2012-2015- KILLSHOT- GOV.R-V Predictitions For Future!!!!

https://tatoott1009.com/

What is the Killshot?

During the top-secret Remote Viewing (RV) CIA and U.S. Army research program, trained viewers that were normally tasked with foreseeing the outcome of war related events began picking up on a future occurrence that appeared to mark a dramatic shift in global life. At first, these viewers, along with Major Ed Dames, the program’s senior operations and training officer, had feared their subconscious was foreseeing nuclear war. It turns out after years of Remote Viewing sessions, the event is in fact a series of solar flares that are so devastating to the Earth, it may cause the death of billions and change life on Earth as we know it.

Normally, one might not take such a warning seriously, but what sets this prediction apart from others is that Remote Viewers have a track record of being amazingly accurate regarding globally recognized disasters and events. In fact, there are many predictions that were announced on national radio and TV programs that have already accurately come to pass with unprecedented accuracy including the tragic disaster in Japan, a mysterious crop fungus, the predicted Indonesian 9.0 earthquake and more!

But knowing what’s coming over the horizon is only first step. Learning how to prepare and protect yourself and loved ones comes next. For that reason, people have been learning Remote Viewing to locate their personal sanctuary locations, foresee smaller near term events, and become involved with optimal investments before time runs out.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$





Why is this free?!

You’ve probably heard that if something is so important, than why isn’t it free? In this case, it is! Major Ed Dames, along with thousands of trained students worldwide, have learned and used this declassified skill to obtain subconscious data regarding any aspect of life including finding optimal investment, locating survival locations for catastrophic events and answering some of life’s most mysterious questions. As a result, Major Ed Dames feels that this information is so important; Remote Viewers are using their own skill to generate the funding to produce and release of this shocking documentary without any intent of selling it for profit.

With times becoming more difficult with global financial turmoil and approaching natural disasters, food shortages and disease; it is more important than ever to learn and use Remote Viewing for protection. Begin by getting your FREE copy of Major Ed Dames’ The killshot on DVD or Blu-ray and join the RV community!

The world’s foremost remote viewing teacher, and creator of Technical Remote Viewing, Major Edward A. Dames, United States Army (ret.), is a thrice decorated military intelligence officer and an original member of the U.S. Army prototype remote viewing training program. He served as both training and operations officer for the U.S. government’s TOP SECRET psychic espionage unit.

Edward Dames is a ROTC Distinguished Military Graduate of the University of California, Berkeley. Between 1979 and 1983, Major Dames served as an electronic warfare officer and scientific and technical intelligence officer.

In 1982, Ingo Swann, under the direction of Dr. Harold Puthoff, head of the Remote Viewing Laboratory at Stanford Research Institute, realized a breakthrough. Swann developed a working model for how the unconscious mind communicates information to conscious awareness. To test the model, the Army sent Major Dames and five others to Swann as a prototype trainee group.

The results exceeded all expectations – even those of Swann. In six months, Major Dames’ teammates were producing psychically-derived data with more consistency and accuracy than had ever been seen in similar intelligence projects using even the best ‘natural’ psychics. In late 1983, the team parted company with Swann. As the new operations and training officer for the unit, Dames took this breakthrough skill, dubbed ‘Coordinate Remote Viewing,’ and began a new phase of research, testing, and evaluation in order to both uncover its true capabilities, and to perfect its application to fit crucial intelligence collection needs.

Remote Viewing Declassified by CIA

Due to information leaks to public and, Remote Viewing was forced into declassification by the U.S. Army and CIA. Major Dames retired from the U.S. Army in 1991 and began a full-time effort to advance remote viewing technology, and to create teams of professional civilian Remote Viewers to work on complex projects.

In 1992, Ingo Swann wrote a letter to The American Society of Psychical Research, which included, among other things, a brief summary of his knowledge about Ed:

He [Major Dames] was Targeting Director (sic) of the U.S. Intelligence Electronic & Security Command (sic), and assistant director of special operations (sic) in the DIA Directorate of Scientific and Technical Intelligence, and an area controller of special operations (sic) of Headquarters Department of the Army. For several years, he was mandated to brief on a daily and/or weekly basis DIA, NSA, other agencies, and, when circumstances required, the President and his advisors.

In order to bring this invaluable knowledge to the public, Major Dames held Remote Viewing workshops around the country in an effort to build a base of vocationally oriented Remote Viewers. This skill was quickly recognized by major TV networks and Hollywood studios that were awestruck by its accuracy and student success rate.

Remote Viewing training through live workshops was exploding in popularly but the number of people desiring to learn this declassifies protocol still far exceeded available workshop space. As a result, Major Ed Dames eventually released the long awaited, groundbreaking Learn Remote Viewing course (www.LearnRV.com) in order to reach thousands of new students globally.

The Learn Remote Viewing course is now the most advanced RV training program in the world, incorporating over 20 years of evolved, post-military operational knowledge. The training course utilizes the natural interactive menu system to provide a structured, comfortably paced training environment, with an effective mix of training targets, lectures, and feedback.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8rNMtBNbQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWqJ0guPdMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ9uFzuXh8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRCOMRgxZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CICs48zn7ug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kDYz1QT5SE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmXFLNdMrsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcpCjQ081wQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z92Ri7-3Isw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1pinIxI71I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf4fS9ujQUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62gcghioEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qx20LA4PM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kDYz1QT5SE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6g0hE51vow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ9uFzuXh8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8vONKHCS_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8vONKHCS_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRCOMRgxZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIQ-HuCOfS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq6mj4odJGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1OwrnYWb_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmXFLNdMrsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdT5w3ZMe3E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHUKPXR5TbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTkHP5Q3n8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBbbkTjNpIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHb83VNijBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ldt4YiwuQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdBJYHa5JGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZTMV8fIto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSYaP3HVTL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tDbK_btpb0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn6U8O3hTYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS6ogOzY_M4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1uWSmclzWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z92Ri7-3Isw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1pinIxI71I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf4fS9ujQUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq6mj4odJGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1OwrnYWb_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmXFLNdMrsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnQMPIcgGxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tn9OFK8dKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5-80oVHxp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQY6f_U2R74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZySjKkLIfU

House Passes “Trespass Bill” That Makes Protests Illegal

https://tatoott1009.com/



Alexander Higgins
March 8, 2012

New “trespass bill” makes it a federal offense to protest government business or functions, or against people or places under Secret Service protection.

The U.S. congress is pushing a bill into law under the innocent pretense of making protests at the White House illegal.

The new legislation just passed by the house H.R. 347, informally known as the “Trespass Bill”, goes far beyond the White House and will outlaw peaceful protests in an almost endless possible combinations of situations.

The bill begins by making it illegal to enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds, which are defined as any location where the Secret Service or any person under protection of the secret service is located or at any place designated as a special event of national significance.

Hence, the it will be illegal to protest at not only the White House but at any location where the The President, Former President’s, their families, Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates,  Foreign Heads of States, U.S. Officials performing certain tasks, or any one else under protection of the secret service is located.

That would means it would be illegal for protestors to hold a rally outside an
Obama speech or even at an event hosted by Rick Sanatorium or Mitt Romney. It doesn’t stop there either.

The bill goes on to make it a federal offenseto impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions

Then to make the bill all inconclusive it is also a crime when anyone “obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds”

Here’s an article detailing just how far this bill goes into killing the First Amendment Free Speech and Assembly rights, followed by the full text of the bill.

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidentally disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

Here is the full text of  H. R. 347, which was just passed by in the house by a vote of 388-to-3.

112th CONGRESS1st Session H. R. 347


AN ACTTo correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

    Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

    (a) Whoever–
    (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
    (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
    (3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
    (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
    or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
    (b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–
    (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–
    (A) any person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
    (B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
    (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
    (c) In this section–
    (1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–
    (A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
    (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
    (C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
    (2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 2011.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

H.R. 347: Another Step in the Elimination of the First Amendment

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 5, 2012

It is fairly obvious Obama and Congress rushed through H.R. 347 in order to curtail demonstrations that will undoubtedly occur during both Democrat and Republican conventions this summer. Also known as the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” the bill makes it a felony to disrupt or protest at any place or event attended by any person with secret service protection.

photo

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway,” Michigan Rep. Justin Amash wrote on his Facebook page. “[H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

Amash, Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, and Ron Paul were the lone dissenting voices opposed to this bill, which is being called  the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” designed specifically to counter the Occupy movement and other political groups opposed to the bankster regime in control of the Congress and the presidency. Democrats have characterized opposition to the bill as “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing.”

Gene Howington, a guest blogger on law professor Jonathan Turley’s blog, contends that the government deliberately made the language of H.R. 347 vague and overly broad. Howington writes that “it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing ‘wiggle room’ for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority.”

While the recently enacted and also vaguely worded NDAA “poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition,” Howington notes. “As currently worded, it might as well have been called the ‘Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011′ or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the ‘First Amendment Rights Eradication Act’ because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are ‘authorized’ to be protected by the Secret Service.”

In 1998, Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62 establishing the National Special Security Events, or NSSE, a directive making the Secret Service responsible for security at designated events, including presidential nominating conventions. Other events under NSEE include summits of world leaders, meetings of international organizations, and presidential inaugurations. In other words, with the passage of this bill, it will now be a felony to protest the G20 and globalist “trade” summits and other neoliberal confabs where international banksters and their minions plot our future behind closed doors.

Such a draconian restriction of the First Amendment is another step in an effort to outlaw all protest against the government, especially at events where the controllers discuss and finalize their plans to implement world government and a centralized global banking system. The global elite have repeatedly demonstrated their animosity toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Taking down the First Amendment – in addition to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and most importantly the Second – under the bogus and contrived aegis of a manufactured war on terror amply reveals what they have a mind: a gulag panopticon where resistance is not only futile, but illegal, and where the slaves are disarmed and powerless to effectuate change

.++++++++++++++++++++++

Does H.R. 347 Change Anything About Your Right to Protest Politicians Under Secret Service Protection? It’s All In the Word Change.

| March 1, 2012

As Brian Doherty noted below, on Tuesday the House passed H.R. 347 [pdf], officially known as The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Now all it needs to become law is President Obama’s approving signage.

Contrarian standbys Congressmen Justin Amash (R-MI) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted nay, but the bill passed 388-3. Rep. Amash wrote that the the bill “violates our rights”, but Michael Mahassey, the communications director for the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Thomas J.Rooney (R-Florida), sounding irritated on Wednesday (while he implied that I was not the first person to call and ask about it). Mahassey called the reaction to the bill “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.”

H.R. 347, said Mahassey, is simply a DC-centric update of already existing law. Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, already protects those under Secret Service protection — except in Washington D.C. where these protections fall under local laws against trespassing, etc. Mahassey said that the Secret Service requested the changes to this law because “right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

Not exactly the abolition of the First Amendment, is it? RT and The New American’s warnings are hopefully an exaggeration.

But there’s reason to worry says Will Adams, the deputy chief of staff for Congressman Amash. Yes, the law updates as Mahssey said. It brings the DC trespassing violations under the federal umbrella and “Amash has no issue with that.” But also does imply something else which inspired Amash to vote “nay.”

Adams, who is a lawyer by trade, like his boss, explained the changes in updates from the previous statute in layman’s terms. It all comes down the words “willfully” and “knowingly”. As Amash wrote on his facebook (and Doherty noted):

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal. (It expands the law by changing “willfully and knowingly” to just “knowingly” with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

To elaborate on what seems to be subtle legal stuff, the current law being amended, Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, would be here. Note that the words are “willfully” and “knowingly” are there. H.R. 347 is here. The word “willfully” is indeed gone. What does that mean exactly?

Adams pointed me towards U.S. v. Bursey in which:

Brett Bursey was convicted in early 2004 — after a bench trial conducted by a magistrate judge in the District of South Carolina — of willfully and knowingly entering and remaining in a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President was temporarily visiting

Bursey visited a South Carolina airbase with the intention of protesting the then-imminent Iraq war. He remained in an area that the Secret Service had coordinated off for 20 or so minutes, arguing his right to stay there. His state trespassing charges were dismissed, but he was then charged under Section 1752 of title 18 above. According to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bursey argued:

first, he maintains that the trial court erred in finding that he was in a “restricted area” at the time of his October 2002 arrest; second, he contends that the court erred in finding that he possessed the requisite criminal intent

They also noted in their decision to reject his appeal, some of the finer points of the difference between “willfully” and “knowingly””:

As the Bryan Court observed… for a defendant to have acted willfully, he must merely have “acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.”…we focus our discussion on whether Bursey “willfully” violated the Statute, because, generally, “[m]ore is required” with respect to conduct performed willfully than conduct performed knowingly… requires “more culpable” mens rea than knowing violation).As a general proposition, the statutory term “knowingly” requires the Government to prove only that the defendant had knowledge of the facts underlying the offense

Bursey was fined a measly 500 dollars, but the precedent is there. And remember, the punishment under both the new and old versions of section 1752 are “not more than one year” in jail for the trespass, and “not more than ten years” if “the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm.” However, as Adams summed it up an email:

The bill makes it illegal knowingly to enter or remain in a restricted building or grounds without legal authority to do so.  A restricted building or grounds is defined as a “restricted area” where a person protected by the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting.”  According to federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3056), the Secret Service is authorized to protect “visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments” and “other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States.”

So, let’s say a G-20 meeting is hosted in the U.S. and the Secret Service decides it wants a larger perimeter surrounding the event where only G-20 members and staff can be.  A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law—with up to 10 years in prison if they’re carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they’re not—for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal.

So it’s hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won’t use the power so trust him, governments don’t need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech. The cult of the presidency has gone far enough.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

imprecise Language and the Risks of H.R. 347

Published 1, March 3, 2012 Congress , Constitutional Law , Free Speech , Politics 48 Comments

Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

Coincidentally and often, abuses of civil or human rights in the United States derive from the same source as law made via precedent. That source is vague or overly broad legislation and imprecise use of language.  As a matter of good drafting practice, this is why precision language is encouraged – to provide clarity and minimize ambiguity in the letter of the law. When vague laws create issues in court, the court either makes a ruling creating precedent and consequently a plan of action for how to address the issue moving forward although occasionally a law is overturned in toto for vagueness and the legislature can take a fresh swing writing the law.

However, it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing “wiggle room” for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice. The issue of vagueness is at the heart of the NDAA scandal as recently discussed on the blog here, here and here. While the NDAA poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347, innocuously titled the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011″. As currently worded, it might as well have been called the “Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011″ or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are “authorized” to be protected by the Secret Service.  Being that the bill passed on a House vote 388-3 and is currently coming out of committee in the Senate, its progress is something civil libertarians and activists may want to monitor.

This is H.R. 347 (proposed 18 U.S.C. § 1752) in its entirety as it is coming out of committee:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘(a) Whoever–
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–
‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–
‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
‘(c) In this section–
‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–
‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’. [emphasis added]

Contrast this with how 18 U.S.C. § 1752 is currently worded:

18 U.S.C. § 1752 : US Code – Section 1752: Temporary residences and offices of the President and others

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons –
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in
(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of
the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, or
(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area
of a building or grounds where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress
thereto:
(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of
Government business or official functions, to engage in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to,
any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or
egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or
enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical
violence against any person or property in any building, grounds,
or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this
title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States
attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the
place where the offense occurred.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized –
(1) to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which
constitute the temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, and
(2) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to
such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting.
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
(f) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by
the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret
Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title
when such person has not declined such protection.”

