yellowstone idaho cern-SPACEWAR-LCH sandhook74

George Soros pledges $10 million to defeat Sheriff Joe for reelection

https://tatoott1009.com/

yellowstone idaho cern-SPACEWAR-LCH sandhook 7
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is under siege by the Obama administration.

Obama has joined forces with George Soros and “La Raza” – not to mention the ENTIRE Leftwing liberal political establishment – in a multi-million dollar smear campaign to DESTROY AND DISCREDIT Sheriff Joe, “America’s Toughest Sheriff” solely for doing his job and






OBAMA ATTACKS ‘AMERICA’S SHERIFF’

Sheriff Joe Under Seige!

Fellow Patriot,

yellowstone idaho cern-SPACEWAR-LCH sandhook74Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is under siege by the Obama administration.

Obama has joined forces with George Soros and “La Raza” – not to mention the ENTIRE Leftwing liberal political establishment – in a multi-million dollar smear campaign to DESTROY AND DISCREDIT Sheriff Joe, “America’s Toughest Sheriff” solely for doing his job and doing it well.

And to top it all off, they are spending millions of YOUR tax dollars to do it!

Already, federal bureaucrats handpicked by this administration are working as “monitors” in Sheriff Joe’s Maricopa County office to stop him from enforcing immigration law.

More than anything else, the Spender-in-Chief wants to stop Sheriff Joe from continuing the Cold Case Posse investigation of his Constitutional eligibility to be President – an investigation which has already unearthed ‘probable cause’ and evidence of a systemic effort to cover-up and conceal information surrounding Barack Hussein Obama’s alleged citizenship.

Radical amnesty fanatics just held a protest demanding that the federal government step in and strip Sheriff Joe of his badge – Obama’s buddy George Soros even pledged $10 million to defeat Sheriff Joe for reelection!

We know Obama’s utter failure to reign in HIS out-of-control spending has left you broke as gas prices continue to soar right along with the cost of groceries. And let’s not forget, many of us will be forking over OUR hard-earned dollars to Uncle Sam this coming Tuesday to pay for Obama’s nanny-state and welfare for the 12 million illegal immigrants whose fraudulent votes he’s depending on for reelection.

Time and time again YOU have rallied to defeat illegal immigration by fighting to secure our borders and defeat backdoor amnesty. You have supported patriots running for office and held them accountable for sticking to their guns when it comes enforcing our immigration laws. Now, we’re asking you to rally for Sheriff Joe.

Make no mistake: Your decision to support Sheriff Joe WILL determine whether he wins or loses the upcoming re-election for Sheriff. 

We know you are broke.  Obama has made sure of that. We know you are sick and tired of the career politicians reciting pretty speeches about securing the borders only to turn a blind-eye once they had your vote.

But Sheriff Joe is no career politician, and unlike Barack Hussein Obama, Sheriff Joe listens to the AMERICAN people – U.S. Citizens, the folks, you and me.

Sheriff Joe is “public enemy number one” to this administration and Hypocrite Holder’s U.S. Justice Department – because he refuses to watch illegal immigration destroy our country, and despite the White House’s relentless pressure and smear campaigns against him, Sheriff Joe has not and will not back down.

Sheriff Joe is in the fight of his life, and he’s fighting it for us.

Now, we must fight for him.

Barack Obama and the Department of Justice are bringing lawsuit after lawsuit against America’s Toughest Sheriff. They’ve conspired to place Sheriff Joe’s office in a type of

