Tea Parties – Same Song, Second Verse
By David Barton
America's first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation. Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The "Indians" even swept the decks of the ships before they left.
Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales. And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent, but such was not the case.
Interestingly, in many ways, today's Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the "American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act"). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.
Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.
* "To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones." "Avoid occasions of expense...and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions...to discharge the debts." George Washington
* "Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to...extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt." Alexander Hamilton
* "The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness." "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson
These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress. Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that while Americans differ on the way they view the Tea Parties, they support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.
Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: "My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad." But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.
The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today's Tea Party rallies when he said: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!"
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
UN Global Gun Grab
Understanding the United Nations and US Gun Control
by Jennifer Kendall
On Monday, June 28, 2010, The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment during the trial of McDonald vs. Chicago. The 5-4 ruling confirmed that neither a state nor city, acting under a grant of authority from the state, could deny a person the right to possess a firearm. This was seen as a victory for gun rights activists, but with the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) treaty looming in the near future, this fight is far from over.
The U.N. program of action concerning SALW includes restrictions on the manufacturing, storing, transferring and possession of firearms and ammunition if it is not adequately marked. It ensures that once SALW’s program is enacted all licensed manufacturers must apply a unique marking identifying the country of manufacture, manufacturer and serial number of the weapon. Weapons that lack this unique marking that are confiscated, seized or collected will be destroyed. (No compensation for confiscated guns) These restrictions will be enforced on a national, regional and global scale.
Once the treaty is signed, if you happen to own a gun that was manufactured without this “unique marking,” you are in violation of the law and must turn over your weapon to authorities. This includes guns that were obtained legally. With gun laws in the U.S. that already place many restrictions on the sale of personal firearms, the adoption of this treaty would further infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. When the founding fathers of the U.S wrote that, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” they made no mention of unique markings.
John Bolton, US Representative to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, says, “The [Obama] administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
The U.N.’s reasons for planning to draft stricter gun laws in the future are mostly related to stopping the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. However, the President of the Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, in July 2001, stated his disappointment on the “inability to agree… on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups.” Rodriguez said that these steps were “two of the most important.”
The U.N. shows “overwhelming support” for such measures, according to Rodriguez. The U.N. claims these gun laws would help to lessen gun violence, but statistics foretell a different outcome. A survey by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in 2001 found that the top three states with the most gun ownership in America were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Kentucky (in descending order). Another study, by Statehealthfacts.org in 2002, ranked the states with the least gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Hawaii had the least gun-related deaths followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. The District of Columbia had the most gun related deaths and conversely the least amount of guns owned.
Worldwide gun-related deaths also don’t show any support for more restrictive gun laws. The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems in 2002 found that South Africa, Columbia and Thailand topped the list of countries with the most murders by firearms per capita. Yet when 178 countries were ranked in descending order by which had the most civilian firearms per 100 people, South Africa came in 50th place, Columbia was 91st and Thailand was 39th.
You can’t argue that stricter gun control and fewer guns owned by citizens would diminish gun violence when looking at the facts. If a country were to confiscate its citizen’s guns by national law, it would leave guns in the hands of only the government and criminals. I’m not sure which group is more terrifying. When criminals are the only people who possess handguns, law-abiding citizens are powerless to defend themselves. This makes non-criminals easy targets and gun crimes rise respectively.
This was proven to all countries when England enacted a ban on ownership of handguns in 1997. Two years after the gun ban had gone into effect the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting found that the use of handguns in crime had risen 40%.
David Bredin, the director of the campaign, said, “It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.” The reason stricter gun control did not mean less violence, the campaign concluded, was “existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”
If gun control does not coincide with a safer society, then the U.N. has no ground for declaring controls on private ownership would help solve the illegal trafficking of firearms. In fact, if prohibition taught us anything, it is that restrictions do not decrease demand, but only cut supply. When supply drops and demand stays the same, prices rise and incentives lead to added underground crime rings. The U.N. should drop the gun laws, pick up some history books and take a few notes. Maybe then they could focus on something useful like stopping Iran’s nuclear program.
by Jennifer Kendall
On Monday, June 28, 2010, The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment during the trial of McDonald vs. Chicago. The 5-4 ruling confirmed that neither a state nor city, acting under a grant of authority from the state, could deny a person the right to possess a firearm. This was seen as a victory for gun rights activists, but with the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) treaty looming in the near future, this fight is far from over.
The U.N. program of action concerning SALW includes restrictions on the manufacturing, storing, transferring and possession of firearms and ammunition if it is not adequately marked. It ensures that once SALW’s program is enacted all licensed manufacturers must apply a unique marking identifying the country of manufacture, manufacturer and serial number of the weapon. Weapons that lack this unique marking that are confiscated, seized or collected will be destroyed. (No compensation for confiscated guns) These restrictions will be enforced on a national, regional and global scale.
Once the treaty is signed, if you happen to own a gun that was manufactured without this “unique marking,” you are in violation of the law and must turn over your weapon to authorities. This includes guns that were obtained legally. With gun laws in the U.S. that already place many restrictions on the sale of personal firearms, the adoption of this treaty would further infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. When the founding fathers of the U.S wrote that, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” they made no mention of unique markings.
John Bolton, US Representative to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, says, “The [Obama] administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
The U.N.’s reasons for planning to draft stricter gun laws in the future are mostly related to stopping the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. However, the President of the Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, in July 2001, stated his disappointment on the “inability to agree… on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups.” Rodriguez said that these steps were “two of the most important.”
