Thursday, April 30, 2009
For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.
In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."
The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission. There has been widespread fear, though, the policy could be resurrected during the term of President Barack Obama.
Don't be silent! Sign the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based legal group specializing in the defense of religious freedom and other civil liberties, is calling the remarks by Thomas "very significant."
"To my knowledge, this is the first time a sitting Supreme Court justice has weighed in on this issue," Matt McReynolds, a PJI staff attorney, told WND. "It could potentially take a lot of steam out of the movement from those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
It also provides a lot of ammo to those who have been saying it's unconstitutional. Now we have some validation from a member of the court."
Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves."The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.
"It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."He also noticed "the number of over-the-air broadcast stations grew from 7,411 in 1969 ... to 15,273 by the end of 2004.
"If Congress and the president bring the doctrine back to life, there is no doubt lawsuits will fly."We are prepared to take legal action should it be reinstated," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "Justice Thomas' opinion is very encouraging to everyone who believes in free speech and government non-interference with public debate."Meanwhile, as WND is also reporting today, the leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States."
I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," said talk-show host Roger Hedgecock, whose new initiative is called "Don't Touch My Dial."
"The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio," Hedgecock said. "Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Friday, April 24, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sam Sewell -- AKA Obama Fans: All together now, say OMG!!
by Aristotle the Hun
Somehow, you know it’s coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans. “For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
It isn’t hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA (Also Known As: an acronym used to describe suspicious persons who use more than one name) lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA’s behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.
This disorder is frequently misunderstood as “self-love.” A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one’s self.
Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend.
A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, “I have nothing to hide but I am hiding things anyway.” AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.
If AKA OBAMA were not in a position of public trust, most of us would probably overlook such deception and secrecy. For those of us who care about our Constitution and the rule of law, the issue becomes clear in this article that appeared in on-line Pravda by international columnist, Mark S. McGrew
The Mysterious Shadow: Code Name Obama.
Most Americans do not want their president to be secretive about his past. However, if one is living a lie to preserve the ego compensating, idealized reflection of self, one will go to great lengths to hide things that most would routinely reveal.
For the person who has NPD tendencies, the lies used to create the reflection become so numerous that eventually the man in the mirror cracks, and so does the real human being hiding behind the reflection.
A useful tool in evaluating things that are not known with certainty is Occam’s razor. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. I condense this to the simple question; what is most likely? In our discussion of the documents which AKA has hidden, most of this article is an examination of which explanation is most likely.
For example; which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
What we know with certainty is that AKA OBAMA is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
“ The biggest question, and the biggest reason for asking more questions, is the fact Obama has enlisted law firms across the nation to battle every attempt to access, among other documents, his birth, schooling, immigration or passport records.” (New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo)
There are so many potential sources that can end AKA OBAMA’s Presidency that it is impossible to keep them all quiet.
It’s just a matter of time. As columnist Davvy Kidd says, IMPOSTOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: VICTORY WILL BE SHORT LIVED.
First, let’s think of all the lawyers and support staff involved in keeping the birth certificate issue quiet. Isn’t it likely that some of them know what they are hiding?
Isn’t it likely that several people at the Hawaiian Department of Public Health know what is, or is not, on the original birth certificate that AKA OBAMA refuses to release?
Did you know that there is a one million dollar reward offered for AKA OBAMA’s Hawaiian birth certificate?
Please get this straight: Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file.
They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man.
Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.
Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence.
If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate from 1961 to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what its says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth.
If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.
The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA’s campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents.
It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA’s campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery. The best evidence presented so far is from the Ron Polarik, PhD.
Dr. Polarik writes: “There are laws on the books in Hawaii and the Federal Statutes that clearly spell out exactly what constitutes forgery, and in both Hawaii State Law and the Federal Statutes, the act of altering an official government document -- even if it is just a facsimile of that document -- constitutes forgery.
The bogus COLB that Obama created is also considered to be a "false identification document, a felony forgery.” Dr. Polarik’s evidence is preserved online. There is also a YouTube video summary of the evidence.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
After reviewing Dr. Polarik’s analysis, Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine.
Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm.
Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.
As long as we are on the subject of falsified documents, it seems that AKA OBAMA never registered for the draft, as required by Selective Service laws.
