gdp's Comments

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Vent through 6/5

Sat, 30 May 2009 20:11:26 +0000

in the context Obama's remarks, consider the following. Only a short lead-in of the summaries are quoted for brevity, please follow the links to see the full articles Posts Tagged ‘Immediate Reaction Force’ - Media Unconcerned with Real Torturers Still at Gitmo May 23, 2009, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR] http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/immediate-reaction-f... - Amy Goodman recently interviewed independent journalist Jeremy Scahill on her Democracy Now! show (5/19/09) regarding the fact that, in Scahill's words, "while much of the focus has been on the tactical use of torture at Guantánamo, almost no attention had been paid to a parallel force" known as the Immediate Reaction Force. - Torture Continues at Guantánamo Bay Pulse Media, "ludek", May 20, 2009 http://pulsemedia.org/2009/05/20/torture-continue... - ... based on new evidence obtained by the Spanish court which initiated criminal proceedings against John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes and Douglas Feith several weeks ago, prisoners speak of routine terror which include breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and “dousing” them with chemicals. The repression is said to have only intensified since Obama got into office, who reinstated the use of ‘military commissions‘ last week, deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. - Jeremy Scahill: “Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama” May 19, 2009, Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scah... - Jeremy Scahill reports the Obama administration is continuing to use a notorious military police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes and dousing them with chemicals. This force, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force, has been labeled the “Extreme Repression Force” by Guantanamo prisoners, and human rights lawyers call their actions illegal. - Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama May 15, 2009, Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/rights/140022/little_know... - The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals. - (Sleep Deprivation) Tactic Used After It Was Banned Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas August 8, 2008, Josh White, Washington Post http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guant... - At least 17 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were subjected to a program that moved them repeatedly from cell to cell to cause sleep deprivation and disorientation as punishment and to soften detainees for subsequent interrogation, according to U.S. military documents. - download Senate Armed Services Committee report http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Det... --- SEE MORE on this topic at We Surround Them blog "Obama's 'Moral High Ground'" at http://wesurroundthemusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/... ----

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : Vent through 6/5

Sat, 30 May 2009 20:08:53 +0000

note the following summary of Obama's moral positions as stated in his National Security speech Obama’s Remarks on National Security National Archives, May 21, 2009 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watc... -- "our most fundamental values ... liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world" "where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology" "brutal methods ... did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them" "I can ... say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture" "ultimately we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength and a beacon to the world" -- I assert that the materials I am about to present far depict a reality that provides stark contrast. Assuming he is sincere, what changes in policy and practice will be required to resolve these inconsistencies? ... with respect to our stance and conduct as a nation? ... with respect to the conduct of every individual we empower to wield force over others? ... with respect to the human, personal experience of everyone who either wields, is subjected to, or bears witness to that force? surely we have a long way to go before his characterization "beacon to the world" has legitimacy. Whatever promise we might offer the world and its people, it is overshadowed by our clear lack of scruples ... our relationship to the earth and it's ecosystems is yet another issue, but I'll leave that to another time

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:36:00 +0000

check out these inspirational videos ... Adam Kokesh's speech (Revolution March) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBv6WhejGQ Red Skelton Pledge Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioIkqKVztYg John Wayne "America Why I Love Her" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekHkR5BKOY John Wayne's Message to Young Americans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqC_iWJCOL8 thanks to Madison at The Patriotic Resistance (ResistNet) for passing this information around! http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/amazing-spe...

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:27:06 +0000

more media coverage on Shariah and the "west": A Bishop Pleads for Islamic Law [excerpted] February 12, 2008, Mathieu von Rohr, Spiegel.net GmbH http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,... -- With his plea for recognition of the Muslim legal system in Britain, the archbishop of Canterbury has outraged his people. In doing so, he has driven a wedge into the center of a passionate national debate. ... the archbishop said that it seemed "unavoidable" to him and that it could help bring about a better degree of social cohesion in the country. He sees "a bit of danger" in the fact that, in principle, there is only one set of laws that applies to everyone, and he believes that laws should not "(square) up with people's religious consciences." He stressed that, of course, "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states," such as the stoning of adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves. The archbishop's ideas are not shared by many. "The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," the spokesperson for Prime Minister Gordon Brown coolly commented. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham labeled it "a recipe for disaster." Meanwhile, prominent Muslims said the comments would do little more than cause confusion. -- also see the associated opinion piece: Shariah Is for Everyone! February 12, 2008, Henryk M. Broder, Spiegel.net GmbH http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518...