federal “receivership” – essentially stripping Sheriff Joe of his power and flooding his office with Obama’s mindless minions straight from bureaucratic Washington – all so they can stop Sheriff Joe’s crackdown on illegal immigration in its tracks! Obama’s public relations team has even touted their efforts against Sheriff Joes as ones made to protect the ‘civil rights’ of illegal immigrants.Sheriff Joe needs your help, and he needs it now. Please, make the most generous contribution you can possibly afford to defend Sheriff Joe from Obama’s vindictive smear machine! Millions of dollars of warped, hate-filled ads are going to bombard Maricopa County as the Leftwing prepares to do whatever it takes to defeat Sheriff Joe.We need to be able to fight back with ads of our own. We need to be able to stand alongside Sheriff Joe and take down this administration once and for all.
NO ONE in the mainstream media is reporting the White House’s behind-the-scenes battle preparations as they ready for the most high-stakes election – an election of unparalleled importance when it comes to battling illegal immigration. You see, Maricopa County Arizona is THE busiest drug- and human-trafficking corridor along the U.S.-Mexico border. If we can stem the flow of illegal immigration there, and continue enforcing the zero-tolerance policy when it comes to illegal immigration, we have taken back the upperhand and we have a chance to take back our country. Sheriff Joe and his fellow officers are our only hope to secure the border and enforce OUR laws – not Mexico’s, not the United Nations’, and certainly not Obama’s warped interpretation of them – but the ones written in the books that declare those who illegally enter our country to be CRIMINALS to be deported back to their home countries, not given access to our taxpayer funded public services or snuck into the voting booths to bolster Obama’s radical agenda. And certainly not rewarded with amnesty at the expense of our future!
Sheriff Joe has made enemies of the most selfish person in the country – a person that has unlimited resources – and you better believe, Barack Obama has everything to lose if Sheriff Joe wins reelection.Already, in the near two years of just some of Arizona’s no-nonsense immigration laws being enforced by Sheriff Joe’s office, Americans are filling the jobs once held by illegal immigrants and the burden on public resources has dropped as illegal immigrants flee either south of the border or to neighboring sanctuary states where there are no Sheriff Joes dedicated to standing up for the American people.Sheriff Joe is a hero. Never doubt that.But instead of being treated like the America-loving Patriot that he is, and applauded for doing his job and enforcing the law, he is being subjected to the most vicious liberal smear campaign paid for with your tax dollars and Soros’ pocket-change.We know an Obama gallon of gas is more than $5/gallon in many places and that food prices are rising. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a local election about local needs. We need to keep Sheriff Joe in office not just for the security of Maricopa County but for the ENTIRE United States of America.  Every aspect of our future – our children and our grandchildren’s future – depends on bringing Barack Hussein Obama down, and Sheriff Joe is the man for the job.Sheriff Joe has risked EVERYTHING to stand up for us. We MUST stand up for him!SELECT HERE TO STAND UP FOR SHERIFF JOE!For America,Minuteman PAC
##################################





3/12/2012 updateTypewriter-Obama’s ‘Typed’ Long Form Birth Cert Forged.avi

Obama boycotting Georgia eligibility hearing
Lawyer urges secretary of state to cancel inquiry

 

 

 

 



Published: 21 hours ago

author-image by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓
UnhappyObama

 

Barack Obama has announced through his attorney that he will boycott the administrative hearings scheduled tomorrow in Georgia to review evidence of whether he legitimately is a candidate for the presidency, prompting an attorney for one set of the plaintiffs to describe the nation’s commander-in-chief as acting like a “5-year-old brat.”

A letter apparently from his lawyer, Michael Jablonski, was posted today on the website for California attorney Orly Taitz, whose determined pursuit of Obama’s eligibility documentation has taken her to courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jablonski told Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp in the letter that “serious problems” had developed in the hearings “pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.”

 

 

 

He said, “At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Jablonski said the judge – who previously rejected Obama’s demand to quash a subpoena for him to appear and bring with him his birth records documenting his status as a “natural-born citizen” – has “exercised no control” over the proceeding.

“It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,” Jablonski wrote.

In a response that was posted online after hours, Kemp said the case referral was “in keeping with Georgia law.”

“As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.”

He continued, “I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.”

He also had a warning about the costs of simply not showing up for a court hearing.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

“We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26,” Jablonski wrote in the letter on the Taitz site, which indicated it had been sent to the participants in the case.

A blast of sarcasm aimed at Obama also was posted on the Taitz site.

“What Obama is asking now is totally insane,” it said. “He is asking the secretary of state of GA to take the trial away from the judge on the eve of the trial. He is mostly crying on the shoulder of the secretary of state of GA and saying that Orly is bad, because she issued all of those subpoenas. So after the judge told Obama that the subpoena that I issued was perfectly valid and he had to appear in court tomorrow and bring with him all of the documents that I demanded, Obama decided to go behind the back of the judge and send the same complaint about me to the secretary of state and he is asking the secretary of state to take the trial away from the judge.