When his career began to be noticed by the public, suddenly draft registration records appeared. Unfortunately for AKA OBAMA these documents have also been exposed as forgeries.
Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase.
Before a trial starts both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides.
Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.
Enough on the hidden birth certificate and forged documents.
For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker; Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate. W
hat about the legal team that is keeping AKA OBAMA’s college records hidden? Several people probably know what they are hiding. The best guess as to what is so secret isn’t likely to be bad grades.
More likely his admission papers will say he was a foreign student, or that he was receiving financial aid as a foreign student.
How many people do you estimate already know what is on AKA OBAMA’s college documents? Those records were handled routinely for more than 20 years. How many personnel in the registrar’s offices of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University have seen AKA OBAMA’s records and know what is in them?
How many of those people would be willing to talk about it, or maybe even “leak” just one sheet of paper that would put even more cracks in AKA OBAMA’s mirror? Is that number likely to be zero?
Do you think that AKA OBAMA worries about how many people know something that could destroy his career?
Fear of being “found out” is an obsession for NPD types.
So far we have only talked about the original birth certificate, supposedly locked up in Hawaii, and AKA OBAMA’s draft and college records. Already the potential sources for leaks are numerous. And you can bet that AKA OBAMA and his lawyers are concerned about many more possible leaks than these.
There is a long list of vulnerability points for leaks, and there is a story behind every one of them:
Soetoro adoption records –
Punahou (Indonesia) School records –
Passports records –
Any INS (Immigration & Naturalization Services) or port of entry documentation which may have been generated in his infancy or childhood –
Selective Service Registration (Released, but is possibly an altered document) –
Harvard Law Review articles (None, maybe 1, not signed) –
University of Chicago scholarly articles (None) –
Law practice client list –
Illinois State Senate records (locked up to prohibit public view) –I
llinois State Senate schedule (Lost. All other Illinois State Senators' records are intact) –
Baptism certificate –Medical records -
International columnist Mark S. McGrew* sums it up succinctly:
“With all of Obama’s different names, with his documented long term relations to convicted criminals, with his active efforts to prohibit us from knowing where he was born, with his active efforts to keep us from seeing his credentials, with his documented registration to practice law, professing to have only one name, with his being an ex-attorney not authorized to practice law, but representing himself as such, with his non-existent “Office of The President Elect,” with the dozen or so lawsuits against him to determine his citizenship status, with the various promises he made to voters and on which he has since reneged, with his documented lack of respect to America, with his refusal to salute the American flag with others on stage or even to stand at attention, and his other disrespectful actions, with his many millions of dollars in campaign funds suspected to be from foreign sources, with campaign donations accepted from possible terrorists groups, . . . Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can not in any way, shape or form be trusted.”
* Mark S. McGrew frequently writes for Pravda and other foreign media outlets, because of the lack of free press in the United States.
I would ask the reader to accept the premise that there are many potential leaks from those things that are being kept hidden by a man who promised transparency in government.
But there are other problems from sources that are not hidden.
AKA OBAMA himself has made it known that his father was from Kenya.
We know that records indicate that AKA OBAMA’s biological father was Barack Obama Sr, a Kenyan native, and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s offspring. We know that the geographical location of AKA OBAMA’s birth is not considered by British law. Who the father was determines citizenship, not where you are born. Had AKA OBAMA been born in Tokyo or Texas he would still be a citizen of the United Kingdom under The British Nationality Act.
A similar practice governs who is considered a citizen in several countries. Judaism is matrilineal, meaning that your mother’ lineage determines whether you are a Jew. That is why Jews from all over the world can claim Israeli citizenship.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, AKA OBAMA might have been a U.S. citizen (by virtue of his allegedly being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), becomes a citizen of Kenya on the 12th of December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
So we know for sure that, if OBAMA Sr is in fact his legal father, then AKA OBAMA was a citizen of the United Kingdom and then Kenya.
Given all the efforts to keep his birth certificate hidden, it is reasonable to assume that he is not a citizen of the United States, but even if he were born in downtown Denver he would still have triple citizenship, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President.
There is a similar problem with AKA OBAMA’s possible Indonesian citizenship. School records have surfaced that clearly indicate AKA OBAMA being listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.
So AKA OBAMA has been a citizen of the UK, Kenya, and there are inconclusive documents indicating that he was also a citizen of Indonesia.