The U.N. shows “overwhelming support” for such measures, according to Rodriguez. The U.N. claims these gun laws would help to lessen gun violence, but statistics foretell a different outcome. A survey by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in 2001 found that the top three states with the most gun ownership in America were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Kentucky (in descending order). Another study, by Statehealthfacts.org in 2002, ranked the states with the least gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Hawaii had the least gun-related deaths followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. The District of Columbia had the most gun related deaths and conversely the least amount of guns owned.
Worldwide gun-related deaths also don’t show any support for more restrictive gun laws. The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems in 2002 found that South Africa, Columbia and Thailand topped the list of countries with the most murders by firearms per capita. Yet when 178 countries were ranked in descending order by which had the most civilian firearms per 100 people, South Africa came in 50th place, Columbia was 91st and Thailand was 39th.
You can’t argue that stricter gun control and fewer guns owned by citizens would diminish gun violence when looking at the facts. If a country were to confiscate its citizen’s guns by national law, it would leave guns in the hands of only the government and criminals. I’m not sure which group is more terrifying. When criminals are the only people who possess handguns, law-abiding citizens are powerless to defend themselves. This makes non-criminals easy targets and gun crimes rise respectively.
This was proven to all countries when England enacted a ban on ownership of handguns in 1997. Two years after the gun ban had gone into effect the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting found that the use of handguns in crime had risen 40%.
David Bredin, the director of the campaign, said, “It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.” The reason stricter gun control did not mean less violence, the campaign concluded, was “existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”
If gun control does not coincide with a safer society, then the U.N. has no ground for declaring controls on private ownership would help solve the illegal trafficking of firearms. In fact, if prohibition taught us anything, it is that restrictions do not decrease demand, but only cut supply. When supply drops and demand stays the same, prices rise and incentives lead to added underground crime rings. The U.N. should drop the gun laws, pick up some history books and take a few notes. Maybe then they could focus on something useful like stopping Iran’s nuclear program.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Gay Takeover Of Our Schools
Napoleon and the Gay Samoans
By Sandy Rios
”If education were a product we would be suing,” wrote the mother of a 2010 high school graduate. Her e-mail was so eloquent, it warrants no editing:
“Today I asked my son what country Napoleon was from. He said Rome.
He just finished 12 years of public schooling in what has been called one of the top high schools in the nation. Although he’s not a bookworm, he is a decent student. He has better than a B average.
He doesn’t know which country Napoleon was from – let alone what he did. I don’t think he was sick that day.
On the other hand, I’m going through his Social Study papers and see that he did learn that homosexual men in Samoa may perpetuate gay genes by being good uncles…
Twelve years. If education were a product we would be suing.”
But the suit would likely be lost. Reason left the classroom and the courts long ago. And homosexual apologetics have been promoted so aggressively through the National Education Association, that faculty or staff dare not express an objection. Public school hallways display rainbows and trumpet Gay Pride and Days of Silence, while renderings of the Ten commandments are forbidden. In Deerfield, Illinois, a required Freshman orientation class features gay, straight, lesbian and bi-sexual students telling 14 year olds the ins and outs of homosexual sex with their young audience strictly forbidden to tell their parents. In schools across the nation homosexuality is taught in every discipline from the use of math word problems related to same gender sex to the science of non-existent gay genes to history claiming Abraham Lincoln had a love affair with his law partner, Billy Herndon.
In Alabama an entire prom was cancelled because a lesbian student was not allowed to bring her girlfriend. And in that rare case where homosexual students aren’t allowed to bring their partners to proms, local houses of worship are hosting gay proms in church basements.
Massachusetts, Vermont and California have blazed the trail on these matters…providing co-ed bathrooms in schools and allowing students even in some grade schools to alter their gender if so led.
After the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont, Outright Vermont, a homosexual advocacy organization hosted a weekend seminar funded by tax dollars that taught middle schoolers about a violent homosexual act called “fisting” and girls how to remove healthy breasts if they preferred to be boys…complete with photos and live demonstrations.
In California, a group called “Gender Spectrum” recently sent out a flyer to announce a conference to students 13-18:
Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender noncomforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.
Montana has joined the gay chorus…with a newly proposed sex curriculum to begin in kindergarten so that little Montanans can know about all the ways to have sex with anyone in any combination. Then State Senator Barack Obama advocated the same in Illinois, but was defeated.
It IS that bad. And deny it all they want, parents are beginning to realize what the concerned mom above discovered in despair: Children aren’t learning how to read, spell or punctuate. They don’t know the nation’s history…its leaders or its constitution…nor anything about the God of their fathers, but they do know about homosexual sex.
And when they get to college, there will be no one to tell them otherwise. Consider the case of University of Illinois professor Ken Howell who was just fired after nine years of teaching “Introduction to Catholicism” for writing an e-mail to students explaining that Catholic Teaching on homosexuality derives itself from moral law. A student forwarded the e-mail to the head of the Religion Department and Howell was removed from the faculty for “violating university standards of inclusivity.” A Catholic fired for actually believing and teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism.
So what are we to do? Get tough. Take a stand. Make the hard choices. Speak up and take your licks. The sexual anarchists are free to practice their anarchy, but they cannot have our kids. Any government that promotes or says they can and bars parents from their rightful influence must be opposed fiercely.
