Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital
New Hampshire, Wed. Oct. 6th, 2010
According to Irish, The Director of Security and the Head Nurse of the Hospital said “we want the pediatrician to check the baby in the nursery so that you can go home.”
The baby was wheeled out in the bassinet under the protest of Irish. Irish followed them out and took note of 3-4 men wearing suits with detective badges as well as 3 police officers.The Division of Family Child Services proceeded to pat down John and inform the parents they would be taking the daughter.
“They Stole our Child” says John Irish. An Affidavit was produced that claimed an affiliation with a militia called Oath Keepers. Irish claims Oath Keepers is a non violent organization. John and Stephanie were able to spend a few minutes with their daughter and were forced to leave.
A security officer escorted the two out of the hospital.
George Hemminger george4titleATyahoo.com
Facebook infoURGENT! ~ OATHKEEPERS ALERT!
Request For Help! Please Read Attached Picture Then, If you can help. Please contact Watchman Noyes
or his group page
Citizens Against Government Tyranny
Stephanie Janvrin the motherNew Hampshire J
ohn Irish father
From John Janvrin6228 26 minutes ago 3
This has been flagged as spam hide
This is Johnathon Irish, Brothers and Sisters, thank you for all of your support. firstname.lastname@example.org is my personal email address if needed.
Thank you all again for your support, if so needed I will send you our cell number just email me.
I don’t know what else to say right now, these bastards stole my daughter and she wasn’t even 24 hours old. She was born at 2337 last night. I only have a few pictures of my baby girl, I can’t even cry I am so pissed.
Following our article earlier today about proposals by Microsoft to implement powers that could open the door for government licensing of the Internet, the issue shot to the top of Google Trends, ensuring mainstream coverage and the true threat to free speech being understood by many more Americans.
We thank our listeners and readers for once again pushing another vital issue to the forefront of public attention.
Read the story and get it out to others
– Microsoft Proposal Opens Door For Government Licensing To Access Internet
Tea-party activists, keen to build on their success toppling GOP incumbents in primaries this year, are already targeting more Republican veterans in the 2012 election. GOP senators like Bob Corker, above, have drawn criticism from tea-party activists for some of the positions they have taken over the years. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, already has a conservative GOP primary opponent.
Sen. Orrin Hatch R., Utah, Sen. Bob Corker R., Tenn. and Sen. Richard Lugar R., Indiana have all drawn fire from the right wing of their party. Tea-party activists have put these and other incumbents on notice that the anti-establishment sentiment defining this year’s politics will not end on Election Day 2010. It is too early to say if these incumbents will face serious peril when they are up for re-election in 2012, but they are already taking steps to burnish their conservative credentials. “The tea party is right,” said Ms. Snowe, who is campaigning for a tea-party-backed gubernatorial candidate in Maine this fall.
“We’ve lost our way on fiscal issues.” The threat of a primary challenge may put more pressure on Republicans to steer clear of compromise with Democrats when Congress reconvenes. When the Senate recently voted on small-business tax breaks, the bill drew support from only two Republicans—both of whom are leaving office at the end of this term. Centrist efforts to compromise on an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts fizzled. Even Ms. Snowe, a perennial swing vote on taxes, resisted agreement with Democrats on the issue. Tea-party challenges to GOP establishment candidates in this year’s primaries showed how committed conservative activists are to changing the party from within.
Here’s what the Constitution says…”If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days Sundays excepted after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, u…nless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.”A “pocket veto” effectively kills the legislation.
It’s an absolute veto without the power to override. Presidents have long used this but this is the first time I’ve heard of a President asserting this while Congress is in session. Note the text of the Constitution says “THEIR adjournment” meaning both houses must adjourn for Congress to be considered adjourned.To stop pocket vetoes Congress has from time to time appointed officials to receive communications from the President but Presidents usually don’t recognize that and insist on Congress being in session to preserve the right of a pocket veto.
In this case though, there’s no ambiguity. Congress is in session.Robert Gibbs was asked how The President can pocket veto the bill when the Senate was still in session. He sort of dismissed this, as Democrats have been doing a lot the last few years when challenged on the Constitution, and said “the President certainly has the constitutional power to do that, and that is what he’s exercising.”