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:24:05 +0000

should the US continue in it's direction to ratify and make binding UN resolutions, we embark on yet another slippery slope: EDITORIAL: The U.N. tackles religion Resolution could provide justification for oppression March 27, 2009, The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/t... -- Will the United Nations soon be issuing fatwas? Today the U.N. Human Rights Council is expected to vote on a resolution introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to combat defamation of religion, in particular Islam. This resolution is part of an effort begun in 1999 to establish an international framework that would in practice legitimize religious oppression. It is an assault on the rights of the individual and freedom of conscience. The language of the resolution seems benign enough, condemning stereotyping, inflammatory statements and so forth. But very troubling is the elasticity of the term "defamation." It is used to silence social critics and other liberal voices in countries where the law is captive of the official religion. "Anti-blasphemy" statutes in Shariah-based legal systems squelch debate over the rights of women, the right to free speech and expression, privacy, criminal justice and a variety of other off-limits issues. This U.N. resolution would give further international sanction to every authoritarian regime that hides its oppression behind the veil of faith. The OIC also plans to introduce binding resolutions that will require states to punish religious defamers. In practice this could target almost anyone with an opinion. Recent experience has shown that, particularly in the Muslim world, almost any comment can be tarred as defamatory and incite fatal violence. Publication of caricatures of Mohammed in the Danish Jyllands-Poste in 2005 sparked riots. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death for discussing irregularities in the history of the Koran in his novel . There were even protests in 1963 when U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith named his family cat "Ahmed," one of the forms of the name "Mohammed." It is fully appropriate for the public, the media, and even in some cases public officials to speak out if they feel speech or actions defame faith. But the OIC wants to establish an international framework for punitive government action against even legitimate criticism of religion. This is a dangerous evolution of international law wholly at odds with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrined the individual's "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" including "freedom to change his religion or belief" and to publicly "manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." However according to the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration, any such rights are ultimately "subject to the Islamic Shariah." Islam is the only religion mentioned in the OIC resolution, and can profitably be examined under the proposal's criteria. The resolution decries "negative stereotyping and defamation of religions." But the Koran and other Muslim holy works are rife with defamatory comments about Jews, Christians, pagans and other "apes and swine." The resolution deplores "all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults." But missionaries and converts are subjected to death sentences in many Shariah-based legal systems. The resolution condemns the type of "defamation of religion and incitement to religious hatred." But this would be familiar to anyone in the region when the talk turns to Israel, India or the West. By all means, let us apply these standards to some of the member states of the OIC and make an honest accounting of the true sources of intolerance. --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:55:38 +0000

media coverage, threat of crucifixion under Shariah law: 'I faced crucifixion' claims Scot freed from Saudi jail September 7, 2003, News Scotsman -- SANDY Mitchell, the Scot placed under sentence of death in Saudi Arabia, has revealed he was due to be executed by crucifixion, writes Christopher Claire. Mitchell said he was told by his Saudi lawyer that the sentence called for the victim’s head to be "partially" severed and the body fixed to an X-shaped cross in public view for three days. Public beheadings are routine in Saudi Arabia, but crucifixion is reserved as an exemplary punishment under sharia (Islamic) law for crimes of the utmost severity. Two highway robbers have been executed in this way in the past 20 years. Mitchell was one of six Britons arrested in Riyadh after a series of bomb attacks on westerners three years ago. They were set free from captivity after lobbying by the British government and the Prince of Wales. Mitchell, 44, said yesterday that he was tortured into confessing crimes that he did not commit. He was arrested in 2000 after Christopher Rodway, a British engineer, had been killed in the first attack and his wife injured. Mitchell said he was made to stand for nine days with his hands chained above his head and prevented from sleeping. He added that each night he was tethered hand and foot and suspended with a metal bar behind his legs to expose his buttocks and the soles of his feet. He also claimed he was beaten with an axe handle until he gave the answers his jailers were looking for. He said: "It went on and on. I used to consider myself a strong person but everybody has their breaking point. I was alone and in pain and if it wasn’t me being beaten it was others and I could hear their screams." He eventually confessed to being part of a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. "It was a ridiculous story, but that was what they wanted," he said. The bombings are believed to have been the work of Saudi dissidents, but the local authorities had insisted they were part of a turf war between gangs of bootleggers. Alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia, but private bars in western compounds were common. The Saudi police had traditionally turned a blind eye to drinking by westerners as long as it was done behind closed doors. Mitchell said: "The turf war did not exist. That was made up by the Saudi secret police to justify their own existence." He was locked away in solitary confinement for almost a year before he saw a lawyer. When he eventually was given access to a legal representative he discovered he had already been sentenced to death without a trial. No evidence other than his confession was ever brought forward. About 45 people were executed in Saudi Arabia last year and 75 in 2001. Mitchell said his Saudi lawyer had told him he had been singled out for crucifixion - the ultimate punishment allowed under sharia law. Mitchell said: "I used to think. you can take my head but you can’t take my soul." He added that a police captain had told him that he would go "insane" if he did not confess. --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:18:38 +0000

