Monday, January 26, 2009

Life in 2009




Cameras and free speech are under threat even in America. Carlos Miller from Photography is Not a Crime on January 24, 2009 reported about how the police are confiscating cameras. We realize that the second after the BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, the police immediately (and illegally) began confiscating cell phones containing vidoes that have yet to see the light of day. In fact, the only videos that have been seen by public were filmed by people who managed to leave the scene before police confronted them. Without that footage, the crooked officer might of gotten off. There was one instance where police chased after Karina Vargas after she stepped on the train, banging on the window after the doors closed (and demanding her to turn over the camera). The train sped away with Vargas still holding her camera. Her video, which did not show the actual shooting but captured the turmoil before and after, was one of the first to pop up on the internet. Later, more videos popped up showing the actual shooting of Oscar Grant. In the most vivid video, the train doors can be seen closing seconds after the shooting as the train speeds away. The reality is that the police have no right to confiscate a single camera. “Cops may be entitled to ask for people’s names and addresses and may even go as far as subpoenaing the video tape, but as far as confiscating the camera on the spot, no,” said Marc Randazza, A First Amendment attorney based out of Florida and a Photography is Not a Crime reader. Bert P. Krages III is the Oregon attorney who drafted the "The Photographer's Rights" guide that wanted to promote the rights of photographers. Bert said that the police can't confiscate a camera except in the commission of a crime or a court order. The BART videos were not used in the commission at a crime, so the police acted immorally in that situation. The deal is that we should be cautious of our rights completely.




Pakistan is still being striked again by American forces. R. Jeffrey Smith, Candace Rondeaux and Joby Warrick from the Washington Post on Saturday, at January 24, 2009 described about this incident. 2 remoted U.S. missile strikes killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts. The incidents occured in northwestern Pakistan on Friday. This is the sign that President Barack Obama's policy of military strikes in Pakistan is more aggressive than George W. Bush's policy toward Pakistan. Barack Obama have said on multiple occasions that he agrees with military strikes in Pakistani targets if the Pakistani government refuses to act. The leader of Pakistan is Asif Ali Zardari. He hoped that Barack Obama will have a warm relationship with his country. Yet, Obama's new national security team have made their intentions known of being more aggressive with Islamabad than the previous Bush administration. They threatened to curtail military aid to Pakistan if the U.S. won't get their way. It is still uncertain on whether Obama personally authorized the strikes or was involved in its final planning. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer questions about the strikes. The Pakistani government was quiet mostly about these strikes when they protested earlier ones harshly. Some Pakistanis believe that there is a possibly bumpy diplomatic stretch ahead. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have called for more accountability toward Pakistan. Some in the Barack Obama administration want to send more non-military aid toward the Central Asian region. Pakistan is an American ally. To be too aggressive is silly, because they are a real nuclear power. If the shaky government is overthrown in Pakistan, mroe conflicts will erupt. It's certainly better to reject military strikes in Pakistan since they aren't a direct threat to American soil at all.



Gun Rights are still being violated. There is a new bill in Congress. It's called HR 45 or the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009." This bill, if it passes, will be a sweeping change in the way firearms are sold and owned in the United States. Gun control never works, because there is no extent (of their supporters) in their policy of limiting how guns are sold. There are bad highlights of the bill. This bill wants only those who have a valid license issued by the Federal Attorney General to own firearms. This license will contain the licensee’s photograph, thumb print, address, and a unique license number. Possession of a firearm without a license would constitute a federal crime. Firearms may only be sold by federal firearms licensees to other license holders. This would put an end to person-to-person firearm sales. You must purchase the license for $25, payable with your application, directly to the Attorney General. There is no time limit or “shall-issue” clause. The Attorney General can simply ignore your request (and take your money). The bill establishes a national database which tracks all firearms sales. This creates a national database of gun owners. There are other bad parts of this bill. The reality is that the federal government has no right to create a national database to control your firearm ownership at all. The reason is that if they can do that, they can be justified in forming other federal databases that can violate your individual privacy. The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. This bill is similar to the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 (that had huge anti-gun registrations and even banned Jewish people from owning guns). The bill even wants the possession of a firearm by a minor (or being under 18) to be illegal even under an adult supervision. This is a Nazi bill indeed. The crooks in our government still are trying to violate the right to bear arms in more subtle ways. This is why a record number of American citizens brought guns after the 2008 Presidential election was over. Bills like HR 45 are existing in Congress now. We should oppose HR 45, because this is America not Nazi Germany at all.




On news relating to pro-life issues, Barack Obama broken his promise to reduce abortions. The reason is that Obama signed an executive order to force taxpayers to fund abortions here and abroad (which is the elimination of the just Mexico City Policy). The good news is that in recent years, abortions have decreased in the United States. Douglas Johnson, who is the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, talked with LifeNews.com about Obama's decision. "President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," Johnson said. Charmaine Yoest, who is the the President of Americans United for Life, responded to the news as well. "What a terrible way to begin a new administration: with an abortion business bailout that will exploit women in developing countries for political ends," she told LifeNews.com. The abortion industry doesn't need a bailout indeed. Denise Burke, the pro-life group's Vice President of Legal Affairs, said that this move will create foreign policy headaches. The reason is that U.S. funding pro-abortion groups could lead to these nations to try to reverse their long standing pro-life laws. Burke said that: "...Pro-abortion organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation are actively working to impose radically pro-abortion laws on developing nations, showing no regard for the will of the people in these countries...This move is a significant step backwards in respecting the sovereignty of nations, in empowering women, and in protecting unborn..." The Vice President and senior Attorney for the Bioethics Defense Fund Dorinda Bordlee complained about the repeal of the Mexico City Policy as well. She called Obama's executive as apart of the 3 pronged abortion industry bailout plan. This bad policy could threatened the repeal of the common sense Hyde Amendment. This executive order is apart of a disgraceful policy. The unborn certainly deserve the right to life. Without the right to life, all of our other rights cease to exist. Now, it's time to continue to oppose abortion and promote a real culture of life. I will not quit. I will forever expose abortion as baby killing and murder. Some believe in the lies of moral relativism, while I don't. I respect innocent life and I believe in populatiom growth indeed unlike some people who whine (from pro-abortionists, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc.).





