www.Resistnwo.com - News 18
HOME
Monday, October 04, 2010
By Michael W. Chapman
A Media Research Center "Tell the Truth!" truck ad in downtown New York City.
(CNSNews.com) – On Friday, four billboard trucks in New York City bearing the message “Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!” started circling the Manhattan headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC, and the New York Times. The trucks will do so for eight hours every weekday for the next four weeks as part of a campaign run by the Media Research Center, a watchdog group that analyzes the media for liberal bias.
Similar trucks are also operating in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, passing the offices of the broadcast networks, the Washington Post, CNN, the Newseum, the National Press Club and Politico, and ads about the campaign are running on numerous Web sites and on conservative talk radio programs.
L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), the parent company of CNSNews.com, said the goal of this 2010 “Tell the Truth!” campaign “is simple: to force the liberals in the media to stop pushing an agenda and just tell the truth.”
The “liberal media news networks” need to report the facts about “massive growth in government and its control over our lives, and about spending, deficits and debt,” he told CNSNews.com. “They also need to tell the truth about the efforts to turn our country into a European-style Socialist state.”
In a video about the campaign on the MRC Web site, Bozell said, “We can’t stop our efforts, we’ve got to maintain that intensity of letting the American people know exactly the fact that the socialist agenda of the Obama administration is being pushed by those same people who then look at you in the camera and say, ‘I’m nothing but an objective journalist.’ No, they’re not. They’re participants.”
Concerning the billboard trucks in Manhattan, each side of one truck says, “Hey CBS, Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!” and the back of the truck says, “Honk If You Don’t Believe The Liberal Media.” The other trucks bear the same message but directed at ABC, NBC, and the New York Times.
In Washington, D.C., there are also 12 delivery trucks with an identical message. But, as rented ad space, they will run their daily routes in the metro area. Six trucks are also scheduled to run in Denver, Colo.
The MRC launched the 2010 “Tell The Truth!” campaign in September and, in addition to the truck ads, the watchdog group is running similar ads on the conservative Web sites RushLimbaugh.com, MarkLevinShow.com, The Drudge Report and Hannity.com.
Also, the MRC is posting billboard ads of its “Tell the Truth!” message in nine cities, including Pittsburgh, Little Rock, Las Vegas, Dallas, Orlando, Seattle and Milwaukee. TV ads will be broadcast on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” program. Further, throughout this month an ad will run on the popular conservative talk radio program The Mark Levin Show.
The MRC estimates that with this campaign it will reach “tens of millions of Americans every single week over the next several months and present them with concrete evidence of the leftist bias in the press.”
In 2008, the goal of the “liberal media” was “to elect Barack Obama by any means possible, and they just created a narrative that was simply not true,” said Bozell. “What do you think would have been the reaction of the American people if, on Election Day, they’d gone to the polls knowing that in electing Barack Obama, they were electing the single most radical socialist in the history of this country? I submit to you, he never would have been elected. That’s the power of the media.”
"Tell the Truth!" trucks in the theater district of Manhattan.
This “Tell The Truth!” campaign, he said, is, in the long run about his children and grandchildren. “It’s about generations to come,” said Bozell. “We’ve always been a nation where we left the next generation in slightly better hands than they were a generation before – and that’s not happening now.”
“We stand to be the generation that will be asked by future generations, ‘Why didn’t you stop it?’” he said. “I want to be the generation that says, ‘We returned America to her greatness. There were those who wanted to destroy this country and there were some of us who said no.’ That’s what I want.”
Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story's author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Submitted by patriot76a on Mon, 2010-10-04 23:31.
Good idea, but in reality it's just pissing in the wind.
Better to say they tried than not try at all. But too many are out for something for nothing. No matter what is wrong, let the government take care of it.
Stop and think about it, what's to make these targeted news organizations tell the truth? They're only puppets OF the government. After all, the GOVERNMENT controls the airwaves through the FCC.