“Does this look like a behavior of an innocent person? An innocent person would have come to court and showed all the valid documents with the embossed seals, which are verifiable,” the statement said. “Instead he is acting like a 5-year-old brat, saying, ‘I am afraid of Orly, I want the secretary of state of GA to act like my mommy and protect me from Orly.’ Some leader of the free world.”
The hearings are being brought by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elec
tions in America, and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Jablonski told Kemp he should simply “withdraw” the original hearing request as “improvidently issued.”

“It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here – a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website,” he wrote.

Jablonski accused Malihi of allowing the attorneys to “run amok.”

“Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office – that it address constitutional issues – is by law not within its authority.”

Obama, meanwhile, has a campaign trip to several Midwest and Western states lined up over the next few days.

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

The judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

 

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had received a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the purpose apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligibility, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.

Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.

He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.

Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of her court cases, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Barack Obama

Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural-born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves,
upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”


 

DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA. The term “natural born citizen” has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA.
Obama’s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!
—See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
—See evidence that Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
—Just type the keywords Obama long form birth certificate forgery in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why Obama’s long form birth certificate is simply a forgery!!!
—Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii and to check directly the original long form birth certificate and in particular to assess if even this original is genuine that is if it is not also a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama was never born in Hawaii!!
2) Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
We know that Obama’s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!

More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.

Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain’s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.

First Conclusion:
—Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
—Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
—THIS HUGE DECEPTION IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!

If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a “natural born citizen” truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
In particular, read:
—”The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

Second conclusion:
—If you are a rational person, no matter your political affiliation, you surely will be forced to conclude that the facts speak for themselves and that there is no doubt legally that a “natural born citizen” indeed requires that the President of the USA has to have two parents that were BOTH American citizens at the time of Obama’s birth.
—The Constitution of the USA is sacred to any American citizen AND it applies to every single American citizen, no matter one’s political affiliation, no matter one’s color of the skin, no matter what!!!!
Therefore, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF LAW LIKE ANYBODY ELSE (NOT ABOVE IT!!!) AND IN PARTICULAR OBAMA IS UNDER THE RULE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA LIKE ANYBODY ELSE!!!!
—You now have the facts fully on the table concerning what a “natural born citizen” truly is, you cannot evade the truth about these facts!!!
Now, what path are you going to choose?
1) Keep Lying and hiding the facts, hoping that they will disappear by themselves!! Or
2) Choose to acknowledge these facts fully and be determin
ed to fight for the truth?
The choice is yours! But the Constitution of the USA is at stake!!!

==============================================================
Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states
Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral
Published: 1 day ago
author-image by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓
rss feed Subscribe to author feed

inShare56
Printer Friendly
Share
Text smaller
Text bigger

obama-worried

An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend the junior Obama was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Du
mmett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sunday, March 4, 2012
CBS: Sheriff Joe’s Investigation Into Obama’s Forged Records; One of the Biggest Scandals
ObamaRelease YourRecords on 12:54 PM

CBS News: Sheriff Joe’s Investigation Into Obama’s Forged Records; One of the Biggest Scandals – VIDEO HERE

FLASHBACK to JUNE 2011: Obama’s Forged Selective Service Registration: Please explain why Obama’s Selective Service Registration date stamp is missing the 19 in it. – SEE COMPLETE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE HERE

The stamp on Obama’s selective service registration has only two digits. This video demonstrates how it could have been made.

Sheriff Joe’s Entire Obama Investigation Press Conference, 3-1-2012

 

 

See all the video presentations shown at Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference here: http://www.teapartypowerhour.com/videos

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Private Investigator: Obama’s Fraudulent Social Security Number & Selective Service Registration

19 Dec 2011: Wash Times Ad – Obama SSN Fails E-Verify System – Support New Article II Super PAC Org

Private Investigator: Obama’s Fraudulent Social Security Number & Selective Service Registrationhttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/57169354/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list

New Version of American Flag Bearing the Face of President Obama Hangs in New Jersey

https://tatoott1009.com/


Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
April 6, 2012

A CBS News affiliate in Philadelphia reported on an incident this week, where a local South Jersey resident has been flying the stars and stripes – only there are no the stars representing the 50 states. In their place was the emblazoned image of Barack Obama.

Residents complained that this new ’Obama Stripes’ version of the American Flag violates the United States official flag code

One elderly resident appeared to be visibly shaken for fear she would be branded as a ‘racist’ for showing her disapproval of the Obama Stripes.  She explains, “I don’t want to be called a racist because I object to an American flag where the stars are removed – to put a face. I don’t care if it’s a can of peas, it doesn’t belong on my American Flag.” 