As the bill relevantly cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3056, selected portions of that code read:

18 U.S.C. § 3056 : US Code – Section 3056: Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service
(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the
following persons:
(1) The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in
the order of succession to the Office of President), the
President-elect, and the Vice President-elect.
(2) The immediate families of those individuals listed in
paragraph (1).
(3) Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes,
except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event
of remarriage unless the former President did not serve as
President prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former
Presidents and their spouses for a period of not more than ten
years from the date a former President leaves office, except that

(A) protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of
remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former President;
and
(B) should the death of a President occur while in office or
within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive
protection for one year from the time of such death:
Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the
authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary
protection for any of these individuals at any time if the
Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that
information or conditions warrant such protection.
(4) Children of a former President who are under 16 years of
age for a period not to exceed ten years or upon the child
becoming 16 years of age, whichever comes first.
(5) Visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments.
(6) Other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States
and official representatives of the United States performing
special missions abroad when the President directs that such
protection be provided.
(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and,
within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses
of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term “major
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those
individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland
Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority
leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority
leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the
other members of the committee.
The protection authorized in paragraphs (2) through (7) may be
declined.
(d) Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or
interferes with a Federal law enforcement agent engaged in the
performance of the protective functions authorized by this section
or by section 1752 of this title shall be fined not more than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” [emphasis added]

The root of the problem with this legislation lies in the omission of the word “willfully” to make the condition simply “knowingly” in conjunction with the phrase “or so that, such conduct, in fact”.  The use of this conditional phrase effectively nullifies the intent component in the absence of “willfully” being explicitly stated.  You may not have willfully or knowingly done anything other than exercise your free speech and free assembly rights, but if you “in fact” “[impede] or [disrupt] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions”, you can be arrested and charged under this proposed revision of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 whether the impediment or disruption was willful or not.  The reworded law as the bill is currently formulated effectively does away with intent as a requirement in addition to expanding the meaning of the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ to mean virtually any place in proximity to or place proper a government function or an “event of national interest” is taking place. This would allow for the arrest of protesters  just about anywhere.  Outside political rallies, near the hotels of visiting foreign dignitaries, outside sporting or other public events like the Super Bowl . . .  you get the idea.

Is this an instance of vague/imprecise language creating the potential for civil rights abuses?

Or it this an instance of purposefully vague/imprecise language to allow the government to infringe upon your rights to free speech, assembly and petition?

What do you think?

Kudos: ekeyra

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill Passes House: Protests Near Secret Service Protected Folk Effectively Outlawed

| March 1, 2012

In case you question the value of having a Justin Amash or a Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, they were two of only three votes against H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.”

As reprinted in this angry Salon blog post, Rep. Amash’s reasons for objecting:

a more truthful moniker for HR 347 would be the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act”. As Representative Amash lamented on his Facebook page:

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. [H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal… [And to] show you the extent to which the public is misled and misinformed about the legislation we are voting on, read one prominent media outlet’s coverage of the same bill: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/212873-house-approves-white-house-trespass-bill-sends-to-obama The report mischaracterizes not only current law but also the changes proposed by the bill.”

Full text of the bill, which includes all its penalties for attempting or conspiring to do the forbidden disruption as well. Those penalties are:

 The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–

‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–

‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

 And the laws own language on how you run afoul of it:

 In this section–‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

Russia Today with more about how this law could be abused:

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well….

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection….

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

The vote tally of shame. Where is your Dennis Kucinich now, progressives?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

H. R. 347
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and twelve
An Act
To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings
or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings
and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘‘(a) Whoever—
‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building
or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the
orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;
‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt
the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted
building or grounds; or
‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence
against any person or property in any restricted building or
grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided
in subsection (b).
‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—
‘‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense,
uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;
or
‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as
defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both, in any other case.
‘‘(c) In this section—
H. R. 347—2
‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction
with an event designated as a special event of national
significance; and
‘‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’
means any person whom the United States Secret Service is
authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by
Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined
such protection.’’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

‘Mancow’ Muller: Breitbart Was Murdered Breitbart and the CIA’s Heart Attack Gun

https://tatoott1009.com/

Chicago radio host says Breitbart’s death was a warning shot and that others are in danger

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, March 7, 2012


Contrary to today’s release of edited and seemingly innocuous footage that shows Barack Obama making a speech at Harvard in 1991 and has already been in the public domain for years, Chicago radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller told the Alex Jones Show today that his friend Andrew Breitbart had in fact planned to release information that would “destroy Barack Obama” on March 1st, hours after his untimely death.

Muller said he was speaking with Breitbart “every other day” about a TV show he had lined up on a major network on which Breitbart would make regular appearances in a segment called “Breitbart predicts”.

“The house of cards is coming down, I have information that will destroy Barack Obama, it’s over,” Muller says Breitbart told him, and that the information would be released March 1st.

“Everybody feels the same way, that this guy was murdered,” said Muller, who attended Breitbart’s funeral yesterday. Muller pointed to the fact that Breitbart’s death was explained as “natural causes” by the media within hours before any kind of cursory investigation had been conducted.

“The guy goes for a walk in the middle of the night, he’s about to launch a big website, he’s about to bring down the house of Obama, and he’s dead,” said Muller.

Muller said he asked Breitbart whether he was afraid given the fact that he was sitting on such incendiary footage, to which Breitbart responded, “a little bit”. Muller then warned him, “they’re gonna kill you, you can’t destroy Obama’s brown shirt army like Acorn.”

Muller said his family and friends were urging him to quit, fearing that Breitbart’s death is a warning shot and that Rush Limbaugh also “may be in danger”.

Edited footage of one of the tapes that had been in Breitbart’s possession before his death was leaked today, but not by the Breitbart media empire itself, who have announced the full unedited footage, which shows Obama giving a speech about race at Harvard University in 1991, will be played on Fox News’ Hannity this evening.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The edited film is by no means damning, suggesting that it is not the same footage Breitbart was referring to when he tipped off Muller that explosive revelations would arrive on March 1st.

Indeed, the footage released today has in fact been in the public domain for years, having first appeared on You Tube in 2008.

Breitbart gave speeches throughout February, notably at the CPAC conference, in which he said he had video showing Obama fraternizing with “a bunch of silver pony tails” like Bill and Bernardine Dohrn (Weather Underground members), who radicalized him.

He also told Lawrence Sinclair at an event in Washington DC on February 9th, “Wait til they see what happens March 1st.”

According to former FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who was assigned to infiltrate the Weather Underground’s Central Committee, the group openly advocated the implementation of a Communist dictatorship inside the United States backed up by “re-education centers” for the recalcitrant and death camps for those who still refused to submit.

Given what Breitbart said both publicly and privately in the weeks before his death, it’s apparent that the footage released today is not what Breitbart had intended to release in the context of “destroying Barack Obama”. It remains to be seen whether such footage will ever see the light of day.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.===================================

=========================================

THE VETTING: Ben Smith Releases Selectively Edited Obama Race Video

Earlier today, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith announcedon Twitter that video researcher Andrew Kaczynski had released “the mysterious Harvard/Obama/race video that the Breitbart folks have been talking about.”

The video, which Kaczynski says was “licensed from a Boston television station,” shows a young Barack Obama leading a protest at Harvard Law School on behalf of Prof. Derrick Bell, a radical academic tied to Jeremiah Wright–about whom we will be releasing significant information in the coming hours.

However, the video has been selectively edited–either by the Boston television station or by Buzzfeed itself. Over the course of the day, Breitbart.com will be releasing additional footage that has been hidden by Obama’s allies in the mainstream media and academia.

Breitbart.com Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollak and Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro will appear on The Sean Hannity Show to discuss the tape. The full tape will be released tonight on Fox News’ Hannity.

ON BREITBART TV

http://content.bitsontherun.com/players/H3Nggg6c-svqBtzyp.swf
==========================================

Andrew Breitbart’s media empire undoubtedly posed a threat to the establishment. From the takedown of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner to the outing of the USDA’s Shirley Sherrod and very public revelations about the seamy underside of ACORN, Breitbart was considered a thorn in the side of the liberal establishment.

Senators Frank Church and John Tower examine a CIA poison dart gun that causes cancer and heart attacks.

=======================================================

But it was his promise to release information that would critically damage Barack Obama prior to an election that really grabbed the attention of the establishment and possibly led to his assassination.

As firebrand talk show host Michael Savage said following Breitbart’s collapse on a Brentwood, California, street and his subsequent death from an apparent heart attack, he would be remiss if he didn’t suggest that the liberal gadfly was assassinated. “I’m asking a crazy question,” Savage said on his nationally syndicated radio show, “but so what? We the people want an answer. This was not an ordinary man. If I don’t ask this question, I would be remiss.”

Others insist Breitbart had a history of health issues and simply collapsed and died from a heart attack as thousands of Americans do every day. They say Savage, Alex Jones and many others who posit a Breitbart assassination are engaging in baseless conspiracy theories.

However, we do know that government engages in assassination of political enemies and has the means to do so without leaving a trace.

During Senate testimony in 1975 into illegal activities by the CIA, it was revealed that the agency had developed a dart gun capable of causing a heart attack. “At the first televised hearing, staged in the Senate Caucus Room, Chairman Church dramatically displayed a CIA poison dart gun to highlight the committee’s discovery that the CIA directly violated a presidential order by maintaining stocks of shellfish toxin sufficient to kill thousands,” a Senate web page explains.

“The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes. Sounds like the perfect James Bond weapon, doesn’t it? Yet this is all verifiable in Congressional testimony,” writes Fred Burks.

“The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target.”

Burks suggests that Mark Pittman, a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings which led to a Bloomberg lawsuit against the bankster cartel, may have been assassinated with the CIA weapon.

Of course, Breitbart’s untimely death prior to the release of information that would damage the presidential campaign of Obama may be purely coincidental. If he was, however, assassinated with a frozen dart that denatures and leaves no trace, chances are we will never know what really happened to him.

Untitled288

Urgent Food Stamps To Be Ended Unless Microchipped

https://tatoott1009.com/

TSA Plans Screening Americans in their Homes

Untitled288

MILWAUKEE –


USA – Think you could avoid the TSA’s body scanners and pat-downs by not flying, taking the train or bus, then you’re wrong. The TSA wants to come to your home to complete searches on U.S. citizens even if you do not use any public transport.

“This is just the next step in our special TSA pre-crime initiative where everyone will be screened before they even embark on any type of journey. We’ve heard bad things about you folks who are not even travelling or avoiding public places just because you don’t want your groin groped or an internal body search. Well, we have news for you, we’ll be knocking on your doors at home to bodysearch you there as well,” TSA head, John Lacerta Pistole, told the Washington Observer.

The new TSA rules will require the whole population including new born babies and severely handicapped people to be searched in their homes.

Freedom

Refusing entry to the TSA search party could result in the search denier being detained indefinitely and moved under duress to a secret holding area.

“Remember, the next knock on your home’s door could be from a group of TSA officials waiting with gloved hands to search your orifices and your families holes too. You must grant entry for these officials into your property so that they can violate your bodies with impunity. Once they have searched your bodies, you will be required to put your clothes back on and let the officials leave. You must be calm at all times and any form of agitation, anger or abuse towards our trained TSA goons will result in either tasering or forced detention. Please be aware that we will also be confiscating weapons in all American households, so leave your guns by the door and we’ll take those as well as your daughter’s virginity,” Kevin Pedoslime, a TSA spokesman announced on all U.S. TV channels yesterday.

—————————————————————————————-

Biometrics in Schools, Colleges and other Educational Institutions

The following guidance has been prepared as an aid to schools, colleges and other educational institutions that may be considering the installation and use of a biometric system. This document is intended to encourage such institutions to fully consider if there is need for a biometric system in the first place and then to assess the privacy impact of different systems.

The critical issues to be considered from a data protection perspective are the proportionality of introducing a biometric system and the requirement to obtain the signed consent of the student users (and their parents or guardians in the case of minors) giving them a clear and unambiguous right to opt out of the system without penalty.

The document is not intended to promote any particular system, but is intended to make schools and colleges aware of their responsibilities under the Data Protection Acts 1988 & 2003. It is the use of a biometric system that may give rise to a data protection concern, not necessarily the production or sale of a system. All situations must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

1. Different types of Biometric systems

All biometric systems operate on the basis of the automatic identification or authentication/verification of a person. What differs between systems is the nature of the biometric and the type of storage.

1.1 Information used to generate biometric data

Biometric data may be created from physical or physiological characteristics of a person. These include a fingerprint, an iris, a retina, a face, outline of a hand, an ear shape, voice pattern, DNA, and body odour.  Biometric data might also be created from behavioural data such as hand writing or keystroke analysis. Generally, a digitised template is produced from the biometric data. This template is then compared with one produced when a person presents at a reader.

1.2 Types of biometric data

There are three principal types of biometric data:

• Raw Images, consisting of recognisable data such as an image of a face or a fingerprint, etc.
• Encrypted images, consisting of data that can be used to generate an image.
• Encrypted partial data, consisting of partial data from an image, which is encrypted and cannot be used to recreate the complete original image.

1.3 Types of Biometric systems

There are two principal types of systems:

• Identification systems, which confirm the identity of an individual;
• Authentication / verification systems, which confirm that a biometric derived from a person who presents at a reader matches another biometric, typically stored on a card and presented simultaneously.

1.4 Storage of biometric data.

There are two principal methods of storing biometric data/templates:

• Central databases store the templates on a central system which is then searched each time a person presents at a reader.
• A card is used to store a template. A template is generated when a person presents at a reader, and this template is compared with the template on the card.

Data Protection issues concerning biometrics.

2. Proportionality

Section 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Data Protection Acts states that data

“shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they were collected or are further processed.”

The key word here is “excessive.” Accordingly, the first question to be asked when considering the installation of such a system is what is the need for it? What is wrong with current systems or less invasive alternatives?

As individuals have fundamental Human Rights which are protected by the Data Protection Acts, a school or college must conduct some assessment of the need for a biometric system and an evaluation of the different types of available systems before the introduction of any particular system.

Determining what is excessive requires a case-by-case analysis. Some factors which may be taken into account include:

• Environment. Does the nature of the school or college require high levels of security? Are there areas of the campus which contain sensitive information, high value goods or potentially dangerous material which may warrant a higher level of security than would areas with low value goods or areas with full public access? Of course such a consideration would also point towards all persons working in the environment being similarly required to use the biometric system.
• Purpose. Can the intended purpose be achieved in a less intrusive way? A biometric system used to control access for security purposes in certain areas of the campus might be legitimate while a biometric system used by the same school or college purely for attendance management purposes might not.
• Efficiency. Ease of administration may necessitate the introduction of a system where other less invasive systems have failed, or proved to be prohibitively expensive to run.
• Reliability. If a school or college suffers as a result of students impersonating each other for various reasons, then a system could possibly be justified as long as other less invasive ones have been assessed and reasonably rejected.

3. Fair obtaining and processing.

Section 2(1)(a) of the Acts require that

“The data or, as the case may be, the information constituting the data shall have been obtained, and the data shall be processed, fairly.”