I'm suprised Fox hasn't had "trouble" keeping their license valid.
Just listen to a White House press briefing. Ever hear FOX or WND get anywhere NEAR the opportunity to ask questions that the quote big three unquote do? You won't. Les Kinsolving of World Net Daily popped the birth certificate question not once, but twice. After each time he was "banished" to the uncalled-on for weeks! DARE HE ASK A HARD QUESTION LIKE THAT!
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
By Dan Joseph
Tax Day 2010
Almost 23 million American households have already
had their federal taxes raised by an average of $3,900 this year--but
may not know it yet.
They could get a big surprise when they prepare their tax returns
next year.
Among those subject to this already-in-place tax increase are some
families making less than $50,000 per year, and virtually all married
couples earning between $100,000 per year and $500,000 per year,
according to data published by the Congressional Budget Office.
This is despite the fact that President Barack Obama has promised not to increase taxes on any individual earning less than $200,00 per year or on any household earning less than $250,000.
This tax increase on almost 23 million people is already in place because a temporary reprieve for many middle-class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax that Congress passed last year expired on Dec. 31, 2009 and has not been in effect for 2010.
According to the CBO, an estimated 4.5 million American households were subjected to the AMT in 2009, and 27.2 million are now liable to pay the AMT for this year unless Congress acts to lift the tax before Dec. 31. That means that under current law at least 22.7 million American households that did not have to pay the AMT last year will have to pay it on the income they have been earning since Jan. 1 of this year.
Repealing the AMT completely and permanently would add $626 billion to the federal debt over the next ten years, according to CBO.
The AMT was enacted in 1969 and was intended to impose taxes on high-income individuals who used deductions and loop holes to reduce or eliminate their liability under the regular income tax. Because the tax has not been adjusted for inflation since then, each year additional families at progressively lower income levels become subject to the tax.
The tax especially hits married couples with children and mortgages because of the deductions and credits they are allowed under federal income tax laws. "Because of the particular tax preferences and exemptions disallowed under the AMT, that tax structure is more likely to affect married couples, large families, and taxpayers in states with high state and local taxes," says CBO.
Past Congresses and presidents have chosen to enact protective one-year “patches” that temporarily increase the income threshold subject to the AMT thus protecting between 10 and 30 million Americans from the tax. So far this year, Congress, which adjourned last week, has failed to take action on the matter. If Congress fails to renew the “patch” before Dec. 31, according to CBO, the 27 million Americans subjected to the AMT this year will see their tax bills rise by an average of $3,900.
Of the households that will be hit with the AMT this year under current law, according to CBO, 3 percent are households making less than $50,000 a year, 35 percent are household making between $50,000 and $100,000 per years; 47 percent are households making between $100,000 and $200,000 per year; and 14 percent are households making between $200,000 and $500,000 per year.
As the law now stands, virtually all married couples in America earning between $100,000 and $500,000 will be hit with the AMT this year--on income they started earning ten months ago. "If nothing is changed this year, one in six taxpayers will be affected by the AMT, paying on average an additional $3,900 in tax, and nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe some alternative tax."
Pete Sepp, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, says that failure to renew the patch would disproportionately hit middle-class families.
“Of the 20 to 30 million taxpayers who might get hit with AMT due to Congress’ inaction, the majority of them would be middle class,” Sepp told CNSNews.com. “The vast majority would consist of solidly middle-class taxpayers.”
Moreover, the increased tax bill would come at the worst possible time, Sepp said.
“Families, especially, are experiencing low tax liabilities because they have lower incomes,” he said. “The AMT, ironically, would work in an almost contrary manner, because there would be, for example, households where one of the bread winners lost their job or had to reduce their hours, (and) would be reporting less hours, but they still may be taking the same number of exemptions and deductions for all their kids, for various other household property or operations -- business that they may have. They might still be claiming the same number and types of deductions and credits, but on an even lower income.”