Kristen Gillibrand was chosen by New York Governor David Patterson to replace Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate. Kristen is a famous figure in New York politics. It's crazy that New York Democrats oppose her just because she is a moderate. That tells me that many Democrats (and some Republicans) have an extreme strict, unfair litmus test in terms of the representatives. Typically, Gillbrand is right on some issues and wrong on others. She defeated the long time incumbent Republian John Sweeney. Kristen supported the Farm Bill. People call her a Blue Dog Democrat, because she claims to want bipartisan solutions in Washington D.C. involving fiscal responsibility and the defense system. She has introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution in order to ban deficit spending and reduce the national debt. She is right on most Second Amendment issues in promoting the right to bear arms, except when Gillibrand supported national background checks. Kristen Gillibrand is totally pro-abortion, which I don't agree with. She will be an ally of the abortion advocates in the Senate like Hillary was. Gillibrand compiled a pro-abortion voting record during her brief tenure in the House of Representatives in part by voting for a measure to overturn the Mexico City Policy (which made it made it so taxpayers don't have to fund groups that promote or perform abortions overseas). She also is a sponsor of the so-called Prevention First Act, a measure that would send even more federal funds to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Governor Patterson has a 2010 election coming up in New York state. Since, Gillibrand is a big fundraiser and she hails from upstate New York, his chances of winning relection is very high. However, Gillibrand also hails from a historically Republican House seat and pro-life advocates may have an opportunity to replace her with a friendly lawmaker. The reality is that Kristen Gillibrand is right on some issues and definitely wrong on other political issues indeed.








Smuggling is occuring worldwide. Frank Jordans from The Associated Press on Saturday, at January 24, 2009 made known about a Swiss smuggling suspect claiming a CIA link. The Swiss man was accused of being involved in the world's biggest nuclear smuggling ring. He claimed to have supplied the CIA with information that led to the breakup of the black market nuclear network that was led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. In a documentary airing Thursday on Swiss TV station SF1, Urs Tinner says he tipped off U.S. intelligence about a delivery of centrifuge parts meant for Libya’s nuclear weapons program. The shipment was seized at the Italian port of Taranto in 2003. This forced Libya to admit and eventually renounce its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The 43-year-old Tinner is suspected, along with his brother Marco and father Friedrich, of supplying Khan’s clandestine network with technical know-how (and equipment that was used to make gas centrifuges). Khan is the creator of Pakistan's atomic bomb. He sold the centrifuges for secret nuclear weapons programs in countries like Libya and Iran (before his operation was disrupted in 2003). Tinner isn't charged yet and was freed by Swiss authorities last month. Tinner's account echoes that of the book "The Nuclear Jihadist," by U.S. investigative reporters Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins. Frantz says, based on interviews with sources in the U.S. intelligence community, that Urs Tinner was recruited by the CIA as early as 2000. CIA spokesman George Little refused to talk about the Tinner case. The CIA said that it played a key role in disrupting the Al-Qaeda Khan network. Tinner commented that he sabotaged equipment that was destined for uranium enrichment facilities. Former Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher told the SF documentary that he traveled to Washington in 2007 — three years after Urs Tinner's arrest — to discuss the case with then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Urs Tinner will wait to see if prosecutors will press charges against him for exporting sensitive material (which is against Swiss law. That crime carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison). This case is strange and certainly deserves further investigation.


Gordon Brown is once again utilizing the financial crisis as an excuse to promote the new world order. Brown is the present Prime Minister of Great Britian. This mantra is frequently common among the globalists who want this economic crisis as an excuse to centralize their power into fewer hands. Monopolies, consolodation, and other evils are key parts of the new world order since these elitists are monopoly people. “In a speech, he will urge countries to avoid “muddling through as pessimists” and “make the necessary adjustment to a better future and setting the new rules for this new global order”, according to his office,” reports AFP. This is typical of Gordon Brown to subscribe to these notions since he is a Bilderberg member and loves globalization. Globalization is nothing more than a means to develop the new world order. His call for the new global order is nothing new since other globalists from David Rockefeller to George H. W. Bush have called for it. The international bankers created this economic crisis. They did by promoting the irresponsible fractional reserve banking, creating the debt bubble, advancing the debt culture, and constantly inflating our money supply. Now, the same men who promoted this policy like Geithner could be the new head of the Treasury. The solution the government now is promoting is the centralization of global economic power into fewer hands. A former CEO of Goldman Sachs to oversee the illegal (and non-working) bailout (with draconian power given unto the FED) is similar to a stick up heist of American taxpayer dollars. Barack Obama is supporting this since he is a puppet. Barack Obama even calls for a civilian force that is stronger than the military to handle governmental affairs. Even if this was voluntarily, this is still creppy since I don't want a bridage handling our lives at all (not to mention that Emannuel have called for a mandatory service among Americans. That is unconstitutional of course, because the Constitution forbids involuntary servititude).


By Timothy

1 comment:

Unknown said...

When I read Oscar Grant's death story i was shocked. I thought how police can do this type of crime. Thanx to Karina Vargas who put footage of crime on internet. Shame on Johannes Mehserle who shot Oscar with his Firearms.