Fox News report: Islamic Law's Influence in America a Growing Concern March 29, 2009, David Lewkowict , Fox News -- As America's Muslim population grows, so too does the influence of Islamic law, or Shariah, in daily life in the U.S. "Shariah Law is the totality of the Muslim's obligation," said Abdullahi An-Na'im, a professor of law at Emory University in Atlanta. According to An-Na'im, Shariah is similar to Jewish Talmudic Law or Catholic Canon Law in that it guides an adherent's moral conduct. "As a citizen, I am a subject of the United States," An-Na'im said. "I owe allegiance to the United States, to the Constitution of the United States. That is not inconsistent with observing a religious code in terms of my own personal behavior." While many view this as a testament to the "great American melting pot," others see Islamic law's growing influence as a threat. Shariah's critics point to cases such as the airport in Minneapolis, where some Shariah-adherent taxi drivers made headlines in 2006 for refusing to pick up passengers they suspected of carrying liquor. The drivers' aversion to alcohol stemmed from a verse in the Qur'an that describes "intoxicants and gambling" as "an abomination of Satan's handiwork." Last year, a Tyson Foods plant in Shelbyville, Tenn. replaced its traditional Labor Day holiday with paid time off on Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim festival — marking the end of fasting during Ramadan. A labor union had requested the change on behalf of hundreds of Muslim employees— many of them were immigrants from Somalia. But public outcry over the decision to dismiss Labor Day quickly prompted the company and union to negotiate a new contract that makes accommodations for both holidays. In 2007, the University of Michigan installed ritual foot baths to accommodate Islamic tradition. "These things are beginning to percolate up as Shariah-adherent Muslims insist that their preferences and practices be accommodated by the rest of the population," said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy — a Washington think tank. Gaffney predicted the U.S. could soon face problems similar to some Western European countries, where the religious values of Muslim immigrants sometimes clash with their highly secular host cultures. But Professor An-Na'im believes it will be different in America. "The variety of American secularism — which is much more receptive of public displays of religion and a public role for religion — is, in fact, more conducive for Muslims to be citizens and to be comfortable with their religious values and citizenship than European countries," An-Na'im said. --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:17:21 +0000

Islamic Shariah versus U.S. Constitutional Law - contrasts of freedoms of speech and religion: Shariah is fundamentally incompatible with the Bill of Rights, and Islam as a state religion is diametrically opposed to the notion of liberty expressed in the Declaration of Independence U.S. under the the Constitution the Declaration of Independence] asserts as 'self evident fact' that God has endowed Man with the right to self-government, and that the purpose of government is to safeguard liberty. Due in no small measure to the separation of church and state, religious freedom is a hallmark of America. Renouncement of a previously held religion; e.g. a Muslim renouncing Islam, or anyone criticizing or proselytizing for any religion is an exercise of their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech under the Constitution. Irish Quakers, Jews, Roman Catholics, Huguenots (French Protestants), Puritans, German Pietists and others fleeing religious persecution in Europe settled in the American Colonies. All religions are free to flourish without governmental interference and immigration for both political and religious reasons continues to the present day. Islam under Shariah Islam maintains that Man has no right to self-government since Islam, as a religion which encompasses state functions, has been ordained "for all of mankind". The purpose of government is to safeguard and [b]enforce[/b] the practice of Islam, or exact penalties from non-Muslims. Islam aspires to a theocracy; integrating both church [Islam] and state. Apostasy towards Islam and of other faiths are capital offenses under Shariah. During several periods in history the presence of religions other than Islam, Judaism and monotheistic Christianity was not tolerated in Muslim lands, and practitioners of Hinduism and other faiths were executed if they failed to renounce their faith. In Muslim dominated countries expansion of non-Muslim faiths is sharply curtailed, with severe restrictions placed on new construction of places of worship, and exposing religious icons, artifacts and other demonstrations of faith to the general public. One never hears of anyone relocating to an Islamic republic to enjoy it's political and religious tolerance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism]proselyt... also see Wiki on Democracy and Human Rights, Freedom of Speech, and status of Women in Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah#Democracy_an...