Jim Billimoria, spokesman for the Republican minority on the House Ways and Means Committee, told CNSNews.com that failure to renew the patch would amount to a broken promise by President Obama, who made a pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.
“Raising taxes on millions of families during a recession with an unemployment rate stuck near 10 percent not only breaks President Obama’s tax pledge but is the wrong formula for economic growth,” Billimora said in an e-mail.
When questioned as to why Congress is having such difficulty extending the AMT patch, Sepp pointed to the failure by many in the public and the media to grasp the severity of the situation.
“Why a policy that has so many horrendous implications for the middle class is allowed to bumble along like this until the final months of the year is unclear,” he told CNSNews.com. “This is something that we’ve had to do a lot of educational work on. Not only with the public, but with the media, because this is sort of being lumped in with the 2001 and 2003 tax rate extensions--and those affect the year 2011 for returns filed in 2012. The AMT affects 2010 returns filed next year, so in that sense it’s far more urgent and in fact the IRS probably won’t be able to retool its operations quickly enough to allow for a smooth filing season for people with AMT issues.”
Bryan Ellis, tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, told CNSNews.com that there may be political motives behind the failure by the Democratic majority to enact a patch.
“If the Democrats wanted to get rid of the AMT and do so without having to worry about all of the tax increases or not worrying about PAYGO, and just get rid of it, that would get 400 votes in the House," Ellis said. “It would get the votes of virtually every Republican and virtually every Democrat.”
But a Congress that simply voted to eliminate the AMT without making equivalent spending cuts would be adding to the $626 billion to the ten-year deficit that CBO estimates as the cost of such
How Much Will Your Taxes Increase
Taxes Going Up.
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 18:51 — Anonymous
by:
Dave Lindorff
If you have been feeling uneasy about having to be X-rayed
by a Transportation Security Administration goon who can look
under your clothes every time you fly, consider this: at least
you can say no, and agree to be subjected to an old-fashioned
full-body search.
No opt-out for the latest in anti-terror technology though, with
reports just out in Forbes Magazine and the Christian Science
Monitor that the Homeland Security Department has purchased
500 mobil X-ray vans called ZBVs that can scan cars, trucks and
homes without the drivers or residents in a building even
knowing that they’re being zapped.
These vans, made by a Massachusetts company called American
Science & Engineering, are fitted out with what are called Z Backscatter X-ray devices, which aim a powrful X-ray beam that reportedly has the capability of penetrating 14 inches of steel.
A driver can be X-rayed with no protection and never know what hit himA driver can be X-rayed with no protection and never know what hit him
In theory, the device is supposed to be safe for human targets, because it is operated at a distance, and because the beam is weakened by penetrating the metal of a vehicle before it reaches a person. But the flaws in this kind of reassuring safety calculus are readily apparent in a photo of a small truck carrying contraband that accompanies the Christian Science Monitor story. The X-ray image, after penetrating the truck cab’s metal body, clearly shows the contraband behind the driver’s seat, but it also just as clearly shows the shadowy outline of the driver of the pickup. Worse yet, even his window is half-way down, so there is no shielding at all of the X-rays hitting his head. Houses meanwhile, are most often built of wood, which offers little or no shielding protection.
We can expect these mobil X-ray vans to be proliferating around the country soon, if they’re not out there already, but they may be hard to spot. As American Science & Engineering says in a note to investors on the company website:
A breakthrough in X-ray detection technology, AS&E's Z Backscatter Van is the number one selling non-intrusive mobile inspection system on the market. The ZBV system is a low-cost, highly mobile screening system built into a commercially available delivery van.
