Truckers, auto workers nervous as diesel, gas prices soar The cost for a gallon of diesel had risen to the $4 mark or above in 23 states as of Tuesday, March 18, according to ProMiles. Truckers continue to watch as prices shatter record highs, and auto workers are also cautiously watching fuel prices as the cost of gasoline inches closer to the $4 mark. While many truckers are dipping into their reserves to keep their businesses afloat, UAW Local 249 President Jim Stouffer, who represents more than 4,200 workers at the Ford Motor Co. plant in Claycomo, MO, admits he’s worried about how the automotive industry will fare if gas prices hit $4 per gallon. “With the price going up more each day it scares us that there’s going to be a time when it’s going to hit $4 a gallon – and then what are we going to do?” Stouffer told Land Line on Monday, March 17. “Are we going to lose a shift here, or what’s going to happen? We really don’t know.” The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported Monday that the national average for diesel was $3.974, and it is also forecasting that the monthly pump price for gasoline will peak at $3.48 a gallon this spring on a nationwide basis. The agency is also predicting that gasoline may top $4 in some regions of the country. Stouffer said he sympathizes with truckers who are already paying record-high prices at the pump for diesel. He said sales of the F-150, which is made at the Claycomo plant, are already down because of high gas prices. Skyrocketing diesel prices are affecting his industry, too, he said, because fewer people are buying new trucks with diesel engines because of the “astounding” prices for diesel, which for decades were lower than unleaded gasoline. “Obviously, our Ford plant in Kentucky that builds the heavy-duty trucks is struggling,” Stouffer said. “Sales are down. With the price of diesel fuel so high, people are trying to buy the old ones and use them and not buy a new truck and have that payment. Unfortunately, it’s going to get harder – much worse – before it gets better.” In about six months, Stouffer said, the Claycomo plant will feature a diesel engine in the F-150 for the 2009 model year. He said it seems everyone who relies on oil is “getting totally screwed” right now, except the oil industry. “I don’t think our government at any level has really taken on what needs to be done to try and corral some of the costs,” Stouffer said. “It should be criminal that Exxon is making record profits … at the expense of the consumer. The consumer is the ultimate person that pays, and everybody in between suffers.” OOIDA is encouraging its members to contact their lawmakers regarding these record-high prices. Stouffer said his industry is encouraging their members to do so as well. “We don’t have a textbook solution either on how to deal with these high prices other than telling the politicians to get off their butts and take care of the people like they’re supposed to because that’s what it’s all about – the people.” Stouffer also agrees with OOIDA’s position that the Bush administration should immediately cease the diversion of oil supplies to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and instead allow the product to directly enter the marketplace. “He (Bush) could do that tomorrow and divert that out to the public so that it could help consumers now, but politics is everything,” Stouffer said. “These politicians, from the bottom to the top, bend over for the big corporations and take money from them and then forget why they’re there. They are supposed to be there to help the people of this country that work for a living, and they’re not doing that.” – By Clarissa Kell-Holland, staff writer clarissa_kell-holland@landlinemag.com Justices agree on right to own guns By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer              March 18, 2008 WASHINGTON, DC   Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago. Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far. The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other. Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia. Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said. Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked. Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review." The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court. Gun rights proponents were encouraged. "What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments. A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons. Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it. This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court. In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday. "When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said. Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable. "There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said. On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter. Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight. While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns." Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue. Org shouted "more guns, less crime." The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court. The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights. Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."   TTC News Archives Posted March 17, 2008, Cintra-Zachry has been granted the loan   "Privately funded?" Cintra-Zachry asks Uncle Sam for a Loan By TONY HARTZEL / The Dallas Morning News Copyright 2005 Cintra-Zachry, the consortium that won a $7.2 billion development deal from the state for the first part of the Trans-Texas Corridor largely because it said it would use private money on the massive project, is looking for public funds to help subsidize the corridor's first segments. The partnership has filed a letter with the Federal Highway Administration stating its interest in applying for a $320 million low-interest loan. If approved, it would help pay for the estimated $1 billion, 42-mile State Highway 130 extension from south of Austin to Seguin that the company identified as a potential corridor project in its letter to federal officials. For months, state officials have touted the Trans-Texas Corridor as a way to get 316 miles of needed toll roads and rail lines built from North Texas to San Antonio without the use of public funds. And when the state and Cintra-Zachry signed the deal March 11, Gov. Rick Perry's office issued a news release saying that the construction would be done "at no cost to taxpayers." "I believe we always said state dollars" would not be used, said Texas Department of Transportation spokeswoman Gaby Garcia, drawing a distinction between federal and state money. "At the time Cintra-Zachry came on, we looked only at [whether there would be] the inclusion of state dollars. That's how we defined it." In December, Cintra-Zachry officials outlined some of their financial and development plans for the corridor, which prominently included private funding for the public project. José López, director of Madrid, Spain-based Cintra's U.S. and Latin American operations, said at the time that federal loans, known as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loans, could be used. The loans are used to entice public and private investment in major transportation projects. "This is part of our normal research in preparing for any eventuality to get needed roads built more quickly," Rossanna Salazar, a spokeswoman for Cintra-Zachry, said Wednesday. Cintra teamed with San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Corp. and other firms to design and build the corridor project. If Cintra-Zachry's federal loan request is eventually approved, it would mark only the second such loan given to a private entity for a large road project. An Australian firm received a $140 million loan for a toll road project near San Diego that broke ground in 2003. Not surprised Kathy Walt, spokeswoman for Mr. Perry, said he was not surprised that Cintra-Zachry would have to seek innovative forms of financing to help it build billions of dollars of new highways. The request is not a reversal of any of the consortium's previously stated goals about using private funds, she said. "I disagree that the perception is any different here," Ms. Walt said. "A loan is a loan. It's not a grant, and it will be paid back with interest." Still, the news that any government money could be used on the project dismayed some state leaders. "This is the first we've heard of them essentially seeking tax money for the project," said Mike Sizemore, press secretary for Sen. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria, who has publicly questioned the corridor project. "The whole thing is, it was touted as using private funds." So does a low-interest federal loan use public money? It can be viewed both ways. Opponents argue that the funds are coming from the U.S. Treasury, which could use the money for other purposes. "I didn't think the federal budget has enough money to loan right now," Mr. Sizemore said. Loan's terms Federal officials who oversee the program also pointed out that the loan would be repaid with interest. But the terms on such loans usually are favorable to the borrower. In general, the terms of such loans allow for repayment over 35 years. A recent loan for a Louisiana project featured the government's 4.45 percent interest rate. The loans typically don't require payments to begin until the project is substantially complete, an important point for a proposed toll road that would not generate revenue until it was opened to traffic. Because it is part of a separate funding program, the loan would not affect the amount of federal highway money Texas regularly receives. In debating whether public funds are going toward the corridor project, the state Transportation Department also makes a distinction on State Highway 130 itself. Technically, Ms. Garcia said, it is not considered part of the corridor because it received federal approval for construction before the Trans-Texas Corridor development deal was awarded. In addition, Highway 130 also may not have room for roads, rail lines and utility lines all in one place, one of the key selling points the state has touted. "If the corridor never moves forward, Highway 130 would be built on its own," Ms. Garcia said. "130 is a stand-alone project from the corridor." But when the corridor deal was announced in December, the Highway 130 project was the first of six potential road projects listed in a presentation as links in the corridor. In addition, a Federal Highway Administration lists the proposed project name as "Trans Texas Corridor (SH 130 Segments 5 & 6)." Federal officials could notify Cintra-Zachry within a few weeks whether it can file a formal loan request. "We know this project is needed," Ms. Garcia said. "We've got to make it happen. The question is how to finance it" with either state funds or a private development deal. Dallas Morning News: www.dallasnews.com E-mail thartzel@dallasnews.com   CAGW Names Senators Who Voted to Kill DeMint-McCain Earmark Moratorium Porkers of the Month Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named all 71 senators who voted against an amendment to impose a one-year earmark moratorium in the fiscal year 2009 Budget Resolution March Porkers of the Month.  The amendment was offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and had fourteen bipartisan co-sponsors including all three presidential candidates. As Sen. DeMint has said, “The earmark process allows politicians to fund pet projects based on political power instead of merit. Earmarks are rarely subject to public hearings or oversight, and they invite the kind of corruption that has sent lawmakers to jail.” In addition to inviting fraudulent behavior, earmarking diverts lawmakers’ attention from important national business, like saving Medicare and Social Security for future generations.  Many congressional offices have one or more staffers dedicated to procuring earmarks. A year-long moratorium is a critical step forward to stopping Congress’s addiction to earmarking.  It would give members time to reform the process, devote more effort to critical issues, and help keep money in taxpayers’ wallets instead of being diverted to Washington where it can be converted into pork.  In fiscal 2008, pork-barrel spending ballooned to 11,612 projects costing $17.2 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opposed the ban as “unrealistic” and even went so far as to erroneously claim that earmarking “has been going in this country for 230-some-odd years,” and that “The Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks.” To the contrary, the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves right now to hear their legacy so completely distorted.  In 1796, Thomas Jefferson predicted the slippery slope of the federal government funding local road projects when he said, “it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest.”  In 1822, President James Monroe argued that federal money should be limited “to great national works only, since if it were unlimited it would be liable to abuse and might be productive of evil.” Today, Appropriations Committee members arbitrarily pick winners and losers by earmarking funds for specific recipients.  Rank and file members, backed by an army of lobbyists, bypass authorizing committees and lobby appropriators directly for pet projects.  This unrivaled power over pork explains why Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), an appropriator, self-interestedly said about the amendment: “It's just such a crock. This is such political hype.” For protecting their personal pork projects at the expense of the national interest, CAGW names the 71 senators who voted against a year-long earmark moratorium its March 2008 Porkers of the Month. Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.  Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers. __________________________________________    D.C. v. Heller: Final Comment Before The Hearing. Encouraging Those Non-Gun Owners Voting For Concealed Carry. . . With Thanks. March 6th, 2008  -  Posted March 12, 2008 __________________________________________ A great deal of ink and disc space are being given to officials who are supporting individual concealed carry of handguns. A big pat on the back to them for their courage as much as their conscience, I know it's not easy... Until they discover, if they haven't already, two things: the support of their constituents, which had been silenced and punished a great deal but ever-present, and the pure correctness of the measures they supported. . Reports from around the country are showing how college campuses are examining student concealed carry. Students For Concealed Carry On Campus (SCCC) has been most successful in bringing the issue to public attention and in getting favorable results. The best to them and their supporters. . States are voting for the Castle Doctrine. States are also voting to blow off the National ID Card, another interference with liberty as profound as gun control policy. Mercy, are there twenty Castle Doctrine now?? . There is a nationwide increase in random shootings. These increases are very suspicious as the hearing date of D.C. v. Heller draws near, this March 18th. But then, this is common; as increasing anti-gun legislation or an interesting gun case surfaces, large or small, there are increased reports of shootings, or haven't you noticed? It's interesting to look back and note that the dire forecasts of the anti-gun movement – blood in the streets, aircraft shot down, lover shootings and more – did not appear in the decades passed as forecast, but they sure do show up before high-profile gun cases. . The Microstamping technology is becoming a scandal for its sole-source interest and big push, and a recent finding of experts casts a pall on the technology itself as simply not being ready for prime time as touted. [Internet Search Term Report advises against new national database of ballistic images] . 