Army judge tells officer: Shut up and be punished! Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’ impossible under military rulings
| This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
BORN IN THE USA?
Army judge tells officer:
Shut up and be punished!
Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’
impossible under military rulings
Posted: September 28, 2010
9:01 pm Eastern By Brian Fitzpatrick
FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army judge has made it “impossible” for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.
The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who in so many words told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.
“We got absolutely slammed today,” said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. “It’s impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings.”
Jensen continued, “The judge did what she thought was right, but the result is to deprive us of any opportunity to have a defense.”
Lakin believes any order issued under Obama’s authority as commander in chief of the armed forces may not be valid because his eligibility to serve as president is unproven. After fruitlessly requesting the Army to verify Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, Lakin wrote directly to Obama asking for proof of eligibility.
(Story continues below)
But without a response, Lakin decided it was his duty to refuse an order to deploy with his unit as part of Obama’s Afghanistan surge. As one of the defense briefs states, he “… [took] the distasteful route of inviting his own court martial.”
Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Click for information.
In her decision, Lind, acting as judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believes to be illegal.
The defense also planned to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.
Lind was following up on her rulings from Sept. 2, when she rejected defense plans to introduce evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility. The defense also requested for Lakin’s defense documents referencing Obama’s birth records on file in Hawaii, but Lind refused to allow that either, noting that providing the documents might prove “embarrassing” to Obama.
“Our arms were cut off last time,” said Jensen. “Our legs are being cut off this time.”
In rejecting Lakin’s right to discovery of Obama birth documents, Lind joined a host of other judges – in civilian courts – who have refused to allow plaintiffs suing Obama to obtain his birth records. Jensen told WND he had hoped the court would permit Lakin to go to discovery, because Lakin is the defendant in a criminal case and has the right to mount a full defense.
In objecting to the participation of Keyes and McInerney and the presentation of Lakin’s planned arguments, the prosecution argued that all issues related to Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s motives and the good soldier doctrine were “irrelevant.”
“We have to have the opportunity to present some defense!” Jensen countered.
Just before Lind recessed the hearing to prepare her decision, Jensen asked rhetorically whether the government intended to allow him to call any witnesses at all and thundered, “This is all we had left!”
Jensen’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Less than two hours after the court recessed following arguments, Lind returned to the bench to render a lengthy, detailed decision. Reading in a dry monotone, Lind reaffirmed her Sept. 2 decision and ruled out discussions of motive and duty.
Lind, with her rulings, effectively has restricted the scope of Lakin’s trial to what the government wanted: the simple questions of whether the officer had received orders to deploy to Afghanistan and whether he complied.
Neither of these facts is in dispute
But Jensen said the trial will not end the case.
In an Oval Office interview, the president discusses the Tea Party, the war, the economy and what’s at stake this November ___What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?
[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints.
I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:53:25 PM by Windflier
Do you think this guy is fired up? Be sure to note his license plate.
From the Rolling Stone Interview via MSNBC, emphasis ours:I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.President Obama also criticized the “glass as half-empty” views of many Democrats emphasis ours:It’s like, “Well, gosh, we’ve got this historic health care legislation that we’ve been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn’t have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let’s focus on what we didn’t get instead of what we got.”
That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.And President Obama also attacked those in the hedge fund industry, complaining about the Carried Interest tax emphasis ours:I know a lot of these guys who started hedge funds. They are making large profits, taking home large incomes, but because of a rule called “carried interest,” they are paying lower tax rates than their secretaries, or the janitor that cleans up the building. Or folks who are out there as police
My, how things change.Or not.Remember this? Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.
As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.Naturally, that went the way of all Obama promises: On the campaign trail, Barack Obama harshly criticized Bush administration policies allowing warrantless wiretaps. But, since he assumed office as president, Obama’s Justice Department has attempted to deny a private organization the right to sue the federal government for wiretapping communications without court authorization.Ironically, more and more people are missing the old days:
In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ’s New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush’s We had hoped this would go differently. Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF’s litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration made two deeply troubling arguments.
This past week was a busy one in New York City’s United Nations building. Besides the speeches by Iran’s president and the U.S. president, there were meetings and conferences regarding the future of planet earth. While all eyes were on the speeches and pomp and circumstance of world leaders, the denizens of U.S. newsrooms ignored what one observer termed “The Mother of All Power Grabs.”