One of the 500 X-ray vans Homeland Security has bought to cruise the US zapping unsuspecting driversOne of the 500 X-ray vans Homeland Security has bought to cruise the US zapping unsuspecting drivers
Prof. Peter Rez, a physicist a Arizona State University who specializes in X-ray technology, and who has been doing research on backscatter X-ray dosages, says that if used properly, the radiation doses received by targeted persons would be very minute, but then he notes that if the government begins a major campaign of surreptitious X-raying on highways and at locations of security concern (the machines are already being used at major sporting events like the Superbowl), there have to be concerns about whether the machines are being maintained in proper working condition (driving them around on America’s run-down highways is subjecting the machines to quite a beating), and about whether the operators are using them properly.
This is even the case with airport X-ray machines, he says, where the doses are very low, but the actual beam is quite powerful. Since X-ray beams cannot be focussed, two moving mechanical parts are used, including a spinning wheel with a small series of holes in it, so that what reaches the targeted individual is just short bursts of X-rays. If either of those moving mechanical parts broke down while a person was being zapped, though, Rez says the person would be “fried” by a major X-ray exposure. “I was assured by the government that the machines have a fail-safe system so they shut down instantly if the moving parts fail,” he says, “but BP had a fail-safe system too, and we saw how well that worked. For my part, I wouldn’t go through an X-ray scanner unless they could show me a very low documented failure rate!”
Arjun Makhijani, an engineer and physicist with the Institute of Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland, also points out that any safety studies for the backscatter machines are referring to their effect on average adults. But if the government is scanning moving vehicles on a highway, or looking inside trailers, for example to spot smuggled immigrants (the metal-piercing backscatter machines are being installed at border crossings on the Mexican border), there is no way to know when they are exposing children or the fetuses of pregnant women, both of which populations are far more vulnerable to damage from ionizing radiation than an average adult.
X-raying trucks to spot human smuggling could subject pregnant women or children to dangerous radiationX-raying trucks to spot human smuggling could subject pregnant women or children to dangerous radiation
Americans in Atlanta got a taste of this latest government intrusion into their lives when Homeland Security last Tuesday ran what it called a “counterterrorism operation” not prompted by any specific threat. The agency set up one of its ZBV vans on I-20 and snarled traffic for hours while all trailer trucks were stopped and scanned by Homeland Security personnel.
ThisCantBeHappening! has also learned that the US military has been operating backscanner X-ray machines on the streets of New York, where it has been aiming the devices even at pedestrians. One location where this was done was outside the United Nations building on 1st Avenue in Manhattan.
If you want to see how outrageous this is getting, check out this promotional video produced by AS&E, which shows their vans cruising the streets of New York, X-raying parked cars and trucks along the curb. Imagine what happens as this mobil X-ray device inadvertently zaps pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. In fact, in the video, you can actually see people walking on the pavement as the vehicle goes by scanning the parked cars. (Since the operator is busy monitoring the screen, there's no way he is turning it off to spare the pedestrians.)
The mobil X-ray vans are only the latest step in a steady march by the American government towards a total national security state, where citizens can expect to be monitored in everything they do. Cities are installing video cameras all over the place, allegedly to fight crime and catch drivers who speed or run red lights. And just last week, the Obama administration announced that it was seeking to expand monitoring of communications to include non-phone systems like Skype and Google Phone, and that it would require internet communications providers to provide it with customer messages, even encrypted ones.
What makes the new mobile X-ray campaign even worse is that, like the airport X-ray machines, they are unlikely to work as advertized. For example, as Prof. Rez notes, the one thing that the airport X-ray devices cannot detect is liquid or semi-liquid explosives--the very thing they were installed to try and keep off of planes! He notes for example, that plastic explosive, like C-4, can easily be molded to look like a roll of fat on the body in an X-ray. Similarly, once criminals or would-be terrorists know that the government has mobile X-ray vans on the highways, they can just stay to secondary roads, or disguise their bomb materials to look like something ordinary, like a bag of groceries.
In other words, we all get zapped for nothing.
Says IEER’s Makhijani, “I know there can be a legitimate concern about security, but all this is happening in secret. We really need to open things up, so we know how these things work, what the dosages are, how they are being used and maintained, and we especially need to have a thoughtful public discussion about whether we really want this kind of thing to be done.”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A 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” b
y 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.