This has come a month after a similar event took place in Florida, where the Obama Stripes were seen hanging outside of the Lake County Democrat Party office. This apparently sent one Korean war veteran, Don Van Beck’s blood boiling.

WFTV Channel 9 interviewed Van Beck who explained, “I can’t describe how upset I was because you just don’t do that to the American flag,” Van Beck said.

Marine Corps vet John Masterjohn was seeing red, stating, “Joseph Stalin, pictures of Mao, pictures of Adolph Hitler. The pomp, the ceremony – the flags like that”.

    <li

    >#############################


Indeed, Masterjohn has a valid point. The soviet-style agitprop art which was the hallmark of Obama’s 2008 election craze, and undoubtedly helped to propell him into a ‘cult of personality’ – seemed to die off in the last and a half. But as the election year rolls forward in 2012, these two incidents may only be scratching the surface of what American can expect in terms of Obama’s iconic-agitprop imagery over the next 8 months.

History shows however, that whenever societies are lured into a cult of personality-led government, a rapid slide into tryanny almost always ensues.

The image of the rising sun which was Obama’s official logo (pictured below) crafted by PR guru Sol Sender, and bears remarkable resemblence to other iconic socialist logos throughout history.

 

It is already widely accepted that Barack Obama was influenced by the radical leftist teacher Saul Alinsky, and proceeded to follow in his footsteps as a Chicago-based “community organizer”. In this same fashion, Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign also has many of the characteristics of Alinsky’s teachings, employing class warfare themes.

Where the cult of personality becomes more dangerous, is when citizens exhibit a blind loyalty to their icon, a condition which is similar to celebrity worship. As the American police state has progressed rapidly under the current adminstration with the passage of a number of unconstitutional executive orders like the NDAA, this seemingly ‘blind loyalty’ could also be influenced subtly by a fear of the state.

Only a few days earlier, many a constitutional scholar were left with their jaws dropped down near their ankles, following Obama’s White House lawn speech, where he dismissed the US Supreme Court, as an “Unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitutional and passed law”, referring to their ability to overturn Obamacare legislation as unconstitutional.

Such a statement could be viewed as disturbing to 21st century America, considering the record amount of unlawfull executive orders and signing statements which have taken place under both GW Bush and Obama over the last 12 years.

Above all these stories, however, is a not so distant memory of how the Democrat media machine and its army of underlings shamelessly employed elementary school children during their campaign- in brutal fashion, but glossed it over with an extremely slick marketing finish. In this game of Goebells-style campaigning, the school teachers who allowed their students to be politicized in the way are probably most to blame. Either way, it make for very frightening viewing. Watch:

 Although the Obama flag appears to be a flagrant violation of all things American, it pales in comparison to the video of the school children singing his theme song.

Food for though here: even Adolf Hitler never had his face printed on the German flag, which you could say… only makes this latest trend slightly worrying.

Similar/Related Articles

 

  1. Who Decided That It Was Okay To Replace The Stars On The American Flag With The Face Of Barack Obama?
  2. Obama becomes the first U.S. President to hold press conference without any American Flags present
  3. FOX News Suggests Banning the American Flag
  4. Teacher Refuses to Display Student’s Drawing of American Flag
  5. Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees
  6. American flag shirts ignite firestorm
  7. U.N. Flag Stands Taller than the American Flag in Local Village Court
  8. Spanish Language Version of Charlie Sheen’s Video Message to President Obama
  9. Businessman asked to remove American flag
  10. School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike
  11. School Forces Student to Remove American Flag Shirt
  12. Vet Faces Lawsuit For Flying American Flag
OBAMAFLYsnapshot_0051

Judge Napolitano: “Obama Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism”

https://tatoott1009.com/

“No president in modern times has questioned their authority.”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 6, 2012

Constitutional expert Judge Andrew Napolitano says he fears that the president is skirting “dangerously close to totalitarianism” with his recent questioning of the authority of the Supreme Court to conduct a review of ObamaCare.

Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday, the Judge warned that Obama was systematically flouting the system of checks and balances established by the founding fathers.

“A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.” Napolitano said.