The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii* he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship.
That is not likely, given the effort expended to keep the information about his birth a secret. By AKA OBAMA's and Bob Bauer, AKA OBAMA's Lead Lawyer's, own reports, AKA OBAMA has spent Six Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($688,000.00) on legal fees defending against lawsuits claiming that he is not eligible.
Why would AKA OBAMA spend that much money to hide a $10 Birth Certificate?
Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph, "Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesian issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President.
Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth,” just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President." -- Leo C. Donofrio
The facts are clear, and the law is clear. All it will take is for a judge to issue a ruling.
Do you think AKA OBAMA and his lawyers fret about this? They certainly are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this issue. So far, no court or judge has issued a ruling on the merits of any legal case against AKA OBAMA.
Cases have been dismissed on legal technicalities, but no actual case has yet been heard.
There are other potential leaks that come from AKA OBAMA’s international history. If Obama was born in Kenya, there should be a record of that birth in UK records.
There are probably people in England and Kenya who already have information that would put cracks in AKA OBAMA’s distorted reflection of himself, and there is other information that can be mined from archives. The same is true for Indonesia.
In the unlikely outcome that none of the people talk, and none of the documents surface, would AKA OBAMA than be free of obsessive fear of being found out?
No, even if none of his secrets are revealed and none of his lies are exposed, he will continue to remain vulnerable.
Because of the way AKA OBAMA ran his campaign; donations from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, donations from illegal foreign sources, and ACORN’s crimes, etc, he is subject to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association.
You may have noticed that the usual role of the media in ferreting out high jinks in high places has not been mentioned.
There is no “All the President’s Men” movie in the making. No one is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for investigating AKA OBAMA. Is journalism dead in America? Well no, not quite.
Somebody, a major news outlet executive, has done the Pulitzer research.
On his To The Point News website, Dr. Jack Wheeler said he will “Let the source of the information reveal it, in his own time. "...the details of what he told me are for him to reveal when he chooses, not me. I can tell you it is OMG wild."
So get ready folks. One of these days I will be asking all of you AKA Obama fans to, “All together now, say OMG!”
My conclusion: Obama will be indicted and charged very soon.
Keeping in mind that the role of a grand jury is to determine if enough evidence exists to refer a case to the courts for trial, can any objective person review information like that presented above and reject the premise that this case needs to be referred to the courts for prosecution?
It is very likely that the American Grand Jury effort will result in an indictment by a conventionally impaneled Grand Jury.
The American Grand Jury was designed in a unique and very creative manner. Bob Campbell, the Founder of American Grand Jury, wanted to find a way to impanel a grand jury that was convenient, available free of charge to all citizens, and had maximum impact. He came up with a brilliant plan!
From across the nation citizens can collectively examine and discuss the evidence, make a decision whether to indict, and then act with the full power of the U.S. Constitution to present the indictment to local, state and federal authorities.
American Grand Jury will also empower individual representatives to act on behalf of American Grand Jury Members and make presentments of evidence to jurisdictions anywhere in the United States.
These representatives will be sworn in and subject to an oath similar to the American Grand Jury Members, and will then be authorized to make presentments to such authorities as Sheriffs, County, State and Federal Prosecutors.
Even if the American Grand Jury were ignored, and deemed legally impotent, we can still expect a powerfully awakening increase in awareness and outrage on the part of the citizens. There are many potencies beyond the legal system.
However, it is highly unlikely that not even one jurisdiction will take action on the indictment. All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.”
The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint.
The goal of the project is to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it. Our goal will be achieved without a trial.
Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
3,007 entities named “County”
16 Boroughs in Alaska11 Census Areas in Alaska (for areas not organized into Boroughs by the State)
64 Parishes in Louisiana
42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.
For a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.
Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” that is no small thing.
Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional Grand Juries to indict AKA OBAMA.
Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President?
Once the American Grand Jury presentments are made, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence.
The American Grand Jury organization with which I am affiliated is using recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic testimony.
The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Any prosecutor or judge who ignores such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.
FEC's Obama For America 2009 April detailed quarterly report, disbursements by payee. FULL LIST AT LINK BELOW
The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 – to the tune of $378,375.52.
Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 360,000 others and sign up now!