The United Nations General Assembly is considering a historic resolution recognizing the human right to “safe and clean drinking water and sanitation” initiated by the Bolivian government. Other UN members have been consulted on the resolution and the final text is expected to be presented to the President of the General Assembly.In a letter sent today to all UN Ambassadors and permanent missions, global water advocate and Blue Planet Project founder Maude Barlow urges a decisive and swift passage of the resolution.”This would be one of the most important things the UN has done since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” says Barlow, who chairs the boards of the Council of Canadians and Washington-based Food and Water Watch. In 2008/2009, Barlow served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the UN General Assembly.”It’s time politics caught up with reality,” says Barlow, noting that nearly two billion people live in water-stressed areas of the world and three billion have no running water within a kilometre of their homes. “It’s time states finally recognize water as essential to life and a fundamental human right.
“But this latest moved — backed by U.S. progressives — is viewed as disturbing by conservative activists such as political strategist Mike Baker.
If you haven’t seen the billboards yet, liberals love multiculturalism, they embrace all races and religions because they believe in diversity. True? Nope.Liberals follow the left’s paradigm of waging class warfare. Their interest in minorities extends only to enlisting some disenfranchised groups in their class warfare. Contrary to all the multicultural billboards, liberals are primarily interested in unsuccessful minorities, because they can frighten them, exploit them and farm them as voting blocks.
Successful minorities such as Asians, Indians and Jews are wanted only as window dressing. And get the short end of the stick when a real issue comes up.Multiculturalism is really only class warfare disguised as opposition to bigotry. Take away all the historical revisionism about the Democratic party’s ugly civil rights history and the empty slogans about diversity, and what you have left is naked political opportunism. The Democratic party trafficked in racism when it suited them and still does and dons the halo of tolerance when it suits them now. The left was equally at home working both sides of the street, and the views of great socialists from Jack London to Karl Marx on race, differed little from those of the Nazi party.Multiculturalism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a political organization tactic to bring the groups they consider part of the working class under one umbrella. It’s the same old class warfare organizational tactics applied to race and ethnicity. The goal of these tactics is not empowerment, but to create a voting bloc of people who have been convinced that they’re doomed to helplessness, without the leadership of the left “fighting” on their behalf.Liberals can still be and often are bigots.
Their bigotry is just informed by political necessity. As a bonus, having the “diversity” brand allows them to describe the opposition as bigots, without ever being called out for their own bigotry.FeminismWe all know of course that liberals are the biggest feminists out there, except when they’re running against a woman. Or when a woman accuses their candidate of rape or sexual harassment.
Sept 28, 2010
The following is Part I to David DeGraw’s new book, “The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III.” This is the second installment to a new seven-part series that we will be posting throughout the next few weeks. You can read the introduction to the book here. To be notified via email of new postings from this series, subscribe here.
Introduction to The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III
When we analyze our current crisis, focusing on the past few years of economic activity blinds us to the history and context that are vital to understanding the root cause. What we have been experiencing is not the result of an unforeseen economic crash that appeared out of the blue with the collapse of the housing market. It was certainly not brought on by people who bought homes they couldn’t afford. To frame this crisis around a debate on economic theory misses the point entirely. To even blame it on greedy bankers, while essentially accurate, also misses the most vital point.
This crisis is the direct result of a strategic economic attack on the existence of a middle class and democracy worldwide. The stock market and economy have become weapons of mass oppression manipulated by an imperial banking cartel to impose order and exploit the masses. This crisis boldly represents the manifest evolution of the fascist spirit reasserting itself as the dominant ideology.
Your Insane U.S. Energy Departmentby Alan CarubaWarning SignsRecently by Alan Caruba:
Why It’s Too Darn Hot In mid-September, Cathy Zoi, an Assistant Secretary of Energy, said that the U.S. Department of Energy has a “mandate” to issue regulations about what household appliances should be available to Americans in the future.A CNSnews story reported that while speaking at the inaugural meeting of the recently reestablished Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Ms. Zoi “pointed to four tactics the Obama administration intended to use to advance the ‘deployment of clean energy.’ The first three were government subsidies, special tax incentives, and low-interest government-backed loans for green energy projects.”The likelihood that any of these “green energy” projects will yield any electrical power comparable to a single coal-fired or nuclear plant is negligible. Two recent huge wastes of taxpayer money involve a $57 million program that includes $11 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the failed “stimulus” plan – to support clean energy technology commercialization projects for 33 small businesses across the country.Among the projects is “harvesting/dewatering technology for algal biofuels,” money devoted to algae as a source of power. Other projects include organic light-emitting diodes, and advanced materials and bio-fueled oxide fuel cells. Meanwhile, the moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico restricts the provision of an energy source on which the nation is dependent.In September the DOE also awarded $37 million for “marine and hydrokinetic energy technology development.”
