A New Time, a New Era, and late May 2010

The Barack Obama administration proposes to roll back the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Not even the Bush administration would advocate changing the Miranda rights. These right were established as far back as the Magna Carta in 1215 (including British common law that dealt with due process and a right to a speedy trial). Obama's legal advisers want to see if Congress could make the government detain terrorism suspects longer after they have been arrested (before presenting them to a jduge for an initial hearing according to administration officials familiar with the discussion). If this proposal is approved, delaying hearing would be attached to broader legislation to allow interrogators to withhold Miranda warnings from terrorism suspects for lengthy periods even if they are citizens of America. The Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proposed this new policy. The goal of both measures is to open a window of tiem after an arrest in which interrogators could question a terrorism suspect without an interruption that might cause the prisoner to stop talking. It's not clear abou how long a delay the administration is considering seeking. The officials who spoke on the conditiion of anonymity, because the propsoal is still being developed, cautioned that it was not clear what the final propsoal would include. Soem aides to leading Democratic members of Congress said that the administration had not approached their offices for detailed discussions of the mater. The administration didn't comment on the internal deliberations. Benjamin Wittes is the terrorism policy specialist at the Brookings Institution. He said that the issue of the timing of Miranda warning was generating much more political attention, because people were familiar with Miranda rights from teleivison. shows . He said that the need for an early presentment hearing is going to disrupt an interrogation since it deals with sending a suspect to a courtroom for a formal proceeding. Wittes wants a delaying of initial hearings. Of course, Anthony Romero (or the executive director of the ACLU) disagree with this plan. He said that: "...It’s highly troubling that the Obama administration might propose to lengthen the time in which a potential defendant would come before a judge...Both proposals would severely undercut the Obama administration’s assertion that they believe in the rule of law.” The administration's flirtation with the ideas follows the arrest week of Faisal Shahzad. He was arrested for a failed attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Federal interrogators questioned Mr. Shahzad for many hours. They arned him that he had the right to remain silent and consult a lawyer citing an exception to the Miranda rule for immediate threats to public safey. Officials say that Shahzad wavied those rights including the right to have a quick initial hearing before a judge, and has continued cooperating with interrogators. But, worried that suspects in future cases may not do likewise, or that law enforcement officials will be confused about the rules, the administration has decided to push for changes. A federal rule of criminal procedure requires law enforcement officals to take a prisoner to a judge for an initial hearing without unnecessary delay. Specialists beleive that the criminal law would be fairy simple for Congress to pass a statue exempting terrorism cases. There is a Supreme Court precedent that governs when people must get initial hearings before a judge in cases in which the police have arrested someone without a warrant. The court ruled that such prisoners must generally get a hearing in 48 hours to make sure that probable cause to believe they committed a crime. Congress has no authority to override the Supreme Court’s constitutional rulings. There are numerous legal specialists who say that they are more willign to approve modifications if lawmakers and the executive branch agreed that the changes were necessary in the fight against terrorism. One idea, Mr. Wittes said, would be for prosecutors to ask a judge for permission to continue holding a terrorism suspect who had been arrested without bringing the prisoner to the courtroom. As a safeguard, he said, Congress could require a high-level Justice Department official to certify that delaying the suspect’s initial appearance in court was necessary for national-security reasons. Republicans attacked the Obama administration over the terrorism issue. Some of them want suspects to be enemy combatants and hold them in military detention. Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia University law professor and a former federal prosecutor, said the administration might be considering such a bill as much for the political message it would send as for any substantive changes it would make. “It may well be that the law could use some clarification on these points and that courts would be receptive to a more detailed framework for how to handle these cases,” Professor Richman said. “But what’s certainly true is that the public could use a signal from the administration that criminal procedure is a lot more flexible in handling terrorism cases than critics have suggested.” Mr. Holder told before the House Judiciary Committee that changes would affect only a small number of terrorism cases. "We now find ourselves in 2010 dealing with very complicated terrorism matters,” Mr. Holder said. “Those are certainly the things that have occupied much of my time. And we think that with regard to that small sliver — only terrorism-related matters, not in any other way, just terrorism cases — that modernizing, clarifying, making more flexible the use of the public safety exception would be something beneficial.” Now, being flexible is never an excuse to compromise the essence of the Bill of Rights. All citizens deserve legal rights evne if they are accused of terrorism.