Fellow angry citizens: Let’s get busy. Let’s move our kids to private schools…private cooperatives…homeschool them. The public school must either clean up its act or risk losing its power. The radicalism in Providence, Massachusetts, for example has resulted in such a reduced student population, they are closing their high school doors. Good.
We send our children to school to learn the great disciplines of English, history, math, and science...presented factually and diligently. We don’t send them to be turned over to sexual activists willing to sacrifice their young minds to achieve their own narrow agenda.
Away with the gay Samoans and up with Napoleon!
By Sandy Rios
”If education were a product we would be suing,” wrote the mother of a 2010 high school graduate. Her e-mail was so eloquent, it warrants no editing:
“Today I asked my son what country Napoleon was from. He said Rome.
He just finished 12 years of public schooling in what has been called one of the top high schools in the nation. Although he’s not a bookworm, he is a decent student. He has better than a B average.
He doesn’t know which country Napoleon was from – let alone what he did. I don’t think he was sick that day.
On the other hand, I’m going through his Social Study papers and see that he did learn that homosexual men in Samoa may perpetuate gay genes by being good uncles…
Twelve years. If education were a product we would be suing.”
But the suit would likely be lost. Reason left the classroom and the courts long ago. And homosexual apologetics have been promoted so aggressively through the National Education Association, that faculty or staff dare not express an objection. Public school hallways display rainbows and trumpet Gay Pride and Days of Silence, while renderings of the Ten commandments are forbidden. In Deerfield, Illinois, a required Freshman orientation class features gay, straight, lesbian and bi-sexual students telling 14 year olds the ins and outs of homosexual sex with their young audience strictly forbidden to tell their parents. In schools across the nation homosexuality is taught in every discipline from the use of math word problems related to same gender sex to the science of non-existent gay genes to history claiming Abraham Lincoln had a love affair with his law partner, Billy Herndon.
In Alabama an entire prom was cancelled because a lesbian student was not allowed to bring her girlfriend. And in that rare case where homosexual students aren’t allowed to bring their partners to proms, local houses of worship are hosting gay proms in church basements.
Massachusetts, Vermont and California have blazed the trail on these matters…providing co-ed bathrooms in schools and allowing students even in some grade schools to alter their gender if so led.
After the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont, Outright Vermont, a homosexual advocacy organization hosted a weekend seminar funded by tax dollars that taught middle schoolers about a violent homosexual act called “fisting” and girls how to remove healthy breasts if they preferred to be boys…complete with photos and live demonstrations.
In California, a group called “Gender Spectrum” recently sent out a flyer to announce a conference to students 13-18:
Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender noncomforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.
Montana has joined the gay chorus…with a newly proposed sex curriculum to begin in kindergarten so that little Montanans can know about all the ways to have sex with anyone in any combination. Then State Senator Barack Obama advocated the same in Illinois, but was defeated.
It IS that bad. And deny it all they want, parents are beginning to realize what the concerned mom above discovered in despair: Children aren’t learning how to read, spell or punctuate. They don’t know the nation’s history…its leaders or its constitution…nor anything about the God of their fathers, but they do know about homosexual sex.
And when they get to college, there will be no one to tell them otherwise. Consider the case of University of Illinois professor Ken Howell who was just fired after nine years of teaching “Introduction to Catholicism” for writing an e-mail to students explaining that Catholic Teaching on homosexuality derives itself from moral law. A student forwarded the e-mail to the head of the Religion Department and Howell was removed from the faculty for “violating university standards of inclusivity.” A Catholic fired for actually believing and teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in a class on Catholicism.
So what are we to do? Get tough. Take a stand. Make the hard choices. Speak up and take your licks. The sexual anarchists are free to practice their anarchy, but they cannot have our kids. Any government that promotes or says they can and bars parents from their rightful influence must be opposed fiercely.
Fellow angry citizens: Let’s get busy. Let’s move our kids to private schools…private cooperatives…homeschool them. The public school must either clean up its act or risk losing its power. The radicalism in Providence, Massachusetts, for example has resulted in such a reduced student population, they are closing their high school doors. Good.
We send our children to school to learn the great disciplines of English, history, math, and science...presented factually and diligently. We don’t send them to be turned over to sexual activists willing to sacrifice their young minds to achieve their own narrow agenda.
Away with the gay Samoans and up with Napoleon!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Gun Confiscation Training
Polish Troops Train To Take On American ‘Terrorists’
By Paul Joseph Watson
Law enforcement and military officials were keen to play down the presence of Polish troops during the recent Operation Vigilant Guard exercises in Chicago, but claims that the foreign personnel were there merely as “observers” were proven incorrect after they were filmed participating in drills which revolved around terrorism and mass casualty disasters.
Infowars reporters Rob Dew and Jason Douglass traveled to Chicago to document the increasing integration of foreign troops with American military and civilian authorities.
At a National Guard exercise being held in Toyota Park, a soccer stadium, Colonel Johnny Miller, the head of the drill, told Dew and Douglass, “Our partner country with Illinois is Poland, so we’ll have Polish military folks here,” adding that Polish law enforcement agencies, Polish FBI, as well as Latvian forces, would also be in attendance.
Miller said that the Polish personnel would be there merely as observers to incorporate what they had witnessed into their own counter-terror and law enforcement programs, a claim later disproved when the troops were seen participating in the programs.
