Monthly Archives: February 2008

Big Brother’s Little Helpers: Commercial Data Brokers

Big Brother’s Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for Law Enforcement:

CHRIS JAY HOOFNAGLE
University of California, Berkeley – School of Law – Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic


University of North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, Summer 2004

The shift to a digital information environment has brought many changes to law enforcement access to personal data. Now, by visiting a single website, such as http://www.cpgov.com, law enforcement can obtain a comprehensive dossier on almost any adult. That website was custom-tailored for law enforcement by ChoicePoint, Inc., a commercial data broker (CDB).

CDBs make available a wide variety of personal information, from arrest and court records to notice that a suspect has opened a private mailbox. Access to private sector databases has significantly altered the balance of power between law enforcement and the individual. This new power has been made possible by the confluence of fast network connections; the availability of public records, both electronic and paper, that are rich with personal information; a regulatory environment that has turned a blind eye to private sector collection of personal information for marketing and other purposes; and the alacrity of companies that have become very profitable from selling personal data to the government.

This article summarizes the findings of three years of research into the relationship between CDBs and the federal government. The federal Freedom of Information Act was employed to obtain over 1,500 documents from nine federal agencies concerning ChoicePoint and other CDBs. Findings are presented from the requests, and concerns are raised regarding law enforcement access to personal information.

The documents led to six major findings. First, the documents show that law enforcement can quickly obtain a broad array of personal information about individuals. Second, although broad requests for documents were filed, there was almost no evidence of controls to prevent agency employees from misusing the databases. It appears as though auditing employee use of the databases is either impossible or simply not done. Third, the database companies are extremely solicitous to the government and actually design the databases for law enforcement use. Fourth, ChoicePoint expanded significantly in 2000 by starting to acquire and sell personal information of non-citizens. That discovery has led to strong international dissent. Fifth, many of the contracts with CDBs are sole-sourced, meaning the contracts are not open to competitive bidding. Sixth, the FBI has a secret, sole-source contract with ChoicePoint to develop an information service prototype.

Based on these documents, the author concludes that the Privacy Act should apply to CDBs. The Privacy Act of 1974 establishes a comprehensive set of Fair Information Practices for government collection of personal information, but does not substantially affect the data practices of these private companies. Because of this lack of coverage, government entities have performed an end-run around the protections of the Privacy Act by allowing the private sector to amass troves of personal information that the government would ordinarily not be allowed to collect. Essentially, commercial data brokers are big brother’s little helpers – private sector companies that have escrowed personal information that is customized for law enforcement and other government agencies.

The author also concludes that public policy makers should not draw distinctions between commercial and government collection of personal information. Libertarians and conservatives have employed persuasive arguments to stave off privacy regulation that affects the commercial sector. They have argued that government collection, use, and disclosure of information presents more risk than commercial collection because the government has the power to arrest, imprison, and even to execute citizens. But this article shows that this distinction between the risks of government and commercial privacy risk is no longer tenable. Commercial actors provide personal information to the government in a number of contexts, and often with astonishing alacrity.

Finally, policymakers should revisit policies surrounding access to public records. Much of the personal information made available to law enforcement originates from public records. In a variety of contexts, the government compels individuals to reveal their personal information, and then pours it into the public record for anyone to use for any purpose. The private sector has collected the information, repackaged it, and brought it back to the government full circle. While public records are supposed to provide a window for a citizen to check abusive government activities, increasingly, they are used to leverage more control for powerful institutions against the common man.


CNBC “Big Brother, Big Business” Recorded Nov 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6061213358499552766&hl=en

The Pilgrims Society Exposed: Traitors Of America’s Past Affects The Present

Pilgrims Society | Membership list

Highest level Anglo-American relations for over a century

Note beforehand: Since this article first appeared, knowledge about this group has greatly expanded. This first version of this article was written after about 400 names were gathered and largely analyzed; and even before any work had been done on Le Cercle and the 1001. Now we are up to at least 1500 names, including many recent ones. It will take a lot of time to do bios on these members, analyze them, and give sources with each name, but for now it can be safely concluded that many members consistently are recruited from ALL the major banks, insurance companies, and law firms in New York and London. At the same time, Pilgrims flow in and out of the elected and permanent governments of the US and UK.