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.
Microsoft has been at the forefront of a bid to introduce Internet licensing as a means of controlling how people access and use the world wide web, an effort that has intensified over the course of the past year.
“We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet,” he said, mirroring Charney’s rhetoric about controlling cyberspace in a public health context.
“If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.”
“Don’t be surprised if it becomes reality in the near future,” wrote ZD Net’s Doug Hanchard on the introduction of Internet licensing . “Every device connected to the Internet will have a permanent license plate and without it, the network won’t allow you to log in.”
Just days after Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, Time Magazine jumped on the bandwagon, publishing an article by Barbara Kiviat, one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab, in which she wrote that the Internet was too lawless and needed “the people in charge” to start policing it with licensing measures.
Shortly after Time Magazine started peddling the proposal, the New York Times soon followed suit with a blog entitled Driver’s Licenses for the Internet?, which merely parroted Kiviat’s talking points.
Of course there’s a very good reason for Time Magazine and the New York Times to be pushing for measures that would undoubtedly lead to a chilling effect on free speech which would in turn eviscerate the blogosphere.
Like the rest of the mainstream print dinosaurs, physical sales of Time Magazine have been plummeting, partly as a result of more people getting their news for free on the web from independent sources. Ad sales for the New York Times sunk by no less than 28 per cent last year with subscriptions and street sales also falling.
As we have documented, the entire cybersecurity agenda is couched in fearsome rhetoric about virus attacks, but its ultimate goal is to hand the Obama administration similar powers over the Internet to those enjoyed by Communist China, which are routinely exercised not for genuine security concerns, but to oppress political adversaries, locate dissidents, and crush free speech.
Indeed, Internet licensing was considered by the Chinese last year and rejected for being too authoritarian, concerns apparently not shared by Microsoft.
Any proposal which allows the government to get a foot in the door on dictating who can and can’t use the Internet should be vigorously opposed because such a system would be wide open for abuse and pave the way for full licensing and top down control of the world wide web.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
A US 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", sai
d Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.
Hasan, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan's
president, suggested the Obama administration
was playing politics with the terror threat before
next month's midterm congressional elections, in
which the Republicans are expected to make bi
g gains.
He also claimed President Obama was reacting to pressure to demonstrate that his Afghan war strategy and this year's troop surge, which are unpopular with the American public, were necessary.
"I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves," Hasan said.
"Such reports are a mixture of frustrations, ineptitude and lack of appreciation of ground realities. Any attempt to infringe the sovereignty of Pakistan would not bring about stability in Afghanistan, which is presumably the primary objective of the American and Nato forces."
Dismissing claims of a developed, co-ordinated plot aimed at Britain, France and Germany, European intelligence officials also pointed the finger at the US, and specifically at the White House. "To stitch together [the terror plot claims] in a seamless narrative is nonsensical," said one well-placed official.
While Abdul Jabbar, a Briton, and others killed by an American drone strike on 8 September in North Waziristan, in Pakistan's tribal areas, were heard discussing co-ordinated plots, including possible "commando-style" attacks on prominent buildings and tourist sites in European capitals, security and intelligence officials said the plots were nowhere near fruition.
The officials did not deny the men, and other foreign-born jihadi recruits who travel to the tribal areas for indoctrination and training, represented a potentially serious threat. "You have discussions about all sorts of things – that does not necessarily mean there is anything concrete. It is not easy to set up groups," said one counter-terrorism official.
By making it clear that the US drone strikes were pre-emptive, and were not in any way combating an imminent threat, European officials raised fresh questions – this time directly involving a British national – about the legality of the attacks, which could be viewed as assassinations.
They said Washington was the "driver" behind claims about a series of "commando-style" plots and that the CIA – perhaps because it was worried about provoking unwelcome attention to its drone strikes – was also extremely annoyed by the publicity given to them.