Moving on to Elk Grove Village for day 3 of the exercise, SFC Mark Ballard of the Illinois National Guard said that the Polish forces would be “integrating into some of the civil military units that are participating in this exercise” as part of Illinois’ partnership with the Republic of Poland, a relationship based around “integrative training” and blending military and civilian forces in the event of a national emergency, as well as making this process of integration with foreign troops more “visible”.
The claim that the Polish forces were merely present at the exercises to observe was again proven false during a Homeland Security drill in Bensenville that revolved around a meth lab takedown.
Polish Major Lesniak said that the exercise represented “the next step” in the Polish military’s cooperation with the Illinois National Guard, adding that American forces in Poland were not engaged in similar exercises, thus confirming that these drills are solely aimed at preparing Americans to accept the sight of foreign troops conducting law enforcement duties.
On day 4, volunteers from Boy Scouts of America were brought in to take part in the exercises. This is telling given last year’s announcement of how Homeland Security is training boy scouts to take on and disarm “disgruntled veterans” who are described as “terrorists”. This is when it became apparent that gun-toting Polish BOA forces were directly participating in the exercises, something that the military officials had earlier mischaracterized.
During a subsequent exercise in the Chicago subway, Jose Santiago, Executive Director of Emergency Management and Communications, was keen to stress that the Polish forces were “observers” only, even after the Infowars film crew had recorded them directly participating in previous disaster exercises.
Operation Vigilant Guard reveals the on-going effort to not only destroy Posse Comitatus — once upon a time designed to prevent the military from working with state and local law enforcement — but the globalist effort to incorporate foreign “partners” into any future effort to impose martial law and gun confiscation in response not only to hurricanes but a contrived terrorist event.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” the high level globalist minion Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Is it possible after the next manufactured terror event they will also be grateful for the armed presence of soldiers from Poland and Latvia?
Alternatively, simply login via the home page at http://prisonplanet.tv and then go to the MEDIA tab and then select VIDEO REPORTS to watch the video.
Expired members – did you know you can quickly and simply renew your old subscription by visiting http://prisonplanet.tv/component/user/login.html – simply login with your old account details and then click on “My Membership Info” at the top of the screen to add a new subscription to your existing account! You can also recover your old user name and password via the link if you have forgotten it.
Gun Confiscation
By Paul Joseph Watson
Law enforcement and military officials were keen to play down the presence of Polish troops during the recent Operation Vigilant Guard exercises in Chicago, but claims that the foreign personnel were there merely as “observers” were proven incorrect after they were filmed participating in drills which revolved around terrorism and mass casualty disasters.
Infowars reporters Rob Dew and Jason Douglass traveled to Chicago to document the increasing integration of foreign troops with American military and civilian authorities.
At a National Guard exercise being held in Toyota Park, a soccer stadium, Colonel Johnny Miller, the head of the drill, told Dew and Douglass, “Our partner country with Illinois is Poland, so we’ll have Polish military folks here,” adding that Polish law enforcement agencies, Polish FBI, as well as Latvian forces, would also be in attendance.
Miller said that the Polish personnel would be there merely as observers to incorporate what they had witnessed into their own counter-terror and law enforcement programs, a claim later disproved when the troops were seen participating in the programs.
Moving on to Elk Grove Village for day 3 of the exercise, SFC Mark Ballard of the Illinois National Guard said that the Polish forces would be “integrating into some of the civil military units that are participating in this exercise” as part of Illinois’ partnership with the Republic of Poland, a relationship based around “integrative training” and blending military and civilian forces in the event of a national emergency, as well as making this process of integration with foreign troops more “visible”.
The claim that the Polish forces were merely present at the exercises to observe was again proven false during a Homeland Security drill in Bensenville that revolved around a meth lab takedown.
Polish Major Lesniak said that the exercise represented “the next step” in the Polish military’s cooperation with the Illinois National Guard, adding that American forces in Poland were not engaged in similar exercises, thus confirming that these drills are solely aimed at preparing Americans to accept the sight of foreign troops conducting law enforcement duties.
On day 4, volunteers from Boy Scouts of America were brought in to take part in the exercises. This is telling given last year’s announcement of how Homeland Security is training boy scouts to take on and disarm “disgruntled veterans” who are described as “terrorists”. This is when it became apparent that gun-toting Polish BOA forces were directly participating in the exercises, something that the military officials had earlier mischaracterized.
During a subsequent exercise in the Chicago subway, Jose Santiago, Executive Director of Emergency Management and Communications, was keen to stress that the Polish forces were “observers” only, even after the Infowars film crew had recorded them directly participating in previous disaster exercises.
Operation Vigilant Guard reveals the on-going effort to not only destroy Posse Comitatus — once upon a time designed to prevent the military from working with state and local law enforcement — but the globalist effort to incorporate foreign “partners” into any future effort to impose martial law and gun confiscation in response not only to hurricanes but a contrived terrorist event.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” the high level globalist minion Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Is it possible after the next manufactured terror event they will also be grateful for the armed presence of soldiers from Poland and Latvia?
Alternatively, simply login via the home page at http://prisonplanet.tv and then go to the MEDIA tab and then select VIDEO REPORTS to watch the video.
Expired members – did you know you can quickly and simply renew your old subscription by visiting http://prisonplanet.tv/component/user/login.html – simply login with your old account details and then click on “My Membership Info” at the top of the screen to add a new subscription to your existing account! You can also recover your old user name and password via the link if you have forgotten it.