The object of this is to “accelerate the technologies and commercial readiness of technologies to generate renewable electricity from the nation’s oceans and free-flowing rivers and streams.” Meanwhile the nation already generates six percent of its electricity from hydroelectric systems among which the Hoover Dam is one of the best known.The Department of Energy was created in the wake of the oil crisis of the 1970s and was signed into existence by President Jimmy Carter on August 4, 1977. Its responsibilities were the nation’s nuclear weapons program, a nuclear reactor for the U.S. Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production.It currently employs 16,000 federal workers and, in 2009, had an annual budget of $24.1 billion. President Obama appointed Dr. Steven Chu as its Secretary. Dr. Chu is perhaps best known for recommending that global warming can be avoided by painting the roofs and highways white in order to reflect back the sun’s radiation. Will someone please get a net and throw it over Dr. Chu?
Shut Down the Fedby Ambrose Evans-PritchardRecently by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: IMF Fears ‘Social Explosion’ From World Jobs Crisis I apologise to readers around the world for having defended the emergency stimulus policies of the US Federal Reserve, and for arguing like an imbecile naif that the Fed would not succumb to drug addiction, political abuse, and mad intoxicated debauchery, once it began taking its first shots of quantitative easing.
My pathetic assumption was that Ben Bernanke would deploy further QE only to stave off DEFLATION, not to create INFLATION. If the Federal Open Market Committee cannot see the difference, God help America.We now learn from last week’s minutes that the Fed is willing “to provide additional accommodation if needed to … return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”NO, NO, NO, this cannot possibly be true.Ben Bernanke has not only refused to abandon his idee fixe of an “inflation target”, a key cause of the global central banking catastrophe of the last twenty years because it can and did allow asset booms to run amok, and let credit levels reach dangerous extremes.Worse still, he seems determined to print trillions of emergency stimulus without commensurate emergency justification to test his Princeton theories, which by the way are as old as the hills. Keynes ridiculed the “tyranny of the general price level” in the early 1930s, and quite rightly so. Bernanke is reviving a doctrine that was already shown to be bunk eighty years ago.So all those hillsmen in Idaho, with their Colt 45s and boxes of krugerrands, who sent furious emails to the Telegraph accusing me of defending a hyperinflating establishment cabal were right all along.
The Fed is indeed out of control.The sophisticates at banking conferences in London, Frankfurt, and New York who aplogized for this primitive monetary creationsim – as I did – are the ones who lost the plot.
GPS and the Police State We Inhabit: Living in Oceaniaby John W. Whiteheadby John W. WhiteheadRecently by John W. Whitehead: Scanners: No Place to Hide Voicing his discontent with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in United States v. Pineda-Moreno, which declared the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device to be constitutional, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski warned, “We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.
“Indeed, we are already living in George Orwell’s totalitarian state known as Oceania, where the all-seeing government sees and tracks everything we do. By asserting that the police can constitutionally sneak onto a private driveway without a warrant and stick a GPS tag on your car so that they can remotely track you, the Ninth Circuit didn’t necessarily break any new ground. Rather, they merely confirmed what we have suspected all along: that the concept of private property is dead and along with it, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures once protected by the Fourth Amendment.Having outstripped our ability as humans to control it, technology has become our Frankenstein’s monster. Delighted with technology’s conveniences, its ability to make our lives easier by doing an endless array of tasks faster and more efficiently, we have given it free rein in our lives, with little thought to the legal or moral ramifications of doing so. Thus, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the fact that technology now operates virtually autonomously according to its own invasive code, respecting no one’s intimate moments or privacy and impervious to the foibles of human beings and human relationships.For example, consider how enthusiastically we welcomed Global Positioning System GPS devices into our lives. We’ve installed this satellite-based technology in everything from our phones to our cars to our pets. Yet by ensuring that we never get lost, never lose our loved ones and never lose our wireless signals, we are also making it possible for the government to never lose sight of us, as well.
Amidst a global backlash against naked airport body scanners, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is attempting to corral 190 nations into signing a binding agreement that will force them to adopt the increasingly unpopular devices which have been slammed on both health and privacy grounds.“Napolitano will make her pitch in Montreal to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations arm that sets global aviation standards.