I suggest you take a look at the introduction page and appendix B where the origins of this group and its influence is discussed in a bit more detail. I also suggest you check out the work of Charles Savoie, who has been publishing a lot of work on Pilgrims since late 2004.

New information on the Pilgrims might be released via the front page at times, or not. Not sure.

Finally, I also suggest you take a look at this chart, which has been put together by looking at the individual biographies of the Pilgrims Society members.

The Pilgrims Society, an aristocratic Anglo-American dining club, was established over a century ago and meets at least two or three times a year. Its membership consists of the most influential bankers, lawyers, insurance brokers, and businessmen from the New York and London areas. A handful of career politicians also come from Washington. The club’s primary purpose is to keep the ties between the United States and Britain as close as possible.

The London chapter of the Pilgrims Society was established on July 11, 1902, followed by a New York chapter on January 13, 1903. Its patron is the British monarch, who has plenty of representatives attending the meetings. A member of the Royal family usually attends the London diners.

As you’ll find out by looking at the membership list, the Pilgrims Society has clearly fused together the business centers of New York and London, together with a large portion of the political centers of both nations. Ninety percent of the American members are top-level bankers and businessmen from New York city.
Only a couple of Pilgrims own or chair companies with headquarters in Boston or Philadelphia. Businesses that have their headquarters in any other location than this small part of the north-east corner of the United States don’t seem to be represented at all (do keep in mind that recent data is sketchy). Relatively few government officials from Washington are recruited into the Pilgrims Society. Officials from outside the UK or US visit the club occasionally. In the past they usually came from countries incorporated within the British Empire or the Commonwealth, most notably Canada and Australia.

A mistake usually made when people refer to this society, is when they call it the ‘Pilgrim Society’, because this name hasn’t been used that often. The most often used name is the ‘Pilgrims Society’, sometimes spelled as ‘Pilgrim’s Society’. You might think this isn’t such a big deal, but when you search the internet or some archives for the ‘Pilgrim Society’, you will hardly find any official sources, simply because they all refer to the ‘Pilgrims Society’. The name ‘Pilgrims Society’ is also unique, so you won’t confuse it with this one. Also try searching on ‘The Pilgrims’ or more specifically, the ‘Pilgrims of the United States’ and the ‘Pilgrims of the United Kingdom’/’Pilgrims of Great Britain’.

The club is secret. It might be one of those ‘open-secrets’, but it’s secret nonetheless. If it wasn’t, we would have read about it in the history books, we would know all the details of the meetings, and we would have membership lists in the public domain. It is possible to find quite a bit of information in regular newspaper archives, but you really have to look for it. It takes forever to piece the story together. For example, The Scotsman made numerous references to it in the first half of the century (archives are only available up to 1950 atm). Time Magazine made them much less, but still referred to the club once every few years. After 1958, Time only mentioned the club 2 or 3 times, even though meetings continued as usual. Other newspapers in the U.S., like the New York Times and the Washington Post have referred the Pilgrims at times. The Wall Street Journal on the other hand never mentioned a whole lot about this dining club at any time in the past century. The Times of London mentioned the society a couple of times in the past 10 years, even though, as all the other papers, it didn’t give many details about who’s attending. Most other newspapers, including the Scotsman, New York Post, Washington Times, or even the Guardian, seem to have been (almost) completely silent about the Pilgrims in the last 5 to 7 years (that’s how far the digital archives go back). In other countries it’s virtually impossible to get any information on the Pilgrims. Not one large Dutch newspaper has mentioned the name in the past 20 years. References in German or French newspapers are just as uncommon. One thing you actually càn find, is different speeches on official websites; One at NATO, another one at the State Department, and yet another one from 1999 on the MoD website. They all deal with one little speech and when you ask for some background information you won’t get any replies. And that’s strange. Maybe it’s done to give people the impression there’s nothing unusual about the club. Indeed, looking at the speeches there certainly isn’t. All they do is talk about regular pro-NATO politics and kiss up to their “brothers” on the other side of the ocean.