In order to demonstrate compliance with this provision, at least one of the provisions of Section 2A of the Acts must be met. In the context of the introduction of a biometric system for use by students in a school or college, these include:

• Consent, and
• Legitimate interests of the school or college: where the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the school or college or by a third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the fundamental rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

Consent: In the context of students attending a place of education, the Data Protection Commissioner would stipulate that the obtaining of consent is of paramount importance when consideration is being given to the introduction of a biometric system. It is the Commissioner’s view that when dealing with personal data relating to minors, the standards of fairness in the obtaining and use of data, required by the Data Protection Acts, are much more onerous than when dealing with adults. Section 2A(1)(a) of the Data Protection Acts states that personal data shall not be processed by a data controller unless the data subject has given his/her consent to the processing, or if the data subject by reason of his/her physical or mental incapacity or age, is or is likely to be unable to appreciate the nature and effect of such consent, it is given by a parent or guardian etc. While the Data Protection Acts are not specific on what age a subject will be able to consent on their own behalf, it would be prudent to interpret the Acts in accordance with the Constitution. As a matter of Constitutional and family law a parent has rights and duties in relation to a child. The Commissioner considers that use of a minor’s personal data cannot be legitimate unless accompanied by the clear signed consent of the child and of the child’s parents or guardian.

As a general guide, a student aged eighteen or older should give consent themselves. A student aged from twelve up to and including seventeen should give consent themselves and, in addition, consent should also be obtained from the student’s parent or guardian. (Consent may not be considered to be in place for students in this age bracket unless it is given by both the student and a parent/guardian). In the case of children under the age of twelve, consent of a parent or guardian will suffice. Consent to the use of a biometric system in places of education should be obtained by means of a positive opt-in on the part of students (and/or their parents or guardians as set out above). An audit trail of the opt-ins should be maintained by the data controller for the duration of each student’s enrolment. All students (and/or their parents or guardians as set out above) should, therefore, be given a clear and unambiguous right to opt out of a biometric system without penalty. Furthermore, provision must be made for the withdrawal of consent which had previously been given.

Legitimate interests: Whilst the “legitimate interest” provision may seem appealing, it requires that a balance be struck. What is acceptable in one case may not be acceptable in another and a school or college seeking to rely upon this provision must take into account the potential effect upon student privacy rights. In any event, the Data Protection Commissioner considers that, in the context of a student environment, the processing of personal data using a biometric system would be prejudicial to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the students concerned in the absence of freely given consent.

3A. Fair obtaining of sensitive data.

If a biometric identifies sensitive data (such as data relating to a student’s health or facial appearance thereby revealing race), at least one provision of section 2B of the Acts must be met in addition to those mentioned above. In the context of the introduction of a biometric system for use by students in a school or college, these provisions include:

• consent explicitly given.
• necessary processing for the performance of a function conferred on a person by or under an enactment.

Explicit consent: As stated above, all students (and/or their parents or guardians) should be given a clear and unambiguous right to opt out of a biometric system without penalty. The same consent which applied to the principle of obtaining and processing data fairly also applies to the fair obtaining of sensitive data.

Necessary for the performance of a function conferred under an enactment: Any legal obligation to record the attendance of students need not, in itself, require a biometric system to satisfy. For example, the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000 requires schools to maintain a record of the attendance or non-attendance on each school day of each student registered at the school. This requirement does not specify how the attendance data should be obtained. The key word in this provision of the Data Protection Acts concerning the processing of sensitive personal data is “necessary.” It is the view of the Data Protection Commissioner that the processing of sensitive personal data through use of a biometric system is not necessary to meet the requirements of the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000 in respect of recording student attendance. There are several long established and successful alternative methods of recording student attendance at schools which do not require the processing of a student’s sensitive personal data.

4. Transparency

Section 2D of the Acts require that a school or college provide at least the following information to students when processing their data:

• The identity of the data controller in the school or college.
• The purpose in processing the data.
• Any third party to whom the biometric data will be given.

It is essential that students are aware of the purpose for which the biometrics data will be processed. This means that a school or college must carefully think through any purpose or potential purpose. Is the system solely for attendance management purposes? Will it be used for access control? What are the consequences for the student concerned if there is an identified abuse of the system? Under what circumstances will management access logs created by the system?

Transparency is even more important where the biometric system does not require the knowledge or active participation of a student. A facial recognition system, for instance, may capture and compare images without that person’s knowledge.

5. Accuracy

Section 2(1)(b) of the Acts require that data shall be

“Accurate and complete and, where necessary, kept up to date.”

Any biometric system must accurately identify the persons whose data are processed by the system. If changes in physical or physiological characteristics result in a template becoming outdated, a procedure must be in place to ensure that the data are kept up to date.

6. Security

The requirement, under section 2(1)(d),  that a school or college has appropriate security measures in place to prevent the unauthorised access to, or the unauthorised alteration, disclosure or destruction of data would appear to promote the use of technological solutions such as encryption.

However, in deciding upon what constitutes an appropriate security measure, Section 2C details four factors that should be taken into account:

• The state of technological development.
• The cost of implementing such technology.
• The nature of the data being protected.
• The harm that might result through the unlawful processing of such data.

A minimum standard of security would include:

• Access to the information restricted to authorised staff on a ‘need to know’ basis in accordance with a defined policy.
• Computer systems should be password protected.
• Information on computer screens or manual files should be hidden from persons who are not authorised to see them.
• A back-up procedure for computer held data, including off-site back-up.
• Ensuring that staff are made aware of the school or college’s security measures, and comply with them.
• Careful disposal of documents such as computer printouts, etc.
• The designation of a person with responsibility for security and the periodic review of the security measures and practices in place.
• Adequate overall security of the premises when it is unoccupied.
• Where the processing of personal data is carried out by a data processor on behalf of the school or college, a contract should be in place which imposes equivalent security obligations on the data processor.

7.  Retention

Section 2(1)(c)(iv) of the Data Protection Acts provides that data shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for the purpose. In the context of a biometric system in a school or college, it would be necessary to devise a retention policy in advance of the deployment of the system which clearly sets out the retention period which would apply to biometric data. The Data Protection Commissioner would expect that as soon as a student permanently leaves the school or college, his/her biometric data would be immediately deleted.

8.  Privacy Impact Assessment.

The Data Protection Commissioner cannot give a general approval or condemnation of biometric systems. Each system must be judged in respect of the situation in which it is used. A case-by-case judgement is required. With that in mind, the Commissioner encourages schools and colleges to take the above guidance into account if considering introducing any biometric system.

Before a school or college installs a biometric system, the Data Protection Commissioner recommends that a documented privacy impact assessment is carried out. A school or college which properly conducts such an assessment is less likely to introduce a system that contravenes the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 & 2003. This is an important procedure to adopt as a contravention may result in action being taking against a school or college by the Commissioner, or may expose a school or college to a claim for damages from a student. Data protection responsibility and liability rests with the school or college, not with the person who has supplied the system (where that person also acts as a data processor on behalf of the employer,  it will have its own separate data protection responsibilities in relation to the security of the data).

Some of the points that might be included in a Privacy Impact Assessment are:

  • Do I have an attendance management and/or access control system in place?
  • Why do I feel I need to replace it?
  • What problems are there with the system?
  • Are these problems a result of poor administration of the system or an inherent design problem?
  • Have I examined a number of types of system that are available?
  • Will the non-biometric systems perform the required tasks adequately?
  • Do I need a biometric system?
  • If so, which kind do I need?
  • Do I need a system that identifies students as opposed to a verification system?
  • Do I need a central database?
  • If so, what is wrong with a system that does not use a central database?
  • What is the biometric system required to achieve for me?
  • Is it for attendance management purposes and/or for access control purposes?
  • How accurate shall the data be?
  • What procedures are used to ensure accuracy of data?
  • Will the data require updating?
  • How will the information on it be secured?
  • Who shall have access to the data or to logs?
  • Why, when and how shall such access be permitted?
  • What constitutes an abuse of the system by a student?
  • What procedures shall I put in place to deal with abuse?
  • What legal basis do I have for requiring students to participate?
  • How will I obtain the consent of the existing students (or their parents/guardians if applicable)?
  • How will I obtain the consent of new students (or their parents/guardians) who will enrol at a future date?
  • How will I ensure that students will be given a clear and unambiguous right to opt out of a biometric system without penalty?
  • What procedures will I put in place to provide for the withdrawal by students of consent previously given?
  • What system will I put in place for students who opt out of using the biometric system?
  • How will I ensure that students who are unable to provide biometric data, because of a disability for example, are not discriminated against by my school or college by being required to operate a different system, or otherwise?
  • Does the system used employ additional identifiers (e.g. PIN number, smart card) along with the biometric?
  • If so, would these additional identifiers be sufficient on their own, rather than requiring operation in conjunction with a biometric?
  • If the introduction of a biometric system is justified, can I offer an alternative system to individuals who may object to the invasion of privacy involved in a biometric system?
  • What is my retention policy on biometric data?
  • Can I justify the retention period in my retention policy?
  • How shall I inform students about the system?
  • What information about the system need I provide to students?
  • Would I be happy if I was a student asked to use such a system?
  • Am I happy to operate a biometric system in an educational establishment where the use of such a system can make students less aware of the data protection risks that may impact upon them in later life?
  • Does my school or college have a comprehensive data protection policy as required by the Department of Education and Science since 2003?
  • Have I updated this policy to take account of the introduction of a biometric system for use by students?
  • ———–

    ACDS, HMDA slate RFID summit for Nov

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Pharmacy has emerged as a crucial proving ground for radio frequency identification technology (RFID), with the stakes high for retailers, manufacturers, distributors and the public.

    With that in mind, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores is teaming up with the Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA) to cosponsor the first comprehensive overview of RFID implementation strategy for the pharmaceuticals supply chain.

    The RFID Health Care Adoption Summit will be held from November 13 through November 16 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City hotel here, with attendees given an opportunity to hear from those in the vanguard of the effort in the business community as well as public policy experts.

    “Given the high degree of interest by the regulatory agencies and the commitment of our industry to transmit pharmaceutical products across a safe and secure supply chain, this conference will focus solely on RFID and how it affects the pharmaceutical supply chain, benchmarking, pilot programs, implementation and the advantages of RFID over comparable technologies,” says an NACDS spokesman.

    The summit will begin Sunday, November 13, with an “RFID 101” session that will provide attendees with an introduction to the fundamentals of the technology, offer definitions of common terms, present a vision of an RFID-enabled supply chain and define who the various participants are in the RFID community.

    The meeting also will feature leaders across the health care spectrum. The opening comments on Monday, November 14, will be made by John Gray, president and chief executive officer of HDMA, and will be accompanied by an “FDA Call to Action” presented by Lester Crawford, commissioner of that agency.

    After those presentations Mark Parrish, chairman and chief executive officer of Cardinal Health Inc., will provide insights into “Why RFID Is Important to My Company.”

    On Tuesday, November 15, opening comments will be presented by Craig Fuller, president and chief executive officer of NACDS, followed by a presentation by Dave Bernauer, chairman and chief executive officer of Walgreen Co., who will talk about the importance of RFID to the drug chain.

    Education sessions will be broken out by function, including finance, distribution and logistics, and manufacturing.

    On Wednesday, November 16, educational sessions will focus on retailer operations, health care distributor operations and manufacturer operations, and will be followed by a closing session wrap-up of the summit.

    COPYRIGHT 2005 Racher Press, Inc.
    COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
  • ================================================
  • Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics—such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face—as well as behavioral characteristics—including signatures and voice patterns. Although used in law enforcement and defense for several years, it has recently been used in civilian applications and shows some promise to reduce the number of duplicate cases in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other assistance programs

    Biometric identification systems are currently operational at some level in Arizona, California (under county initiative, first by Los Angeles County), Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Finger imaging is the principal form of technology used in all eight States, though alternative technologies have simultaneously undergone trials in Massachusetts (facial recognition) and Illinois (retinal scanning). By the end of 2000, new systems are expected to be in place in California (statewide unified system), Delaware, and North Carolina. Other States are currently in the initial planning stages, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, there is little information available at this point regarding the specific course and trajectory these States will follow in terms of system types, implementation schedules, and the benefit programs in which they will implement the new requirement.

    This report provides an overview of the experience of nine States with biometric identification technologies as of September 1999 and discusses some of the major policy and operational issues encountered during implementation and testing. The report also synthesizes available information on the effectiveness of the technology in reducing duplicate participation and provides a discussion of measurement complexities and issues on the horizon as use of the technology continues to expand. A companion report contains an overview of biometric identification technology, examining the functional capabilities, performance, and applications of the various technologies with a particular focus on finger imaging, the most commonly used and well known.

    Telephone interviews of 1-2 hours in duration were conducted in May-June 1998 with representatives of human service agencies in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As part of an earlier task of this study, we conducted site visits to San Antonio, Texas to observe the Lone Star Image System (LSIS) demonstration and to interview State and county agency staff. Information on Texas is based on those visits and interviews. The States interviewed, with the exception of Pennsylvania, have installed biometric identification systems and are requiring applicants to federal and State benefit programs to submit to the new procedures during the eligibility determination process.

    The purpose of the interviews was to explore State experiences with biometric identification systems, including factors in the decision-making and planning processes, the dynamics of system start-up and implementation, issues and problems related to system and agency operations, and perceptions regarding the impact of biometric identification procedures on the application and eligibility determination processes. Each of the States participating in the study was asked to provide a description of the critical early events that occurred during the planning phases of their respective projects. In addition, those States that had already implemented systems were asked to describe their implementation experiences.

    Results of State Interviews

    When finger-imaging technology was first applied to reduce multiple participation fraud in assistance programs, there were many concerns about the performance and reliability of the technology in a social service application, as well as about the potential stigma that a finger-image requirement would place on potential clients. The experience of the eight States that have incorporated finger imaging into the process of applying for welfare assistance suggests that many of these fears were unfounded. Finger imaging has been readily integrated into the human services programs of the affected states. However, despite the positive reaction to finger imaging from the State officials we interviewed, there is still uncertainty regarding the extent to which this technology can reduce multiple participation fraud.

    The States planned for implementation of their biometric identification systems in response to a wide variety of factors and considerations idiosyncratic to each State environment. Some States reported that their respective legislative mandates, which prescribed specific dates by which biometric systems were required to be in place, allowed insufficient time for development and planning. The States developed and followed implementation schedules in accordance with internal priorities and considerations. The States uniformly described their implementation processes as largely uneventful, though they encountered a variety of minor implementation issues, most of which were associated with the logistical difficulties of mobilizing and managing such a complex initiative.

    Preparing staff for the implementation of the biometric systems, both philosophically and operationally, took different forms, priorities, and levels of effort in the States. At implementation, advance notification to clients and/or the general public about new biometric client identification procedures was considered important by all State representatives. The objective of providing advance notification was to inform and prepare clients for the additional application or recertification step (i.e., to explain the requirement and who is required to submit, and to address client concerns), as well as to accelerate enrollment of the existing caseload. All States prepared informational mailings to clients advising them of the new requirement. Some States reported developing additional outreach media including multilingual (English and Spanish) videos, posters, and brochures for viewing and distribution in the local office. Most of the States also identified various outlets in the community through which they informed the general public in advance about the implementation of biometric client identification procedures.

    The States with operating systems reported that implementation of new biometric client identification procedures had a negligible impact on operations at the local office level. In general, States also reported that the problems and obstacles encountered in operating their respective projects are not unlike those encountered in demonstrating any new technology or procedural modification. These States also reported that their systems and procedures were implemented without unexpected difficulty and were rapidly institutionalized. All the States confronted a range of basic physical space and logistical issues, including where to situate the new equipment, how to appropriately alter job descriptions, who to reassign or hire to handle the new procedures, and how to adjust the flow of clients and paperwork most efficiently. However, none reported any particularly noteworthy difficulties. States reported that clients have been cooperative and accepting of the technology.

    Finger Imaging and Fraud Reduction

    Assessing the ability of finger imaging to reduce fraud is difficult because the amount of fraud caused by duplicate participation in welfare programs is unknown, and because changes in caseload after the introduction of finger imaging cannot be interpreted unambiguously as reduction of fraud. The evaluations of finger imaging systems conducted by six States have produced the following findings.