31 Attorneys General have filed Amicus Briefs with the Supreme Court weigh in against D.C.'s gun ban. More than forty states affirm concealed carry and have not regretted it.  It's good to see top executives standing up to the gun ban crowd. NOTE: Congress does not stand up to the so-called Gun Lobby - the Liberty for all Lobby expects Congress to stand up to the gun banners. . More general attention is coming to the issue of concealed carry as being more in the public interest than gun bans have proven. Heads of Household are coming to understand better how gun bans affect non-gun homes. The question is not subject to any decision as any old issue might ordinarily be; the subject is rooted in the framing-era intent of the Founders in foreseeing abuses of power as gun bans are. In foreseeing abuses of power in the future of the United States, and to forbid such abuses of power, the Founders of the framing-era declared the Citizen to be the Sovereign and not the government, which includes the District Of Columbia. The language of this concept described the Citizen as Supreme Authority, the ultimate legislators of the nation, and other expressions of Original Intent and to forbid abuses of power: we are guaranteed only a bundle of rights and great limits on officials throughout the Constitution. The prime apprehension was public service abuse of power against the individual in our nation of self-rule. When it came to the Second Amendment, then, the framing-era intent was more about Governance than Guns, and was concerned with abuse of power in that governance, so the framing-era thinking in declaring Citizen as Supreme Authority was to guarantee Citizens a singular lethal force to back our authority (especially against political boondoggles, opinion and majority sway of so-called anti-crime measures), and is it this lethal force backing citizen authority which shall not be infringed. Any regulation whatsoever is a move against the force backing sovereign authority of this nation, the Citizen. It is a move against your authority. In 2008 and beyond, no legal brief can disarm the supreme authority of this country. Gun bans are against the law. There is no such thing as sensible gun laws. 2A is absolute, and beyond the reach of officials, beyond the reach of due process short of another Amendment. Officials simply have no such authority to regulate guns, because the Citizen is the Sovereign and in supreme authority at that. If you're watching D.C. v. Heller calendared before the Supreme Court for March 18th, then note these dicta in an earlier First Amendment case: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials.... fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."                       — Justice Jackson, United States Supreme Court                               in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,                                                                                   319 U.S. 624 (1943) The First Amendment (as in Barnette) is not absolute – one may not lie under oath and claim freedom of speech, one may not falsely advertise, defame another or commit mail fraud and hide behind 1A. It can be regulated and in some cases it cannot. But the Second Amendment is absolute and cannot be regulated legally, because its anywhere anytime lethal force backs citizen authority always, not only in meeting crime in armed self-defense, but by dint of this authority it impeaches the very need for silly, ineffectual demagogic, anti-crime policies which propound to assume this personal burden in a wrongful substitution of authority. Abuse of power foreseen by the Founders in any era, any generation. And following that foresight is good for the country. _____________________________________ Longenecker is author of The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns, available Worldwide. FAITH UNDER FIRE Christian librarian takes 'gay' profs to federal court Accused of sexual harassment for recommending 'Marketing of Evil' as required university reading Posted: March 11, 2008 9:11 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily A former librarian at Ohio State University-Mansfield who was publicly accused by the faculty of sexual harassment – just for recommending students read the best-selling book "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian – has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the school and faculty members, alleging they violated his 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The case was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by attorney Tom Condit, representing Scott Savage, a devout Quaker and former head of Reference and Instructional Services at Bromfield Library on Ohio State University's Mansfield campus. Savage took a leave of absence and said he was later forced into resigning because of the virulent reaction from homosexual faculty members after he suggested the book be included in a required reading list for freshmen. In a case that made national headlines, Savage was condemned publicly by a 21-0 faculty vote on March 13, 2006, to be formally investigated for "sexual harassment" after several professors, including two who are openly homosexual, objected to the librarian's having recommended "The Marketing of Evil." Subtitled "How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom," chapter one exposes the marketing strategies and tactics of the "gay rights" movement. Included as defendants in Savage's action are Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee; Nancy K. Campbell, a human resources officer; T. Glenn Hill, a consultant; members of the university's board of directors, and Christopher Phelps, Norman W. Jones, James F. Buckley, Hannibal Hamlin and Gary Kennedy, who teach on the campus. Karen Holbrook Also named as a defendant is former Ohio State President Karen A. Holbrook, whom Savage described as allowing the false accusations against him to be pursued. As WND reported previously, one of the homosexual professors, J.F. Buckley, in a March 9, 2006, e-mail, reacted this way to Savage's recommendation of Kupelian's book: "As a gay man I have long ago realized that the world is full of homophobic, hate-mongers who, of course, say that they are not. So I am not shocked, only deeply saddened – and THREATENED [sic] – that such mindless folks are on this great campus. ... You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed." The unprecedented formal attack on Savage, as well as a threat of a legal counterattack by the Alliance Defense Fund, finally ended when OSU backed down and informed Savage he was not guilty. But the lawsuit outlines how the professors and school, despite failing to uphold the accusations, continued to conspire to attack and damage Savage. "What we found was an incredibly concerted effort on their part, long after the complaint cleared me, to try and get me fired, otherwise harass me, to try and turn staff, non-faculty members, there against me, all quite openly," Savage told WND. And besides the damage to his career, he told WND that the impact on freedom of speech could be huge. "Anyone at Ohio State, faculty or students for that matter, are in danger," he said. "You look at how kids spontaneously break out into debates over any number of subjects. Now at Ohio State University, if somebody defends Christian marriage, they might be hit with a sexual harassment charge." "Look at what happened to me. Who in their right mind would utter so much as a peep?" he