As WND reported earlier, Bauer sent a letter to plaintiff Gregory Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, of Hollister v. Soetoro, THREATENING SANCTIONS if he doesn't withdraw his appeal of the eligibility case that earlier was tossed by a district judge because the issue already had been "twittered !!!!!!" (Good Grief!)
Bauer's warning was dated April 3 and delivered via letter to the plaintiff's attorney, John D. Hemenway. It is not the first such warning issued.
Lawyers trying to kill a similar California lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes also said they would seek sanctions against the plaintiff's attorneys in that case unless they left the issue of the president's eligibility alone. (More Oba-Hussein increasing thuggery - just like Ayatollah Khomeini early days).
"For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson's ruling, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued," Bauer's letter warned.
(Rendering a verdict based on Internet "twittering" is not frivolous? Perhaps not, maybe it is simply insane miscarriage of law and abuse of our Constitution)
"Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38."
Bauer also represented Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg's eligibility lawsuit and various other legal challenges. He and the White House have not responded to WND's request for comment.
Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged bodyguard and driver.
The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.
The FEC report also reveals Obama For America has spent nearly $9.5 million in the first three months of this year – of which $6,365 in legal fees paid by Obama For America also went to Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a firm founded by Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The State Department says the safety of Americans traveling abroad is its 'highest priority,' but at the same time the department is not offering any specifics of how justice has been pursued in the cases of 134 Americans who were murdered in Mexico over the past three years.
'Protection of American citizens overseas is the State Department’s highest priority,' a State Department official told CNSNews.com. 'The Department of State urges the Mexican authorities to investigate and prosecute in all cases of crimes committed against U.S. citizens.'
The latest State Departmen report on Non-Natural Death Cases Abroad says that 134 Americans were murdered in Mexico between Jan. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008. For eleven of these, the cause of death is listed as 'execution.'
by John Robb
Al Qaeda proper is focused, rightly from a strategic perspective, on hollowing out Pakistan. So if there is a terrorist attack on US soil, from which hub of the open source insurgency will it come from? The strategist Tom Barnett makes the call:
The group involved, al Shabab, is described as a post-9/11 version of al Qaeda: loosely coupled cells and very decentralized. The ties between this group and al Qaeda go way back, and 'many in the current leadership cadre are graduates of al Qaeda training camps.' AQ vets make up a significant portion of al Shabab's top talent.
Then we hear about the wormholes that link Somalia to Minneapolis, Stockholm, Cardiff and Dubai... When the attack finally comes, the evidence trail leading up to it will be vast.
by Simon Hughes
Jailed hate preacher Abu Qatada was linked to al-Qaeda for the first time yesterday — by one of the terror group’s own leaders.
Adil al-Abbab, revealed recently as Osama Bin Laden’s head of religious affairs in Saudi Arabia, said: 'Free our prisoners and the prisoners of the Muslims. O Allah! Free Sheikh Abu Qatada.'
Qatada, long suspected of being the network’s top European envoy, was respectfully referred to as 'Sheikh' which denotes leadership.
A UK security source said of the web rant: 'This is clearly an own goal.
'These calls for his freedom from a senior al-Qaeda figure end any doubt about his significance to Bin Laden.'
Qatada, 48, is behind bars fighting the Home Secretary’s decision to boot him out of Britain.
He has always dodged questions about his connections to al-Qaeda — but he is wanted in Jordan on terror charges.
Qatada is appealing to Europe against the decision to deport him.
'Mexico has been publicly pressing the United States to do more to stop the flow of U.S. weapons south. The State Department says weapons originating in the U.S. were used in 95 percent of all drug-related killings, and the Mexican government says more than 9,000 people have died since President Felipe Calderon took office on Dec. 1 and launched a national crackdown on cartels.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are we supposed to believe that these guns came from my local gun store in the US? Or were they illegally imported into Mexico or stolen out of Mexican military arsenals?
- According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-According to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo more than 150,000 soldiers have deserted in the Mexican army in the last 6 years and took their weapon, an M16, with them.
* The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the RPGs aren’t legal in the US. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea.
Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.
Some of the items pictured
6 hand grenades - Not legal in the US
6 RPG rounds - Not legal in the US
M72 rocket launcher - Not legal in the US
10' barrel AR15 - Not legal in the
US Ruger AC-556 - short barreled select fire, Not legal in US
Source: http://www.flickr.com/groups/worldpolitics/discuss/721576169 78640181/
by Kevin Poulsen
A sophisticated FBI-produced spyware program has played a crucial behind-the-scenes role in federal investigations into extortion plots, terrorist threats and hacker attacks in cases stretching back at least seven years, newly declassified documents show.