So Obama is trying to create a precedent where he can veto a bill without recourse… just ahead of new Republican majorities. He’s subverting our Constitution!
No, R takeover of congress just means we’ve been good copped/bad copped again.
The 2-potty system stranglehold they have on wee the people—The choice of Mr FLIM or Mr FLAM!
We will never return to our Republic until the R potty is destroyed!
The D potty?It doesn’t matter—the poor will always be with us, notwithstanding what we call them—D, democraps, liberals, progressives, marxists, commies, devils, etc, etc.
Like 0’pinhead sez, wize-up!
aka: Dick Gaines
posted on Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:32:10 PM
“WE ARE BEHIND “ENEMY WITHIN” LINES, SURROUNDED, Our ‘Novembers’ Are Gone,,,So Few Can “grok” It.”
Recently, Christianne Amanpour hosted a panel discussion meant to explore the misunderstood delineation between moderate and extremist Islam.A dichotomy is certainly brought to light in discussion, but considering Amanpour is a staunch Islamic apologist, it is probably not the one she meant to expose. She likely sought to support the notion that Islam is peaceful, and to advance the belief that only a small contingent of radicals corrupts the faith.
To those ends, she enlisted guests of Christian and Muslim backgrounds for her panel, and I’m fairly certain she expected the Christian guests to attack Islam as an intolerant faith bent on universalizing Sharia, while her Muslim guests and audience members would defend themselves as peaceful practitioners of the tolerant faith of Islam. Americans are familiar with the strategy. It’s the standard stuff that tends to make Christians look intolerant and Muslims look misunderstood.But one portion of the discussion hurls a monkey-wrench into those plans. When Amanpour addresses the ideas of Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, she has the audacity to question his ideas about Islamic domination. Choudary proclaims that he disagrees with the entire focus of the segment, and argues that the notions of moderate Islam or extremist Islam are nonsense.
There is only Islam, whose followers “submit to the creator.” Then, in an effort to convey that Islam can live in peace with the Western world, he concludes, “We do believe as Muslims that the east and the west will one day be governed by the Sharia. Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.”It is obvious that his statements reinforce what some Christian panel guests believe to be the truth, and that those statements certainly don’t support the notion of peaceful and tolerant Islam.So a Muslim woman in the panel decided to take Choudary to task for his reckless and inflammatory statements, and she went on to instruct him that Islam is a faith of pluralism, and that it provides an allowance of other faiths to exist in a state of equal importance.
Legendary Rock group Pink Floyd’s main creative force, Roger Waters, is locked in a fierce battle with the Anti-Defamation League, after the group accused Waters of using anti-semitic imagery in his stage show.The ADL claims that visuals accompanying the song “Goodbye Blue Sky” on Waters’ latest tour of the seminal 1979 Pink Floyd album The Wall, are intended as “a comment about Jews and money.”The backdrop, which can be seen in the video below, features huge dark bomber planes dropping a series of red symbols, which culminate in a sea of blood on the landscape below.
The symbols include crosses, a hammer and sickle, a crescent and star, a Mercedes logo and a Shell Oil logo, yet the ADL sees the inclusion of a Star of David along with Dollar signs as reprehensible.“It is outrageous that Roger Waters has chosen to use the juxtaposition of a Jewish Star of David with the symbol of dollar signs.” an ADL statement issued by director Abraham Foxman last week read.“While he insists that his intent was to criticize Israel’s West Bank security fence, the use of such imagery in a concert setting seems to leave the message open to interpretation, and the meaning could easily be misunderstood as a comment about Jews and money.
”Foxman added that Waters should have “chosen some other way to convey his political views without playing into and dredging up the worst age-old anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews and their supposed obsession with making money”.Waters has been open about his opposition to the Israeli fence for several years, and has publicly stated that The Wall live show is his form of protest against such imposed barriers.The iconic song writer hit back at the accusations earlier this week with a letter published in The London Independent, asserting that he is not anti-semitic, but that he is vehemently anti-occupation.