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 02:23:59 +0000

jenco said "I am nauseated by the fact that O bowed down to the Saudi King." my understanding is that adherents to Islam have as their most detestable act worship of anything or anyone other than God (Allah). Although reverence is shown to Mohamed, his family, and the early rulers (caliphs), all would be horrified at any "obeisance" such as what Obama performed for the Saudi King. This shows his lack of understanding of the culture. I'm sure that while outwardly awkward for the Saudi observers, they were not amused. They would regard him as an unbeliever (infidel), as well as see his deference to them as the act of a fool. Whatever status he hoped to gain with that gesture, he blew it.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 02:06:46 +0000

thanks to Roger and Karen, for this very timely story! Rahm Emanuel said "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before". The Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime and their media sycophants continue to fabricate urgency out of thin air. As in England, fear is used to incrementally erode our rights, and if we are not vigilant we will face the same situation Roger and Karen have related so well. FOX News Reports On The Myth Of "90 percent" http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=47... -- In a story that looks at the reality of firearms seized from Mexican drug cartels, Fox News has found that the truth does not match the rhetoric of anti-gun politicians and journalists. In a story entitled "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S." Fox reporters William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott found that the 90% number far overstates the number of U.S. origin guns that are in the hands of the cartels. In fact, the story reports that the number is actually closer to 17%. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, quoted in the story said "Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this. The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment." -- read the entire FoxNews original article: The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-p... for more news on threats to our second amendment right, see the National Rifle Association's Legislative Alerts page http://www.nra.org/Stories.aspx?sid=13

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 02:03:49 +0000

repost from Meetup - part 2 of 2 -- This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars. Sound familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 02:02:36 +0000

repost from Meetup - part 1 of 2 This is a sad and true very scary story! We need to be on guard... Roger & Karen Bryant of North Port, FL posted this April 6, 2000 on Meetup http://www.meetup.com/WeSurroundThemGathering/mes... -- Our 2nd amendment rights: You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened. [ continued ... ]

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:41:32 +0000

elcolorao31 said: "We are going to survive to this economic crisis and we would come out stronger as a nation. Give our President a chance" If anything survives, it will not be this country. Without national sovereignty, and with a Constitution crippled by international treaties, a devalued currency, abridged rights of speech, and the Government's hand in our pockets, America will have been displaced by a fascist state. It may be called the North American Union, but it will have no relation to the America we grew up in and had hoped to pass onto our children. this is a battle for the preservation of our way of life. America has been an incredible experiment relative to the history of civilization, and as with any experiment we have learned along the way - and we're proud to have seen the country evolve in ways that are consistent with the vision of it's founders. Changes like abolition of slavery, equal rights for women and minorities, have all been aligned with that profound vision. it is when those who hate liberty and are determined to wield power over, and profit at the detriment of, others whether here or abroad corrupt the workings of government so that it no longer serves as the steward of that liberty, that America diverges from its sacred path. in my opinion Glenn Beck's urging that we return to our values and principles is the most effective course; and will ensure that we will be able to discriminate between patriots and traitors. ElColorao, you say you have been in the U.S. for twelve years, yet there are even many of native birth that have not grasped the awesome responsibility that we have to preserve this great nation. Many have become complacent or resigned, or have suffered from subtle indoctrination overtime; others have never made a commitment to understand who we are as a country; but for all of us current events are a wake up call, and a call to action. No! I will not "support" a President "elected by a majority" if his agenda is to destroy this country! I, and we, ALL have a higher obligation to our forebears and to posterity. "the Government works for US, not the other way around!" - Glenn Beck I hope you study the following excerpts: look up the words and strive to achieve a deep understanding of their meaning. Learn about history in Europe at the time this country came into being, about the relationship between people and despotic rulers, and try to appreciate what sacrifices in lives have been made to allow America to exist and thrive. Understand the foundation and vision of this country, and learn how the struggle for our evolution as a society has both benefited and suffered at the hands of politicians with different agendas. Recognize the role that Americans played in allowing our representative form of government, charged with upholding the Constitution, allowed the deviation from our values principles; and the effect that that departure has had on our own population, our economy and the world. if you are sincere in your search, you will find the truth. Declaration of Independence (excerpt) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declara... -- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- The Bill of Rights (excerpted) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of... -- Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Sat, 4 Apr 2009 01:32:54 +0000