For More In Depth Reading On the Pilgrims Society Please Click Here:

The Bilderberg Groups Long History And Nazi Prince Bernhard Von Lippe-Biesterfeld


American Free Press | May 19 2004

The roots of Bilderberg go back centuries, when international moneychangers would secretly manipulate the economy to enrich themselves and enslave ordinary people.

The Rothchilds of Britain and Europe have met secretly with other financiers for centuries, as did the Rockefellers of America.

In the beginning, the Rothchilds were “Red Shields” because of the ornament on their door and the Rockefellers of Germany were “Rye Fields” because of their crops.

One of the most significant such meetings took place in the spring of 1908, led by Sen. Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller’s given name. It was held on Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast.

The late B.C Forbes, editor of Forbes magazine, reported what transpired at this meeting of the world’s wealthy. With Aldrich were Henry Davidson, of J.P. Morgan and Co.’ Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank; Paul Warburg, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., and A. Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the treasury.

They emerged from this secret meeting with a plan for “a scientific currency system for the United States.” They had the power to pressure Congress into establishing the Federal Reserve Board, a private group of bankers who meet to shape the money supply.

But in 1954, the international financiers decided that the world had become so small and their interests intersected so often, that they must have regular, annual meetings. That year they met at the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland, and took the name “Bilderberg” for themselves.

They have met behind sealed-off walls and armed guards at plush resorts ever since. Secrecy prevailed briefly, until the late journalist, Westbrook Peglet, exposed Bilderberg in 1957. However, Chatham House rules have remained in effect, whereby meeting are held privately and attendees are prohibited from talking on the record about what transpired.

Pegler devoted two of his nationally syndicated columns to Bilderberg in April 1957, although he did not know the group’s name.

SOMETHING MYSTERIOUS GOING ON

Something very mysterious is going on when a strange assortment of 67 self-qualified, polyglot designers and arbiters of the economic and political fate of our western world go into a secret huddle on an island off Brunswick, Ga., and not a word gets into the popular press beyond a little, routine AP story,” Pegler wrote.

Pegler reported that Ralph McGill, the late editor of The Atlanta Constitution and Arthur Hayes Sulzberget, publisher of The New York Times, had attended on their promise of secrecy. Since, the publisher and associate editor of The Washington Post, Donald Graham and Jimmy Lee Hoagland, respectively, have been regular participants. All network news channels have attended these meetings. All promise to abide by the rule of secrecy.

Bilderberg, which typically meets at a luxury resort near a small town – this year’s meeting is in Stresa, a town in Italy of fewer than 5,000 population – provides a short “press release” to the local paper – preferably a weekly. It is designed to reassure natives as armed guards arrive, motorcades roar by, yachts dock and helicopters land, delivering unidentified people behind closed-off walls.

The “press release” is the same each year, only the site and dates are updated. It says individuals will meet privately to do nothing for three days. Otherwise, they try to impose a complete blackout.

The blackout is virtually complete in the United States. When giant newspapers and broadcast outlets say they do not want the word “Bilderberg” to appear, the pressure on Associated Press is obvious; they are the biggest customers, paying far more than a small-circulation local paper.

Small-city papers depend on AP for all out-of-town news, even for their state legislative coverage. They run hard to stay ahead of the city council and high school football team. Unless informed directly, they have no knowledge that Bilderberg exists.

While Bilderberg denies its meetings are significant, the record proves otherwise. The now defunct Spotlight wrote advance stories on the end of the Cold War, the downfall of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister of Britain and of President George Bush the Elder’s breaking of his pledge to raise taxes based on what transpired among Bilderbergers.

More recently, while the mainstream media in 2002 was asserting that the invasion of Iraq would come by late summer or early fall, American Free Press reported that there would be no aggression until 2003. The war began in March 2003.

Learning what transpires at Bilderberg can provide a glimpse of what the future holds.