said. He said his goal is justice, but doesn't know if that's possible. "Justice would have occurred if the university had honored my counterclaim and admitted these professors falsely accused me. That would have been justice. But two things need to happen. The professors need to be completely exposed and brought to account for having done that to me. And the university needs to change its policies so this stuff doesn't happen again," he said. A spokeswoman in Gee's office at the university took a message but refused to respond to WND's requests for comment, and a message left with Holbrook, who now is vice president for research and innovation at the University of South Florida, generated only a response from an assistant who asked questions about the lawsuit. Savage's attorney, Tom Condit, told WND the scenario is a case of homosexuals "posturing" themselves as victims, then making "aggressive" demands against Christians. "Scott Savage never threw his religion around at these people," he said. "But Christians are the ones who are willing to stand up to these folks." "They demand not just tolerance, but approval," he said. "Scott never said one thing as to his opinion as to homosexuality. He recommended a book that suggested the homosexual lobby is marketed in a slick way." Condit said the case earlier was filed in state court, but since it addressed constitutional issues also needed to be handled in a federal court. Hamlin, in one e-mail, exhorted his colleagues to simply "refuse to allow the situation to be cast in terms of freedom of speech," and in another recommended an official complaint be drawn up against Savage. In an e-mail from Jones, he advised the library manager that he would withdraw from using the facility because of Savage, generating a response from the library manager that such a "personal attack" was greatly disturbing to her. It was Buckley who unleashed an obscenity-filled diatribe on the subject, according to copies of e-mails accompanying the lawsuit. "What the G-- d----- f----- h--- kind of homophobic s--- h--- is this?" he ranted. The e-mails document how faculty members first talked about changing Savage's mind, then reprimanding, then censuring, and finally getting rid of him. In still another e-mail, Jones complained that it was inappropriate for a librarian to dispute his judgment when he pronounced an opinion. Savage also is variously described as a "troll" and "virulent parasite." Phelps discussed how "dangerous" it was to let Savage know what the faculty was planning to do, and Jones at one point said he would not participate in a meeting to discuss the situation unless there was "no public record." The lawsuit explains it simply: "This action arose because Plaintiff Scott Savage dared to express an opinion and recommend a book that was rooted in Christian morality and therefore offended the pro-homosexual faculty at OSU-Mansfield." His recommendations came after he agreed to serve on the First Year Reading Experience Committee to choose books freshmen would be required to read. "At the committee's first meeting, several books were proposed that carried a leftist perspective on history, culture, or politics," including authors such as notorious atheist Richard Dawkins, the lawsuit said. Each of those book titles was e-mailed to committee members, accompanied by a "brief Amazon.com" description. Savage responded with the comment that the books were "polarizing" and suggested an alternative. Several professors, including Jones and Hamlin, immediately attacked his comments and Hamlin specifically suggested the purpose of the students' reading assignment was to oppose "Christian fundamentalism." He commented, in light of Savage's Christian beliefs: Furthermore, I think the university can afford to polarize, and in fact has an obligation to, on certain issues … I would say polarize away … Certainly this may offend some students who come from [a Christian fundamentalist] background or hold such beliefs. But welcome to the secular university… Savage then responded with suggestions for "The Marketing of Evil," David Horowitz' "The Professors," Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis," and Sen. Rick Santorum's "It Takes a Family," including Amazon.com descriptions. Jones immediately condemned "The Marketing of Evil" as "homophobic tripe," Savage defended his academic freedom to suggest it, and Jones responded with an attack on Savage to his supervisor. Then Buckley, who was not on the committee, sent an e-mail to all Mansfield faculty and staff claiming he felt "threatened" and "harassed" by Savage's book recommendation, sending the case spiraling into a formal sexual harassment complaint against Savage. Savage in April 2006 received a letter from the school noting he was not guilty of discrimination or harassment, but Hill followed with a defense of the accusation. "In a series of e-mails and communications dating from immediately after their public exposure in early April 2006 and continuing to at least the end of May 2006, those five OSU-Mansfield faculty members continued to conspire to drive Mr. Savage from his position …," says the lawsuit. "Defendant faculty members were gearing up a campaign to further harass Mr. Savage and to make his work in the library impossible," it adds. After Savage had been cleared, Phelps, the lawsuit says, still told the university provost the librarian "is an acknowledged advocate of bigotry." "Not only did he sent e-mails to FIRE but he has a very intimate relationship with WorldNetDaily, a vituperous and rabid web site …," Phelps continued. Savage then took a leave of absence because of the "extreme emotional distress that was the direct result of Defendants' false and defamatory accusations …," and eventually felt forced to resign, the lawsuit said. The result was a series of violations of Savage's constitutional and statutory rights, including freedom of speech and academic freedom, the lawsuit charges. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief ordering Savage's reinstatement "to a library position other than his former position at OSU-Mansfield," as well as policy changes to prevent their use in order to "harass and punish constitutionally protected speech and academic freedom." Savage has written two books on his faith: "A Plain Life" and "The Plain Reader." MEDIA MATTERS Judge sides with CAIR against Michael Savage Sends message using radio talker's work all right Posted: March 11, 2008 9:00 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily Michael Savage  A Clinton-appointed judge in California is siding with the Council on Islamic-American Relations in a lawsuit by radio talk-show host Michael Savage. Judge Susan Illston has issued a terse one-page ruling in the case in which she granted a defense motion for judgment on the pleadings with "leave to amend." Although it was released only today, it was dated Friday, apparently finalized shortly after she held a hearing on the issues at hand. Savage promised he would immediately take the case to the next level, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which he described as "an even more liberal court – if you can believe it – the most frequently overturned court in the United States of America." "What I may try to do is have the case removed from California, because I cannot get a fair trial," Savage said on tonight's program. "I may remove it to Alabama, for example, where maybe I could get a fair trial – maybe where there's still America. It certainly doesn't exist here in California." The San Francisco-based talker originally accused the Islamic organization of copyright violations but later amended the action to include allegations the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system." The action in U.S. District Court in Northern California also accused CAIR of using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida. The federal government, in fact, recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. The lawsuit was the subject of court hearing on Friday, and according to a report from the Associated Press, Illston said she was "leaning toward tossing out" the action. She did say she was considering allowing Savage's lawyer to submit a revised complaint to keep the case alive, the report said. Savage's attorney Daniel Horowitz said the copyright claim was valid because CAIR used Savage's material "for purely commercial purposes," but the judge said she found free speech arguments persuasive. As WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations. "Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus. Savage and Horowitz, a celebrity civil rights attorney, are trying to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that "CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism." CAIR launched a campaign against "The Savage Nation," as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing "hate speech" against Muslims. Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show's material, then expanding the case. Among the charges is that CAIR is "part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations" and that its "organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group." Other highlights of the suit:   "CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. - CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests." "The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation." "CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status." "CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the 'Islamic Association of Palestine.'" "CAIR's parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP's ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the 'Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,' or 'Hamas.' Hamas is an international terrorist organization." In 1998, "CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as 'the sworn enemy,' asserting that this depiction [was] 'offensive to Muslims.'" In 1998, "CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR's leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from 'misunderstandings on both sides.'" "On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR's New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims." "CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website." The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is "a terror organization." "CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR's Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year." "The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism." "The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda." "CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas." Savage's case also cites another suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O'Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleged a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack. "Throughout this period," the Savage suit alleges, "CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack." It continues: "The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack." CAIR has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage's show as a result of its boycott campaign. However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts "drops 'Savage Nation' ads," CAIR stated: "Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on 'Savage Nation' include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T." But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows – of all parts of the spectrum – years before the CAIR effort. CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott. Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage's syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs. "We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows," AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. "We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn't make any sense." But that policy is years old, and wasn't changed at all by CAIR's effort, he said. "What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows," he told WND. The clip used by CAIR from Savage's material included: "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you." The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context. The suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof." February 23, 2008 NH Vote Recount Report by WTP Optical Scan Machines Violate Federal Law With an interest in defending the individual's constitutionally guaranteed Right to have and to know that his vote is being accurately counted, this Foundation determined the 2008 New Hampshire Primary recount offered an excellent, real-world opportunity to independently assess the statistical performance of optical scan, electronic vote counting machines relative to hand counting of ballots.   WTP has just completed its analysis of the data. Our principal findings are as follows. Of the 347, 905 total ballots processed during the recount 305,207 (87.7%) came from towns and cities that use machines to count the votes, and 42,619 (12.3%) came from towns that use People to count the votes. New Hampshire's vote counting machines violate federal accuracy standards. New Hampshire's machines experienced an error rate approximately 163 times greater than the error rate allowed under federal Election Law.  The probability that an individual's vote was accurately counted during the Primary was much greater if his vote was counted by hand than by machine. Statewide, taking into consideration all the ballots that were included in the recount, the number of machine counts that were in error by more than 2 votes was 9.81 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 2 votes. The number of machine counts that were in error by more than 1 vote was 3.37 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 1 vote. We identified 38 instances of apparent fraud where votes were being hand counted. We were not able to determine if intentional or unintentional error was behind the  more substantial discrepancies in machine counts. Nor were we able to determine the impact of the 21 machines that failed on Primary Day, or if other machine failures occurred but were not reported to the Secretary of State's office. In brief, the analysis data supports the conclusion that not only are machine counts of votes much more likely to result in error, but the machine errors are of a significantly larger magnitude and variance than those observed for hand counting. When the much higher frequency of machine-counted errors is coupled with the statistically disturbing magnitude of the machine errors, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the use of optical scan machines to count votes has robbed many citizens of New Hampshire of their Right to Vote and their Right to have their Vote counted accurately. Our analysis of the state's data and election practices suggest that there are numerous steps that the government of New Hampshire can take to bolster the integrity of its election process - whether votes are counted by hand or by machine.  Although hand-counting of votes is clearly not yet a perfected art, in keeping alive the practice of hand-counting, New Hampshire has served its citizens well. Beyond this, the state should not subject its People to further enduring electronic voting machines that grossly fail to meet even the minimal accuracy standards mandated by federal law. We hope our analysis has provided some much needed light onto a matter that substantially affects the future of freedom in New Hampshire - and our entire Republic. Click Here To Access the Full WTP NH Recount  Report        & the supporting analysis Middle Class May Be Subject To Food Rations, Warns UN