“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”

“I think he has some problems with understanding the Constitution or accepting limitations on his power.” the Judge added.

During a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden in February, Obama said “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” adding “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”

Earlier this week Obama appeared to challenge the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take an “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his health reform law.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

The president then stated “…for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said. “Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

In essence, Obama appears to be making the case that the Constitution is outdated because it allows for “an unelected group of people” to make judicial decisions.

Judge Napolitano points out that this is an extreme view for anyone to take, let alone a president.

“There are equal branches of the government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.” Napolitano noted.

“No president in modern times has questioned their authority.”

“This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson.” The Judge urged.

Watch the video below:

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Similar/Related Articles

 

  1. Judge Napolitano: Health-Care Reform and the Constitution
  2. Obama May Make “Unelected” Supreme Court a Campaign Issue
  3. 12 Signs That We Are Getting Dangerously Close To War With Syria
  4. Judge Napolitano: An Open Letter To John Boehner — Stand Up for The People!
  5. Janet Napolitano, Supreme Court Justice?
  6. Judge Napolitano on Obama’s EO to Hold Detainees Indefinitely
  7. 24 Signs That We Are Getting Dangerously Close To A Major War In The Middle East
  8. Judge Napolitano: Why State Efforts Against Obamacare Are Doomed
  9. 9/11 Family Group: Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera Are Right to Question Building 7 Collapse
  10. Olbermann says Fox must fire Judge Napolitano for being a 9/11 truther
  11. 9/11 Family Group: Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera Are Right to Question Building 7 Collapse
  12. Judge Napolitano on Congressional Power
  13. ########################

  14. DOJ Attempts to Install Their Own ‘Embedded Monitor’ in Sheriff Joe’s Office

  15. Patrick Henningsen
    Infowars.com
    April 6, 2012PHOENIX – Arizona continues to set the stage as a battleground pitting local and state’s rights against the federal government’s inclination to control how states are allowed to govern their own affairs.

    The Department of Justice in Washington has accused Sheriff Joe Arapio’s Office of engaging in what they describe as ‘racial profiling and mistreatment of illegals aliens and hispanics’ and alleged ‘human rights violations’ in its patrols and jails.

    The DOJ has refused to present any of its alleged evidence to support their charges, yet, they are still moving forward and are threatening to sue if Arpaio does not comply. Not intimidated by Washington’s threats, Maricopa County’s own Attorney General Bill Mongomery told the DOJ yesterday, “put up or shut up”.

    Negoiations between the Sheriff’s Office and the DOJ came to a halt on Tuesday when Arpaio flatly refused to allow a court-appointed embedded DOJ ”monitor” stationed in his office full-time, a move which many critics describe as a federal power-grab, aimed at controlling Arpaio, a duly elected office holder representing 4.5 million residents in the Phoenix area.

    Maricopa County is not the only Sheriff’s office under DOJ investigation. Arpaio explains, “They been investigating 20 other departments recently with their civil rrights unit in the Department of Justice.” In an earlier FOX interview last December, Arpaio stated flatly, “I’m not going to back down because of politics, because the President wants to get the hispanic vote.”

    “What is this, a poker game? They want to go to court, we’ll be glad to meet them in court”, blasted Arpaio.

     

    The DOJ has already spent millions of dollars to date through their three year investigation into Arpaio’s office, including applying pressure on Arpaio to resign as elected Sheriff.

    If a compromise cannot be reached between the two parties, the DOJ contends that it will file a federal lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, a legal battle which is likely to cost millions for both sides, and could drag on for years.

    There may be other political reasons to force an Arpaio resignation in 2012, besides what critics claim as currying favor with Arizona’s hispanic voting bloc before the November elections. Not least of all, is because of the Sheriff’s Office’s own Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the validity of President Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service draft card.

    According to his team, early returns for the investigation have turned up conclusive evidence on two counts. “What we are looking at is two possible forged government documents”, explains Arpaio.

    On the strength of Arpaio’s investigation into Obama, the Arizona State Legislature went on to draft HB 2480 that would require Barack Obama to prove his eligibility as a US President, and would also determine whether his name would appear on the state ballot come November.

    Since the Obama I.D. bill was lodged two weeks ago, it has met with some resistance, being intentionally held-up by certain members of the state senate.