Bernhard von Lippe-Biesterfeld: The Nazi Prince

Jurriaan Maessen / Jones Report | November 15, 2006
Reader Submission

When Prince Bernard got himself married to princess Juliana in 1936, the people of the Netherlands were not really surprised. It had become quite a tradition with the family Van Orange-Nassau to invite members of German nobility into its ranks. In fact, this tradition dated back to the late middle-ages, when the family had cunningly nestled itself into powerful Prussian bloodlines: a union from which both parties would profit immensely in the centuries to come: the former had gained access to all kinds of trading privileges through membership of the German Hanseatic League (a medieval trade organisation, considered by historians to be a sort of rudimentary European Union), while the latter seized control of the river Rhine, as it flowed freely into the Netherlands and more westward, into the north sea. As a result the Germans continued to tighten their grip on the fragile Dutch Republic and practised the problem-reaction-solution ‘game’ with zest to undermine its success.
Completely in line with this age-old tradition, just like in the old days, the marriage of Juliana and Bernhard was arranged to push the Teutonic agenda further out into the West.

And suddenly, apparently out of thin air, the young German prince Bernhard von Lippe-Biesterfeld appeared on stage. At first glance, the Dutch people were not quite sure about the man. This latest acquisition made them feel somewhat uncomfortable; the guy seemed a bit too flamboyant for the Calvinistic masses of the Netherlands to digest. In the beginning the Dutch considered him to be nothing more than a corrupt German who had dared to court ‘their’ princess.
Indeed, the suspicion of corruption was not far off – and as for the courting, well, that was completely arranged of course and had nothing whatsoever to do with the romantic image of courtly love Europeans are so attached to. With the help of some very shrewd propaganda on the part of the elite, the initial image of the ‘playboy prince’ (as he was dubbed) was quickly traded in for a very friendly painting of the noble young prince. The anti-Orange minority, who considered the initial controversy to be the perfect opportunity to bring down the royals in favour of the Republic, was soon to be silenced by the majority of people, mindlessly licking the royal boots. So, as usual, all the people’s representatives in The Hague would do in the end was nod their heads in quiet indignation before returning to their daily businesses. Bernhard’s real dealings were held back in fear of a Dutch populist uprising. In the end, the corruption was even blacker than the dark in which it was hidden.

In the years proceeding the wedding a charismatic Austrian, backed up by national and international bankers, had taken control of battered, post WW1 Germany. The Dutch looked on in self-proclaimed neutrality as this new, destructive force in the east came into being. The false flag operation known as the Reichstag-fire really tightened Hitler’s grip on the country and effectively gave him dictatorial carte blanche. Now he set out to conquer Europe, Napoleon-style.
Meanwhile the Dutch royal family had hauled in the Prussian prince, who was up to his eyeballs in the nazi swamp: he was a member of Hitler’s party as well as a devoted cavalry officer in the Reiter SS; he also enjoyed marching with Hitler’s street fighters (the SA) in his spare time. And as if this criminal track record wasn’t bad enough, he also began working as a part-time secretary of the board of directors of IG Farben, the German corporation that later supplied the patented Zyklon B, an infamous chemical which was used to systematically gas millions of Jews. But -as usual- only a very soft sound of protest could be distinguished amidst the hysterical cries of the Dutch, as they continued to wave their flags to their princess (later to become queen) and her Nazi husband (a lifetime globalist). Meanwhile, the Republic- or what was left of it- was strangled by the very people they cheered. The prince remained a loyal Nazi and even visited once or twice with the Führer himself.
It’s well known that Hitler didn’t think much of Bernhard. After one meeting the German dictator was heard to remark that he never wanted to see ‘that complete idiot’ again. As the German dictator increasingly guessed wrong in military affairs, he was evenly mistaken about the prince. Bernhard turned out to be everything but an idiot. To illustrate his cunning, the following example will suffice:
when the second world war broke out in 1939, Bernhard flipped sides very quickly. In the blink of an eye he had changed from an outright nazi to an allied air force hero. A brilliant magicians trick, reflected by a mirror of lies and doublethink.