Published on Monday, February 25, 2008, Posted March 11, 2008

Source: Prison Planet - Paul Joseph Watson

The UN is warning of a food shortage crisis and drawing up plans for food rations which will hit even middle-class suburban populations as inflation and economic uncertainty causes the prices of staple food commodities to skyrocket.

The United Nation's World Food Programme cautions today that if it doesn't receive more funding, it will have to halt food aid to developing countries like Mexico and China.

"The WFP crisis talks come as the body sees the emergence of a “new area of hunger” in developing countries where even middle-class, urban people are being “priced out of the food market” because of rising food prices," reports the Financial Times.

The warning coincides with a speech by William Lapp, of US-based consultancy Advanced Economic Solutions, who cautioned that rising agricultural raw material prices would translate this year into sharply higher food inflation.

It also parallels a prediction by Don Coxe, a Chicago-based global portfolio strategist for BMO Financial Group who correctly forecast the fall of the dollar and the rise in price of gold and oil years in advance, who last week spoke of a "global food crisis" which will cause the world to enter into, "A period of food shortages and swiftly rising prices," leading to government embargoes.

With the U.S. on the verge of a recession and, as many analysts have warned, a potential second great depression, those long scoffed at for hoarding vast quantities of storable food may unfortunately be able to say "I told you so" if the dollar continues to deteriorate and people begin to be priced out of the food market.

Global food prices have skyrocketed by as much as 60 per cent in the past year, while UN officials warn of the likelihood of food riots.

"If prices continue to rise, I would not be surprised if we began to see food riots,” said Jacques Diouf, director-general of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, last October.

Many see the food shortages, whether real or manufactured, as simply another pretext for the implementation of martial law and the introduction of foreign troops to patrol major U.S. cities.

A recent announcement by Northcom confirmed that U.S. and Canadian troops will be allowed to patrol each other's countries in the event of a national emergency.

"U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency," reads a Northcom press release. 

 Ron Paul Supporter Ordered to Repaint House

Nannette who painted her whole house Ron Paul.. in the sleepy little town of Magnolia has received a notice from her Mortgage company, not the Home Owners Association but the actual mortgage company. Her house will be foreclosed on if she does not have her house repainted by March 17th. It seems the Mortgage company does not like the paint colors?



This is a beautiful paint job, well done and artistic.. It is really a work of art not a eyesore. I don't have any idea if the Company can really Foreclose within just 2 weeks or not but just the threat is enough to cause a lot of worry, especially when your mortgage payments are up to date.

I would hope all of you would make a call today or Monday to this company and let them know you know of their actions. Just think of the problems it could cause them to have all their customers learn how their own mortgages could be called in if they offended the powers that be? The name is:

White Oak Developers, Conroe, Texas
Phone William Dark 281-367-1194
The Greater Chicago Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/thread/4295301
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/94/boards/thread/4293794

  

---

---

PREMEDITATED MERGER
Transportation Department to WND: No admittance
Reporter denied permission to hear defense of Mexican truck program

---

Posted: March 10, 2008
12:16 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Mary Peters

The Department of Transportation today barred WND from attending a news conference in which Secretary Mary Peters defended the controversial Bush administration program allowing Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. roads.

Agency spokesman Duane DeBruyne, who was screening reporters at the security entrance of the federal building at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., said he did not have the authority to allow entry to WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, who has reported extensively on the program and attended other news conferences on the subject.

DeBruyne telephoned his supervisor, DOT spokeswoman Melissa DeLaney, who declined permission without explanation, requiring WND to leave the premises.

In a phone call to the DOT public affairs office, the agency explained it was requiring "press credentials" for admittance, and no one without them was allowed to participate.

The news conference was only for "credentialed members of the media," spokesman Bill Moseley told WND. "There's a specific credential. He did not have a media credential."

And how can a reporter obtain such a credential providing permission to attend?

"I don't know," Moseley responded.

But Corsi said he was never asked to produce media credentials of any kind, noting he had a press ID card issued by WND. DeBruyne, Corsi said, immediately recognized him and apologetically explained the department would "not accept your press credentials."

Corsi paraphrased DeBruyne saying, "We know who you are, we're know you're from WND, we read your stories."

"They never asked for what credentials I had," Corsi said. "They didn't want to see anything from me. That was never in question."

  

U.S. Concentration Camps: FEMA and the REX 84 Program

The Awakening News (undated) 3sep04

Posted:  March 10, 2008

There over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.

The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.

The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.

A person named Terry Kings wrote an article on his discoveries of camps located in southern California. His findings are as follows: Over the last couple months several of us have investigated three soon-to-be prison camps in the Southern California area. We had heard about these sites and wanted to see them for ourselves.

The first one we observed was in Palmdale, California. It is not operating as a prison at the moment but is masquerading as part of a water facility. Now why would there be a facility of this nature out in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no prisoners? The fences that run for miles around this large facility all point inward, and there are large mounds of dirt and dry moat surrounding the central area so the inside area is not visible from the road. There are 3 large loading docks facing the entrance that can be observed from the road. What are these massive docks going to be loading?

We observed white vans patrolling the area and one came out and greeted us with a friendly wave and followed us until we had driven safely beyond the area. What would have happened had we decided to enter the open gate or ask questions?

This facility is across the street from the Palmdale Water Department. The area around the Water Department has fences pointing outward, to keep people out of this dangerous area so as not to drown. Yet, across the street, the fences all point inward. Why? To keep people in? What people? Who are going to be it’s occupants?

There are also signs posted every 50 feet stating: State of California Trespassing Loitering Forbidden By Law Section 555 California Penal Code.

The sign at the entrance says: Pearblossom Operations and Maintenance Subcenter Receiving Department, 34534 116th Street East. There is also a guard shack located at the entrance.

We didn’t venture into this facility, but did circle around it to see if there was anything else visible from the road. We saw miles of fences with the top points all directed inward. There is a railroad track that runs next to the perimeter of this fenced area. The loading docks are large enough to hold railroad cars.

I wonder what they are planning for this facility? They could easily fit 100,000 people in this area. And who would the occupants be?

Another site is located in Brand Park in Glendale. There are newly constructed fences (all outfitted with new wiring that point inward). The fences surround a dry reservoir. There are also new buildings situated in the area. We questioned the idea that there were four armed military personnel walking the park. Since when does a public park need armed guards?