The plot claims, which western intelligence agencies were aware of for months, were leaked last week to the American media.
They were followed by a spate of what security and intelligence officials said were exaggerated claims in the British media, a US state department warning to American citizens to be vigilant when visiting Britain, France, and Germany, a "tit for tat" warning by France to its citizens visiting the UK, and alerts issued by the Swedish and Japanese governments.
Thomas de Maizière, Germany's interior minister, publicly expressed his scepticism about the US terror warning, saying he saw no sign of an imminent attack on Germany. He described the danger to Germany as "hypothetical".
The sharp rise in US unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas, coupled with several cross-border raids by American helicopter gunships that culminated in the killing of two Frontier Corps soldiers last week, was destabilising Pakistan, Hasan said.
"Why are they putting so much pressure on us? It is a threat to the democratic system … But people in Pakistan feel Washington does not care." American actions were "obviously" linked to Obama's decision to set a timetable for leaving Afghanistan. The US leader had "jumped the gun" and now "the Americans are in a hurry".
He said fears were growing in Pakistan that the US was planning a bombing campaign using fixed-wing aircraft as well as drones in North Waziristan.
Hasan said Washington politicians failed to understand how much the US needed Pakistan in the "war on terror". Nor did they realise that public anger over repeated US infringements of Pakistani sovereignty could boil over into attacks on American personnel and interests that the government might not be able to control.
"The government does not want to go down this road," he said. "But people feel abused. If they [the Americans] kill someone again, they will react. There is a figure that there are 3,000 American personnel in Pakistan. They would be very easy targets."
Hasan said American personnel stationed at the Pakistani air force base at Jacobabad, on the border between Sindh and Baluchistan provinces, could be vulnerable if the situation deteriorated further. The US requested the use of Jacobabad, and other bases at Dalbandin and Pasni, after the 9/11 attacks, and has maintained a military presence there ever since.
Another Pakistani diplomat said Jacobabad was the main centre of operations for CIA and US army drones, which are ultimately controlled from America. "They have hangars there. That's where they fly from and that's where they return."
The drone operations began in June 2004 with the tacit, reluctant agreement and involvement of the Pakistani authorities but were now in effect running beyond Pakistan's control, the diplomat suggested. "We have always denied it in the past. But everybody knows this is happening. We need to wake up," the official said.
A US official said: "Our allies have been briefed on the nature of the threat and the intelligence that led to the travel alert and everyone understands this cannot be taken lightly.
"To try to ascribe any political motivation is misguided and irresponsible."
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 11, 2010
UPDATE: Today we have learned that the New Hampshire DCYF is preventing
Jonathon Irish from even seeing his child at all. This is clearly a violation of
basic visitation rights. Authorities cite “security threats” as the reason for
blocking visitation, without explaining what those threats are. Irish, his fiancé
Stephanie and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes will appear on The Alex
Jones Show today.
In an effort to chill free speech and smear those who dare to stand up for
their constitutional rights as terrorists, the FBI sent bomb-sniffing dogs into
Concord Hospital New Hampshire on Friday to coincide with a protest against
the snatching of a baby by the DCYF, which was partly justified on the basis
that father Jonathon Irish was affiliated with the Oath Keepers organization
and owned guns.
The court-ratified affidavit used to rip newly born Cheyenne Taylor from her
mother’s arms, which was confirmed on Saturday by the Union Leader, cites
Irish’s association with the Oath Keepers, a peaceful group of current and
former police and military professionals committed to disobeying
unconstitutional orders, and also Irish’s ownership of guns, as two
justifications to take the baby.
The affidavit in support of the decision to take the child states, “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser,” confirming that political beliefs were, amongst other reasons, one of the primary factors behind the snatching of the baby.
In reaction to the controversy, half a dozen people gathered to show their support for Jonathon Irish and Stephanie Taylor at a demonstration on Friday at the hospital.