There are neo cons in the world and I don't agree with their philosophies. There are also limosine liberals. These liberals talk about tolerance, peace, etc., but they don't practice what they preach in many circumstances. Some of them are rich and live in big mansions far away from minority communities, yet project the stereotype that people that disagree with them are bigots, intellectual inferior, etc. They have a sick form of tolerance in my eyes. Some of these limonsine liberals (not true liberals) are very racist and advance anti-family policies. The pro-new world order crowd believe in eugenics even now. Today, they are more slick by using their oligarchy to create problems (like terrorism via false flag ops, derivatives causing a financial collapse, using bioterrorism, having complusory schooling, TV based mind control, poisoning our waters, etc.) and then add their versions of a wicked false solution (or the Problem-Reation-Solution tactic). A real solution would be to ban the fractional reserve banking system and to get countries to issue debt free and interest free currency. This can be to fund production and repair of public goods (like bridges, roads, etc.), so all people can benefit. We should reject land speculation and the evil austeriy emasures from the IMF and the World Bank. One example of a limonsine liberal is Left Gatekeeper Gore Vidal. He advocated anti-family policies back in 1969. In ironically Playboy Magazine, Gore said that (other than wanting some dictatorical authority to control the actions of humanity in America. That's wrong on Vidal's part): ".... I mean just that. Only certain people would be allowed to have children. Nor is this the hardship that it might at first appear. Most people have no talent for bringing up children and they usually admit it--once the damage is done....If education and propaganda failed, those who violated the birth-control restrictions would have to pay for their act as for any other criminal offense.... Further, I would favor an intelligent program of eugenics that would decide which genetic types should be continued and which allowed to die off. .." Vidal compares the human family to some economic unit. This is fascism and eugenics. He believes in the overpopulation lie that has been debunked by the underpopulation of Europe, Japan, and other places worldwide. This is why these limonsine liberals think. In a way, they are worse than the reactionary neo cons since at least the neo cons would overtly tell us that they don't care about a rational, tolerant foreign policy. Some of them love war mongering rhetoric. Limosine liberals today unlike back then covertly have pro-eugenics goals, but won't publicly mention their intensions (except in documents, etc.). Vidal told Playboy in that June 1969 interview that he doesn't trust the people much and admires an Authority to control us. In a 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies. The Codex Alimentarius Guidelines harms health freedom too. In 2010, the limousine liberals use euphenism in public relations rhetoric to promote their agenda. These Malthusians forget that man can improve the environment without extreme eugenics tactics. The robber barons in the early 1900's supported eugenics too. In some cases, these eugenicists have caused poverty in the Third World via bad trade agreements, etc. Even the cap and trade plan will license pollution, license fraud, and harm our standard of living. The reason is if you're a polluter, the only thing you need to do is pollute and pay a tax for it (and charge more customers for it). Polluters love it. So does Wall Street and corporate-friendly environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund. The opposition, however, includes Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen.

Bryan Kemper wrote about encouraging Christians to be pro-life. Some professing Christians make up weak excuses to not get involved in taking a stand on the abortion is. Some people are like this because of apathy and denial. I have more respect for a person taking a standing than a person who doesn't take a stand on the abortion issue. Some apathy Christians don't want to make waves. The Gospel of Jesus Christ even has information that tells Christians to stand up for the truth. Some people claim to not like abortion, but they don't want to be apart of the pro-life movement. Some aren't passionate about protecting the lives of babies. The pro-life mvoement is not just some profession. Taking a stand against killing innocent children is bigger than a major you take in college. It's not a career choice. It's about a lifestyle that you live 24/7. Even Mark 12:30 says that we should Love our God with all your heart, all of your soul, mind, and strength (including to love your neighbor as yourself). The neighbor is anybody near us. Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samartain of people having the right to help those in need (even if a Levite and a priest refuse to help a man in a ditch. The Samaritan helped the man since he loved his neigbhor as himself). Unborn babies being murdered in the womb are our neighbors too. Every day, over 4,400 babies die via abortion each day in America. Some refuse to take a stand for fear of offending people. We should scream at people disrespectfully. Yet, we shouldn't ingore the over 4,000 innocent human beings being torn into pieces from their mothers' wombs every day. This is like saying that we can't speak about against slavery back in the 1800's since abolitionists offended people. Even social justice movement don't care about offending people by their campaigns against human trafficking, forced military service of minors and other popular causes. I don't think anyone is worried about offending those who enslave women and force them into prostitution; they are more concerned about the victims of the crime. We offend the innocent babies being killed by doing nothing or refusing to speak out against such barbaric procedures. How about this great excuse: “I am totally pro-life, but we just need to worry about preaching the Gospel.” This is a lie since the Gospel isn't monolithic or limited. The Gospel calls us to preach it to all creation as found in Mark 16:15. Also, the NT says to speak up against evil form the rooftoops too. People should stand up for life. The idea that taking a stand for the almost 4,000 children that are being ripped limb from limb every day by surgical abortion is contrary to the Gospel is simply ludicrous. In fact, I would say that when we do not stand up for the voiceless or love our neighbor as ourselves, we are not truly preaching the Gospel. You talk about the Gospel and that includes speaking out against evil. If you see a man beating a woman, then it's logically fine for a person to stop the man from doing it (and make sure that the woman was taken car off). Then, you can send the man the Gospel after the man is punished for his crime. Especially in the 21st century with the information revolution, there is no excuse for fear, apthy, denial, and ignorance about the evils of abortion. The Church has every right to speak out against abortion and spread the Gospel at the same time. Abortion of modern child killing is a Holocaust and it's immoral.