    Regardless of the outcome of HB 2480, the Sheriff’s Office says they will remain steadfast in their investigation, and will continue to follow-up on evidence of forgery and fraud in the Obama case.

    Similar/Related Articles
    1. Sheriff Arpaio office lawyers to meet with DOJ
    2. Obama Fanatic Found Guilty of Threats to Kill Sheriff Joe and Family
    3. Justice Department Gives Second Ultimatum in Sheriff Arpaio Investigation
    4. U.S. may sue Arizona’s Sheriff Arpaio for not cooperating in investigation
    5. Arizona Sheriff Vows to Enforce Immigration Law Whether ‘Feds’ Like It or Not
    6. Arizona Sheriff tasks ‘Cold Case Posse’ to investigate Obama’s birth certificate
    7. DHS strips Arizona sheriff of authority to patrol for illegal immigrants
    8. Arizona Sheriff, U.S. in Standoff Over Immigration Enforcement
    9. DHS to takeover Arizona Sheriff jurisdiction on illegals
    10. Ariz. Sheriff To Appeal Profiling Case Ruling
    11. Mexican drug cartel puts bounty out on Arizona sheriff
    12. Arpaio Has ‘No Intention’ of Testifying Before Conyers Committee on Alleged Immigration Enforcement Abuses
    13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feVLB9aYQx0&feature=player_embedded
      ############################
    14. Hutaree Militiamen Cleared In Court

    15. Chuck Baldwin
      Infowars.com
      April 6, 2012Much to the chagrin of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a federal judge has cleared the members of a Michigan militia who were accused by federal law enforcement agents of conspiracy to commit sedition. Since you didn’t hear much about this ruling from the national press corps, here is one online version of the report:

      photoRaid of Hutaree “compound” in Michigan, March of 2010.

      Seven members of a Michigan militia have been cleared of plotting to overthrow the U.S. government as a judge dismissed the most serious charges against them.

      “In a shock defeat for federal authorities, District Judge Victoria Roberts said the group’s expressed hatred of law enforcement did not amount to a conspiracy.

      “The FBI secretly planted an informant and an agent inside the Hutaree militia in 2008 to collect hours of anti-government audio and video that became the cornerstone of the case.

      “Senior officials had insisted they had captured homegrown rural extremists poised for war.

      “But the judge said: ‘The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level.’’

      “Judge Roberts granted requests for acquittal on the most serious charges: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

      “Other weapons crimes linked to the alleged conspiracies were also dismissed.”

      Read more:

      http://tinyurl.com/7wp8jhe

      At this point, I believe it is necessary that I review a column I wrote on April 6, 2010, regarding the Hutaree militia raid. As you read the words that follow, please remember that they were written TWO YEARS AGO–almost to the day.

      [2010 column starts here] I want to try and expound on William Norman Grigg’s outstanding analysis of the Hutaree militia raid. In doing so, I am going to also expand upon Grigg’s reference to James Madison’s trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

      Referring to the federal indictment against the Hutaree militia, that alleged members were making preparations for potential armed conflict against law enforcement officers as a “seditious conspiracy,” Grigg astutely noted, “If they were acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in anticipation of defending themselves against government aggression, their actions–while possibly conspiratorial in nature–don’t amount to a crime. This is particularly true in light of our cultural history, in which sedition–agitation to change the existing political order–is our proudest civic tradition.”

      Grigg then rightly observes, “Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the indictment’s description of Hutaree as ‘an anti-government extremist organization which advocates violence against local, state and Federal law enforcement’ is a product of rhetorical onanism [from Genesis 38:9–a great analogy, Will].”

      As a general rule, government is the most violent force on the planet. If one wants to get a true perspective on the historical record regarding who or what routinely produces the most violence and death, one should pick up a copy of R. J. Rummel’s book, “Death By Government.” Since the end of World War II, Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it comes to death and brutality; however, the US government has inflicted its share of carnage as well. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and this figure is a conservative estimate noting the most credible resources possible).

      See: http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

      Also see: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

      Plus, does anyone remember the violence that our federal government enacted upon the Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember the mother shot in the head while innocently holding her little baby in her own home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (after her small son was shot in the back by federal agents)? In fact, the list of civilians who have been killed by federal law enforcement agents over the years is a very long one. Granted, many of these killings were done in lawful self-defense; but others amounted to nothing less than old-fashioned murder (and never was the federal agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

      If one wants to indict an “organization which advocates violence,” then surely the central government in Washington, D.C., should be indicted!