The Dutch hope of neutrality was altogether shattered by the German invasion of the Netherlands in may of 1940. The Van Orange-Nassaus hurriedly fled to England, along with their treasures and fortune, leaving their subjects to starve on the mainland. In London Bernhard immediately made himself useful: he must have realised that it wouldn’t do to side with the Nazis in the long run, as they were destined to be crushed between the two rising giants, the United States and the Soviet Union: the world’s foremost future management teams. No, he knew all too well that Hitler was set up from the very beginning to create the problem that the globalists would later solve. Bernhard had always been hardcore New World Order and inherently sided with his friends who pushed the key buttons on both sides of the table. It’s almost routine: first they fund a tyrant into power, creating a problem, after which they generously arm the opposing side. And as soon as the conflict is guaranteed and in full swing, they let it rage for a while until they deem the time ripe to bring out the solution – in favour of their global agenda of course. And finally, the outcome is being presented as some random historical phenomenon: as if it had naturally evolved out of the situation.

Hitler came and went. And the royal family returned to the weakened Netherlands they had cowardly fled just five years earlier. In a brilliant series of news articles the members of the royal family in general (and Bernhard in particular) were greeted as war heroes who had supported the home-grown Dutch resistance from abroad. It was the perfect spin: they weren’t cowards, they were actually heroes!
The scam had worked better than even the royals had expected. Once again the people’s initial hesitations subsided to make room for blind idolatry: he had been magically transformed from a dubious German prince into a long lost relative they pressed tightly to their chests.

The contacts Bernhard had established in London during the war would prove to be priceless and lasting. We don’t have to fast forward too far up in the timeline to encounter the prince again, this time setting up the first Bilderberg conference in 1954. Bernhard was approached by a man named Joseph Retinger a few years earlier, a lifetime friend of the prince and a Polish (read: east-Prussian) political advisor. He was also the founder of the so-called European Movement as well as the ‘Council of Europe’ – two bodies that would later merge to become the European Union. Retinger had been playing with the idea of creating a global organisation where the members could share thoughts in perfect impunity, and approached Bernhard to help him start up the project. They soon went to work to gather their powerful contacts together in one room with the specific purpose of bringing in global government. It would be pretentious to think I could capture the meaning and importance of this annual crime fest in this short history of crime. For more information on Bilderberg, just check out Alex Jones’ work on the subject.

Bernhard’s ambitions didn’t end with Bilderberg: just seven years after its founding, Bernhard forced into being the World Wildlife Foundation, a global organisation claiming to ‘stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment, and building a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.’ A mouthful of pure nonsense, covering up the true face of the WWF, which was in reality nothing more than just another globally funded laundry-machine- as indeed was almost every project the prince was involved in. As can be learned via any search engine, Bernhard served on over 300 corporate boards worldwide by the nineteen seventies. Regrettably, just a fraction of the corruption actually managed to pierce through the Dutch media grid. The most famous one being a bribing scandal known as the ‘Lockheed affaire’- named after the airplane and arms manufacturer company handing out the bribes. Ironically, the affair came to light in a hearing organized by the United States senate, where Bernhard’s name was mentioned in connection to the bribes. This information proved a lot harder to spin. For the first time in history a Dutch newspaper would break with the tradition of worship and decided to actually run with the story. The publication in 1976 triggered an outburst of spontaneous rage in the Netherlands. Not surprisingly, for the article in question exposed the fact that Bernhard had accepted a million dollar bribe (which is mere pocket change) from arms manufacturer Lockheed before he laundered it through his World Wildlife Foundation. It was out in the open and some Dutch members of parliament actually thought about starting a serious criminal investigation. But it wasn’t to be. When his wife, queen Juliana, threatened to resign if they were going through with the investigation, the ruling socialist party buckled under the pressure as they backed away in a decidedly rat-like fashion. The media quickly followed their example as did the people’s representatives in the state capitol. As usual, their thoughts never materialised into concrete action.