Gun Confiscation
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Tyranny at Home
Drones Over America: Tyranny at Home
By John W. Whitehead
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."—James Madison
The U.S. government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers and sound cannons, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home. Now the drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan—are coming home to roost.
Drones, a $2 billion cornerstone of the Obama administration's war efforts, have increasingly found favor with both military and law enforcement officials. "The more we have used them," stated Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances."
Now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is facing mounting pressure from state governments and localities to issue flying rights for a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out civilian and law-enforcement activities. As the Associated Press reports, "Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects." Unfortunately, to a drone, everyone is a suspect because drone technology makes no distinction between the law-abiding individual and the suspect. Everyone gets monitored, photographed, tracked and targeted.
The FAA, citing concerns over the need to regulate air traffic and establish anti-collision rules for the aircrafts and their operators, has thus far been reluctant to grant broad approval for the use of UAVs in American airspace. However, unbeknownst to most Americans, remote controlled aircraft have been employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national security tool for patrolling America's borders and then as a means of monitoring citizens. For example, back in 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was testing out a SkySeer drone for use in police work. With a 6.5-foot wingspan, the lightweight SkySeer can be folded up like a kite and stored in a shoulder pack. At 250 feet, it can barely be seen with the naked eye.
As another news story that same year reported, "one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air—close enough to identify faces—and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned." In 2007, insect-like drones were seen hovering over political rallies in New York and Washington, seemingly spying on protesters. An eyewitness reported that the drones "looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters."
Drone technology has advanced dramatically in the ensuing years, with surveillance drones getting smaller, more sophisticated and more lethal with each evolution. Modeling their prototype for a single-winged rotorcraft on the maple seed's unique design, aerospace engineering students at the University of Maryland have created the world's smallest controllable surveillance drones, capable of hovering to record conversations or movements of citizens.
Thus far, the domestic use of drones has been primarily for surveillance purposes and, as far as we know, has been limited in scope. Eventually, however, police departments and intelligence agencies will make drones a routine part of their operations. However, you can be sure they won't limit themselves to just surveillance.
Police today use whatever tools are at their disposal in order to anticipate and forestall crime. This means employing technology to attain total control. Technology, which functions without discrimination because it exists without discrimination, tends to be applied everywhere it can be applied. Thus, the logical aim of technologically equipped police who operate as technicians must be control, containment and eventually restriction of freedom.
In this way, under the guise of keeping Americans safe and controlled, airborne drones will have to be equipped with an assortment of lethal and nonlethal weapons in order to effectuate control of citizens on the ground. The arsenal of nonlethal weapons will likely include Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), which are used to break up protests or riots by sending a piercing sound into crowds and can cause serious hearing damage; high-intensity strobe lights, which can cause dizziness, disorientation and loss of balance and make it virtually impossible to run away; and tasers, which administer a powerful electric shock.
Since June 2001, over 350 people, including women, children and elderly individuals, have died in the U.S. after being shocked with "non-lethal" tasers. "Imagine how incidents would skyrocket," notes Paul Joseph Watson for PrisonPlanet.com, "once the personal element of using a Taser is removed and they are strapped to marauding surveillance drones, eliminating any responsibility for deaths and injuries that occur."
"Also available to police," writes Watson, "will be a drone that can fire tear gas as well as rubber pellets to disperse anyone still living under the delusion that they were born in a democratic country." In fact, the French company Tecknisolar Seni has built a drone armed with a double-barreled 44 mm Flash-Ball gun. The one-kilo Flash-Ball resembles a large caliber handgun and fires so-called non-lethal rounds, including tear gas and rubber impact rounds to bring down a suspect. Despite being labeled a "non-lethal weapon," this, too, is not without its dangers. As David Hambling writes for Wired News, "Like other impact rounds, the Flash-Ball is meant to be aimed at the body—firing from a remote, flying platform is likely to increase the risk of head injury."
One thing is clear: while the idea of airborne drones policing America's streets may seem far-fetched, like something out of a sci-fi movie, it is no longer in the realm of the impossible. Now, it's just a matter of how soon you can expect them to be patrolling your own neighborhood. The crucial question, however, is whether Americans will be able to limit the government's use of such surveillance tools or whether we will be caught in an electronic nightmare from which there is no escape.
By John W. Whitehead
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."—James Madison
The U.S. government has a history of commandeering military technology for use against Americans. We saw this happen with tear gas, tasers and sound cannons, all of which were first used on the battlefield before being deployed against civilians at home. Now the drones—pilotless, remote controlled aircraft that have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan—are coming home to roost.
Drones, a $2 billion cornerstone of the Obama administration's war efforts, have increasingly found favor with both military and law enforcement officials. "The more we have used them," stated Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances."
Now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is facing mounting pressure from state governments and localities to issue flying rights for a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out civilian and law-enforcement activities. As the Associated Press reports, "Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects." Unfortunately, to a drone, everyone is a suspect because drone technology makes no distinction between the law-abiding individual and the suspect. Everyone gets monitored, photographed, tracked and targeted.
The FAA, citing concerns over the need to regulate air traffic and establish anti-collision rules for the aircrafts and their operators, has thus far been reluctant to grant broad approval for the use of UAVs in American airspace. However, unbeknownst to most Americans, remote controlled aircraft have been employed domestically for years now. They were first used as a national security tool for patrolling America's borders and then as a means of monitoring citizens. For example, back in 2006, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was testing out a SkySeer drone for use in police work. With a 6.5-foot wingspan, the lightweight SkySeer can be folded up like a kite and stored in a shoulder pack. At 250 feet, it can barely be seen with the naked eye.
