, whereby the sitting US president becomes the commander in chief of the Armed Forces.

As many already know, Barack Obama himself as well as his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, declared that they would consider informing Congress about any future military engagements the country got into, as supposed to asking for authorization in the first place. When pressed by congressman Jeff Sessions, Panetta repeated himself and confirmed that the Executive branch and the Pentagon intended to launch military strikes with the approval of international organizations, but not from the US Congress. Previously, Obama said that if — in a variety of situations — Congress did not act, he would do so alone, by decree, using executive orders as laws. Does anyone smell Dictatorship? Indeed. And Obama has already acted upon such warning. He illegally authorized military intervention in Libya without consulting Congress about it, much less getting authorization or a war declaration. This, by the Constitution of the United States, is an impeachable offense. Why? Because according to the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, not the office of the US president. “Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria,” asked Jeff Sessions. Leon Panetta responded: “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from Congress…”.

Equally illegal were three other decisions made or endorsed by Barack Obama’s government. The Financial Bailout of 2008, where US taxpayers were shoved trillions of dollars in debt that the US government — through its corporate handler Federal Reserve — promised and delivered to foreign banks. Incredibly, those funds were not used to help in the economic recovery, but to further consolidate economic power in the hands of foreign banking institutions. Because of this, Americans, current and future, will have to work harder than ever to pay for the interests this debt will accrue through the years. In fact, Americans were illegally made responsible for a pile of debt originally created by the banks and banking governing institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.You will say, “but that was under Bush! Correct, and he should also be held accountable. But Obama extended such bailouts by permitting the creation of financial aid packages such as Quantitative Easing I, II and III. That is, the private Federal Reserve used US assets as leverage to create money out of thin air in order to loan it out to foreign and national banking institutions who used the money not to pay off the debt they themselves created, but to hoard it into their pockets.

Third, after siding with the United Kingdom, which publicly pushed to attack Syria, the United States spoke about a ‘special relationship’ with the British and joined their call to carry out regime change in that country, much like they did in Libya, should president Bashar al-Assad not resign. The same policies now used by David Cameron and Barack Obama were reasons to sentence Nazis to death after they were judged in the Nuremberg trials for their responsibility in the atrocities carried out during Adolf Hitler’s time in power and beyond. But for some reason, Nazi atrocities are now considered business as usual and natural ways to conduct a country into war against nations that not only do not pose a threat to the United States, but that haven’t even declared war against it.

Fourth, both Obama and Congress, under the premise of National Security and unproven imminent threats, passed and signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, a piece of legislation that gives the president the power to detain, torture and murder anyone, including Americans, anywhere, if he believes a person is a threat to the continuity of government in the United States. That is, Obama can ask intelligence agencies and other law enforcement organizations to grab anyone from the street or their houses, put a bag over their heads, push him into a van and take him away never to be seen again. Under this law, there doesn’t need to be any crime committed, any charges presented against anyone, no judge, no jury, nothing. The president and his minions will make all decisions.

In an attempt to calm down public outcry, Obama said in public that he would not sign the NDAA if it did not exclude Americans from the indefinite detention clause. But behind closed doors, Obama requested that Americans were included as part of the people who could be kidnapped and possibly murdered by his command. He also said that although he had that power, he did not intend to use it against Americans.

It is important to say that this is not about Obama himself, but about the office of the president. Not only Obama, but any other person elected president will be able to detain anyone indefinitely without a judge order or a jury trial. This law directly violates the US Constitution’s 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, as they establish that people are free from unwarranted searches and seizures. Citizens have the constitutional right to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects and no one should be held to answer for crimes unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

In case this all has not prompted you to take action, remember: It is the office of the president and Congress the ones that need and must be held accountable to us, their creators; not the other way around. There is no Constitutional way to simply forget about the existing laws because someone says it is necessary to do so. The lack of accountability must stop.

Through this article, The Real Agenda would like to publicly join Infowars.com’s campaign to call for the immediate impeachment of Barack Obama as well as any Congressman or woman that explicitly or otherwise supported and supports the US Financial Bailout of 2008, the use of Military Force without Congressional approval, the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act and its implementation against American citizens or foreigners. All of the above are unconstitutional, impeachable offenses that must be stopped now.

The cancer needs to heal for the patient to survive. Right now, it is up to you to be part of the medicine.

See Infowars.com’s campaign video narrated by Sean Stone below.

Running for President? Born in the U.S.? Show me the certificate

In light of Hawaii’s incapacity to produce Barack Obama’s birth certificate several states presented legislation to make it mandatory for presidential candidates to present their birth certificate before running.

WND
January 26, 2011

It could be a game-changer.

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.

It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn’t wish to be listed as co-sponsors.

The proposal, which also is being taken up in a number of other states, is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House. It says:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

The critical phrases are “natural born citizen” and the requirements of “article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States,” which imposes on the president a requirement not demanded of other state and federal officeholders.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a “natural born citizen” was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions have called for a “natural born citizen” to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama’s “natural born citizen” status never has been documented. The “Certification of Live Birth” his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which 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.”

The challenges to Obama’s eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom’s Kenyan territory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama’s eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts’ interpretation of “standing,” meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn’t have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama’s birth documentation could be brought into court.

Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.

Burges told WND she’s asked the proposal to be assigned to the Government Committee.

“I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements,” she told WND. “We do not accept the federal government’s unconstitutional treatment of states as one of their extended branches.”

The Arizona bill also requires attachments, “which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury,” including “an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.”