State should have power to block individual computers from connecting to world wide web, claims CharneyMicrosoft Proposal Opens Door For Government Licensing To Access Internet 071010top2Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comThursday, October 7, 2010A new proposal by a top Microsoft executive would open the door for government licensing to access the Internet, with authorities being empowered to block individual computers from connecting to the world wide web under the pretext of preventing malware attacks.
Speaking to the ISSE 2010 computer security conference in Berlin yesterday, Scott Charney, Microsoft vice president of Trustworthy Computing, said that cybersecurity should mirror public health safety laws, with infected PC’s being “quarantined” by government decree and prevented from accessing the Internet.“If a device is known to be a danger to the internet, the user should be notified and the device should be cleaned before it is allowed unfettered access to the internet, minimizing the risk of the infected device contaminating other devices,” Charney said.Charney said the system would be a “global collective defense” run by corporations and government and would “track and control” people’s computers similar to how government health bodies track diseases.Invoking the threat of malware attacks as a means of dissuading or blocking people from using the Internet is becoming a common theme – but it’s one tainted with political overtones.At the launch of the Obama administration’s cybersecurity agenda earlier this year, Democrats attempted to claim that the independent news website The Drudge Report was serving malware, an incident Senator Jim Inhofe described as a deliberate ploy “to discourage people from using Drudge”.
Under the new proposals, not only would the government cite the threat of malware to prevent people from visiting Drudge, they would be blocked from the entire world wide web, creating a dangerous precedent by giving government the power to dictate whether people can use the Internet and effectively opening the door for a licensing system to be introduced.Similar to how vehicle inspections are mandatory for cars in some states before they can be driven, are we entering a phase where you will have to obtain a PC health check before a government IP czar will issue you with a license, or an Internet ID card, allowing you to access the web?Of course, the only way companies or the government could know when your system becomes infected with malware is to have some kind of mandatory software or firewall installed on every PC which sends data to a centralized hub, greasing the skids for warrantless surveillance and other invasions of privacy.
It is time to look st the truth. The Democrates and their allies are destroying America. Only the truth can set us free. We must choose freedom or slavery. We were created One Nation under God. Time to remember God.
Joseph Sobran, 1946–2010by Robert Higgsby Robert HiggsRecently by Robert Higgs: The Great Divergence: Private Investment and Government Power in the Present Crisis With sadness, I report the death of an old and cherished friend, Joe Sobran.
Joe wrote and edited for National Review until he and William F. Buckley, Jr., had a falling out; he had a long-running engagement with CBS Radio as a commentator; and he wrote a syndicated newspaper column.For most of his life, Joe was one of those rare conservatives who actually had and lived by sincere conservative values, rather than merely mouthing the usual banal conservative views and readily throwing principles overboard whenever an opportunity to influence or wield state power presented itself. Late in life, he embraced philosophical anarchism, having given up all hope that the state would ever do anything decent.I met Joe about twenty years ago, and I was privileged to spend considerable time with him over the years.
A gentle, learned, witty, and courageous man, Joe was one of the most beautiful writers I have encountered among commentators on public affairs. I keep a collection of quotations that express important ideas in an especially pithy, penetrating, arresting, or graceful way. Joe’s declarations are well represented in my collection. In virtually every column of his that I read, at least once I would stop, reread a sentence or a paragraph, and mutter to myself, “How I would love to be able to write such prose!”
A Coriolanus in Our Future?by Joseph Sobran A little tired of politics? Of course you are. We all are. Well, I have a treat for you: Shakespeare’s least-known great play, Coriolanus, the story of a brave and honest though not always amiable man who hates politics with all his heart. It’s a tragedy fraught with magnetic eloquence and unexpected lessons for our own time.