Despite there being no threat, no warning and no genuine purpose, “FBI bomb-sniffing dogs were at Concord Hospital on Friday after demonstrators gathered to protest a newborn being removed from her mother’s care by the state,” reports WMUR 9 News.
“The hospital said there was no threat made….The FBI left the hospital without finding anything threatening,” adds the report.
In other words, the feds wanted local news to report on the bomb sniffing dogs in order for the public to make a connection between the demonstrators and violent terrorists, while also attempting to legitimize the seizure of the baby in the first place by creating contrived paranoia and suggesting that a protest involving less than a dozen people was a genuine terror threat.
By manufacturing a non-existent bomb threat, the feds were keen to send a message that people who oppose the lucrative government child abduction racket, where babies are seized in return for massive cash incentives and the children sold on to transnational corporations like Dyncorp and Halliburton who run sex slave rings, are domestic extremists.
According to innumerable federal and state reports, the American people are now considered to be the number one terror threat. Anyone who exercises their rights from whatever political persuasion is now considered a domestic extremist. The State Department now officially defines protest as “low-level terrorism”.
In a related development, despite the fact that stealing babies on the pretext of the political beliefs of the parents is a hallmark of brutal dictatorships like North Korea, eugenics-loving leftist websites like Wonkette found only sardonic humor in the story.
Presumably, Wonkette wouldn’t have found a newborn baby being ripped from its mother’s arms funny if the government had cited anti-war beliefs as one of the reasons for seizing a baby from liberal parents, but when it happens to a “right-winger,” it’s hilarious.
“Wonkette finds it absolutely hilarious that anyone might be alarmed that political associations (with a group whose greatest sin is a refusal on the part of its members who are agents of the U.S. government to enforce unconstitutional orders) and weapons possession might be among the reasons listed for the state taking custody of a child from its parents,” writes Reason’s Brian Doherty.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
“The author and commenters goes on with some incredibly mean-spirited class-based mockery that is actually kind of extraordinary–especially in the monolithic ability of people to laugh at baby snatching as long as it occurs to those kind of people. We don’t like those kind of people. There is even an incredibly un-self-aware, head-up-the-ass comment asking the angry right-wing populists to do a racial inversion on the situation (the parents are white)–not wondering for a minute how funny Wonkette Assembled would find all the assumed language, class, and diet mockery in the thread in the case of such an inversion.”
Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
October 7, 2010
Installing mandatory biometric stations in schools serves only to prepare students for a lifetime of living on the control grid. Photo:
John Lee.
The Los Angeles Unified School District is attempting to push mandatory
fingerprinting on students. In order to receive their lunches, students
will be required to submit to the compulsory biometric identification
system put in place by the district. This comes only a few short months
after it was revealed that a city in mexico was being equipped with
expensive biometric systems, such as iris scanners and thumb scanners.
The program is currently in the test phase. Superintendent Ramon Cortines
claims that it can create jobs, make schools safer, and help students who
are struggling economically from feeling embarrassed when using their
free lunch tickets.
Falsely making it an issue of equality
Instead of debating as to whether or not the mandatory fingerprinting is intrusive and Orwellian, the debate will be over whether or not mandatory fingerprinting will help establish equality in schools. Superintendent Ramon Cortines has already made the claim that fingerprinting the children will help less fortunate students. He claims that students who cannot afford lunch, and therefore have to use a special ticket, will no longer have to do so. This will apparently prevent them from feeling “embarrassed” when in line for their lunch.
The issue is not about equality. Installing mandatory biometric stations in schools serves only to prepare them for a lifetime of living on the control grid. To prepare young children for frequent unlawful searches and seizures will soften them up to these injustices in their adulthood. The only equality here is the assurance that all of the students will be equally violated of their rights.
Is it really about convenience?