Today, the royal family still enjoys full immunity as they secretly move through the international halls of power. It should be pointed out that, despite the before mentioned ‘revelations’ (and there are so much more), the actual influence the Dutch royal family exercises is kept locked tight in a titanium framed closet, not to be touched. The Dutch media complies like a good lackey, restricting itself to the family’s skiing trips and cocktail parties while Bernhard’s daughter, the current queen Beatrix of Orange-Nassau, continues to uphold her father’s legacy and is further extending her dark tentacles into the twenty-first century, pushing forward the globalist agenda.

Feds Train Preachers To "Quell Dissent" Martial Law: Romans Chapter 13 Used


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, August 16, 2007

A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to “obey the government” when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the “cowboy mentality” of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that “this is for their own good.”

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story has now been confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.

Watch the video.

The report entertains the scenario of martial law as depicted in the movie The Siege and states that “quelling dissent would be critical.”

Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff’s Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team’s mission, “the primary thing that we say to anybody is, ‘let’s cooperate and get this thing over with and then we’ll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'”

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, “because the government’s established by the Lord, you know. And, that’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.”

So there you have it – Homeland Security are working with local police departments and religious leaders to prepare for the declaration of martial law and in particular developing techniques they will employ during the crisis to “quell dissent.”

Phony Christian leaders are brainwashing their congregations to accept the premise that the totalitarian police state is “of the Lord” and that they should get on their knees and lick jackboots while the round-ups take place as citizens are processed into quarantine zones and detention camps by the National Guard and U.S. troops returning from Iraq.

The precedent for mass gun confiscation and martial law in times of a real or manufactured emergency was set during Hurricane Katrina, when police and National Guard patrols forced home owners – even in areas unaffected by the hurricane – to hand over their legally owned firearms at gunpoint.

This is a clear precursor for the imminent declaration of a state of emergency, a scenario that President Bush codified in his recent Presidential Decision Directive of May 9th, which states in the event of a “catastrophic event” the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The scope of the program is so secretive that even Homeland Security Committee member and Congressman Peter DeFazio was denied access to view the classified portion of the documents.

Romans Chapter 13 Miss Used:
George Washington’s Blog
Friday Aug 17, 2007

Click Here for Actual Secret Fema Document

By now, you have probably heard that the government has been training ministers to convince their congregations to submit to government authority in the event of a martial law crackdown, based upon Romans 13 (see also this ).

Fundamentalist Christians argue that Romans 13 states that Christians must submit to government authority, since the government is divinely empowered and sustained. This is actually the argument which Adolph Hitler used in order to convince the German churches to follow him and his policies.

However, Romans 13 does not teach subservience. Rather, as explained by a Baptist minister , Romans 13 actually says something very different :

“Paul � said, �Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.’ Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just �because they said so.’ It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience.”

The Bible therefore requires that Christians resist imposition of martial law based upon false pretenses or upon an abuse of power.

Similarly, Romans 13 teaches that any government that is a “terror to good works” is acting beyond its authority and must be resisted .

Therefore, Romans 13 compels us to resist and remove from power elements of the U.S. government which participated in the 9/11 attacks or are planning to carry out further false flag attacks.

And remember that neoconservatives use religion to manipulate people, even though they themselves are usually not religious . So the government hacks pushing Romans 13 as an excuse for fascism and government-sponsored terror likely do not themselves even believe in the Bible.

Note: Please pass this on to every Christian you know.

This is not meant as an attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity. 85% of the American population identifies itself as Christian , and millions more identify themselves as Jewish. Therefore, it is aimed at the vast majority of Americans who already believe in the Bible, or those who wish to reach them. If you are an atheist, mocking Christians will not help to persuade them of your view – it will just make them defensive. But educating them about what their own faith really teaches might help to persuade them.

How Congress Changed The Rules On US Attorney Appointments

From Kathy Gill,
Your Guide to US Politics. Jan 20 2007

Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005

This is a story that illustrates, perfectly, the old adage about avoiding watching anyone make sausage or law.

The bill in question? The Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005.