As first reported by Wired.com, the software, called a 'computer and internet protocol address verifier,' or CIPAV, is designed to infiltrate a target's computer and gather a wide range of information, which it secretly sends to an FBI server in eastern Virginia.
The FBI's use of the spyware surfaced in 2007 when the bureau used it to track e-mailed bomb threats against a Washington state high school to a 15-year-old student.
by James Hider
Iraqi security forces have arrested four children who were allegedly part of a group of youngsters being groomed by al-Qaeda to become suicide bombers, an Iraqi army general said.
The children, who were detained in a village near the northern city of Kirkuk, were part of a cell known as the 'Birds of Paradise' and were being specially trained to avoid detection as they carried out attacks, security officials said.
'Special forces units have arrested an organisation of children consisting of four individuals under the age of 14 who call themselves the 'Birds of Paradise',' said General Abdelamir al-Zaidi, the commander of the Iraqi army division in Kirkuk. 'The group relies on children and is connected to al-Qaeda. It works to recruit children and young people to carry out suicide attacks and to aid the terrorist groups in detonating roadside bombs.
So here's the bottom line: by failing to oppose Iran more effectively, the West is unintentionally encouraging it to be more extremist and dangerous. By failing to help relatively moderate Arab regimes, the West is making them more susceptible to having to appease Iran. By pressuring and criticizing Israel, the West is encouraging Iran's regime to believe it can be destroyed.
Not a pretty picture. But neither is that of the would-be fuehrer being an honored guest at UN meetings. No wonder Ahmadinejad and his backers believe that theirs is a winning bet.
Cleric says no room for democracy in Islam
MINGORA: Swat cleric Sufi Muhammad, who played a central role in the imposition of the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation in the valley, declared on Sunday that the country’s superior courts were un-Islamic and could not hear appeals against decisions of the newly set up qazi courts.
'There is no room for democracy in Islam,' said Sufi, the chief of the banned Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM), while addressing a gathering in the central Grassy Ground in the main Swat town of Mingora.
Western democracy was a 'system of infidels' and had divided the clerics and the people of Pakistan into factions, he said, and the Supreme Court and the high courts were strengthening the system.
The TNSM chief told the government to withdraw all judges from Malakand division – including from Kohistan district – within four days and set up a Darul Qaza to hear appeals against the decisions of qazi courts.
He also demanded the appointment of qazis at the district and tehsil levels throughout the division.
LAST November, extremists on motorbikes opposed to education for women sprayed acid on a group of students from the Mirwais School for Girls in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Several young women were severely burned. Yet it did not take more than a few weeks for even the most cruelly disfigured girls to return to school. Like the crowds of women in Kabul this week who protested a new law that restricts their rights, the Mirwais students demonstrate unbending courage and resolve for progress. They don’t fear much — except that the world might abandon them.
That is why President Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan policy speech last month and his administration’s related white paper are worrisome: both avoided any reference to democracy in Afghanistan, while pointedly pushing democratic reforms in Pakistan.
The new policy represents critical shifts — such as a new emphasis on civilian work, and recognizing the regional nature of the problem and the inadequacy and abuse of resources. But a faltering commitment to the democratization of Afghanistan and ambiguous statements from Washington on an exit strategy have left us Afghans scratching our heads.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The president’s response to the sentencing of Roxana Saberi—eight years in prison—is a testament to the power of Iranian blackmail and Obama’s own pigheaded refusal to understand the nature of our enemies.
His “disappointment” in the mullahs’ action (echoed almost to the letter by Secretary of State Clinton) suggests that he hoped, maybe even expected, something better from them. And that, in turn, demonstrates a refusal to see Iran for what it is.
If I were Saberi’s Iranian-American father, I would be furious, and I would be inclined to call a press conference to say that, while it may be interesting to know the President’s state of mind, and even a bit sad that he is disappointed, American presidents are not paid to share their emotions with us.
Among other things, they are paid to defend us from our enemies.
He has manifestly failed to do this in the case of Roxana.