Whenever expansive tracking systems are being put into place, it is always pushed under the guise of being extremely convenient. Cashless monetary transactions are pushed as convenient due to the absence of physical cash. The Mexican “safe” city would utilize iris scanners to record one’s assets, and immediately identify them through the scan. This holds true with fingerprinting students as well. Students will no longer have to bring cash to pay for their lunches, which apparently makes up for the severity of the issue according to some political frauds.
The truth of the matter is that “convenience” is becoming the death of privacy. Faster purchasing methods are always available to those willing to submit their personal information, and sometimes much more. This is not limited to purchases, however. In order to avoid submitting vital personal information, it is oftentimes necessary to go through tedious processes that are very time consuming. An example of this is when it was required to scan your thumb in order to receive a license in Texas. You could either scan your thumb, choose to not receive a license, or attempt to fight it in court.
Going beyond propaganda
In order to shatter the propaganda surrounding biometric profiling of United States citizens, it is important to bring the real issues to light. If citizens ignore the fingerprinting in Los Angeles schools, then it will soon be coming to their own neighborhood schools. It is certainly not an isolated issue. The chief business developer of Mexico’s “safe” city even admitted that in the future is filled with mandatory biometric scanning.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
“In the future, whether it’s entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris,” he said during an interview.
The only way to stop the conditioning of children from spreading nationally, or even internationally, is to stop it in LA. It is important that parents and citizens worldwide take a stand against that blatant intrusion of privacy. Since when did you have to prove your innocence?
–
Jonathan Irish appeared on the Alex Jones Show this evening and said his
infant daughter, Cheyenne, was returned to him and his fiancé, Stephanie
Taylor. The state of New Hampshire, citing neglect, had abducted the newborn
at the Concord Hospital.
Irish expressed his gratitude for the return of his daughter but said he was not
at liberty to divulge details on the release due to a court gag order.
Irish told Alex Jones that his name was confused with that of another man with
a similar name. The second man apparently has a record of domestic abuse
and violence.
A court affidavit stated Jonathan Irish’s association with the Oath Keepers as
one of the primary reasons the child was taken. “The Division became aware
and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath
Keepers and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle,
handgun and taser,” the affidavit states.
The Oath Keepers was founded in March of 2009 in in Lexington, Massachusetts. The nonprofit organization advocates that its members, who are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers, uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it. The Oath Keepers organization is not a militia as the court affidavit and corporate media insist.
After Cheyenne was abducted by New Hampshire’s Division of Children, Youth and Families, authorities prevented Jonathon Irish from seeing his child. Authorities cited “security threats” as the reason for blocking visitation without explaining precisely what those threats were. Irish, his fiancé Stephanie and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes appeared on the Alex Jones Show on October 11 to discuss this violation of basic visitation rights.
On Friday, October 8, the FBI sent bomb-sniffing dogs into Concord Hospital to intimidate people who had gathered to protest against the snatching of a baby by the DCYF.
On October 13, Stephanie Taylor voiced concerns when she discovered blood in her baby’s diaper during a supervised visit at the at a Strafford County administration building. After authorities determined there was “no indication of any abuse,” the child was returned to foster care.
Will Bunch, writing for the Soros funded Media Matters for America, led a corporate media campaign to demonize Irish and characterize as a “bizarre right-wing campaign” the effort to have the child returned to her parents. Bunch writes that “the evidence is overwhelming that the girl was taken from Irish and the mother Stephanie Taylor at the hospital for the only reason that the government should take that extreme step: To ensure the safety of an otherwise helpless child.”
Bunch’s assertion that CPS agencies protect children is at odds with the record. As the late Nancy Schaefer has documented, “child protection services” around the country have a record corruption and are often detrimental to the health and well-being of children. CPS agencies often act as legalized kidnapping services.
Now that the court has admitted that the child was taken in error and Jonathan Irish is in fact not an abusive father and the authorities had either confused or deliberately associated Irish with the behavior of another individual, Mr. Bunch and Media Matters should immediately apologize for slandering Irish, Taylor, and Alex Jones.
Resistnwo-news20