The nearly 200 nations that make up ICAO will agree Wednesday to improve aviation security through better technology and more sharing of information about terrorist threats, ICAO Secretary General Raymond Benjamin said in an interview,” reports USA Today.Napolitano is still trying to flog a dead horse in using the Christmas Day underwear bomber as a boogeyman with which to scare other countries into adopting the body scanners, despite the fact that the devices wouldn’t even have stopped Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from passing through security screening.What should have stopped him was the fact that he was on a terror watchlist and had no passport, but thanks to a decision by the US State Department not to revoke his visa, Abdulmutallab was allowed to board the plane, with the help of a well-dressed Indian man who assured airport officials, “we do this all the time”.The Obama administration swiftly exploited the terror scare created by the incident to ram through an intensification of the war in Yemen as well as mandating the lucrative roll out of full naked body scanners.Within hours, former DHS chief Michael Chertoff lauded body scanners during interviews as the all-encompassing solution, without mentioning the fact that one of the foremost clients for his security consulting agency, the Chertoff Group, was someone heading up a company that manufactures the machines.
Napolitano’s effort to force nearly 200 countries to adopt a binding agreement on implementing body scanners is undoubtedly a reaction to the increasing unpopularity of the devices and their rejection by several nations.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Disagreement arose today among supporters of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor facing military court-martial for refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan after questioning Barack Obama‘s constitutional eligibility to be president.A group of retired military officers organized as the Veterans Council and the United States Patriot Union in Sheridan, Wyo., issued a white paper calling on Lakin’s legal defense team to change strategy.
The so-called “White Paper No. 3″ urged tea-party members and Congress members who signed the “Pledge to America” to support Lakin’s right to discovery at his court-martial. The officers want Lakin to obtain Obama’s long-form birth certificate and other relevant birth documents from Hawaii’s Department of Health, as well as college and law-school records, to determine whether the president applied as a foreign-exchange student.On Sept. 2, Army Col. Denise R. Lind ruled in a preliminary hearing to Lakin’s scheduled October court-martial that Lakin could not pursue Obama’s presidential eligibility as part of his legal defense.
Read more at wnd.com …
Glenn Beck is paid millions of dollars a year to deflect the righteous anger of the American people away from the bankster elite and focus it on a gaggle of washed-up 60s radicals. In the process, meaningful political action is harmlessly deflected away from the controllers and safely expended on a handful of useful idiot scapegoats funded by globalist foundations, so-called progressive PACs, and corporate labor unions.It is amazing how much Glenn Beck sounds like Alex Jones.
The reason for this is because Beck’s people listen to the Alex Jones Show, take notes, and then relay what Jones talks about on any given day back to their master. An inside source at Fox News has verified this to be the case.Beck then takes what Jones talks about and refashions it into his trademark attack on irrelevant leftists, Marxists, admirers of Mao and Stalin, archaic SDS throwbacks — who were long ago infiltrated by the FBI — and academic socialist utopians who have about as much of a chance of taking power as an invasion of six-eyed aliens from Planet X do.In the video above, Beck talks about Cass Sunstein, police GPS and cell phone tracking, mobile x-ray scanners, government control of thermostats and big screen televisions, and Al Gore using the green agenda to turn children against their parents — topics Alex Jones talks about routinely on his radio and internet television program.According to Beck, the green agenda and the police state grid are part of a diabolical progressive plan to create a communist dictatorship and march those of us who disagree off to re-education and death camps. In the past, Beck has used Stalin and Mao as examples of the sort of dictators the so-called progressives have in mind.
Never mentioned is the fact the communist system Stalin exploited was installed in Russia by Wall Street. Beck has yet to mention that David Rockefeller believes Mao was an idea leader, never mind the 70 plus million people he systematically exterminated.
Obama Again Omits ‘Creator’ When Speaking of ‘Inalienable Rights’ Cited in Declaration of Independence
Just seven days after he sparked controversy by omitting the word “Creator” when he closely paraphrased the passage from the Declaration of Independence that says all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” President Barack Obama again omitted the Creator when speaking about the “inalienable rights” that “everybody is endowed with.”
This time the president was speaking at a Sept. 22 fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee DCCC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee DSCC at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, and his reference to “inalienable rights” was not as close a paraphrasing of the Declaration as it had been the week before.“And what was sustaining us was that sense that, that North Star, that sense that, you know what, if we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class, every child able to go as far as their dreams will take them–if we stay true to that, then we’re going to be able to maintain the energy and the focus, the fight, the gumption to get stuff done,” Obama said at the DCCC/DSCC event, according to the transcript posted by the White House.Speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala on Sept. 15, Obama had left out the word “Creator” when otherwise virtually quoting from the Declaration of Independence.