A third site visited was in the San Fernando Valley, adjacent to the Water District. Again, the area around the actual Water District had fences logically pointing out (to keep people out of the dangerous area). And the rest of the adjacent area which went on for several miles was ringed with fences and barbed wire facing inward (to keep what or who in?) Also, interesting was the fact that the addition to the tops of the fences were fairly new as to not even contain any sign of rust on them. Within the grounds was a huge building that the guard said was a training range for policemen. There were newly constructed roads, new gray military looking buildings, and a landing strip. For what? Police cars were constantly patrolling the several mile perimeter of the area.

From the parking lot of the Odyssey Restaurant a better view could be taken of the area that was hidden from site from the highway. There was an area that contained about 100 black boxes that looked like railroad cars. We had heard that loads of railroad cars have been manufactured in Oregon outfitted with shackles. Would these be of that nature? From our position it was hard to determine.

In searching the Internet, I have discovered that there are about 600 of these prison sites around the country (and more literally popping up overnight do they work all night). They are manned, but yet do not contain prisoners. Why do they need all these non-operating prisons? What are they waiting for? We continuously hear that our current prisons are overcrowded and they are releasing prisoners because of this situation. But what about all these facilities? What are they really for? Why are there armed guards yet no one to protect themselves against? And what is going to be the kick-off point to put these facilities into operation?

What would bring about a situation that would call into effect the need for these new prison facilities? A man-made or natural catastrophe? An earthquake, panic due to Y2K, a massive poisoning, a panic of such dimensions to cause nationwide panic?

Once a major disaster occurs (whether it is a real event or manufactured event does not matter) Martial Law is hurriedly put in place and we are all in the hands of the government agencies (FEMA) who thus portray themselves as our protectors. Yet what happens when we question those in authority and how they are taking away all of our freedoms? Will we be the ones detained in these camp sites? And who are they going to round up? Those with guns? Those who ask questions? Those that want to know what’s really going on? Does that include any of us? The seekers of truth?

When first coming across this information I was in a state of total denial. How could this be? I believed our country was free, and always felt a sense of comfort in knowing that as long as we didn’t hurt others in observing our freedom we were left to ourselves. Ideally we treated everyone with respect and honored their uniqueness and hoped that others did likewise.

It took an intensive year of searching into the hidden politics to discover that we are as free as we believe we are. If we are in denial, we don’t see the signs that are staring at us, but keep our minds turned off and busy with all the mundane affairs of daily life.

We just don’t care enough to find out the real truth, and settle for the hand-fed stories that come our way over the major media sources television, radio, newspaper, and magazines. But it’s too late to turn back to the days of blindfolds and hiding our heads in the sand because the reality is becoming very clear. The time is fast approaching when we will be the ones asking "What happened to our freedom? To our free speech? To our right to protect ourselves and our family? To think as an individual? To express ourselves in whatever way we wish?"

Once we challenge that freedom we find out how free we really are. How many are willing to take up that challenge? Very few indeed, otherwise we wouldn’t find ourselves in the situation that we are in at the present time. We wouldn’t have let things progress and get out of the hands of the public and into the hands of those that seek to keep us under their control no matter what it takes, and that includes the use of force and detainment for those that ask the wrong questions.

Will asking questions be outlawed next? Several instances have recently been reported where those that were asking questions that came too near the untold truth (the cover up) were removed from the press conferences and from the public’s ear. Also, those that wanted to speak to the press were detained and either imprisoned, locked in a psychiatric hospital, slaughtered (through make-believe suicides) or discredited.

Why are we all in denial over these possibilities? Didn’t we hear about prison camps in Germany, and even in the United States during World War II? Japanese individuals were rounded up and placed in determent camps during the duration of the War. Where was their freedom?

You don’t think it could happen to you? Obviously those rounded up and killed didn’t think it could happen to them either. How could decent people have witnessed such atrocities and still said nothing? Are we going to do the same here as they cart off one by one those individuals who are taking a stand for the rights of the citizens as they expose the truth happening behind the scenes? Are we all going to sit there and wonder what happened to this country of ours? Where did we go wrong? How could we let it happen?

source: http://www.topsitelists.com/out.cgi?area=bestsites&user=conspire&nocheat=1043248529&ID=116&url=http://www.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/Awakening_News_Home.html Police State >>> Rex 84 3sep04

Halliburton Confirms Concentration Camps Already Constructed On February 17, 2006, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country’s security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called “news informers” who needed to be combated in “a contest of wills.” In 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants.” A Defense Department document, entitled the “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support,” has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an “active, layered defense” both inside and outside U.S. territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to “transform U.S. military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the . . . U.S. homeland.” The strategy calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance. The Washington Post reported on February 15, 2006 that the National Counterterrorism Center’s (NCTC) central repository holds the names of 325,000 terrorist suspects, a fourfold increase since fall of 2003.  A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity’s TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters. Shortly after Bush orchestrated 9/11, he issued "Military Order Number One", which empowered him to detain any noncitizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant. Today that order extends to U.S. citizens as well.

Halliburton subsidiary "KBR has been awarded a contract announced by the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component. The Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contingency contract is to support ICE facilities and has a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term. The contract provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the United States, or to support the rapid development of new programs".   See Source Document on Halliburton Site or page 1, & 5 below HOUSTON, Texas – Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) announced that income from continuing operations for the full year of 2005 was $2.4 billion.  Consolidated revenue in the fourth quarter of 2005 was $5.8 billion. Consolidated operating income was $779 million in the fourth quarter of 2005.  This increase was largely attributable to higher activity in the Energy Services Group (ESG), partially offset by lower revenue in KBR primarily on government services projects in the Middle East. Annual operating income more than tripled to $2.7 billion in 2005.