I discovered it in 1962, when I was 16, through Richard Burton’s thrilling recording of it. Long before he became famous for, well, other stuff, Burton had made the role his own on the stage, and this recording is still the gem of my large collection. Vocally, nobody, not even the great Olivier, could have topped Burton’s astoundingly resonant performance which Olivier himself saluted as “definitive”. Listen to it once, and I guarantee you’ll never forget it. The play reveals a side of Shakespeare the classroom never prepared us for. Sweetest Shakespeare, fancy’s child? Warbling his native woodnotes wild? Not hardly.Molded by his inhuman mother, Volumnia, who makes Lady Macbeth seem like a soft touch, Caius Martius is a proud Roman patrician and matchless warrior, surnamed Coriolanus for his virtually single-handed conquest of the Volscian city of Corioli. He becomes the most popular man in Rome, but popularity means absolutely nothing to him, except baseness. He can seldom speak in public without causing a riot.Despite his heroism, Coriolanus hates and despises the common people so bitterly that when he agrees, reluctantly, to seek the consulship, Rome’s highest office, he refuses to show the voters his wounds – he even hates being praised himself – and he insults them: he can’t bear to seek their favor. It’s too humiliating. He says he deserves to be consul, whether they like it or not, and especially if they don’t.
“Who deserves greatness Deserves your hate.”He calls them “scabs,” “curs,” “rats,” “measles,” “fragments,” “the rabble,” “barbarians,” “Hydra,” “slaves,” “the beast with many heads,” and “the mutable, rank-scented many”; with sour wit, he allows that they display “most valor” only in “their mutinies and revolts,” but on the whole he is not a people person.Tempers flare; Volumnia wonderfully played by Jessica Tandy in the Burton recording, by the way and his patrician friends try to calm him down, but a demagogic tribune calls him “a traitor to the people” and he explodes: “The fires i’ the lowest hell fold-in the people.”
His approval ratings plunge.
Reality Check, Pleaseby Brian Wilsonby Brian WilsonRecently by Brian Wilson: Party Scooper Landing in the email box today, the following from a loyal and attentive listener: “You’ve commented on how Republicans in the majority never reverse the legislative damage done by the previous Democratic congress – but you’ve never said why. Why?” ~ Inquisitive In Toledo Dear InqTo understand why, we have to set the Wayback Machine to 1912 and meet the progressive tag team of King Roosevelt the First and Woodrow the Evil.
A U.S. terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.
The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have “set the country on fire”, said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.
Texas Governor Rick Perry has given Mexico‘s president 48 hours to contact him with information on the ongoing efforts to find the body of an American man reportedly shot dead on a border lake.Mr Perry said he hoped the body of David Hartley will be recovered by the time Felipe Calderón contacts him.
‘If not, we’re not looking hard enough,’ he declared on Wednesday.Mr Hartley’s wife Tiffany claims her husband was shot by Mexican pirates on Falcon Lake last week as they returned over the U.S. border on jet skis.
Maybe I’m mellowing with age but this strikes me as less unreal now than it did a few months ago. A question for the lawyers in the audience: There’s nothing unusual about foreign nations chipping in with amicus briefs on U.S. legal matters, is there? In two minutes of googling, I found this Supreme Court amicus submitted by the European Union in a death penalty case arguing that international consensus opposes executing criminals under 18.
Their stake in that matter is surely less than Mexico’s et al. in how Arizona treats its citizens who are here illegally, no?What’s really unreal is that the governments who submitted briefs thought it was a good idea to do so. Whatever marginal legal benefit an amicus filing will bring is surely outweighed by the hugely damaging PR from the perception that they’re meddling in U.S. immigration matters, no? And given how expertly Brewer’s been using this issue for political gain over the past eight months, it was a no-brainer that she’d end up rubbing their faces in it.
The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening. “What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”
Politico notes that this argument should resonate with conservatives, who worry about U.S. courts applying foreign law to decide cases. Normally that’d be true, but not this time: If the feds want to start following the Mexican government’s lead on how to enforce immigration law, most righties will find that an intriguing possibility.Latest Rasmussen poll, by the way: Brewer 55, Goddard 39. After this, figure she hits 60 next week?
What happened to the P&E website at…
Remember all those articles on LtCol Lakin, etc.
The URL is still the same; but the old website is not–what is now there is…kinda…FISHY!!!!! Know what I mean?????