I would ask the president very publicly, “are you going to do anything for my daughter or not? Never mind ‘I’m disappointed.’ What will you do for her, and for the other Americans in the grips of the mullahs?
Or are you going to wait until there are dozens of American hostages in Iranian hands?”
I think it’s a bit inconsistent for the president to take credit for the liberation of Captain Phillips—through the use of overwhelming military power—and then limit himself to expressing disappointment at the brutal treatment of an American journalist.
Why is Captain Phillips worth the deployment of the U.S. Navy, while Ms Saberi is barely worth a sigh of disappointment?
The anwer seems to be: because the pirates weren’t Iranians. If they had been, the entire crew would be facing years in prison.
Obama is committed to the “talking cure” with Iran, and he seems destined to live through the humiliation to which his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, was subjected.
He might go back and watch some of the old “Nightline” shows, beginning with a count of the number of days America was “held hostage.” That’s exactly where Obama is headed.
The president may well feel that this is all very unfair. He didn’t ask for this. Indeed, he thinks he has given Iran every reason to behave nicely towards him (he seems disinclined to think in terms of the nation, it’s all about NARCISSIST him).
He doesn’t seem to realize that all his sweet talk is very provocative, it plays into the mullahs’ fantasy world in which they are routing us all over the world (they know it’s all about us, not about him), and soon the American president will kneel to the Supreme Leader.
He actually seems to believe that it is possible to convince the Iranian leaders to give up their nuclear program, when every major figure in the Islamic Republic has said that Iran will never, ever, abandon that program.
The only thing they are willing to discuss is how we will accommodate to the fact of a nuclear Iran.
Meanwhile, their agents and proxies are killing Americans from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Obama does nothing in response, except to make gesture after gesture demonstrating his lack of will to confront those who have been killing Americans for thirty years.
Alan Note: Or stand up to South American leaders who insult the USA - directly TO HIS FACE not just behind his back!
Also, "nonsensical" Napolitano, who has warned - though her Department of Homeland Security - that Veterans should be considerered potential terrorists. She has removed/scrubbed out this apellation when referring to foreign terrorists like Al Qaeda but used the world repeatedly when talking about our Veterans.
Opening the door to attack any dissent from well trained, former military personnel, who could then be labeled terrorists and arrested and imprisoned - FOR DISAGREEING WITH with the Obama Administration.
Perhaps they just don’t want to think through the details. Then again - - maybe some of them don’t have the capacity to think through the details.
I’m referring to the apparent plethora of partisan, passionate, “see-no-evil” Obama minions, who become outraged should any of the rest of us ask questions about the forty-fourth President.
I continually encounter the minions both as callers on talk radio, and as mailers responding to my various editorial columns.
Whereas last year during the election cycle when I would dare to ask questions of the dear leader Obama, the minions’ first line of attack would be to call me a “racist” (or as one talk show caller put it to me last October, “you just can’t handle the idea of being under the authority of a black man, Austin”), today the line of attack is different.
And while each talk show call and each email message are unique, the minions nonetheless typically follow a predictable pattern.
These days, the minions’ first line of attack on those of us who dare to ask questions about the dear leader seems to be to change the subject back to President George W. Bush. I heard plenty of this in March when I was back at my Washington, D.C. radio home, 630 WMAL, during the fiasco with the AIG Corporation and their executives.
When I posed the question “why did President Obama hand-over $30 billion of our tax dollars to AIG in the first place?,” the responses frequently followed this pattern.
“This whole bailout mess got started with Bush” one caller stated to me (this is true, of course - - but it didn’t answer the question about Obama’s bailout behavior). “Obama wouldn’t have to bailout AIG had Bush not destroyed it,” and “if you think things are bad now, let’s go back and review the previous eight years” were some of the other subject-changing comments I got on talk radio.
And after authoring a column entitled “Is Obama The Moral Alternative to Capitalism?” wherein I detailed the President’s propensity to control private corporations, and determine who their CEO’s and board members will be, one simple-minded minion emailed “I suppose you think things would be better if Bush and his cronies were in charge…”
After attempting to change the subject, and get the focus of the conversation OFF of dear leader Obama, the second line of attack from the minions seems to be to demonize the talk show host, and talk radio generally. I got an earful of this during a recent show I hosted at Phoenix, Arizona’s NewsTalk 92-3 KTAR. Noting President Obama’s plans to set earnings limits on corporate executives, I posed the question, “should President Obama determine how much money you’re allowed to earn?”