As another news story that same year reported, "one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air—close enough to identify faces—and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned." In 2007, insect-like drones were seen hovering over political rallies in New York and Washington, seemingly spying on protesters. An eyewitness reported that the drones "looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters."
Drone technology has advanced dramatically in the ensuing years, with surveillance drones getting smaller, more sophisticated and more lethal with each evolution. Modeling their prototype for a single-winged rotorcraft on the maple seed's unique design, aerospace engineering students at the University of Maryland have created the world's smallest controllable surveillance drones, capable of hovering to record conversations or movements of citizens.
Thus far, the domestic use of drones has been primarily for surveillance purposes and, as far as we know, has been limited in scope. Eventually, however, police departments and intelligence agencies will make drones a routine part of their operations. However, you can be sure they won't limit themselves to just surveillance.
Police today use whatever tools are at their disposal in order to anticipate and forestall crime. This means employing technology to attain total control. Technology, which functions without discrimination because it exists without discrimination, tends to be applied everywhere it can be applied. Thus, the logical aim of technologically equipped police who operate as technicians must be control, containment and eventually restriction of freedom.
In this way, under the guise of keeping Americans safe and controlled, airborne drones will have to be equipped with an assortment of lethal and nonlethal weapons in order to effectuate control of citizens on the ground. The arsenal of nonlethal weapons will likely include Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), which are used to break up protests or riots by sending a piercing sound into crowds and can cause serious hearing damage; high-intensity strobe lights, which can cause dizziness, disorientation and loss of balance and make it virtually impossible to run away; and tasers, which administer a powerful electric shock.
Since June 2001, over 350 people, including women, children and elderly individuals, have died in the U.S. after being shocked with "non-lethal" tasers. "Imagine how incidents would skyrocket," notes Paul Joseph Watson for PrisonPlanet.com, "once the personal element of using a Taser is removed and they are strapped to marauding surveillance drones, eliminating any responsibility for deaths and injuries that occur."
"Also available to police," writes Watson, "will be a drone that can fire tear gas as well as rubber pellets to disperse anyone still living under the delusion that they were born in a democratic country." In fact, the French company Tecknisolar Seni has built a drone armed with a double-barreled 44 mm Flash-Ball gun. The one-kilo Flash-Ball resembles a large caliber handgun and fires so-called non-lethal rounds, including tear gas and rubber impact rounds to bring down a suspect. Despite being labeled a "non-lethal weapon," this, too, is not without its dangers. As David Hambling writes for Wired News, "Like other impact rounds, the Flash-Ball is meant to be aimed at the body—firing from a remote, flying platform is likely to increase the risk of head injury."
One thing is clear: while the idea of airborne drones policing America's streets may seem far-fetched, like something out of a sci-fi movie, it is no longer in the realm of the impossible. Now, it's just a matter of how soon you can expect them to be patrolling your own neighborhood. The crucial question, however, is whether Americans will be able to limit the government's use of such surveillance tools or whether we will be caught in an electronic nightmare from which there is no escape.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Remember the Price of Freedom
What Price Freedom?
By John W. Whitehead
Let me tell you about 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to take a stand for truth. These men laid everything on the line, pledged it all—"our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. They believed that freedom is a spiritual concept in that the rights we possess are, in their words, given to us by the Creator. Let me emphasize: at the heart of these rights is a radical freedom—the freedom to speak, to dissent, to protest and to seek relief, if necessary, against an unjust government—that is, one that won't listen to the people.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.
Their signatures, famously scribbled on a piece of parchment, expressed their unfettered willingness to speak out against the most powerful empire in the world. These 56 men were the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Some we remember for their later accomplishments—such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as American presidents. But there were others—such as Lewis Morris, Carter Braxton, Thomas Nelson and Richard Stockton—who do not often get mentioned, who sought not glory but rather a cause. They knew that sacrifice was necessary to secure freedom, and they were willing to make the sacrifice.
Lewis Morris lost his entire estate. The British ravaged and destroyed it, sending his family fleeing in desperation with nowhere to go.
Carter Braxton's entire career and way of life were decimated. Losing his ships to the British Navy, his shipping company was forever lost and he was never able to revive it.
Thomas Nelson's price for liberty was to the tune of $2 million—and that was in 1776. He ran up the $2 million credit debt for the "Patriots' Cause." In the end, repaying the debt cost him his entire estate. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Richard Stockton paid dearly also. Once a prominent judge, he gave up his cherished seat on the bench to fight for liberty. For his decision, he was dragged from his bed and tortured by British soldiers.
All in all, of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out.
There are many more stories of heroic patriots throughout American history who have risked it all to preserve the freedoms we possess. Most of them have come from radically different walks of life—different upbringings, different educations, different ideas. But the one thing that unites them is their love of and commitment to freedom and their willingness to stand up and speak out, no matter the cost. Although many of them lost everything, they were willing to sacrifice in order to raise their voices in truth. They put freedom before their own interests. Because of their bravery in speaking truth to power and their commitment to unwavering principles, history has judged them to be extraordinary.