Full article here
Academia appears to be rejecting the “imperial” White House. University of Iowa law professor David Orentlicher says the presidency has become too powerful an office and now suggests the U.S. adopt a two-person, multiparty presidency.”The Founding Fathers misjudged the consequences of a single president. They did not anticipate the extent to which executive power would expand and give us an ‘imperial presidency.’
Introduction: Anatomy of a Court-Martial
Print This Post
“VERDICT FIRST, THEN THE TRIAL”by Sharon Rondeau
— Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick contacted The Post & Email out of his stated concern for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who is scheduled to be court-martialed next month as a result of his refusal to follow orders on the grounds that Barack Hussein Obama does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements to serve as commander-in-chief of the military.
As of 2:00 p.m. on September 27, 2010, Lakin’s defense team announced a new development in his case:We have now filed our Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, but the trial court is going to proceed with a hearing tomorrow Tuesday as scheduled.However, Fitzpatrick has stated that military courts-martial are “rigged” against the defendant with no appeal process, and that in his case, the accuser and prosecutor were one and the same, in violation of proper procedure.
He claims that “forgery has been proved” in regard to a “confession” document which was produced and put in his file shown below and that military commanders up to and including Admiral Michael Mullen are aware of but have taken no steps to correct the injustice which he was dealt 21 years ago.
According to Fitzpatrick, “The official Navy-Marine Corps position remains undisturbed.”
A key Democrat in Congress is trying to drum up support for his party by warning voters that if the GOP moves into the majority in November, Republicans will issue subpoenaes over every possible issue they can assemble, including Barack Obama‘s eligibility for office.The claim comes from House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., who told the Grio website in an interview that there would be gridlock in Congress should Democrats fail to maintain their majority.
“You’ve got people like [GOP Rep. Darrell] Issa from California who is a ranking member on the government oversight committee,” Clyburn said in the interview. “He has already said publicly that if he gets the gavel he will be issuing subpoenas everywhere.”That will define the next two years of the president’s administration,” he warned. “The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife’s family is from Georgetown or Sampit.
“See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.The issue of Obama’s birth certificate, of course, is key to the multitude of questions that have been raised about whether he is eligible to occupy the Oval Office. The nation’s founders, in the Constitution, imposed a special requirement for the person who is president, that of being a “natural-born citizen.
“Story continues below
WASHINGTON – Glenn Beck may pooh-pooh the issue of Barack Obama‘s eligibility based on his qualifications – or lack thereof – as a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires of a president, and has on his show made that clear a number of times.But some of his most loyal fans are emphatic in demanding, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”On Beck’s own website, a thread started today shows those concerned over Obama’s unwillingness to provide documentation that shows his eligibility running 9-to-one over those who believe the issue is a non-issue.At 2:11 p.m., a reader posted a comment on his website,
The Blaze, about Democratic Congressman James Clyburn warning that the GOP is getting ready to take control of Congress in the 2010 November election, and it then will issue subpoenas regarding Obama’s eligibility issue.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.The original post included a video clip of Beck and guest Dinesh D’Souza dismissing the eligibility issue.But within hours, more than 100 comments had been posted, and according to WND’s tally, 45 of those comments questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, and only five supported Beck’s position rejecting the controversy.The remaining posts commented on Clyburn or other issues.
Story continues below D’Souza accurately argued that the “best evidence” that Obama was born in Honolulu, as he claims, is two contemporary newspaper notices announcing his birth.D’Souza, however, displayed no knowledge of the reasons why these notices do not constitute compelling evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu, as WND has reported.
US intelligence services would be allowed to tap text messages, emails and networking websites under new powers being considered by Barack Obama‘s administration.The FBI says extremists and drug cartels are increasingly communicating online rather than using telephones, leaving US investigators struggling to keep track of them.
A new bill requesting the additional powers to investigate suspected criminals and terrorists will be presented next year. It is likely to face stiff opposition from civil liberties advocates who say the security services have historically abused extensions of power.James Dempsey, of the pressure group Centre for Democracy and Technology, said: “They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique architecture of the internet.
“The proposals are likely to require that all encrypted messaging services, such as BlackBerry, include a facility or back door, that would allow investigators to examine communications with a warrant.Any foreign communications providers operating in America would also have to have an office in the country able to provide intercepts.Software developers of internet communication services such as Skype, which are heavily encrypted, would be required to redesign their products to enable interception.Valerie Caproni, the FBI’s general counsel, said: “We’re talking about lawfully authorised intercepts.”We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.”Apart from ethical objections, experts said there were significant technical hurdles.Creating a back door to encrypted services would provide hackers with another opening, said Steven Bellovin, professor of computer science at Columbia University.Excerpt Read more at telegraph.co.uk …