    • A small number of duplicate applications (approximately 1 duplicate for every 5,000 cases) have been detected by finger imaging systems. Finger-imaging systems appear to detect more fraud in statewide implementations than in regional pilot systems. Additional matches have been found by interstate comparisons of finger-image data.
    • Institution of a finger-imaging requirement can produce a significant, short-term reduction in caseload, because some existing clients refuse to comply with the requirement. The number of refusals depends on the implementation procedures and appears to be lower when finger imaging is incorporated into the recertification process.
    • The most carefully controlled estimate of non-compliance among existing clients suggests that introduction of a finger-imaging requirement reduces participation by approximately 1.3%. However, this estimate reflects both reduced fraud and deterrence of eligible individuals and households.

    Finger Imaging as a Deterrent to Legitimate Participants

    Clients do have some concerns about finger imaging. Roughly 15% expressed concerns in the State surveys and interviews conducted to evaluate finger-imaging programs. These concerns center on issues of privacy, unjust treatment of poor people, inconvenience, and fear of interagency sharing.

    There is little data on which to estimate the size of the deterrence effect. Based on the results from client surveys in five States, a substantial majority of clients had no objection to finger imaging and thought it was a good idea.

    There was little evidence that clients discontinued benefits because they were intimidated by the finger-image requirement. Interviews with former clients in Texas found that only two of the 78 former food stamp recipients (both of whom had refused to be imaged) attributed their loss of benefits to finger imaging. Similar interviews in Los Angeles County found that, of those former clients interviewed, no one who refused to be finger imaged expressed a concern with the process.

    Cost and Effectiveness of Finger Imaging

    Since there is no reliable estimate of the magnitude of duplicate participation in the FSP, there is uncertainty regarding the cost effectiveness of finger imaging. Available data are inadequate to make precise estimates of either the costs or benefits of finger imaging for the FSP. Calculations using the data that are available, supplemented by a number of assumptions, suggest that reduction in caseload covers the costs of finger imaging technology. However, the percentage of the caseload reduction due to decreased multiple participation is unclear.

    The analysis makes no assumption about how costs or benefits are allocated among Federal or State agencies. In addition, it does not include the cost required to modify existing software to make it compatible with the finger-imaging system. Finally, it does not take into account that certain cost elements, such as the cost for infrastructure or centralized equipment, may be independent of caseload fluctuation.

  • ============================================
  • Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics—such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face—as well as behavioral characteristics—including signatures and voice patterns. Although used in law enforcement and defense for several years, it has recently been used in civilian applications and shows some promise to reduce the number of duplicate cases in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other assistance programs

    Biometric identification systems are currently operational at some level in Arizona, California (under county initiative, first by Los Angeles County), Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Finger imaging is the principal form of technology used in all eight States, though alternative technologies have simultaneously undergone trials in Massachusetts (facial recognition) and Illinois (retinal scanning). By the end of 2000, new systems are expected to be in place in California (statewide unified system), Delaware, and North Carolina. Other States are currently in the initial planning stages, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, there is little information available at this point regarding the specific course and trajectory these States will follow in terms of system types, implementation schedules, and the benefit programs in which they will implement the new requirement.

    This report provides an overview of the experience of nine States with biometric identification technologies as of September 1999 and discusses some of the major policy and operational issues encountered during implementation and testing. The report also synthesizes available information on the effectiveness of the technology in reducing duplicate participation and provides a discussion of measurement complexities and issues on the horizon as use of the technology continues to expand. A companion report contains an overview of biometric identification technology, examining the functional capabilities, performance, and applications of the various technologies with a particular focus on finger imaging, the most commonly used and well known.

    Telephone interviews of 1-2 hours in duration were conducted in May-June 1998 with representatives of human service agencies in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As part of an earlier task of this study, we conducted site visits to San Antonio, Texas to observe the Lone Star Image System (LSIS) demonstration and to interview State and county agency staff. Information on Texas is based on those visits and interviews. The States interviewed, with the exception of Pennsylvania, have installed biometric identification systems and are requiring applicants to federal and State benefit programs to submit to the new procedures during the eligibility determination process.

    The purpose of the interviews was to explore State experiences with biometric identification systems, including factors in the decision-making and planning processes, the dynamics of system start-up and implementation, issues and problems related to system and agency operations, and perceptions regarding the impact of biometric identification procedures on the application and eligibility determination processes. Each of the States participating in the study was asked to provide a description of the critical early events that occurred during the planning phases of their respective projects. In addition, those States that had already implemented systems were asked to describe their implementation experiences.

    Results of State Interviews

    When finger-imaging technology was first applied to reduce multiple participation fraud in assistance programs, there were many concerns about the performance and reliability of the technology in a social service application, as well as about the potential stigma that a finger-image requirement would place on potential clients. The experience of the eight States that have incorporated finger imaging into the process of applying for welfare assistance suggests that many of these fears were unfounded. Finger imaging has been readily integrated into the human services programs of the affected states. However, despite the positive reaction to finger imaging from the State officials we interviewed, there is still uncertainty regarding the extent to which this technology can reduce multiple participation fraud.

    The States planned for implementation of their biometric identification systems in response to a wide variety of factors and considerations idiosyncratic to each State environment. Some States reported that their respective legislative mandates, which prescribed specific dates by which biometric systems were required to be in place, allowed insufficient time for development and planning. The States developed and followed implementation schedules in accordance with internal priorities and considerations. The States uniformly described their implementation processes as largely uneventful, though they encountered a variety of minor implementation issues, most of which were associated with the logistical difficulties of mobilizing and managing such a complex initiative.

    Preparing staff for the implementation of the biometric systems, both philosophically and operationally, took different forms, priorities, and levels of effort in the States. At implementation, advance notification to clients and/or the general public about new biometric client identification procedures was considered important by all State representatives. The objective of providing advance notification was to inform and prepare clients for the additional application or recertification step (i.e., to explain the requirement and who is required to submit, and to address client concerns), as well as to accelerate enrollment of the existing caseload. All States prepared informational mailings to clients advising them of the new requirement. Some States reported developing additional outreach media including multilingual (English and Spanish) videos, posters, and brochures for viewing and distribution in the local office. Most of the States also identified various outlets in the community through which they informed the general public in advance about the implementation of biometric client identification procedures.

    The States with operating systems reported that implementation of new biometric client identification procedures had a negligible impact on operations at the local office level. In general, States also reported that the problems and obstacles encountered in operating their respective projects are not unlike those encountered in demonstrating any new technology or procedural modification. These States also reported that their systems and procedures were implemented without unexpected difficulty and were rapidly institutionalized. All the States confronted a range of basic physical space and logistical issues, including where to situate the new equipment, how to appropriately alter job descriptions, who to reassign or hire to handle the new procedures, and how to adjust the flow of clients and paperwork most efficiently. However, none reported any particularly noteworthy difficulties. States reported that clients have been cooperative and accepting of the technology.

    Finger Imaging and Fraud Reduction

    Assessing the ability of finger imaging to reduce fraud is difficult because the amount of fraud caused by duplicate participation in welfare programs is unknown, and because changes in caseload after the introduction of finger imaging cannot be interpreted unambiguously as reduction of fraud. The evaluations of finger imaging systems conducted by six States have produced the following findings.

    • A small number of duplicate applications (approximately 1 duplicate for every 5,000 cases) have been detected by finger imaging systems. Finger-imaging systems appear to detect more fraud in statewide implementations than in regional pilot systems. Additional matches have been found by interstate comparisons of finger-image data.
    • Institution of a finger-imaging requirement can produce a significant, short-term reduction in caseload, because some existing clients refuse to comply with the requirement. The number of refusals depends on the implementation procedures and appears to be lower when finger imaging is incorporated into the recertification process.
    • The most carefully controlled estimate of non-compliance among existing clients suggests that introduction of a finger-imaging requirement reduces participation by approximately 1.3%. However, this estimate reflects both reduced fraud and deterrence of eligible individuals and households.

    Finger Imaging as a Deterrent to Legitimate Participants

    Clients do have some concerns about finger imaging. Roughly 15% expressed concerns in the State surveys and interviews conducted to evaluate finger-imaging programs. These concerns center on issues of privacy, unjust treatment of poor people, inconvenience, and fear of interagency sharing.

    There is little data on which to estimate the size of the deterrence effect. Based on the results from client surveys in five States, a substantial majority of clients had no objection to finger imaging and thought it was a good idea.

    There was little evidence that clients discontinued benefits because they were intimidated by the finger-image requirement. Interviews with former clients in Texas found that only two of the 78 former food stamp recipients (both of whom had refused to be imaged) attributed their loss of benefits to finger imaging. Similar interviews in Los Angeles County found that, of those former clients interviewed, no one who refused to be finger imaged expressed a concern with the process.

    Cost and Effectiveness of Finger Imaging

    Since there is no reliable estimate of the magnitude of duplicate participation in the FSP, there is uncertainty regarding the cost effectiveness of finger imaging. Available data are inadequate to make precise estimates of either the costs or benefits of finger imaging for the FSP. Calculations using the data that are available, supplemented by a number of assumptions, suggest that reduction in caseload covers the costs of finger imaging technology. However, the percentage of the caseload reduction due to decreased multiple participation is unclear.

    The analysis makes no assumption about how costs or benefits are allocated among Federal or State agencies. In addition, it does not include the cost required to modify existing software to make it compatible with the finger-imaging system. Finally, it does not take into account that certain cost elements, such as the cost for infrastructure or centralized equipment, may be independent of caseload fluctuation.

Obama's giveaway: Oil-rich islands to Russia

https://tatoott1009.com/
jmiller300

By Joe Miller

The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.

The Obama administration must stop the giveaway immediately.

Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.


Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Alaska PAC and Restoring Liberty Action Committee. Follow Joe at Facebook and Twitter.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangell became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Sometimes I just can’t stand the stupidity.  There is a story circulating in the right-o-sphere, that Obama is ceding Alaskan territory to the Russians.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.  Read more….

I simply cannot abide historical and geographical ignorance.

This is what some on our side are ACTUALLY ARGUING–all those islands really, really close to Asia are actually American!  Were you ever, ever taught that America was an Asian power?  Didn’t think so….

Right click to enlarge

Now, some of the disputed islands may have been discovered by Americans, but simply look at their location.  Common sense and looking at the geography should make you question the premise that any of these islands were, at any time, American territory. What some on our side are arguing is akin to believing that because an Englishman was the first to climb Mt. Everest, the mountain is part of England.  Think about that for a second.

Therefore, let’s look the treaty that gave Alaska to the United States in 1867.

 The western limit within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained passes through a point in Behring’s Straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between the islands of Krusenstern of Ignalook, and the island of Ratmanoff, or Noonarbook, and proceeds due north without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean.

One doesn’t even really have to understand latitude and longitude, because the language is very precise.

Imagine that, on the map, there sits the Russian island of Krusenstern and the now American island of Ratmanoff. And between these islands runs the new international boundary, proceeding “due north without limitation, into the Frozen Ocean.” Right click to see full size.

In other words, even if Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands were discovered by Americans, they were, by the treaty of 1867, between the United States and the Emperor of Russia, squarely in Russian territory.

Furthermore, some on our side continue this line of delusion , additionally claiming that two more islands at the end of the Aleutian chain are also being given to Russia.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.  Link

Good lord, that is sheer ignorance on display.  How hard is it to once again reference the 1867 treaty with Russia?

The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Behring’s Straits and Behring’s Sea, so as to pass midway between the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hundred and seventy-two west longitude; thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian. Link

So Copper Island is part of the U.S.?  According to the treaty of 1867, the international boundary runs between Attou, the western most Aleutian island and Copper Island. Copper Island and Kormandorski remained Russian.  Period.

The 1867 treaty line runs between Attou and Copper Island. Right click to see full size.

In essence, the 1990 USSR-USA Maritime Treaty does nothing more than confirm the original 1867 treaty in which Russia ceded Alaska to the U.S., even though the Soviet Union never ratified it, it has been observed by both sides for going on 22 years.

I have many beefs against President Obama, from his trillion dollar deficits, his attack on the first amendment, and his lousy energy policies, but anyone who is arguing that he giving away territory to Russia, is in the same category as those who proclaimed that Obama wasn’t a native born citizen.

If you want to be taken seriously, don’t repeat every crackpot theory that you hear.  Pick up a history book, or heaven forbid, use Google, and find the original source documents.  Then and only then, proceed.

Finally, here’s the entire map, from 1867, that was used in Congress to debate the acquisition,  that outlines the new boundaries of “Seward’s Folly” (right click to see full size):

From: Speech of Hon. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the cession of Russian America to the United States. Wash., printed at the Congressional Globe office, 1867. F907.595. U.S. Coast Survey for State Dept. Right click to see full size.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Report: Obama Administration Is Giving Away 7 Strategic Islands to Russia


May 1881 US explorers approached Jeannette Island and Henrietta Island and claimed them for the United States. According to some US individuals, including the group State Department Watch, eight Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia, including Wrangel Island, are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side
Former senatorial candidate Joe Miller broke this story at World Net Daily:

The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangell became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Obama White House held a formal news conference last year to announce “proof positive” of Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth, posted his “birth certificate” online and has been busy making fun of anyone who doesn’t believe that story ever since.

But 37 percent of Republican primary voters in Ohio, 38 percent of them in Georgia and a startling 45 percent of them in Tennessee simply don’t believe it.

Another large percentage, some 1 in 5, have doubts so that they cannot say for sure they believe him.

The results come as the voters will be making their choice tomorrow for their favorite GOP candidate to oppose Obama, the presumptive Democrat nominee for the presidency this fall.

The results were obtained by Public Policy Polling, which asked “Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?”

In Georgia, 40 percent said he was, but 38 percent said he was not and another 22 percent were unsure. Ohio residents mirrored that, with 42 percent saying he was born in the U.S., 37 percent saying he was not, and 21 percent uncertain.

For residents of Tennessee, Obama’s word has even less impact. There, 33 percent said he was born in the U.S., 45 percent said he wasn’t, and 22 percent said they were unsure.

Commented USA Today, “PPP also noted that these voters – known as ‘birthers’ – tend to support the more conservative Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney heading into Tuesday’s contests.”

The polling company agreed. “If Romney ends up coming short on this late charge to Tennessee it may be due to his inability to compete with this fringe group. Among non-birthers, he trails Santorum only 34-33. But with the birther contingent he’s in a distant third at 24 percent to Santorum’s 35 percent and Gingrich’s 32 percent.”

No matter how much the Obama campaign makes fun, however, it appears the issue won’t disappear.

Sheriff’ Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., last week announced the results of a formal law enforcement investigation into Obama’s eligibility, determining there is probable cause to believe his birth certificate image is a forgery and that constitutes a fraud on the American people.

He has since said the issue is being elevated and his investigators how are looking for individuals responsible for the alleged fraud and forgery.

NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view it here.

WND reported late last year when Matt Romney, whose father, Mitt, is vying for the GOP nomination, said that his father would release his financial records when President Obama “releases his grades and birth certificate.”

The younger Romney later insisted he was joking, but Obama, in Hawaii at the time on a vacation estimated to set the taxpayers back some $4 million, saw it as an opportunity to cash in for his campaign. His 2012 fundraising machine immediately posted online: “The Birth Certificate Thing Again?” to sell mugs.

Freshly updated! Find out what Obama’s story truly is, in “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” by Jerome Corsi. Or join in the billboard campaign that seeks the answer to “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”

The issue is that while the Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born citizen” the documentation that would reveal that for Obama remains unrevealed.