Thus, it is only right that we should still honor them every Fourth of July. Yet how do we do so? We go through the motions, spouting patriotic sentiments and putting on displays of national pomp and circumstance that at the end of the day mean nothing. Sadly, as a nation, we have become jaded and apathetic, content to celebrate our independence with cookouts and fireworks but little else.
America, we must remember, is a concept. We must earn our right to be American. What does that mean? First of all, it means learning the core principles of citizenship that are laid out in the Constitution. Any person in this country who cannot list from memory the rights enshrined in those 462 words that make up the Bill of Rights is not a true American. Unfortunately, this applies to the great majority of the populace. Second, it means taking a stand on those principles and fighting to keep the freedoms that are being stripped from us on a daily basis. This may well mean grabbing a picket sign and taking to the streets.
The bottom line is that we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms to make our citizenship count for something. We need to take responsibility for what's going on around us. And we need to stand up and support those who refuse to remain silent when they see an injustice and who, like those 56 brave men, dare to put it all on the line in order to speak truth to power.
By John W. Whitehead
Let me tell you about 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to take a stand for truth. These men laid everything on the line, pledged it all—"our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. They believed that freedom is a spiritual concept in that the rights we possess are, in their words, given to us by the Creator. Let me emphasize: at the heart of these rights is a radical freedom—the freedom to speak, to dissent, to protest and to seek relief, if necessary, against an unjust government—that is, one that won't listen to the people.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.
Their signatures, famously scribbled on a piece of parchment, expressed their unfettered willingness to speak out against the most powerful empire in the world. These 56 men were the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Some we remember for their later accomplishments—such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as American presidents. But there were others—such as Lewis Morris, Carter Braxton, Thomas Nelson and Richard Stockton—who do not often get mentioned, who sought not glory but rather a cause. They knew that sacrifice was necessary to secure freedom, and they were willing to make the sacrifice.
Lewis Morris lost his entire estate. The British ravaged and destroyed it, sending his family fleeing in desperation with nowhere to go.
Carter Braxton's entire career and way of life were decimated. Losing his ships to the British Navy, his shipping company was forever lost and he was never able to revive it.
Thomas Nelson's price for liberty was to the tune of $2 million—and that was in 1776. He ran up the $2 million credit debt for the "Patriots' Cause." In the end, repaying the debt cost him his entire estate. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Richard Stockton paid dearly also. Once a prominent judge, he gave up his cherished seat on the bench to fight for liberty. For his decision, he was dragged from his bed and tortured by British soldiers.
All in all, of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out.
There are many more stories of heroic patriots throughout American history who have risked it all to preserve the freedoms we possess. Most of them have come from radically different walks of life—different upbringings, different educations, different ideas. But the one thing that unites them is their love of and commitment to freedom and their willingness to stand up and speak out, no matter the cost. Although many of them lost everything, they were willing to sacrifice in order to raise their voices in truth. They put freedom before their own interests. Because of their bravery in speaking truth to power and their commitment to unwavering principles, history has judged them to be extraordinary.
Thus, it is only right that we should still honor them every Fourth of July. Yet how do we do so? We go through the motions, spouting patriotic sentiments and putting on displays of national pomp and circumstance that at the end of the day mean nothing. Sadly, as a nation, we have become jaded and apathetic, content to celebrate our independence with cookouts and fireworks but little else.
America, we must remember, is a concept. We must earn our right to be American. What does that mean? First of all, it means learning the core principles of citizenship that are laid out in the Constitution. Any person in this country who cannot list from memory the rights enshrined in those 462 words that make up the Bill of Rights is not a true American. Unfortunately, this applies to the great majority of the populace. Second, it means taking a stand on those principles and fighting to keep the freedoms that are being stripped from us on a daily basis. This may well mean grabbing a picket sign and taking to the streets.
The bottom line is that we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms to make our citizenship count for something. We need to take responsibility for what's going on around us. And we need to stand up and support those who refuse to remain silent when they see an injustice and who, like those 56 brave men, dare to put it all on the line in order to speak truth to power.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Government Kisses Illegals Butts
Club Fed for Illegal Aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Thanks to their international "human rights" advocates, Gitmo detainees receive art therapy, movie nights and video games at their U.S. taxpayer-funded camp in Cuba. Now, the left's bleeding heart lobby wants to provide similar taxpayer-sponsored perks to illegal alien detainees on American soil. Welcome to the open-borders Club Fed.
According to an internal Department of Homeland Security e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans a radical overhaul of the immigration detention system. No, the reforms will not increase the nation's measly, chronically underfunded detention bed capacity -- fewer than 35,000 beds last fiscal year to cover an estimated illegal alien population of between 12 million and 20 million. The Obama ICE leadership is headed in the exact opposite direction.
Rush Limbaugh
ICE chief John Morton -- the same man who signaled last month that he may refuse to process illegal aliens sent to him by Arizona law enforcement officials -- has already eliminated 50 detention facilities. This despite a DHS inspector general report released last spring exposing the federal government's bipartisan failure to expand detention space capacity to end the dangerous game of illegal alien "catch and release."
Instead, among the p.c. makeover measures under consideration or about to be made by Obama's ICE agency in the next 30 days:
-- "Softening" the physical appearance of privately contracted detention facilities with "hanging plants."
- Giving illegal alien detainees e-mail access and free Internet-based phone service.
- Abandoning lockdowns, lights-out, visitor screening and detention uniform requirements.
- Serving fresh veggies and continental breakfast and providing Bingo sessions, arts and crafts classes, and, yes, movie nights.