      If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone–in the government or without–they deserved to be stopped. If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government overreach or abuse–and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful self-defense–they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.

      To charge, however (as the indictment does), that Hutaree members (all 9 of them!) planned “to levy war against the United States, [and] to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States . . .” will take some doing to make stick. As Grigg points out, “If Hutaree was preparing for armed DEFENSE against criminal actions by government officials, this charge is as pointless as a broken pencil. If their efforts to ‘prevent, hinder, and delay’ various government initiatives were confined to activism, rather than armed conflict, they are–in that particular–not substantially different from hundreds or thousands of other groups.”

      The entire case against Hutaree appears to be based upon the testimony of an FBI undercover agent inside the group. Placing agent provocateurs inside groups such as Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police agencies. This part of the story was broken by the Wall Street Journal.

      See the WSJ report at:

      http://tinyurl.com/wsj-hutaree

      Using agent provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the Kremlin and the White House. Joel Skousen’s latest WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF contains an extremely trenchant and insightful analysis of how Russia and the US have used–and continue to use–this tactic.

      Skousen writes, “A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring of agent provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for destruction and induce radical elements of that group to perform crimes against innocent civilians that will justify armed retaliation or arrest. With the sudden surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest of the radical Hutaree group in the US, it is helpful to review the role of false flag terror attacks in Russia and the role of agent provocateurs in the US as we analyze what’s really going on.”

      further states, “As we move on to discuss the arrest of the radical members of the Hutaree cult in Michigan, it is important to note that virtually every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism in the past decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI informants. While none of us in America dispute the need to gain intelligence on re
      al threats to national security, we have to question the propriety of training and pressuring informants (most of which have been forced to accept the informant assignment in lieu of a prison term for other crimes committed) to provoke and induce angry and unstable dissidents to commit acts of terror.

      “All too often, FBI ‘informants’ have been pressured by superiors to go far beyond informing. They have provided weapons, explosives, and even acted as the guiding hand to map out the strategy and tactics for performing the deed. These things only come out reluctantly during trial, and even then I suspect that we are never allowed to know the full extent of these provocations.”

      To receive a sample of Joel Skousen’s WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe to this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to:

      editor@worldaffairsbrief.com

      In addition, Will Grigg states that another major component of the indictment that is worrisome is the charge that Hutaree is guilty of “seditious conspiracy.” As Grigg writes, “Whatever is eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently stand the indictment against it could provide a template for ‘seditious conspiracy’ prosecutions involving practically any group that endorses the use of defensive force to protect citizens against government aggression.

      “Indeed, the definition of ‘conspiracy’ used in the Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing James Madison’s commendably seditious admonition that the people preserve ‘the advantage of being armed’ in the event that insurrection against the central government proves necessary in order to preserve liberty.”

      Let’s look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by Founding Father, author of the US Constitution, and America’s fourth President, James Madison. In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing federal army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

      Madison went on to say, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

      Could Madison be any clearer? He (and the rest of America’s founders) emphatically expected the militia of the “several States” to be universally armed against the potential encroachment on liberty by the central government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be prepared to use their arms against any aggressive nature of the federal government to trample their freedoms.

      This, of course, reinforces the founders’ intent, that the 2nd Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the express purpose of providing the citizenry with the capability to repel (with violence) any assault against their liberties by their own federal government.

      So, pray tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements in Federalist 46 as “seditious conspiracy”? If so, perhaps we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!

      Furthermore, it is not lost to millions of Americans that this is the same federal government (through Department of Homeland Security fusion centers) that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who support the 2nd Amendment; people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration; people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and Iraq War veterans as “extremists” and potential “dangerous militia members.”

      But, once again, the federal government–along with their propagandists in the major news media, including its artificial authority on militias, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama–is able to use the Hutaree militia to demonize militias in general, and even more damaging, to try and destroy the concept of constitutional State militias in the minds of the American public.

      Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I have no idea. Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for the facts to come out–if indeed the federal government and national media even allow the facts to come out.

      I do know this: I do not trust the federal government to tell the truth about anything! They did not tell the truth about the Branch Davidians at Waco; they did not tell the truth about Randy Weaver; they did not tell the truth about Gordon Kahl; and, if their track record is any indicator, it is doubtful that they are telling the truth about the Hutaree militia. But we shall see.