The Gulf Oil spill is bigger than a spill. It has a continous gushing oil. This is shooting out a million gallons of crude oil a day. It's bigger than a spill in its totality. A spill is just liquid falling out of a container in one time. This oil crisis is having a massive foul into the Earth. It has been gushing out oil from 35,000 feet from within the water. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occured back in March 24th, 1989 and it has about 10.8 million gallons of crude. This occured in the Prince William Sound of Alaska. This has been one of the most human caused environmental disasters in history. The oil gusher in the Gulf produces an Exxon Valdez disaster about every 4 days to a weeks. The end has no known end point. It's gushing out oil violenty. Some in the monetary cartel media might want to call it a gusher instead of a mere leak or spill. There are millions of people in Louisian, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida within the vicinity of the crisis. Some people might lose consciousness from the stench i nthe air. Some people might experience other troubles in the Gulf Coast. The air itself might kill because crude oil is composed of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, xylenes, hyrogensulfide, benzene, toluene, ethlbenzene, trimethylbenzene, and the various combinations of those chemicals. These are all extremely dangerous chemicals. Exposure can cause the following health effects: eye and skin irritation, narcoses, and/or chemical pneumonitis. High concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can cause headaches, dizziness, unconsciousness and/or death. Hurricane season is coming. A Gulf hurricane and can unheard of destruction, and sicknes if it hit the Gulf coast. I hope that doesn't happen. The mainstream media isn't reporting on these facts. It's a volanic gusher of toxic crude oil. The same internationalists owning the major oil companies own the mainstream media too.

Austrian economic propagandists are still here. They just don't go by the names of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, etc. One such person is named Jacob Hornberger. He's apart of the Left/Right paradigm since he feels that economic freedom is a left/rigth deal. He mocks the New Deal. The New Deal isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than what he promotes. The legitimate parts of the New Deal gave social programs for people literally starving to death in the streets and had some economic populist policies. Today, some in the Obama administration and others want to have IMF style austerity measures. Hornberger tries to glamorized the Gilded Age when it was a time filled with child labor, corruption, and other evils enacted by the robber barons in the late 1800's. In that time there was the Crime of 73 and other measures that immorally distributed or transfered landholdings (plus pledged collateral) form bankrupted farmers and business owners to criminal financies. There was fractional reserve lending. These policies were done by private interests for private gain. Austrian schooler view all government regulation as evil and bank the fractional reserve banking system to be unchecked. I don't agree with that since I reject land speculation and depression causing monetary deflation. The laissez capitalist proponents typically ignore the the excesses of the Gilded Age like priveledge transfer programs. Hornberger uses the deception that claims that any form of social programs or a safety net is akin to socialism when he criticized Social Security. Not to mention that people on welfare would decrease if the corporations didn't exploit the economics of the West. Though, I don't believe in welfare to help those that need it. The reality is that Social Security originally was a trust fund to help the elderly in America. Even Founding Father Thomas Paine advocated a social insurance program. He wanted a tax on ground rent to fund it instead of a tax on wages. Austrian school sales people don't admit this fact. In Hornberger's mind, anyone who supports Social Security -- or a social safety net of any kind -- is, by definition, a socialist, fascist, and philosophical soulmate of Adolf Hiter. I don't agree with this at all. FDR didn't adopt fascism as Hornberger claimed. The industrialists in America tried to assassinate him to create a fascist dictatorship. The Austrian School don't see economics as grey sometimes, but more black and white. I disagree with their views. Hornberger is right though to disagree with Glen Beck on civil liberties and foreign policy matters. The Austiran School was created by aristocrats from Europe. It's an aristocratic economic philosophy then. It's as simple as that. For the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. Ironically, the Rockefellers exploited the Gilded Age in their power to maintain their control (back then, there was an epidemic of sweatshops, child labor, extremely low wages, and other evils. In 2010, this doctrine is found in the Chicago University via the Chicago School). The primary purpose of the Austrian School all along has been to protect and entrench this privilege of the super rich elite -- not eliminate it (under the covers of "liberty" and "free markets" that some Tea Party rallies have taken up). Adolf von Habsburg is the one the mentioned as co-founder of this Pelerin Society, but Otto von Habsburg (Pan-European Movement) is the guy whose ideas serve as the basis for the EUSSR, i.e. the European "Union." The Pelerin Society promotes Austrian economics or laissez faire capitalism.

By Timothy