to head off any consequences of an illegal treaty, some in congress have endeavored to explicitly discard as invalid any treaty which directly conflicts with the Constitution. Unfortunately the attempt met with no success, never making it out of Committee. -- from the 105th Congress: House Judiciary Resolution 83 Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and other international agreements. Sponsor: Rep Chenoweth, Helen [ID-1] Cosponsors:Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 2/11/1998 Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 2/11/1998 Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 2/11/1998 Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] - 11/6/1997 Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 2/11/1998 Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-5] - 2/11/1998 Rep Traficant, James A., Jr. [OH-17] - 2/11/1998 6/17/1997: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 6/20/1997: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. SUMMARY: Constitutional Amendment - Declares that a provision of a treaty which denies or abridges: (1) any right enumerated in the Constitution shall have no force or effect; or (2) legislative authority of the several States shall have no force or effect unless ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures within five years of such treaty's ratification by the Senate. Prohibits: (1) any treaty from authorizing or permitting any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of U.S. citizens enumerated in the Constitution or other matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States or the several States; and (2) any decision of any international body purporting to interpret treaties to which the United States is a party from being given any precedential effect by Federal or State courts in any proceeding concerning such matters. Requires the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress before a treaty becomes effective as internal law in the United States. FULL TEXT: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.J.RE... JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and other international agreements. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: `Article -- `SECTION 1. A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. `SECTION 2. A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges legislative authority of the several States shall not be of any force or effect unless ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures within five years of the date of the ratification of the treaty by the Senate. `SECTION 3. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States enumerated in this Constitution or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States or the several States. No decision of any international body purporting to interpret treaties to which the United States is a party shall be given any precedential effect by the courts of the United States or the several States in any proceeding concerning any matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States or the several States. `SECTION 4. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress. This section shall not be construed to grant Congress any authority to enact legislation that is not otherwise authorized by a specific grant of legislative authority in this Constitution. `SECTION 5. All agreements between the United States and other nations which have any binding effect of law upon this Nation or its citizens are treaties and shall be subject to the procedures and limitations for treaties set forth in this article and other provisions of this Constitution.'. --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Sat, 4 Apr 2009 01:28:10 +0000

I don't have the experience that Mr. Bolton does, upon which he undoubtedly bases his comment; but my guess is that simply withdrawing from a treaty is less the issue than what actions from the international community may arise in response. You can imagine that one corporation assuming collaboration with another based on a letter of intent, commits to a strategy, forgoes other opportunities and invests resources with the expectation that the promise will be kept. The letter of intent is meant to have some legal force to protect their interests, and a breach would provide grounds for a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages incurred by the business, including the loss of market position and anticipated revenue. consider the United States as the largest entity in the world, and imagine the disruption of activity should cooperation promised by a treaty not be forthcoming. I can imagine alliances made or avoided, national policy implemented or belayed, resources committed or redirected, military posture reinforced or relaxed, and so on; based on the presumption that the U.S as a treaty party would act in good faith. We may risk unpleasant reprisals from the offended parties on the other side if we renege. in my view any treaty signed and/or ratified which is in direct conflict with the Constitution, especially with the Bill of Rights, is by definition the result of an treasonous act on the part of the government officials involved, and consequently not binding as they were acting illegally. Clearly as their sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution, actions to the contrary are outside the domain of their authority. however as we know from experience, every year the President and Congress each perform actions for which they are not authorized under the Constitution, and/or which is direct violation of that Constitution. That has not prevented them from doing so, and in the absence of consequences forthcoming future acts have only been encouraged. if you are familiar with the Peter Sellers classic "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", a renegade commander of a strategic bomber base decides to illegally launch nuclear weapons at the U.S.S.R. The situation is not all that different, and as with the rogue commander, military action was necessary to neutralize the threat he became. (unfortunately he committed suicide, and the finale I will leave to your viewing pleasure).