It also requires testimony that the candidate “has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”

“If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state,” the state plan explains.

The governor’s office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as a year ago when lawmakers adopted provisions that allowed state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The state’s move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.

WND also has reported that similar efforts are under way in Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas:

Montana

Under Montana’s plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election officials’ to do their duty.

“There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president],” Wagner told WND. “The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation.”

Wagner’s legislation cites the Constitution’s requirement that the president hold “natural born citizenship” and the fact that the “military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic.”

But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama’s defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.

“Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution,” says his proposed legislation.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office.

Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.

He described it as a “problem” that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.”

“We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session,” he said.

He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would be effective in solving his concerns.

“I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign,” he told WND.

Georgia

Rep. Mark Hatfield has confirmed to WND that he will have a similar proposal pending.

He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year’s session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.

“I do plan to reintroduce the bill,” he told WND. “We’ll move forward with trying to get it before a committee.”

In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both houses of the legislature as well as “every constitutional statewide office,” he noted.

“I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation],” he said.

Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements, it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot “would give voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact qualified,” he said.

“My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president meets the constitutional requirements,” he said. “This is a first step in that direction.”

Texas

WND reported on a bill pre-filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such documentation.

Berman’s legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

Berman told WND he’s seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”

“If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we’ll do it in our state,” he said.

He noted the Senate’s investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator’s birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn’t want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.

“If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he’ll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he’s a natural-born citizen,” he said. “This is going to be significant.”

Berman said he’s convinced there are problems with Obama’s eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama’s eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution’s demands.

Other state plans also might be in the works but unannounced yet. Officials with the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures said they were not tracking bills in development.

But Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, said efforts are under way now in Missouri and Oklahoma, too.

She said the bill is expected to be successful in Missouri where there is a GOP majority in the legislature and a GOP governor’s office, and in Oklahoma, where last year a similar plan failed by only one vote in the state Senate.

She encouraged residents of Tennessee, New Hampshire, South Dakota, California, Maine, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey and Iowa to contact their lawmakers, as there has been some interest expressed.

“We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union … as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further,” she said.

Last year, several other states listened to proposals that could have had an impact on eligibility documentation. In New Hampshire, officials wanted to require candidates to meet the “qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution.” In Oklahoma, lawmakers heard a plan to let voters decide the issue, and in South Carolina, the plan was to prevent candidates from being on the ballot unless “that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States.”

Further, several other states discussed requirements for candidates, but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1 constitutional compliance, so it’s unclear whether they would have addressed Obama’s situation.

There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey’s bill at the federal level.

Posey’s H.R. 1503 stated:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

The bill also provided:

“Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”

It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.

There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution’s eligibility requirements.

“What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don’t think so,” said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.

For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

  • erected billboards around the country demanding, “Where’s the birth certificate?”:
  • produced a 40-page special report on the subject;
  • produced a 60-minute documentary video primer on the issue;
  • manufactured yard and rally signs to bring attention to the topic;
  • pledged to donate at least $15,000 to any hospital in Hawaii or anywhere else that provides proof Obama was born there and given you an opportunity to raise the amount;
  • created a line of T-shirts you can wear to appearances by the president to raise visibility of the issue;
  • created a fund to which you can donate to further the kind of investigative reporting into this matter only this company has performed over the last two years;
  • launched a line of postcards you can use to keep the issue alive;
  • distributed thousands of bumper stickers asking, “Where’s the birth certificate?”

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

“Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office,” he wrote in a column. “However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn’t take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective.”


Fetuses, recently born Babies are not Humans

Jurriaan Maessen

It is almost tiresome, but yet another writing by White House science czar John P. Holdren has surfaced- this time questioning the right of a “potential human” to live and grow in the womb of an “actual woman”. One could fill a medium-sized library with the writings by this Malthusian monster, denouncing humans and their right to live under the sun.

In 1972, John P. Holdren and his old buddy Paul Ehrlich wrote an article in “The Canadian Nurse”. The article is entitled “Abortion and Morality”. The subtitle reads as follows: “Has a potential human the right to live inside an actual woman without her consent?”

The article goes on to list the well-known arguments for abortion, such as “If abortion is needed by individuals and by society, is medically safe, and is not patently immoral, it is difficult to be sure exactly what is accomplished in subjecting the procedure to restrictive government scrutiny”, Holdren and Ehrich say.

“Infants”, the two continue, “are entitled to due process and equal protection under the Fouteenth Amendment to the (US) Constitution, but fetuses are not. Because of this distinction, the relaxation of abortion laws could scarcely imperil the rights of infants or of elderly and otherwise dependant people. (…) Repeal of abortion laws is long overdue.”

These were not some isolated comment by two overzealous eco-fascists. In the 1973 publication Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote quite candidly about their basic view on life, providing us with yet another peek at the decaying undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged- proposing among other things a “planetary regime” to assume command of matters of life and death.

In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:

The fetus“, Holdren writes, “given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

In other words, Holdren not only argues, as he did in 1972, that the unborn may not be considered human- he believes that children during the early years after birth, cannot yet be considered human beings. Given this presumption by Obama’s science adviser, it may not come as a surprise that he does not shy away from coercive abortion policies or other such measures to scale back the population. After all, if an infant cannot be construed as a human being, as Holdren argues, God-given rights do not apply to them nor does constitutional protection- and therefore they can be deemed as completely at the government’s mercy.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain - lain

Partner Links