Department of Justice would have power to shut down “unlawful content,” which according to their own definition includes political free speech
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Obama Administration IP Czar Victoria Espinel has been holding meetings with ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others in a bid to get them to block access to websites “dedicated to infringing activities”. However, as we have documented, the government deems such infringement to include political opinions which are antagonistic toward the state, leaving the door open for state censorship of free speech on the world wide web.
Espinel, the White House’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, aims to create a special relationship between the government and Internet companies in order to “harmonize the efforts of law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels and strengthen cooperation with the private sector.”
It now appears certain the Supreme Court will rule against the First Amendment. “The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The First Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it also shields speakers from private lawsuits,” reports the Los Angeles Times this afternoon.
Jefferson, Madison and other framers considered free speech a cornerstone of the republic.
If the Court rules against the First Amendment, it will not only effect demonstrations and public displays, but also curtail freedom of speech on the internet, as one Justice pointed out today.
The case now before the Court concerns the Phelps family from Topeka, Kansas, who have picketed military funerals and proclaimed that God is punishing America and its soldiers for its tolerance of homosexuality. The case reached the Court after a Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq sued the Phelps family for holding up signs near his funeral that said “Thank God for IEDs” and also for posting remarks on their website that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son “to defy the Creator” and “serve the devil.” A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was subsequently thrown out on the grounds it violates the First Amendment.
The Los Angeles Times may claim that the First Amendment is unclear, but as former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black noted in in Rosenblatt v. Baer, the wording of the First Amendment makes it perfectly clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. It does not say freedom of speech shall be denied and held unlawful if it is distasteful and produces an emotional response.
“An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment,” Black opined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other framers were products of the Age of Enlightenment and as such believed in the power of reason and the search for truth. They considered freedom of expression and inquiry essential to the process of debate and discovery required for the maintenance of liberty and a republic.
In the American Colonies, people were convicted of seditious libel for speaking or writing against the King of England and his agents. In response, the Founders created the First Amendment and made it the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. In the not too distant past, the Court ruled that political speech was what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
According to one libertarian thinker of the period, a citizen had the right to “say everything which his passions suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents… to do so, in speaking against the government matters that are false, scandalous and malicious,” and yet he should be “safe within the sanctuary of the press.” Speech was considered beyond the reach of criminal sanctions. Only “overt acts” were punishable.
Snyder v. Phelps does not concern overt acts. It focuses on “outrageous” speech that is claimed to have caused “severe emotional distress.”
In 1964 in the New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that civil liability for speech may violate the First Amendment due to the fact the threat of massive damages tends to dampen the exercise of free speech. From 1880 onward, state courts have treated constitutional free expression guarantees as constraining civil liability. No longer.
Congress provided the enemies of free speech and the First Amendment an ally when it confirmed Elena Kagan to sit on the bench. In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (Emphasis added.)
As noted by the Los Angeles Times, the Supremes earlier today “sounded sympathetic” to rolling back the protections afforded by the First Amendment.
Moreover, Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the court’s ruling will have an impact on the internet, since it tests whether vicious personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.
If the Supremes rule that First Amendment no longer protects controversial and even emotionally hurtful speech, the internet will no longer be an open forum for the free expression of opinions and ideas.
We are at the crossroads of a very important time in history. Free humanity is waking up globally to the designs of a corporate-government fusion, and an overarching agenda which does not place individual liberty as a priority. Each day it seems that a new piece of the puzzle is revealed, and previous shadow dealings see the light of day.
This is due in no small part to the pioneers of liberty such as InfoWars who have used their passion for the truth to research and investigate how this system of control came to be.As the mainstream media continues to mislead the public, alternative news sites have gained popularity simply by exposing the truth. However, the truth tends to be pretty damning to the Corporate State. Therefore, alternative news organizations rarely get large sponsorship — they require viewer support.
Like many alternative news Web sites, it would be very unlikely that Activist Post could have gained the attention it has in such a short time without Alex Jones and Infowars. Infowars consistently publishes our articles, and for that we are grateful.InfoWars has initiated a Moneybomb for October 14th. Activist Post is pledging $500 to their goal of reaching $500,000. Naturally, with the state of the global economy, we urge you only to give the amount that is comfortable, …