FDIC reports second bank failure of 2008

U.S., Missouri close Hume Bank

By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch

Last update: 5:35 p.m. EST March 7, 2008

Posted March 10,2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- A second bank has failed this year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Friday. The FDIC and the Commissioner of Missouri's Division of Finance closed Hume Bank in Hume, Mo., on Friday, the federal banking regulator announced.  It was the second bank to fail this year, the FDIC said. The first was Douglass National Bank in Kansas City, Mo., on Jan. 25.

The FDIC didn't give a reason for the failure.

Security Bank of Rich Hill, Mo., will assume Hume Bank's insured deposits. The failed bank's sole office will open Monday as a branch of Security Bank.

As of Dec. 31, Hume Bank had assets of $18.7 million and total deposits of $13.6 million. Security Bank agreed to assume $12.5 million of the failed bank's insured deposits for a premium of 4.26%, the FDIC said.

Robert Schroeder is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7BB05A929A%2DE404%2D4CEF%2D830D%2D5864E8F591A4%7D&siteid=rss

US Prepares For 'Doomsday' Rule As British Forces Arrive In America

Sorcha Faal

Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that China's President Hu has refused the United States request for over $2 Trillion in emergency assistance to bolster the collapsing American Dollar, and asked for in a personal meeting with the former US President Bush, the father of the current President Bush.
Of the worst fears of the American Bush-Clinton Monarchy, which has ruled the US these past 20 years, these reports state, is the collapse of their privately owned hedge fund called the Carlyle Capital Fund and which is owned by their secretive war profiteering International behemoth Carlyle Group led by the Bush Family, Former British Prime Ministers, and others of the West's ruling elite, and as we can read as reported by Britain's Independent News Service:
"A fund managed by the US private equity giant Carlyle Group has become the latest to be hit by demands from lending banks making calls on loans secured on mortgage bonds.
Carlyle Capital Corp, a publicly traded fund that holds $21.7bn (£10.8bn) of securities, said it had received a default notice from one of its lending banks and expected at least one more after it failed to meet demands for extra security from jittery counterparties.
The Guernsey-based fund has struggled to meet more than $60m of margin calls and demands for extra collateral since the start of the month. It met the calls until Wednesday, when it was landed with more than $37m of demands and missed four out of seven calls."
To the greatest concerns, however, of Russian Military Commanders are the reports of President Bush's younger brother Neil's 'sudden' visit to the South American Nation of Paraguay as a guest of the secretive South Korean backer of the Bush-Clinton Monarchy, and self-proclaimed "messiah" Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and as we can read as reported by the Associated Press News Service:
"Neil Bush, younger brother of U.S. President George W. Bush, called on Paraguay's president as the guest of a business federation founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
A presidential press office source, who spoke on condition of not being named, confirmed the younger Bush met President Nicanor Duarte on Thursday along with a delegation from the Universal Peace Federation, a group associated with Moon."
[It is important to note that the Bush Family has reportedly already made plans to relocate from the United States to Paraguay, and as we had reported on in our October 15, 2006 report titled "US President Bush Makes Massive Land Purchase In Paraguay Ahead Of Expected War Crimes Charges", but denied by the US State Department, as that South American Nation has long been a refuge for Nazi War Criminals and their Western backers, of which the Bush Family were one of.]
The timing of this Bush Family-Moon visit to Paraguay during that Nation's horrific outbreak of yellow fever, and which has caused its President to declare a 'State of Emergency', meant, these reports say, that 'normal' abilities of [deleted] to track the whereabouts of these subjects was severely hampered due to the many restrictions placed upon the free movement of people within the country.
This has led Russian Commanders to believe that the Bush-Clinton Monarchy may be preparing for what the Americans themselves have titled a 'Doomsday' scenario under new laws passed in the US in 2005 and which has been described as:
"No longer do Capitol Hill legislators need a quorum to do the people's business. Now under a piece of hotly contested legislation passed without media attention on Jan. 5,[2005] only a few members of Congress are needed to do official business in the event of a catastrophe instead of the usual 218. Critics claim H. Res. 5 paves the way for tyranny, allowing "only a few to decide for so many."
As we had previously reported on in our February 24, 2008 report titled "Canadian Troops To Patrol US Cities As Food Riots Feared", and where Russian Military Analysts had voiced their fears of the agreement signed by the Americans and Canada to allow their troops on each others soil, these new reports detail an even darker picture that details that British, and not American, Officers are currently being trained to 'control' US citizens, and as we can read as reported by the LJWorld News Service in their report titled "Brits overrun town for training exercise", and which says:
"Thursday may have seemed like any other day for most in Leavenworth, but for about 180 British officers, an enemy was on the loose threatening civilians. Tactical forces were moved in, and soldiers took their positions outside schools and churches preparing to isolate the terrorist activity. While it may have been a fictional enemy in theory, for visiting officers with the United Kingdom's Intermediate Command and Staff Course who were roaming the streets of Leavenworth, the tactical solutions they used to end the threats were real."
In previous reports we had detailed how the US Military had begun asking their soldiers if they would fire on American citizens and which has led to their War Leaders request to have Canadian and British Military Forces take command in putting down the expected rebellions in the United States as they are more likely to have no problems killing those not of their own nationality.
Facing the American people now is the very real coming destruction of their Nation, and which their leaders have planned both for the success, and failure of, no matter the cost in human lives.
But, in viewing from outside this destruction of the United States, it remains unsettling how few of these people realize the great danger they are in. It is as if they believe that by their not knowing the truth of the monsters who are leading them they themselves will somehow be protected.
And, as their once World-valued currency plummets into worthlessness, as tens of thousands of them begin to lose their jobs, as the price they pay for fuel and food continues skyrocketing, as they continue to be forced out of their homes by the millions, as many millions more of them have watched the value of their homes crumble into dust, virtually none of them are preparing for the catastrophes to come.
One cannot help but believe that these peoples are all insane.

-###-