Obama has refused to allow access to whatever original documentation there might be in the state of Hawaii, where he said he was born, as well as many other documents, such as passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records.

There also are his critics who say that “natural born citizen” at the time the Constitution was written would have meant the offspring of two citizens of the country, and since Obama’s father was a foreign national, he would not qualify under that standard.


Barack Obama

When the Iowa caucuses were being held a Public Policy Polling report noted that one in three Iowa GOP members do not believe Obama was born in the United States – an indication of their disbelief about his eligibility to be president.

Another 21 percent were not sure. Some 47 percent said they believe he was born in the United States, but they didn’t address the argument that the “natural born citizen” requirement demands parents who are citizens.

WND reported that another recent poll showed half of registered voters would like to see Congress investigate Obama’s eligibility. It also showed nearly that many believe the definition of the constitutional term “natural born citizen” means both parents must be U.S. citizens.

“There’s no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated by Congress,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies after conducting the WND/Wenzel Poll telephone survey during the summer.

“Even among Democrats, more than one in four – 28 percent – said they now want an inquiry, as do 43 percent of independents and 77 percent of Republicans. Interestingly, men are much more skeptical than are women about the question of eligibility – only 42 percent of men said they think Obama proved his eligibility by releasing the electronic birth certificate, compared to 59 percent of women.”

The poll at that time indicated 43.5 percent of Americans believe that a Hawaii birth would make no difference in Obama’s eligibility. The figure included 56.9 percent of Republicans, 40.2 percent of independents and 32.9 percent of Democrats.

The eligibility saga, as Wenzel noted, has taken on a life of its own. It began with questions about Obama’s birth place and parentage before his election. At that time, he released a computer image of a short-form  “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii and insisted it was original and the only document available.

Then in April, just as a new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not Eligible to Be President,” by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., reached the No. 1 spot on Amazon and was about to be released, Obama took a dramatic step.

He instructed his White House counsel, Robert Bauer, to have a private attorney, Judy Corley of Perkins Coie,  contact the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a copy of his “Certificate of Live Birth” purportedly on file with the state.

The White House subsequently released copies of a copy of the document, as well as an online image, calling it “proof positive” of a Hawaii birth. Since then, however, dozens of experts, including several ex-CIA members, have asserted that the document is fraudulent.

The image:

                   

At its release, WND contacted the Hawaii Health Department and the office of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, an ardent Obama supporter, to request confirmation that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s file information. Officials declined to respond.

A constitutional expert recently weighed in on the the issue and concluded that the obvious meaning of the term “natural born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, is someone who obtains citizenship naturally, from citizen parents, and not from any act of Congress or other affirmative action.

“Obama came into office with such fanfare and made such sweeping claims that his administration would repair holes in our social fabric and fix our economy, but America has seen none of that. Disappointment has given way to disillusionment and anger, and this survey reveals that even on a simple, basic question of his qualification to hold the office of president, many are skeptical that what the White House has delivered is not at all what was advertised,” Wenzel said.

“There are many reasons this eligibility question has taken on a life of its own, but that only half the country [in the Wenzel poll] believes that the president has proven he deserves to hold the office reveals a deeply held belief that he is somehow trying to trick the country. This sense of distrust underlies public perception of everything Obama does and says, which means that, as he begins to build a re-election campaign, it is going to be increasingly difficult for him to make a case on any issue as long as this question about the authenticity of his birth certificate remains unanswered. In fact, releasing the birth certificate that Obama released may have made worse his standing with the American people, and that will certainly be the case if a congressional inquiry discovers it has been tampered with or forged,” Wenzel warned.

Just days after the White House released the “birth certificate” image, Gallup reported that only 47 percent think Obama was definitely was born in the U.S. and 18 percent said he “probably” was.

Obama released the image saying he had no time for such silliness as questions about his birth, then departed for an appearance on Oprah’s television show.

It was only a few months after Obama’s inauguration that a WND/Wenzel Poll showed that 51.3 percent of Americans said they were aware of the questions raised about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office. Only 18.7 percent said they were not and another 30 percent were unsure.

At that point, 58.2 percent of Republicans said they were aware of the controversy.

Polls later revealed Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama’s official narrative:

  • A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group,in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.”While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers,” the report said.
  • Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll showed on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a “legitimate
    president,” with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not produced documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the
    Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.
  • In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll showed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including “college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation.””Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed,” the poll’s analysis revealed.
  • By June 2010, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy.
    A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll showed only 39 percent of respondents believed Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.”A shocking 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It’s enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate.”But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama’s story.
  • In later 2010, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama “definitely” was born in the U.S.The CNN report said, “Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a ‘certificate of live birth.’ And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born
    placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.”

Hacked Stratfor Emails: Osama’s Body Not Dumped at Sea

https://tatoott1009.com/

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 5, 2012

According to “shadow CIA” Stratfor email hacked by Anonymous and released by Wikileaks, Osama bin Laden was not dumped at sea after he was supposedly killed at his hideout in Pakistan. Instead, his body was shipped via a CIA plane to a mortuary located at a military medical institute in Dover, Delaware.

Video capture of Osama bin Laden watching himself on television at the Abbottabad compound.

Osama’s body was allegedly delivered following Obama’s boasting about the dubious raid. “Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness,” said Stratfor CEO George Friedman in an email dated May 2, 2011.

“Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda,” replied Stratfor vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton, who also said he “doubts [Osama] was dumped at sea” and adds the body “is a crime scene and I don’t see the FBI nor DOJ letting that happen.” Before working at Stratfor, Burton was a special agent with the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Despite concerns about preserving the “crime scene,” Pakistani authorities demolished the alleged hideout in late February. They never allowed journalists inside the Abbottabad building, and starting from a few days after the purported raid stopped them from even getting close to it, according to a February 27 Associated Press report.

A number of people, including former Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, have claimed that Osama bin Laden died in late 2001 at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai also said he thought Bin Laden was dead, as did Dale Watson, the FBI’s counterterrorism boss.

It was reported in December of 2001 that Osama bin Laden “died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication” and “was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief,” Fox News reported, citing the Pakistan Observer.

In 2011, Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different presidents and worked with the Defense Department, told The Alex Jones Show that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001.

Pieczenik fist made the claim in 2002. “I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease,” he told Alex Jones on April 24, 2002, several months after it was reported that Osama had died. “ And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see those in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months.”

Similar/Related Articles
  1. LEAKED STRATFOR EMAILS: Analysts Didn’t Believe Bin Laden Was Buried At Sea
  2. Stratfor disputes OBL killing in Abbottabad
  3. ‘That stupid b**** got what she deserved (I’ll bet she was fat and black too)’. Shocking emails of Texas police hacked and dumped online
  4. Stratfor Emails: Israel Has Destroyed Iran’s Nuclear Program
  5. Stop bombing us: Osama isn’t here, says Pakistan
  6. SEAL Disputes Official Account of Bin Laden Killing
  7. Hitler flips out over the CRU hacked emails
  8. Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government’ as foundation of new world order, splitting of America
  9. CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden’s family DNA
  10. Dead Men Don’t Talk: US Navy Seals Destroyed to Cover Up Washington’s Bin Laden Execution Hoax?
  11. Dead Bin Laden Urges Jihad
  12. Who Needs Pictures?
  13. Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars.com
    March 5, 2012

    The Algemeiner, billed as the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America, is reporting that Israeli PM Netanyahu has made up his mind and Israel will attack Iran, probably before the election.

    The newspaper cites a “senior American official” who allegedly told Israel’s government regulated Channel 2 that the decision was made by Netanyahu and his coalition of Likudniks to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report was aired prior to Netanyahu’s speech before AIPAC, the powerful Israeli political action committee that calls the shots on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

    “A senior official stressed in a conversation with News 2 there is a dispute between Israel and the United States on the question of ‘day after,’ which means the price of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities,” Channel 2′s report said, according to Algemeiner.

    So-called “day after” scenarios include regional war, a dangerous arms race in the region and a collapse of the Israeli stock market.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

    Sources close to Netanyahu, Algemeiner reports, said the U.S. is doing what it can to “handcuff”  the Israelis and to “frighten the Israeli public” into opposing an attack.

    Meanwhile, the Israeli intelligence asset DEBKAfile has turned up the propaganda heat by claiming that Iran has worked closely with a renegade North Korea to test a nuclear device or a dirty bomb.

    “The disclosure invalidates the main point the US President made in his speech Sunday to the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC convention in Washington that there was still time for diplomatic pressure and sanctions to bring Iran’s leaders to a decision to halt their nuclear momentum before military action was called for, whether by the US or Israel,” DEBKAfile claims.

    Increasingly, the establishment is either publicly calling for military action against Iran or members are feigning resignation over the fact that a military response to years of incessant propaganda and fear mongering is an inevitability.

    Gary Sick, former U.S. National Security Council member with “special expertise” on Iran and the former Deputy Director for International Affairs at the CIA’s Ford Foundation, posted an op-ed at CNN today deconstructing sanctions and moves by the Obama administration.

    Sick concludes that the Iran situation represents a new Bay of Pigs and an attack is inevitable.

  14. Interview of Steve R. Pieczenik – Alex Jones Show – April 24, 2002 (Partial Transcript)Dr. Pieczenik served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker. He is a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations

    AJ: Our guest tonight is Dr. Steve Pieczenik and he�s one of the world�s most experienced international crisis managers. He has over twenty years experience in resolving international crises, working for four U.S. administrations. Dr. Pieczenik served as Deputy Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance and James Baker. Working with Secretary of State George Schultz, Dr. Pieczenik has used his psycho-political expertise for the Secretary�s mediation of conflict in the Middle East between Israel, Jordan, Syria, again it goes on and on. He�s got best selling books. He�s basically an infowarrior, a crisis manager. In fact he, according to this and some of the news articles that we pulled up on him, coined the phrase, if these articles are accurate, this isn�t even in his bio here, but it says it there in some of the news articles, the �crisis mediation� and it�s just endless. It says in one of the bios here that he is also a member of the CFR. Steve Pieczenik, I really appreciate you joining us on the show. Of course, he is also a doctor and PhD as well. Good to have you on the show this evening, Sir.

    SP: Can I call you Alex?

    AJ: You certainly can.

    SP: You can call me Steve, Dr. Pieczenik or Steve, that�s fine with me.

    AJ: Well, Sir, I mean you�ve got a long bio here. (Crosstalk) just want to mention to the listeners out there.

    SP: Sure, anyway what would you like to start with Alex?

    AJ: Tell us a little bit more about yourself. Any key areas of your life, so folks know who you are.

    SP: Sure, I�ll be happy to. I started as a, I was a medical doctor training at Cornell University Medical College here. I worked my way up through scholarships and then got into the military. I was, during the Vietnam War, I was a very young O6, as many of you know, that is a colonel at the age of 32. I then went on to my training in psychiatry, at the same time at Harvard, and at the same time, I got a PhD from MIT in International Relations.

    AJ: Now that was the first MIT PhD, in this particular form of psychology.

    SP: Correct, Alex. And the reason for that was that I understood very clearly, a long time ago, thirty years ago that the very essence of relationships between countries and understanding what our national security is about has to lie in the psychological political arena. It�s not, necessarily that I am interested in what mother did or your father did, but I am much more interested in what kind of image perception propaganda has been created against us and what propaganda information we have to create against someone else. For example, one of the presidents whom I served. Unfortunately, he is ill now. But one of the most brilliant presidents I served and most people don�t recognize his brilliance. I think history will (garbled) and that is President Reagan, who was, as you know, an actor. But he had a photographic memory. And he understood the importance of psychology because he had been an actor and he understood that perception becomes reality. Well, this is a gentleman who using the study that I had worked on thirty years ago and had been intimately involved with him, using psychology and the concept of the perception, we were effectively able.. It�s a team effort. I�m not saying myself only. But Reagan was effectively able and the Reagan administration to bring down an entire Soviet empire without firing a gun by simply manipulating the psychology of perception. That we were forcing them into bankruptcy, which we were through the SBI (?) program and at the same time, manipulating their mind using the Chief of Staff. If you want me to go through the detail and showing him what our military capabilities were. And once he saw that both on land and on sea, he basically gave up. And that was Akhromeyev, who was then Chief of Staff of the Soviet military who was an Admiral, and who eventually committed suicide. But from that point on, we broke the entire, we won a war without having to fire a bullet. And that is the kind of thing that I talk about � psychological or psycho-political dimension.

    AJ: We are talking to Dr. Steve Pieczenik and he has worked at the highest levels of the psychological operations for four administrations. You are talking about controlling paradigms � paradigm management.

    SP: Well, that�s interesting. I�ve never used that word paradigm but you clearly � you must be a professor, Alex. But the notion is. No, what it is it�s a more sophisticated concept. For example, what I do is, I don�t just manage a conflict. I may sometimes be sent in on behalf of, for example, Secretary of State Schultz and Reagan. I was sent down to give Noriega a message officially that we would like for him to leave and we would provide the two planes, so and so and such and such. Well, he clearly, my sense was that he was not going to leave. And as many of you remember, this was a general who was chief of narco traffic out of Panama. And so, I would come back and report it.

    AJ: I�ve got to stop you for a second. This is intriguing. I have seen it reported that then in the military build-up before the strike, that they employed the psychological technique of having the Delta Force and others do raids in and out of the area, touch down for six months, to de-sensitize them, so when the real attack came that they wouldn�t respond with

    SP: That�s correct. I can�t confirm or deny it but I can say yes. (laughs) That�s exactly true.

    AJ: You may not know it, but they had that on the History Channel.

    SP: Oh, I didn�t know that was on History, then I can say yes. OK, I�m glad you told me, yes. General Cisnero(?) and I, we worked on a psyops program, that�s psychological operation, and we are very good at that. I don�t mean me. But the United States is. And we�ve lost some of that capability over the past administration. I�m not pointing fingers. We lost about 40% of our military intelligence capability. And I would come back and every year talk at the National Defense University at Carlyle War College � as a way of showing my appreciation to the military and try to train them in psychological operations. Some of what we saw � we saw that very effectively done in Afghanistan. When we basically gave warning to all the civilians and then we basically went in and broke up the Taliban and then starting going after al Qaeda. We used a lot of psychological operations on (garbled) which I can�t go into but we are using it right now, hopefully, around the world because of the 68 countries now with al Qaeda individuals, 68 countries filled with al Qaeda membership, including our own country. And we�re are using both psychological operations, we are using military….

    AJ: Let�s talk about his story. I mean we heard it was twenty dollar bills, now it one-hundred dollars bills, with just the picture of George Bush. And I mean that�s an obvious propaganda move and even the person pulling the hundred dollar bill out realizes that it�s propaganda but still can�t help having a pang of liking George Bush for that split second. So, isn�t that acclimating them, conditioning them, whether they like it or not?

    SP: Well that�s a good point, Alex. Yeah, I mean, there have been crises, for example, where I had three buildings here held hostage by a fundamentalist group called the Hanasi(?) Muslim. And he knew he was being manipulated. The FBI called me in and I used the Koran to take over the control and eventually he couldn�t help but follow the orders that we giving to him and he eventually released the hostages. And so, in that sense, it�s a very powerful tool and we are getting back into using that very effectively. That�s exactly right, Alex.

    What I do � I�ve done a lot of negotiation, I do a lot of stategy and tactics where I�ve done a lot of things. For example, with the Gorbachev and Reagan negotiations, with Arafat, I worked against him, I would track down terrorists and then I worked against Arafat, I worked with Osama bin Laden in �78, �81. In �79 when he was in Afghanistan and with Saddam Hussein when he was our ally and I worked against him when they weren�t our ally.