When introduced as HR 3199 in July 2005, the bill totaled seven pages (web text converted to PDF). When signed by the President in March 2006, it had morphed into Public Law 109-177, a “final print” behemoth at 277 pages.

The bill is in the news because of this clause:

    SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.
    Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

    ”(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.”.

What Does It Mean?
The language that was replaced by PL 109-177 specified that if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, that the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination.

The term for the interim US Attorney was limited by law to 120 days.

Now, the President makes the appointment, there is no limit to the interim appointment, and there is required no Senate oversight.

How Did It Happen?
On 11 July, Rep James Sensenbrenner, Jr (R-WI), introduced the seven-page bill. There were no co-sponsors. The Judiciary and Intelligence Committees had their way with the bill, and when the House passed the bill on 21 July, it totalled 117 pages.

The Senate didn’t like any of it; they sent the House a complete substitution on 29 July 2005.

On 9 November, the House agreed that the solution was a conference committee, where legislators from both chambers hammer out differences. It was in the conference process that this clause — as well as several other “miscellaneous” items — was added to the bill.

The conference committee revision was filed on Thursday 8 December 2005. The House passed the conference report on Wednesday 14 December, 251-174 (roll call vote – 207 Rs, 44 Ds). A full week = plenty of time to read the bill (or have a staffer read the bill.) Don’t say you didn’t know what you were voting for!

A storm of controversy ensued; the Senate did not vote on the measure until 2 March 2006; it passed 89-10 (roll call vote).

    NAYs —10
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Jeffords (I-VT)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    Not Voting – 1
    Inouye (D-HI)

The President signed the bill on 9 March 2006.

So there you have it — a handful of (mostly) men (I can find three women appointed to the conference committee) rewrote the bill behind closed doors. The conference process is not “open” — there is no record in the Congressional Record of who made what changes to the text. So we’ll never know who inserted this clause, unless they ‘fess up (or someone rats them out).

References

Miami Police Plans Urban Test Of Honeywell’s Micro-UAV

Graham Warwick
Flight
February 20, 2008

Police in Miami, Florida want to find out whether a small unmanned air vehicle able to hover and stare can help law enforcement in urban areas.

To that end, Miami-Dade Police Department plans a four- to six-month evaluation of Honeywell’s ducted-fan Micro Air Vehicle (MAV).

The gasoline-powered gMAV has just received an experimental airworthiness certificate from the US Federal Aviation Administration, clearing the way for the ground-breaking experiment. Approval was granted following a demonstration flight for the FAA at a remote site in Laguna, New Mexico.

The wingless gMAV can take off and land vertically, transition to high-speed flight and hover and stare using electro-optical/infrared sensors. Miami-Dade is buying one gMAV and leasing a second for the FAA-sanctioned technology demonstration, says Vaughn Fulton, Honeywell’s small UAS programme manager.

The police department will operate the UAVs, and helicopter pilots from its aviation unit have been trained to fly the gMAV. “The demonstration will be in urban terrain, involving real tactical operations,” he says.

The 8.2kg (18lb) gMAV is Honeywell’s second version of the man-portable UAV. Compared with the original tMAV developed for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the gMAV has a larger outside diameter housing twice the fuel and providing an endurance exceeding 55min at sea level.

Military gMAVs have been used in Iraq to detect improvised explosive devices. The basic UAV has fixed sensors and Honeywell is developing a follow-on version with gimballed payload. The company is also working on diesel-powered dMAV, which it expects to fly in 2008. Another version is in development for the US Army’s Future Combat Systems programme.

Honeywell has begun low-rate initial production of MAVs on a new line in Albuquerque, New Mexico, sized to manufacture up to 100 vehicles a month. “We expect several large contracts in 2008,” says Fulton.

Ron Paul On The Second Amendment Battle In DC

Borderfire Report
February 22, 2008

As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Ron Paulvery seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people’s right to “keep and bear arms.”

Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society. Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people’s access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law. Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to. Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.

Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation’s capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC’s gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court’s decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.

However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia ’s gun laws are a “reasonable” infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.

This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

« Older Entries