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : News From You

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:45:00 +0000

media coverage ... City of Burleson Relents: Tea Party is On, Liberty Prevails April 3, 2009, Brendan Steinhauser, FreedomWorks http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/city-of... -- I just got off the phone with the local organizers of the Burleson Tea Party. They told me that the city’s press statement contained false explanations of what happened, but ultimately the local organizers will be able to hold their tea party. The city manager agreed to cooperate with the tea party planners to ensure that the tea party is safe, and a success. According to organizers, the city manager said that the city ”dropped the ball” and that he could not get any work done all day, due to the flood of emails and calls. This just goes to show you what conservative activists can do with one dose of technology, and one dose of Rules for Radicals. Local organizers are ecstatic about the success, and they wanted me to extend a warm thanks to everyone that emailed and called the city manager, the mayor and the city council. If you live near Burleson, be sure to get there and support them on April 15th! --

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : News From You

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:40:33 +0000

reposted from ResistNet at http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/burleson-... Burleson, TX agrees to allow Tea Party in alternate location April 3, 2009, Edie Boudreau, The Patriotic Resistance -- After reading on this site that a Burleson, TX 'street supervisor' had denied a Tea Party group (what they said was) their right to hold their Tea Party, I contacted the Mayor and City Council about it, reminding them about the Freedom of Speech clause in our Constitution. I just received the following letter as well as a Press Release from the Mayor. ____________________________________________ FROM: Mayor Ken Shetter, City of Burleson RE: Burleson Tea Party SUBJ: City of Burleson is Not Shutting Down Tea Party Concerned Citizen: The City of Burleson is NOT TRYING TO STOP THE APRIL 15 TEA PARTY. Members of the Burleson Tea Party group have contacted the City of Burleson wanting permission to conduct a demonstration in an area near the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard (State Highway 174) and Hidden Creek Parkway. The area is across the street from the location of the Burleson Super Wal-Mart, and adjacent to a residential area. The area where the demonstration has been planned includes right of way for the state highway, municipal right of way, and a city street. The organizer said the event is expected to draw between 300 and 500 people to participate in the demonstration. From the beginning the city has made it clear that no city permit is required for the gathering. This being said, the city has also made it clear that there are a number of safety related concerns that need to be addressed at the originally proposed location. It is one of the busiest street intersections in the city. The posted speed limit on Wilshire/SH 174 is 50 mph. It is a 4-lane highway with a center turn lane. It is a heavily travelled highway, particularly during the hours of the planned demonstration (3-7 pm) when school is dismissing and evening going home drive-time traffic is at its peak. The original request also included the barricading of four residential streets to keep group members from parking in the neighborhoods. The city’s main concerns are safety of the demonstrators and other pedestrians, traffic safety, and the ability for fire trucks to get in and out of the residential streets and hook up to fire hydrants. In speaking with representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation, it is clear that TxDOT and the city share the safety concerns. The city has a special events committee that reviews requests for street closures (for example, neighborhood block parties, festivals). That committee met Thursday to review the request. Due to the topography of the area and the design of the highway, the number of anticipated participants in the demonstration, and the other safety concerns the special events committee has suggested that an alternative site be considered. In fact, in an attempt to accommodate the group, City Hall, site of many community festivals, was offered as an alternative site. Nevertheless, although the site originally proposed for the demonstration presented numerous safety concerns, the committee was willing to take steps to accommodate the event if certain steps could be taken by the organizers of the event to assure safety for everyone involved. At the time the attached news release from the city was issued this morning, we had not heard back from the organizers of the event. We since have had several discussions with the organizers and it is our understanding that an alternative site has indeed been secured. You can contact the organizers of the event for the final location. There are a few things that need to be made clear. First, Rey Gonzales, one of the members of the city’s special events committee, is a good man and dedicated public servant that works very hard every day to make our city a great place to live. He is not trying to stop the tea party, and from my understanding has worked hard to accomodate the organizers. Second, our city functions with a Council-Manager form of government. As such, the mayor is not responsible for running the city on a day-to-day basis, and I have no authority to try to stop a function like the tea party. Third, a number of people have e-mailed nasty comments about our city and our city government--Burleson is a great place to live, work, learn and play. The members of our City Council and staff are concerned with one thing only--doing what's right for our citizens. If you come to Burleson I think you will agree it's a great place, and I hope you spend some time in some of our great stores and restaurants--you might want to check out our "Old Town" area. By the way, I have read and studied our Constitution--I've even taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend it. I take that oath very seriously. Sincerely, Ken Shetter Mayor of Burleson, Texas {post continued}