    AJ: Now again folks, we are talking to Dr. Steve Pieczenik and he is one of the infowarriors in four administrations, crafting much of the police that we have seen over the last twenty, thirty years. And I am so honored to have you on the show tonight. I hope we can keep you for a while.

    SP: I�d be happy to, Alex.

    AJ: I�m not going to mince words, I�m going to cut to the chase.

    SP: Sure. Go ahead.

    AJ: About these technologies that you are talking about that are great for defending the country being used by the wordsmiths, by the spin doctors, in camps in this country against the American people. Whether it�s gun control or big government or any of it. And I�ve seen the telltale signs all over the place. And that�s why we have you here, so hopefully the American people can become more aware of these tactics. I mean, certainly it�s just 101 Marketing to use psychology, but it�s getting a little more sophisicated than that. Can you ..

    SP: Well, yeah, I agree with you Alex. One of the things that I have been in disagreement and it keeps coming out of the conservative movement. I mean I�ve worked with these – is that the issue of the suppression of our civil liberties is unjustified and particularly in this case on terrorists. And when I mean specifically, for example, I can understand that we have to have vigilance and we have to have surveillance. But you do not change the constitution or alter it to such a degree that we have posse comitatus, which I hope your audience understands � that means military control can come in and take over civilian control. That�s a no-no.

    AJ: Well I had the former professors on this show, the former JAG colonels and generals, they say it was gone in �96 and they are concerned about it.

    SP: I�ve very concerned about it because what happens is, you know generals � I have a lot of respect for but it�s not generals that make the decision. It will be a consultant who works for somebody in the White House who may not necessarily know what he or she may be doing. And then we are talking about civil liberties and profiling � where you suddenly get thrown off the plane. They won�t tell you why. You could be blond, blue haired, you could be dark and brown eyed. I mean I was almost in preventative detention down in Reno, Nevada, and I said to the police, can I use the word terrorism? He said no. Can I use the words, are you arresting me? He said no. Then why are you sorting me out? And they couldn�t give me an answer. I said you are making a big mistake, you are violating my first amendment, you are violating my second amendment, and every other amendment. Can I talk about guns? No. So basically that�s where I agree with you and your audience and that is we cannot let the federal government or any government suppress our liberties in any way whatsoever. Now, is there propaganda that�s given to the American public. Absolutely. And I say that…

    AJ: Let me stop you professor. What was this story where they come out and go � oh we�ve got the office of strategic influence, strategic laws and manipulation, and then we are going to activate it. But we all know it was already operating for hundreds of years. Every country has one. Then, so that was a lie to say it new. Then they say, oh we are not going to use it anymore, we were just proposing it. Your take on that.

    SP: Well, I was actually, but don�t call me professor. One thing I am not is a professor of anything, but I do join you in saying that I tried to stop that vehemently on the radio. My neighbor who is around the block was in charge of that and I don�t know her all that well, Ms Clarke. It was clear to me that they didn�t know what they were doing. What they were doing was creating what we call of fusion of what we call blackops, black operations meaning covert, and white noise, that means real facts and information. Well, you don�t do that in the military. The reason you don�t do that anywhere in the United States, but particularly in the military is that you compromise the integrity of our military and at the same time, it was the stupidest idea I�ve ever seen because they said they could divide the lies from the non-lies and I said that�s ridiculous. Furthermore, we have had problems in the past where the CIA and other organizations that instill disinformation in overseas countries and American reporters pick it up as fact. And then they have been really hoodwinked and the American public doesn�t know what is fact and what is reality.

    AJ: And then that discredits the media organs which are needed by the government to form public opinion.

    SP: Well, it�s interesting that you say that. There has been an interesting kind of balance. CNN has been very, I would say, pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab in my ways, what I would consider. Whereas, thank God my friend Roger Ailes is the head of the MSNBC network, which is more conservative that the FOX network, where you can see some questions. Like Chris Matthews and the O�Reilly Factor, where we can get into some issues and really start discussing them from another perspective. That is, it doesn�t have a particular bias that is lent by the government. Now, it�s true, sometimes the government brings in, you know, they want to give their message. But if that message is out of whack, I�m more than happy to go on the air and say that guy is not telling the truth. And that�s why I go on these radio stations to say look, in my opinion, now I�m not gospel and I�m not, everything I say is not written in stone. I�m as human as anybody else. But I�ve had a lot of experience. And one of the things that I do not believe in, is the notion that policy, that�s what is unfortunately true about Washington. Politicians consider most of us, as American citizens, as pretty stupid and not very bright. And they think they can herd us around. And the answer is, they are mistaken. And I�ve said that repeatedly, that they have underestimated the intelligence of the American public, repeatedly, administration after administration. But this time around, Alex, we don�t have the flexibility, because we are in what we would call a constant struggle or war against the El-Jihad and the Muslims � Islamic fundamentalists who are more than happy to destroy much of what we have. And we can�t afford, at the same time, to be told all kinds of stories that do not correspond to reality. So that is where I do agree with you, Alex.

    AJ: Okay, thank you for that. You were, again, deputy assistant Secretary of State….

    SP: That�s correct.

    AJ: under Henry Kissinger, Vance and Baker, in key positions in many other administrations, you are also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, correct?

    SP: Yeah, I know what you are getting to. But I�m also a member of the National Rifle Association, too. I didn�t put that down. The real issue of the Council on Foreign Relations, this is where you would be concerned and others is that the Council on Foreign Relaions was once, many, many years ago, I�d say 15 or 20 years ago, a very elite Northeastern organization. What it has really turned into is pretty much, with all due respect, I think that is an old resume, but basically I haven�t attended a meeting in well over a year or two because it has become very much a rotary club. Basically it is the same people, returning by, saying the same thing and I eventually found it of very little help. It was an organization basically designed not to influence or direct everything, although, many of the secretaries of state have come out of there previously. Particularly before World War II, right after World War II.

    AJ: Since 1922, when it got founded, it was out of the Royal Institute of International Affairs..

    SP: Right, it was the Rockefeller family that funded it and built it up and there was a sense that there was a conspiracy here and I can tell you for a fact that a member of the group that you are talking to, that it is not any more conspiratorial there. There is a far more serious organization that we are concerned about and that�s called the Carlyle Group. That�s a private equity group run by a guy named Carlucci who is a former Secretary of Defense that are profiting very handsomely from this war. And I�m very much concerned about it because it because it could spread it.

    AJ: See, that�s amazing because I got some of the � I don�t know if you knew that some people were making some transcripts of some of your comments on KFI and I�ve got them here, I don�t know if they are accurate. But in these, you talk about the CIA and bin Laden in July and the rest of this …

    SP: Correct.

    AJ: That�s accurate, you said that?

    SP: Yes, that is accurate.

    AJ: Okay, Sir, I want to hear this from you when we get back.

    BREAK

    AJ: We are talking to Steve Pieczenik and he has got more titles than the Queen of England. I mean he has been all over the place. No, I�m serious. You have really led, and I envy all the dangerous and exciting situations you�ve been in and I didn�t even know if I could believe this bio and did some a little LexisNexis search and you actually play yourself down a bit on your website. Why don�t you give that to them Steve.

    SP: Oh, I can�t. Alex, I think you did a good job. I�m more than happy. Let�s talk about bin Laden.

    AJ: Your website for those who don�t know it…

    SP: Oh well, my website is stevepieczenik.com and I have a new book coming out called, �Active Pursuit� under the name of Alexander Court, and another one called �Active Measure� under Alexander Court, C-o-u-r-t, that will be coming out this week actually. It�s about the violation of Sweden, how hypocritical Sweden was during World War II, in establishing neutrality and actually helped the Nazis.

    AJ: Yeah, they made a lot of money off of it.

    SP: Oh, they made a huge amount and the Wallenburg family in particular, made a lot of money and then they violated everything we stood for. And we forced Raoul Wallenburg to join the OSS to make up for their totally treacherous behavior but the worst part about it was that I wanted to. See, I use fiction to put reality in. And one of the comments was, I went after one of their famous Nobel Prize winners, an extreme liberal, by the name of Gunnar Nordahl, who accused us… I remember when I was up in North Korea and I saw him, he said that Americans were despicable, we didn�t like human nature and all of that. I said I�m going after this guy and I found out and I put it in the book. And the Swedes have never denied it. This is a famous Nobel Peace Prize winner and he wrote the welfare state. How do you create the welfare state? Well, of all things, Alex, what happened was, and this was a fact they never denied and I put it in the book in �Active Measure� by Alexander Court, and you will read it there. What he did was to sterilize innocent Swedish women between 1945 and 1974. He sterilized over 75,000 innocent Swedish women who had nothing more than perhaps, you know, abnormal a little bit of behavior problem, or they were teenagers. But the real reason was for economic reasons. He didn�t want to have any problems with a potential abnormal child so they thought this was the best way to maintain their financial capability, maintain their welfare state. So much for greatest of free….

    AJ: Sounds like Margaret Sanger.

    SP: Well, it�s a lot more deadly than Margaret Sanger. This is a real effort to really neutralize their entire population and the guys are saying you are doing it for the welfare of the state. That�s called euthanasia.

    AJ: Absolutely and we see that now being legalized in many of those Scandinavian countries.

    SP: That�s correct and they don�t… they have denied…they have said we are looking at, and actually the kids don�t know about it. But it�s one of the things that again, again not all Swedes are bad but the point is that their government has been playing two-faced with the world for a long time, as many governments have and that is what your point is, Alex.

    AJ: Now Dr. Pieczenik, what I want to talk to you about tonight….

    SP: is bin Laden and the….

    AJ: Let�s get to that. We are about to break and start the next hour. Let�s talk about it then if you�ve got time right now.

    SP: Absolutely, I�ll give you the time.

    AJ: I want to talk about Henry Kissinger. I mean this guy, I�ve got his quotes on record where he says if there is a big enough crisis, we�d accept a new world order, global government. I mean he has said stuff like this on television and you worked under this guy. From talking to you, it sounds like you�re 180 from the views of Henry Kissinger.

    SP: Well, you are right on the nose. I, this I can share with most of your audience, that I was asked to work for him personally and I said no. I couldn�t, for many reasons that I don�t want to get into but primarily that I didn�t have the temperament to tolerate his type of, what we call, narcissistic behavior. He is very impulsive, childish and he rants and raves. As a psychiatrist, I don�t tolerate that and set limits very quickly. Secondly, I didn�t agree with his views but his deputy, Lawrence Eagleburger, who has been under (garbled) management has seen me negotiate the release of about seventeen hostages, (garbled) and he asked me if I�d come on board and work for the U.S. government. I said, no problem. I had a military commission. So the answer is you are right.

    BREAK

    AJ: We are excited to have a great guest, an intelligent guest, like Dr. Steve Pieczenik on the show. He has worked in four administrations. He has worked for the deputy secretary of state, hostage negotiator, the list goes on and on. He is a critically acclaimed author of psycho-political novels and co-creator of the best-selling Tom Clancy�s Op-Center and Tom Clancy�s Netforce series. He is a Harvard psychiatrist with an MD from Cornel University and PhD in International Relations from MIT. The doctor served for four presidential administrations. Again, now let�s start getting into this whole bin Laden situation and I�ve got a bunch of emails and I got a partial transcript of it and I called the station to confirm that you were on but they didn�t have a transcript. And….

    SP: You know, what I said was Alex, this is following issue.

    AJ: We are talking about bin Laden for those that just joined us.

    SP: Right, but we are talking about bin Laden. The issue is what the relationship is between the bin Laden family and the Bush family. It�s much more complicated than has been revealed, than has been revealed by anyone. And that is that it goes back for several decades.

    AJ: Back into the mid-70s.

    SP: It goes back, exactly. They have now, Bush, Sr, who I have served as well, and Bush, Jr. have literally gone to the bin Laden family and the Carlyle Group. This is the private equity group here in Washington, which the bin Laden family have been in. And they claimed they only had 2 million dollars, but my sense is that it was far more extensive, that they owned all kinds of companies, including one of the largest conglomerates in our military contracting. And bin Laden was, remember, our ally, supposedly our ally in 1979, �80, when he worked with us to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. He was just a young kid.

    AJ: Brzezinski talks about that in �The Grand Chessboard�.

    SP: Right, and that he then turned against us and we created a political Frankenstein. And that�s not the first time we�ve done that Alex and this is what I want to tell your audience.

    AJ: You are saying it is blowback.

    SP: It�s blowback, exactly. And what I was saying about a blowback was that if we tend to have a pattern here in the United States and it has to do, I think primarily with the fact that we don�t have good intelligence or good CIA capability to handle all of our so-called in between or gray-zone friends/enemies. And what happens is we just dump them. It was the same thing with Noriega. We had to go in and send in 22,000 troops. It was the same thing with Saddam Hussein, we fought with him for five years against Iran. We killed over a million people. We supplied him with the actual biological and chemical weapons. It was the CIA that did that. Suddenly we find ourselves at war with him. That was a blowback. Then we go to war and we don�t finish the war. Now we are going back to war again. And I am trying to say, wait a minute guys, if you messed up the first time, what makes you think you are going to do it again the second time. And so we have a blowback with Osama. But what made it more difficult was, I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see those in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he�s been dead for months.

    AJ: You are talking about the obvious fat guy, sitting there that looked nothing like bin Laden.

    SP: You�ve got it. I mean the whole thing was a, I mean it was such a hoax. I mean I said you would have to be, you know, blind and stupid to not realize that this is really being manipulating in trying to manipulate us.

    AJ: The type of psyops that we�d see coming out of Dr. Steve Pieczenik.

    SP: It�s not the kind of thing that I would do to the American public. But the more important part was that …

    BREAK

    AJ: We are talking about Osama bin Laden, the CIA asset during the �80s, right into the early �90s and now the mainstream reports here out of Europe and the U.S. confirming that he was involved in the situation in the Bosnian and the Serb war. And then what Dr. Pieczenik is calling the classic term �blowback� � the bad boy getting out of control and this report of him in the American hospital. It�s been in the Washington Times, you name it, getting nursed back to health, meeting with the CIA Section Chief for ten days. Dr. Pieczenik, a former undersecretary of State and member of the CFR, you name it, can say, oh yeah that�s true but he�s got an explanation for it. Please elaborate doctor.

    SP: Well, I don�t have a very good explanation. I was shocked as well as you were in that what is a Station Chief doing seeing Osama bin Laden when he was already declared an international war criminal under the previous administration and then the Station Chief testified, with several others, that the whole family � the notion that the family of bin Laden when they evacuated and left this country and then was subsequently interviewed, said they had no relation with bin Laden and that they didn�t know where he was and all that nonsense. It�s just sheer nonsense. And so when that popped up and I saw that, I said there is a lot of things going on here that don�t make sense. And that means that they are using bin Laden in a way that the United States government or you call Big Brother is basically using it in a very, ah, ah, ah, how should I say this, nefarious, in a very dangerous way to manipulate the American public.

    AJ: A pretext to get more control.

    SP: Well, it�s a pretext to get, I don�t know if I would say more control. They are not very good at controlling this. Because it�s really, it has really discredited the ability of the government to handle a simple situation without having to insult the intelligence of the American citizen.

    AJ: And you are saying earlier that you brushed up against this at an airport, I believe you said Nevada?

    SP: Oh yeah, in Reno, Nevada, where literally the police came and just took me away. And I said, what are you after? They searched me three to four times. I said, look you know, I�ve written these profiles. They didn�t answer anything. That�s called preventative detention. I said am I under arrest? They said no. I said what are you holding me for? And, can I tell you, well I won�t use that language on the air what I said to them but basically, this kind of activity is just totally unacceptable for the United States of America.