Ensuring humane treatment of detainees is one thing. This, on the other hand, is beyond ridiculous. Detention centers should be clean, safe and temporary way stations for illegal immigrants on their way out the door. These proposals turn the immigration detention centers into permanent Dave & Buster's-style comfort zones for illegal aliens biding their time until the next amnesty. Dancing lessons? Game halls? This is an invitation for abuse -- and a recipe for exploitation by smugglers and drug cartels. Open-borders and civil liberties activists will end up endangering DHS/ICE workers -- and the rest of us -- under the guise of "immigrant human rights."
The left-wing campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union, change.org and illegal alien activists targeting our detention system began in earnest after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, hundreds of illegal aliens of Arab descent were detained and questioned as "material witnesses" in counterterrorism probes. The use of immigration laws in the war against Islamic jihadists became a rallying point for the open-borders propagandists.
The New York Times hysterically reported that most of these post-9/11 detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, 60 percent of the 762 immigrants detained after the 9/11 attacks were charged within 72 hours. And the Justice Department inspector general found that there were legitimate reasons for delay in the remaining cases, including logistical disruptions in New York City after 9/11, such as electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. Immigrant abuse charges were hurled recklessly by the likes of Al Gore, who slandered DHS's detention program during a paid appearance in Saudi Arabia -- despite the DOJ's failure to find any such patterns.
The truth got lost along the way. So did common sense. Allowing illegal alien terror suspects to roam free in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks would have been a dereliction of duty. And countless homeland security experts and DHS inspector general reports have repeatedly spotlighted lax enforcement in the detention safety net over the past decade.
Hundreds of thousands of "absconders" remain on the loose because of failure (or refusal) to detain them. The immigration lawyers' racket has lobbied for compassionate "alternatives" to detention that routinely result in deportation fugitives simply ditching the process and disappearing.
Their goal is not to improve detention. Their goal is to sabotage it -- all while law-breakers munch on croissants and joyfully shout "BINGO!"
by Michelle Malkin
Thanks to their international "human rights" advocates, Gitmo detainees receive art therapy, movie nights and video games at their U.S. taxpayer-funded camp in Cuba. Now, the left's bleeding heart lobby wants to provide similar taxpayer-sponsored perks to illegal alien detainees on American soil. Welcome to the open-borders Club Fed.
According to an internal Department of Homeland Security e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans a radical overhaul of the immigration detention system. No, the reforms will not increase the nation's measly, chronically underfunded detention bed capacity -- fewer than 35,000 beds last fiscal year to cover an estimated illegal alien population of between 12 million and 20 million. The Obama ICE leadership is headed in the exact opposite direction.
Rush Limbaugh
ICE chief John Morton -- the same man who signaled last month that he may refuse to process illegal aliens sent to him by Arizona law enforcement officials -- has already eliminated 50 detention facilities. This despite a DHS inspector general report released last spring exposing the federal government's bipartisan failure to expand detention space capacity to end the dangerous game of illegal alien "catch and release."
Instead, among the p.c. makeover measures under consideration or about to be made by Obama's ICE agency in the next 30 days:
-- "Softening" the physical appearance of privately contracted detention facilities with "hanging plants."
- Giving illegal alien detainees e-mail access and free Internet-based phone service.
- Abandoning lockdowns, lights-out, visitor screening and detention uniform requirements.
- Serving fresh veggies and continental breakfast and providing Bingo sessions, arts and crafts classes, and, yes, movie nights.
Ensuring humane treatment of detainees is one thing. This, on the other hand, is beyond ridiculous. Detention centers should be clean, safe and temporary way stations for illegal immigrants on their way out the door. These proposals turn the immigration detention centers into permanent Dave & Buster's-style comfort zones for illegal aliens biding their time until the next amnesty. Dancing lessons? Game halls? This is an invitation for abuse -- and a recipe for exploitation by smugglers and drug cartels. Open-borders and civil liberties activists will end up endangering DHS/ICE workers -- and the rest of us -- under the guise of "immigrant human rights."
The left-wing campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union, change.org and illegal alien activists targeting our detention system began in earnest after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, hundreds of illegal aliens of Arab descent were detained and questioned as "material witnesses" in counterterrorism probes. The use of immigration laws in the war against Islamic jihadists became a rallying point for the open-borders propagandists.
The New York Times hysterically reported that most of these post-9/11 detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, 60 percent of the 762 immigrants detained after the 9/11 attacks were charged within 72 hours. And the Justice Department inspector general found that there were legitimate reasons for delay in the remaining cases, including logistical disruptions in New York City after 9/11, such as electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. Immigrant abuse charges were hurled recklessly by the likes of Al Gore, who slandered DHS's detention program during a paid appearance in Saudi Arabia -- despite the DOJ's failure to find any such patterns.
The truth got lost along the way. So did common sense. Allowing illegal alien terror suspects to roam free in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks would have been a dereliction of duty. And countless homeland security experts and DHS inspector general reports have repeatedly spotlighted lax enforcement in the detention safety net over the past decade.
Hundreds of thousands of "absconders" remain on the loose because of failure (or refusal) to detain them. The immigration lawyers' racket has lobbied for compassionate "alternatives" to detention that routinely result in deportation fugitives simply ditching the process and disappearing.
Their goal is not to improve detention. Their goal is to sabotage it -- all while law-breakers munch on croissants and joyfully shout "BINGO!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)