      In the meantime, as William Norman Grigg opines, “There’s reason to believe that the Feds have expanded and escalated this ongoing enterprise to exploit, and exacerbate, growing public hostility toward an increasingly invasive and esurient government.

      “Whether it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to ‘levy war’ against the U.S. government, this much is beyond serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is unambiguously preparing for war with the public–in fact, it has been doing so for a long time.” [2010 column ends here]

      I invite readers to visit William Norman Grigg’s blog at:

      http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/03/causus-belli.html

      Well, now in 2012, the facts have all been laid bare. The Hutaree militia was innocent of the federal government’s conspiracy charges, and the federal government, once again, did not tell the truth. And, furthermore, the words written by yours truly and Will Grigg seem even more relevant today than they did two years ago, do they not?

      In closing, let me be very clear about this: I have nothing but appreciation and respect for honest, God-fearing law enforcement personnel. I count law enforcement personnel among my kinfolk, and I feel very privileged to have been made an honorary deputy sheriff by my former county sheriff. I certainly share no anti-law enforcement prejudice. But the current trend to militarize and federalize law enforcement is both unconstitutional and alarming. Even more alarming is the manner in which the federal government and its toadies at the SPLC are attempting to criminalize the expressions of freedom and constitutional government–the same words, thoughts, and ideas expressed by America’s Founding Fathers. To quote myself, “So, pray tell, would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements in Federalist 46 as ‘seditious conspiracy’? If so, perhaps we are closer
      to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!”

      In the meantime, congratulations to federal District Judge Victoria Roberts for representing the court in a manner consistent with the founders’ intentions: by using the gavel as a hammer to protect liberty rather than as a rubber stamp to dismantle it–as so many federal judges are inclined to do these days.

      This post first appeared on Chuck Baldwin’s website.

      Similar/Related Articles
      1. The Hutaree Militia Raid
      2. Hutaree Domestic Terrorism Trial Begins
      3. The Hutaree Case Falls Apart
      4. FBI Can’t Recall Details on Hutaree
      5. Judge OKs release of 2 Hutaree members
      6. Hutaree Militia Members Release Delayed
      7. Corporate Media Connects Hutaree Members to U.S. Military
      8. Hutaree Acquitted in Federal Terrorism Case
      9. The Manufactured Menace From Michigan, Take Two
      10. Judge acquits Hutaree militia members of conspiracy charges
      11. Precrimes, Hutaree, and Free Political Speech
      12. Judge grants bond for Hutaree militia members
      13. ###################
      14. “Not In Labor Force” At New All Time High

      15. Zero Hedge
        April 6, 2012March NFP big miss at just 120K. Unemployment rate declines from 8.3% to 8.2%. Futures slide, for at least a few minutes before the NEW QE TM rumor starts spreading. The household survey actually posted a decline in March from 142,065 to 142,034. Considering Birth Death added 90K to the NSA number, the actual number was almost unchanged. And as always, as we predicted when Goldman hiked its NFP forecast yesterday from 175K to 200K saying “if Goldman’s recent predictive track record is any indication, tomorrow’s NFP will be a disaster”, Goldie once again skewers everyone. Finally, Joe LaVorgna’s +250,000 forecast was just 100% off… as usual.

        The unemployment rate drops to 8.2% for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time highs: 87,897,000.

        Birth Death:


        Average:
        Similar/Related Articles
        1. Shrinking U.S. Labor Force Keeps Unemployment Rate From Rising
        2. Long-Term Unemployment Remains High, Millions Leave Labor Force
        3. Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 25 Year Low, Adjusted Unemployment Rate At 11.7%
        4. Real Unemployment Figures Double Those Reported By Labor Department
        5. “Labor Day” should be renamed “Corporation Day” or “War Day”
        6. Italy’s youth jobless hits record high 30 percent
        7. The Real Unemployment Rate Hits a 68-Year High
        8. Fed predicts high jobless rate through 2012
        9. Jobless Claims in U.S. Decreased Last Week to 456,000
        10. Manchester, New Hampshire Police Officer Uses Excessive Force on High School Student
        11. Fed Concludes Structurally High Unemployment is a Myth
        12. Oil down 50% from July high

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.