    AJ: And again, according to the press reports, you are the guy that coined the phrase, or did you, �conflict management� or..

    SP: I use what is called, I call it �crisis management.� I�m not sure I�m the original one, but I�ve used it for most of my life and basically every crisis from Arafat, in evacuating our soldiers, to evacuating our civilians, to going into hot spots in Cambodia and trying to stop Pol Pot from another killing field and still being on the hit list of a lot of terrorist groups all over the world. Still on the number one hit list of the Red Brigade in Italy, they still want me.

    AJ: Okay doctor, everything you are saying makes sense and we have had other CFR people on here couple of times and they are elitists. They..

    SP: I don�t want you to think of me as a CFR, all I did was pay dues. I�m haven�t attended a meeting in four or five years. So if you could use another title, I�d appreciate it Alex.

    AJ: Alright, I mean there are so many, my point is I�ve had these other guys up and they�re pompous, they don�t even seem that smart. Compared to having another talk show host on, but you seem very intelligent and obviously so, I mean working around all these people. I mean here you are talking about this bin Laden situation � give us your intel on that or what you have heard of the info you have…

    SP: Well, it�s not a good situation but it basically says to me that this is an orchestrated type of war and I think that I didn�t want to believe it for a very long time. And then I said that somebody is orchestrating something here with the agreement of the bin Laden family, knowing fully well that he would die. And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spelled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan. Well, he was one of few that knew that he had a kidney problem. That wasn�t well known before. Everybody thought he had a heart disease

    AJ: Exactly, but we have him in this American, called the American hospital, and that report was confirmed

    SP: That was confirmed that he had kidney disease. So, what happened there is that we have Bush, Sr., Bush, Jr, dealing with the bin Laden family and then going to war with this organization that we effectively created in 1970s and 80s, when we drove out the Soviet Union. And that was the conversion, again blowback, of the young mujahideen where we gave them armament through the CIA again and that was no great secret. Everybody knew that and then there was a blowback.

    AJ: They knew the blowback was coming and allowed it to happen. Again, I am absolutely blown away, doctor, because this is in all the evidence that I have. I have over a hundred mainstream articles, government documents, Northwoods, you name it, on infowars.com in the government prior knowledge section. And, to have you up on this show, I mean I didn�t know which direction you were going to go and I just had some of the transcripts from another interview that you did, but it�s amazing and now more and more people are saying it. But look, they created bin Laden, they use him, the family is in bed with the Bushes back in the mid-70s, and you are talking about a stage-managed war. I mean, you just said it. I mean, boil it down for us. What are you saying, a former deputy secretary of state, what are you saying?

    SP: Well what I am saying is, I mean as a deputy assistant, what I am saying is that I am coming to the same conclusion that you came to. And that is, and I hope I�m wrong, but more and more evidence points to the fact that somehow, given who the people are that they appointed to the Dept. of Defense, they were civilians who had never been in the military. The same guys who were in Iran-Contra dealings. And then you have the same people who are involved with Saddam Hussein � Cheney and you have Condoleezza Rice who really wasn�t all that much impression and the same whole cast, very tightly controlled and they are managing something that doesn�t make sense to me. And that is, yeah there was an attack on the World Trade Center, yet we don�t really know who did it. And the president shows and says well here I have the evidence that bin Laden did it. Well, if bin Laden did it, then why was the first mention and the first order that was given, and I think you would remember this, so would your audience, is the FBI has to evacuate the entire family. If you were to go into a criminal scene or investigation, you wouldn�t say to everybody there, if you wanted to know who the culprit is, and you say oh that�s the culprit, let�s get rid of the whole family and not ask anybody any questions. That was a big mistake.

    AJ: That�s another red flag, another smoking gun that I didn�t even put in my 144-minute tour de force film that�s has so much evidence every 5 seconds, there�s some new document or news release or public statement. You�ve got them, when all other aircraft are grounded, other than the military, you�ve got jets flying out of Florida and Boston ferrying this Royal family out of here.

    SP: That�s exactly right. And so the question becomes, what�s going on here? And then the last one is of course is the fourth plane which had seventy-five minutes, in other words, those of you who are particularly � fighter pilots understand this. You can�t fly at about three or four-hundred feet off the ground and at seventy-five minutes out, you have to go out to the Chesapeake and the ocean and you are telling me that we couldn�t get fighter planes in there? When we had already had two attacks and you are telling me that that was not a military pilot who was trained to crash into the Dept. of Defense? That�s unbelievable and that was a sleeper. So, I can�t put that all together, but I�ll put all together and it�s not a good picture, Alex.

    AJ: What was a sleeper?

    SP: The guy, the one flying that plane into the Dept. of Defense. Those guys were sleepers. I mean you�ve got to explain, does your audience understand what, a sleeper is a concept that came out and it�s actually, they are agents that are trained that came out of the old cold war where the Russians would create and have individuals who were trained to kill and then they would be activated many years later. If you saw the movie, The Manchurian Candidate, you�d get a good idea of that.

    AJ: MKUltra mind control

    SP: MKUltra mind control, exactly.

    AJ: You know this is incredible. We�ve got one of the pre-eminent hostage negotiators, psyops guy, you know, worked with Tom Clancy, worked in four administrations, and then here you are with all the information.

    SP: It is very disturbing to me Alex as it is to anyone of our American citizens who is not buying it.

    AJ: So why did you decide to start going public with this? Was it getting….

    SP: I went public with this, no, I went public, well I�ve always been kind of a maverick. But I was offered an O7, and I said look I work alone, I�m a singleton basically and I work on my own and I work for my country. I never got a pension. I never really got paid much for what I did. I often had to pay back most of the expenses. I�m not telling you how great I am as an American. But as an American citizen, the reason that I went public, the first thing that bothered me was when Vice President Cheney was (garbled) for having had at Haliburton, and that big corporation that he had in oil, which he was given $35 million for all his knowledge in oil which he had none of, he had been a former secretary of defense, he had put in a embargo on Iraq and then he denied that he didn�t know anything about the embargo � the fact that they had violated the embargo by having a $75 million joint venture with Iraq and at that point I said, that was the straw that broke the camel�s back for me. Cheney was just outright lying and he committed a crime by violating an embargo. And I said these guys are in trouble and I�m going out publicly to say this can�t continue. Not as an American citizen, I�m not going back to war. I�m not going back and letting American soldiers die � for something that may have been concocted or created. It�s one thing if we are attacked by the Nazis or the Japanese or something. I�m not denying that we were attacked. The question is who did what and how it was orchestrated and if it was orchestrated, then we have a real problem and that will destroy our democracy. That�s why I went public � and you know that.

    AJ: Doctor, stay right there. I am shaken by this. You know, David Schippers, the guy who impeached Bill Clinton, said basically the same things on this show and more and more great American inside the system, cold warriors are blowing the whistle. We�ll be right back with our guest.

    BREAK

    AJ: ..Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, he is best-selling author, works with Tom Clancy, you name it and he is concerned. I�m glad that more and more Americans are concerned about government prior knowledge and involvement in allowing September 11th to take place. And, you know, Dr. Pieczenik, a lot of people don�t understand, they say well if the government had prior knowledge of September 11th or allowed it to take place, like FDR allowing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. They had it on the History Channel. Well, how did those guys then fly aircraft into buildings? And my only point is this: all you need is a double agent like bin Laden who we know has been an asset of the CIA, to go in and hype up the Islamics. Then the door is open and they are allowed to come in …

    SP: Well, you know, I�ve got .. Go ahead, Alex, keep going…

    AJ: Then their names are kept out of the Customs computers. Then the watch list doesn�t get to the airlines. Fifty-eight minutes they had to shoot down the second plane that hit the World Trade Center and, as you said, seventy plus minutes to get that other plane. So, example after example, and then somebody with an incredible track record and serious resume like yourself comes out with an analysis that I don�t even come out with on the air, even though that�s what I suspected � most Americans can�t grasp sleeper agents. If you start talking about this, because of the military precision of the Pentagon attack or even what we saw with the twin towers. I mean, again, elaborate on this for us. This is earth shattering.

    SP: Well, it�s earth shattering for me, too. It was the kind of thing that I wouldn�t want to believe. I mean, you know it�s not like I just came out of the closet and I was a whistle blower. I want the audience to understand. I�m a patriot and I�ve always felt strongly that the reason that I served my country is because it�s an honor to serve, to serve the people. I don�t serve a institution or a government that got out of control. And by the way, I wrote a book about this years ago, called �State of Emergency� where I said that we are going to have fights about the devolution of federal power, but basically it was over water rights in the Colorado River and occurred over Nevada and Arizona and that�s what�s happening � it�s States vs. federal rights.

    AJ: Sagebrush rebellion.

    SP: You got it. And let�s go back to that. And then what�s bothering me Alex and I think you articulated it better than I have was I didn�t want to believe what I was putting together. And you are beginning to articulate it and this has been going on for well over six to nine months. I mean I have been saying for a long time even to the individuals involved and whom I know personally in the White House and elsewhere, you are making a mistake by bringing in the people that you are doing, you are signaling to those of us who are knowledgeable these are not serious people. These are people who have caused problems in the past. And something is going on here. And that�s why when you get a guy like Cheney, Vice President, believe me this is a micromanager. There is nothing that goes by that he does not know and that�s the reason he�s got five heart attacks. But I don�t find him, not one of them has served in the military, other than Armitage. But not one of them has ever….

    AJ: Richard Armitage, this guy is hooked up with the short trading, caught red-handed on United and American in that story…

    SP: Is that true, is that what you have him on?

    AJ: Oh yeah, we got it in triplicate.

    SP: Okay, well I�m not surprised, part of the neocon group again is a conservative group of guys who come from the extreme left that suddenly have an epiphany and go to the extreme right. So one of the reasons that I was concerned is that we�re heading in for a war that is partly orchestrated by us and we went into Afghanistan and that was one of the phoniest things that I have ever seen where General Kelly said, and he finally admitted, that we made a mistake. We used these war lords as the surrogates for fighting instead of American soldiers. And I�m saying, what is this a joke? I mean what idiot is going to believe that. I mean anyone who knows the war lords, knows that they are the most distrustful, dishonest guys in the world. They run narco traffic through Afghanistan. We went through this before after ten years, twenty years before. So what is this nonsense about suddenly we win a war in Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif in twenty minutes and it turns out we didn�t win anything. What happened it was a revolving door. Everything that we were going after, al Qaeda, they took in and made their exchanges and then it had to do with issues of a pipeline being put down in the north of Afghanistan. It goes back to the Carlyle Group and Unocal. Unocal, then I started checking the records, put up a one-hundred billion dollar bid and this is open record. You can check it in front of the Congressional committee and UNOCAL and that�s one of the big five put up one-hundred billion to put up an oil pipeline up to the Caspian Sea to that base where they found trillions of gallons of barrels of oil and we could dump the Middle East that way. And that started to explain to me � well, you�ve got Cheney, you got Bush, the oil boys, they are concerned about that pipline, you�ve got the Carlyle Group and then you�ve got the neocons forcing us to get into wars with people who have weapons of mass destruction. Well, there are a lot of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. That doesn�t mean we go to war with them.

    AJ: Professor, we�ve got to break again. This is one of the most riveting shows we have ever done. It�s amazing to have you on the air with us and I know you don�t want to be called professor, its says that in one of the bios. Doctor, we�ll be back after this quick break.

    BREAK

    AJ: Steve, I have to be honest with you. I though that you were going to come on and make excuses for what happened with the bin Ladens being in with the Bushes and…

    SP: No way, Alex, I�m an American. The one thing you don�t do as an American is you don�t play and mess with my constitutional freedom. I don�t care who you are, what your name is, what you think you are. When you mess with that, you are going to see me retaliate. And I warned the White House. I warned them, quite frankly. Some of the people who are involved because they know me well. I said if I can help you up there and I helped both Bushes to get elected. Trust me, I�m going to help bring you down because you don�t play with the American public and their freedom. And you don�t play with lives, American soldiers� lives that I value, because not only am I a physician but having been in wars, seeing these boys die for who, for whom, and the answer is no – as long as I live and I have a breath, I will still fight for that constitution. The constitution was based, created by men who understood what it meant not to centralize power, to make sure that we had the freedom of the individual and that the individual was more important than the State.

    AJ: And that is why our country has produced so much and now it�s all being squandered. So, again,

    PS: We are not producing anything Alex. We�ve become a third-world country. Right now you�ve got China is a big problem. They are producing more than we are. And what are we sending out � billions of dollars. We are creating a nonsense organization, Homeland Security. I�ve never heard of such idiocy. Seventy-six billion dollars for a man who has never run anything, totally emasculated, Tom Ridge, a nice man, as a governor who doesn�t know anything. He never saw a terrorist in his life.

    AJ: I�ve heard of Homeland Security � that�s what Sturm Stoffel, SS stood for.

    PS: Well, I don�t want to go that far but the point is what came out of the seventy-six billion dollars. You got the color red, yellow, green and blue to tell me, what am I supposed to do? What am I supposed to do?

    AJ: They are going to have nightly alerts and FEMA is going to activate our TV and radios, they told us.

    PS: Sure, that will be the day.

    AJ: Recapping before we get into any other subjects that you�d like to discuss.

    PS: Let me recap it very simply so that I make my position. I have not just suddenly come out of the closet. I�ve come out in a very distinct position my whole life. I stand by what I believe. I have served different administrations not because I served the administration but I served the American public. That�s the way I viewed it. I was the only one who resigned. I mean Cyrus Vance is proud that he resigned on Carter but I resigned over Cyrus Vance�s handling of the Iran hostage siege because he sent me one of these left wing nuts by the name of Ramsey Clark. I knew we would never have a chance to deal with the hostage negotiation and like chess, when you open up the move, you lose a lot of time. And we were in deep trouble. So, I said Mr. Secretary, you are incompetent. And so I quit and that�s the kind of guy I am. And that�s why I�m not in this administration or others. When they called me in, believe me, there is a lot that hit the fan. And the reason why I come back in is because I cleaned it up for the American public. Not for the president who�s elected, not for the people there because they have become too self-important. What we have created, it�s not a democracy but we created for ourselves is common royalty. And they think they are that indispensable and the answer is no man is indispensable to lead this country. No man. And every citizen is indispensable. And when you get to that point where we have to salute the flag � we have five different police forces here in Washington and jet planes flying overhead. Give me a break. And that�s what I believe in. The American way of life is very simple. Let�s us do what we do. Leave us alone. Don�t get in my back pocket and don�t come into my bedroom. That�s how I believe.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  15. Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

    “The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,” the source said.

    Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

    About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some “Taliban friends,” attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the “great leader.”

    The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden’s face before burial said “he looked pale … but calm, relaxed and confident.”

    Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said “no.” Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of “pagans” against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

    When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, “I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished.


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html#ixzz1oIQeLMrE

  16. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stratfor is a thnk tank which has deep links with the intelligence services. Many think that Stratfor is a run by US intelleigence services, but it turns out that Stratfor sells its reports to those who wish to buy them. Stratfor, it turns out provides secret intelligence services to government agencies, and large corporations intel on various subjects. The information is sold to American agencies, including the American DOHS (Department of Homeland Security), the U.S. Marines and the DIA (U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency). Fred Burtonis Stratfor’s VP (vice president) for intelligence, and according to many is considered “one of the world’s foremost experts on security, terrorists and terrorist organizations.”

Before joining the Stratfor think tank, Mr. Burton was a special agent with the Diplomatic Security Service of the United States.According to Stratfor a think tank full of US spymasters, the body of Osama Bin Laden was not buried at sea as claimed earlier–but sent to Dover Delawere’s military.

Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound...Each of these images shows a different man. Image via Wikipedia

The secretive emails exchanged between intelligence services have been published by Wikileaks. A hacker group “Anonymous” broke into Stratfor’s email system and provided them with over 5 million top secret emails detailing the inner workings of the intelligence company, from top-to-bottom, including personal bank statements, and corporate structure.

In an email, Senior Stratfor Intelligence officer, Fred Burton, writes he “doubts the body was dumped at sea” and goes on to say Bin Laden’s body “is a crime scene and I don’t see the FBI nor DOJ letting that
happen”.

In another exchange, Burton writes Bin Laden’s “body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane” and “than onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.”

Another email claims “reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.”

English: Osama bin Laden as he is interviewed ...

English: Osama bin Laden as he is interviewed by Hamid Mir for Daily Pakistan in 1997; behind him on the wall is an AK-74 carbine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Each of these images shows a different man. Image via Wikipedia

In a bombshell–In an email from May 2001, Burton writes “While STRATFOR believes bin Laden had become tactically irrelevant since 9/11, he remained symbolically important and a focal point for the U.S. intelligence effort.”

This surely is an explosive story. Most Americans, and many around the world do not buy the official American theory. Now the theory is bursting at the seams–the explosive news destroys the credibility of those who called any alternative story a conspiracy.

  • At 5:26 a.m. on May 2, the morning after Barack Obama announced the successful raid on bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound, Stratfor CEO George Friedman sent an email with the subject “[alpha] OBL” that said:
  • Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.
  • Fred Burton, Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, followed that up at 5:51 a.m. with an email titled “[alpha] Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane” that said:
  • Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.
  • At 1:36 p.m. Burton replied to a thread named “Re: OBL’s corpse” with the message.
SHANKSVILLE, PA - MAY 2:  Newspapers left by v...Each of these images shows a different man. Image by Getty Images via @daylife

There is an overwhelming body of evidence which dents the official story about this man.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/the-fbis-awful-bin-laden-photoshop

According to press reports, the authorities in Abbotabad have demolished the compound where Laden allegedly lived and died. Meanwhile in Islamabad, Pakistan’s civil and military authorities have rejected American businessman Mansoor Ijaz’s claim that President Asif Ali Zardari had told Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani that the covert US operation against Osama bin laden was carried out with his approval.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

OBL was not buried at sea: Stratfor analysts

Al-Qaeda Chief Osama Bin Laden, who was killed on the May 02 last year in US Special Forces operation in Abbottabad, was not buried at sea but his body was shifted to the military mortuary in Dover, claimed a report on Monday.

The Stratfor analysts did not believe that Osama bin Laden was buried at sea, according to Stratfor emails leaked by WikiLeaks.

According to leaked secret files of Statfor, a US security agency, Osama was not buried at sea in an Islamic ceremony but his body was shifted to the military mortuary in Dover, DE, on a CIA plane.

Then it was shifted to the medical institute of US armed forces in Maryland for examination.

At 5:26 a.m. on May 2, the morning after Barack Obama announced the successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound, Stratfor CEO George Friedman sent an email that said: “Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.”

Fred Burton, Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, followed that up at 5:51 a.m. with an email titled “[alpha] Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane” that said: “Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.”

At 1:36 p.m. Burton replied to a thread named “Re: OBL’s corpse” with the message: “Body is Dover bound, should be here by now.”

That contradicts the official story that bin Laden’s body was handled in accordance with Islamic tradition and released into the sea from a U.S. Navy vessel.

H.R. 347: Another Step in the Elimination of the First Amendment

https://tatoott1009.com/

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 5, 2012

It is fairly obvious Obama and Congress rushed through H.R. 347 in order to curtail demonstrations that will undoubtedly occur during both Democrat and Republican conventions this summer. Also known as the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” the bill makes it a felony to disrupt or protest at any place or event attended by any person with secret service protection.

photo

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway,” Michigan Rep. Justin Amash wrote on his Facebook page. “[H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

Amash, Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, and Ron Paul were the lone dissenting voices opposed to this bill, which is being called  the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” designed specifically to counter the Occupy movement and other political groups opposed to the bankster regime in control of the Congress and the presidency. Democrats have characterized opposition to the bill as “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing.”

Gene Howington, a guest blogger on law professor Jonathan Turley’s blog, contends that the government deliberately made the language of H.R. 347 vague and overly broad. Howington writes that “it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing ‘wiggle room’ for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority.”

While the recently enacted and also vaguely worded NDAA “poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition,” Howington notes. “As currently worded, it might as well have been called the ‘Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011′ or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the ‘First Amendment Rights Eradication Act’ because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are ‘authorized’ to be protected by the Secret Service.”

In 1998, Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62 establishing the National Special Security Events, or NSSE, a directive making the Secret Service responsible for security at designated events, including presidential nominating conventions. Other events under NSEE include summits of world leaders, meetings of international organizations, and presidential inaugurations. In other words, with the passage of this bill, it will now be a felony to protest the G20 and globalist “trade” summits and other neoliberal confabs where international banksters and their minions plot our future behind closed doors.

Such a draconian restriction of the First Amendment is another step in an effort to outlaw all protest against the government, especially at events where the controllers discuss and finalize their plans to implement world government and a centralized global banking system. The global elite have repeatedly demonstrated their animosity toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Taking down the First Amendment – in addition to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and most importantly the Second – under the bogus and contrived aegis of a manufactured war on terror amply reveals what they have a mind: a gulag panopticon where resistance is not only futile, but illegal, and where the slaves are disarmed and powerless to effectuate change

.++++++++++++++++++++++


This is a video of why we are no longer a constitutional nation,But a dictatorship.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.347:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency
1752(a)(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

1752(a)(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds;

1752(c)(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

Does H.R. 347 Change Anything About Your Right to Protest Politicians Under Secret Service Protection? It’s All In the Word Change.

| March 1, 2012

As Brian Doherty noted below, on Tuesday the House passed H.R. 347 [pdf], officially known as The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Now all it needs to become law is President Obama’s approving signage.

Contrarian standbys Congressmen Justin Amash (R-MI) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted nay, but the bill passed 388-3. Rep. Amash wrote that the the bill “violates our rights”, but Michael Mahassey, the communications director for the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Thomas J.Rooney (R-Florida), sounding irritated on Wednesday (while he implied that I was not the first person to call and ask about it). Mahassey called the reaction to the bill “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.”

H.R. 347, said Mahassey, is simply a DC-centric update of already existing law. Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, already protects those under Secret Service protection — except in Washington D.C. where these protections fall under local laws against trespassing, etc. Mahassey said that the Secret Service requested the changes to this law because “right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

Not exactly the abolition of the First Amendment, is it? RT and The New American’s warnings are hopefully an exaggeration.

But there’s reason to worry says Will Adams, the deputy chief of staff for Congressman Amash. Yes, the law updates as Mahssey said. It brings the DC trespassing violations under the federal umbrella and “Amash has no issue with that.” But also does imply something else which inspired Amash to vote “nay.”

Adams, who is a lawyer by trade, like his boss, explained the changes in updates from the previous statute in layman’s terms. It all comes down the words “willfully” and “knowingly”. As Amash wrote on his facebook (and Doherty noted):

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal. (It expands the law by changing “willfully and knowingly” to just “knowingly” with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

To elaborate on what seems to be subtle legal stuff, the current law being amended, Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, would be here. Note that the words are “willfully” and “knowingly” are there. H.R. 347 is here. The word “willfully” is indeed gone. What does that mean exactly?

Adams pointed me towards U.S. v. Bursey in which:

Brett Bursey was convicted in early 2004 — after a bench trial conducted by a magistrate judge in the District of South Carolina — of willfully and knowingly entering and remaining in a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area where the President was temporarily visiting

Bursey visited a South Carolina airbase with the intention of protesting the then-imminent Iraq war. He remained in an area that the Secret Service had coordinated off for 20 or so minutes, arguing his right to stay there. His state trespassing charges were dismissed, but he was then charged under Section 1752 of title 18 above. According to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bursey argued:

first, he maintains that the trial court erred in finding that he was in a “restricted area” at the time of his October 2002 arrest; second, he contends that the court erred in finding that he possessed the requisite criminal intent

They also noted in their decision to reject his appeal, some of the finer points of the difference between “willfully” and “knowingly””:

As the Bryan Court observed… for a defendant to have acted willfully, he must merely have “acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.”…we focus our discussion on whether Bursey “willfully” violated the Statute, because, generally, “[m]ore is required” with respect to conduct performed willfully than conduct performed knowingly… requires “more culpable” mens rea than knowing violation).As a general proposition, the statutory term “knowingly” requires the Government to prove only that the defendant had knowledge of the facts underlying the offense

Bursey was fined a measly 500 dollars, but the precedent is there. And remember, the punishment under both the new and old versions of section 1752 are “not more than one year” in jail for the trespass, and “not more than ten years” if “the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm.” However, as Adams summed it up an email:

The bill makes it illegal knowingly to enter or remain in a restricted building or grounds without legal authority to do so.  A restricted building or grounds is defined as a “restricted area” where a person protected by the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting.”  According to federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3056), the Secret Service is authorized to protect “visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments” and “other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States.”

So, let’s say a G-20 meeting is hosted in the U.S. and the Secret Service decides it wants a larger perimeter surrounding the event where only G-20 members and staff can be.  A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law—with up to 10 years in prison if they’re carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they’re not—for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal.

So it’s hard to know the exact implications of this one-word change, especially when some very nasty, excessive crack-downs happen already in cases like G-20 summit protests. But law is precedent and interpretation. So in a world where the National Defense Authorization Act maybe allows for the indefiniate detainment of citizens, but maybe not, but the President says he won’t use the power so trust him, governments don’t need one more inch – not one more word of excuse — to crack down on protest and speech. The cult of the presidency has gone far enough.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

imprecise Language and the Risks of H.R. 347

Published 1, March 3, 2012 Congress , Constitutional Law , Free Speech , Politics 48 Comments

Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

Coincidentally and often, abuses of civil or human rights in the United States derive from the same source as law made via precedent. That source is vague or overly broad legislation and imprecise use of language.  As a matter of good drafting practice, this is why precision language is encouraged – to provide clarity and minimize ambiguity in the letter of the law. When vague laws create issues in court, the court either makes a ruling creating precedent and consequently a plan of action for how to address the issue moving forward although occasionally a law is overturned in toto for vagueness and the legislature can take a fresh swing writing the law.

However, it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing “wiggle room” for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice. The issue of vagueness is at the heart of the NDAA scandal as recently discussed on the blog here, here and here. While the NDAA poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347, innocuously titled the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011″. As currently worded, it might as well have been called the “Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011″ or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are “authorized” to be protected by the Secret Service.  Being that the bill passed on a House vote 388-3 and is currently coming out of committee in the Senate, its progress is something civil libertarians and activists may want to monitor.

This is H.R. 347 (proposed 18 U.S.C. § 1752) in its entirety as it is coming out of committee:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘(a) Whoever–
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–
‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–
‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
‘(c) In this section–
‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–
‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’. [emphasis added]

Contrast this with how 18 U.S.C. § 1752 is currently worded:

18 U.S.C. § 1752 : US Code – Section 1752: Temporary residences and offices of the President and others

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons –
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in
(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of
the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, or
(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area
of a building or grounds where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress
thereto:
(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of
Government business or official functions, to engage in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to,
any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or
egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or
enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical
violence against any person or property in any building, grounds,
or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this
title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States
attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the
place where the offense occurred.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized –
(1) to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which
constitute the temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, and
(2) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to
such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting.
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
(f) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by
the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret
Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title
when such person has not declined such protection.”

As the bill relevantly cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3056, selected portions of that code read:

18 U.S.C. § 3056 : US Code – Section 3056: Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service
(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the
following persons:
(1) The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in
the order of succession to the Office of President), the
President-elect, and the Vice President-elect.
(2) The immediate families of those individuals listed in
paragraph (1).
(3) Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes,
except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event
of remarriage unless the former President did not serve as
President prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former
Presidents and their spouses for a period of not more than ten
years from the date a former President leaves office, except that

(A) protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of
remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former President;
and
(B) should the death of a President occur while in office or
within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive
protection for one year from the time of such death:
Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the
authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary
protection for any of these individuals at any time if the
Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that
information or conditions warrant such protection.
(4) Children of a former President who are under 16 years of
age for a period not to exceed ten years or upon the child
becoming 16 years of age, whichever comes first.
(5) Visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments.
(6) Other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States
and official representatives of the United States performing
special missions abroad when the President directs that such
protection be provided.
(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and,
within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses
of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term “major
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those
individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland
Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority
leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority
leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the
other members of the committee.
The protection authorized in paragraphs (2) through (7) may be
declined.
(d) Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or
interferes with a Federal law enforcement agent engaged in the
performance of the protective functions authorized by this section
or by section 1752 of this title shall be fined not more than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” [emphasis added]

The root of the problem with this legislation lies in the omission of the word “willfully” to make the condition simply “knowingly” in conjunction with the phrase “or so that, such conduct, in fact”.  The use of this conditional phrase effectively nullifies the intent component in the absence of “willfully” being explicitly stated.  You may not have willfully or knowingly done anything other than exercise your free speech and free assembly rights, but if you “in fact” “[impede] or [disrupt] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions”, you can be arrested and charged under this proposed revision of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 whether the impediment or disruption was willful or not.  The reworded law as the bill is currently formulated effectively does away with intent as a requirement in addition to expanding the meaning of the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ to mean virtually any place in proximity to or place proper a government function or an “event of national interest” is taking place. This would allow for the arrest of protesters  just about anywhere.  Outside political rallies, near the hotels of visiting foreign dignitaries, outside sporting or other public events like the Super Bowl . . .  you get the idea.

Is this an instance of vague/imprecise language creating the potential for civil rights abuses?

Or it this an instance of purposefully vague/imprecise language to allow the government to infringe upon your rights to free speech, assembly and petition?

What do you think?

Kudos: ekeyra

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill Passes House: Protests Near Secret Service Protected Folk Effectively Outlawed

| March 1, 2012

In case you question the value of having a Justin Amash or a Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, they were two of only three votes against H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.”

As reprinted in this angry Salon blog post, Rep. Amash’s reasons for objecting:

a more truthful moniker for HR 347 would be the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act”. As Representative Amash lamented on his Facebook page:

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. [H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal… [And to] show you the extent to which the public is misled and misinformed about the legislation we are voting on, read one prominent media outlet’s coverage of the same bill: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/212873-house-approves-white-house-trespass-bill-sends-to-obama The report mischaracterizes not only current law but also the changes proposed by the bill.”

Full text of the bill, which includes all its penalties for attempting or conspiring to do the forbidden disruption as well. Those penalties are:

 The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is–

‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if–

‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

 And the laws own language on how you run afoul of it:

 In this section–‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

Russia Today with more about how this law could be abused:

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well….

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection….

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

The vote tally of shame. Where is your Dennis Kucinich now, progressives?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

H. R. 347
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and twelve
An Act
To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings
or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings
and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘‘(a) Whoever—
‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building
or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the
orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;
‘‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt
the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted
building or grounds; or
‘‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence
against any person or property in any restricted building or
grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided
in subsection (b).
‘‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—
‘‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense,
uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;
or
‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as
defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both, in any other case.
‘‘(c) In this section—
H. R. 347—2
‘‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction
with an event designated as a special event of national
significance; and
‘‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’
means any person whom the United States Secret Service is
authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by
Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined
such protection.’’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.