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:00:51 +0000

Tall_Pat, I agree. We have an opportunity to displace the Democratic majority in congress this fall. I think that is where our efforts will yield the most fruit. Keep engaging people with their representatives, even though the deck is stacked in their favor. Glenn is giving airtime to some pretty courageous people in congress like Rep. Bachmann, so pressure is being brought to bear. Now if we can get a Constitutionally conscientious, independent-thinking majority that is equally courageous we can repeal anything of a national nature. the hard part is any international treaties which may have been ratified in that time. Ambassador Bolton said it's far easier to not get into an international agreement than it is to get out of one once your in. Any treaties should be treated like death, and there are a few previously signed but not as yet ratified that Obama wants to push through while he can. He knows he only has a window during which he can do his damage [to our national sovereignty], so he is pushing hard before he loses his influence. another useful thing is to support your own State's declaration of sovereignty. In the event of an international treaty, it will provide legal argument for its lack of local force. It could lead to civil war, but the alternative is to have America buried in the annals of history, and our children become citizens of a tyrannical world government. I believe the stakes are that high.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:38:28 +0000

HOW do we open the eyes of Obama's supporters? you don't. You focus on those not bitten with Obama fever, but who went along with the change because they were desperate for change of any sort. I believe this constitutes what is characterized as the "silent majority", whose participation was unfortunately inadequate to offset the underprivileged minority and idealistic youth vote that the Democratic party rallied so effectively. focus on the silent majority, the ones who didn't vote and/or who are not engaged. Educate John Q. Public, now that there is news of unrest, unemployment and declining real estate values to indicate that life even post-election is not "business as usual". Engage them with their representatives ... make them effective as members of a participatory democracy. the others are not ready to admit their error, give them some time and many will fall away all by themselves

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/2/09 - 4/9/09

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:02:36 +0000

as offensive as it may be, that we have only recently begun to recognize the agenda of tyranny exposed during this administration, is amusing to many victims of our foreign and economic policy abroad. As Glenn Beck alluded a few weeks back, whoever is orchestrating the financial collapse of this country sees the American people only as another market. Our excuse that we didn't know what was really going will only go so far, as our tax dollars buy the arsenal "accidentally" used against innocent civilians, while our foreign policy of supporting local henchmen or implementing sanctions sentences their populations to abject poverty and debilitating disease. now before my words provoke a defensive reaction, let me be very clear - I am a PATRIOT. I served in our country's military during the Vietnam era, have raised three children to be proud Americans, and have been a staunch Constitutional Conservative my entire life. I have always spoken and continue to speak with great pride about the many liberties and opportunities this country - unmatched anywhere else in the world - offered its citizens, legal residents and visitors alike. The fact that venues like this exist is a testimony to perhaps the most cherished of those liberties. but as we are witnessing today, there are daily attacks on those Constitutional liberties, an erosion of our sovereignty as a nation, and if allowed to continue - our ability to govern ourselves democratically. what does this all have to do with the 9/12 Project? Everything! The actors and motives behind everything we are opposing, and very reason that we want to preserve America as we hold it in our hearts, applies to everything our elected leaders are responsible for. They are the puppets we as a people put in Washington, and the puppeteers actions through them are not only affecting our lives, but are our unwitting and indirect actions on lives around the world. for authoritative material exposing the reality of the U.S.'s role in the world, read "Understanding Power, The Indispensable Noam Chomsky" http://www.understandingpower.com ... before books such as this one that expose the truth are burned Fahrenheit 451 style, and as in George Orwell's 1984, their possession or mere discussion of them made a punishable offense. I also can recommend reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", by John Perkins http://www.economichitman.com ... and for a lighter activity, viewing the movie "Syriana" http://syrianamovie.warnerbros.com/synopsis.html the first non-fiction and the latter a fictional work on the intrigues of U.S. economically motivated involvement in foreign politics. #DJA: Enemies Foreign and Domestic 090403