“You all can’t do anything but hate on this guy” a caller said in response. “All you talk radio guys know how to do is trash Obama” another caller said.
Oh really? I was “hating on” the dear leader, and “trashing” him? I pressed further with one caller, saying “seriously…should President Obama set the limit on how much money you’re allowed to make at your job - - just to make certain that you don’t make ‘too much’?”
“He’s not proposing to limit my pay, you idiot” the minion replied. “He’s only limiting the salaries of corporate CEO’s, which he should be doing.”
“So, are you saying that some of your fellow Americans deserve less freedom that you do?” I asked. “You should be free to make as much money as you can, but your fellow American should not - - is that your point?”
“That’s not what I’m saying, you idiot!” the angry minion replied.
Of course, that was precisely what the angry minion was saying.
The third line of attack from the minions seems to be a simple “how dare you?” response. I encountered this after the publication of a column in my local hometown newspaper.
After stating the obvious about President Obama’s economic plan - - that his plan has essentially nothing to do with growing the private sector economy, and everything to do with creating more government control over private individuals and businesses - - I had people, literally, stopping me around town to ask “how dare you?” - - or something similar.
While attending a school function with my ten year old son, another Dad confronted me and asked, “how could you say such a terrible thing about the President of the United States?”
“I supported my claims in the column” I told the Dad. “It’s all right there in the text.”
“But how could you say such a thing about the President?” he asked.
“What part of my analysis was inaccurate?” I replied.
“But this meltdown isn’t Obama’s fault” he stated.
“So what‘s your point? What part of my analysis was inaccurate?”
“But he’s trying to do the right thing, Austin…….”
I hope you remain willing to ask questions. But be prepared for the attacks - - and by all means, don’t expect any rational answers.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
But it turned out that nothing more was brewing than an innocent little box of, yes, tea bags.
The security alert started around 2 p.m. ET, when an unidentified person tossed the box over the gate of the White House and it landed on President Obama's lawn with a thud.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Terrorists? Criminals? Both!
Rush in a Hurry -- Somali Pirates are Muslim Terrorists, Not Criminals
US officials: FBI begins criminal investigation into Somali pirates amid hostage standoff (??)
FBI to question US crew in criminal piracy probeCo-religionist in the
Let us thank the Somali pirates
Obama Team Mulls Aims Of Somali Extremists: Seeing Potential Terror Threat
The Pirates Challenge Obama's Pre-9/11 Mentality
Somali Pirates Tied To Jihad
Testing Obama (The Somali Pirates just add to the List )
Obama Team Mulls Aims Of Somali Extremists
White House says Obama getting updates on pirates ("aides met at 8 a.m. and at 2 p.m.")
DFU YouTube SING-ALONG: Barack Obama Pirate Song
There is nothing called the 'moderate Taliban'
Somalia: Islamist rebel leaders hail pirate attacks
Co-partisans outside the White House:
Ron Howard Yearns for Less Powerful America Not 'Driven by Militarism'
Schumer says "traditional values" "strong foreign policy" over, Obama "talks bipartisanship, but...
"MSM won't give party affiliation:
US won't give in to pirate blackmail: senator (Tom Coburn)
U.S. Navy Blocks Ships Coming to Aid Pirates in Standoff
Source: Pirates repel sailors attempting to reach captain
Negotiations Break Down in Standoff With Pirates
Kill the pirates: As the Marines demonstrated long ago, there's only one way to end piracy
Official: US sea captain freed in swift firefight
Official: US sea captain faced imminent danger
Captain jumps to freedom --
Capt. Phillips, who has been described by his crew as a hero for leaving with four pirates in a lifeboat to save his ship, the Maersk Alabama, escaped by jumping overboard. Before pirates could respond, U.S. forces killed three pirates still on the lifeboat and arrested a fourth pirate.
Pirate Lifeboat Drifts Toward Somalia - "We are not afraid of the Americans" [How about now?]
Official: Captain was in 'imminent danger' (Defense depart had to ask 0bama twice)
Other pirate activity:
Pirates Take German Ship Towards Comrades Off Somalia
Pirates Bring German Ship Into US Stand-Off ( off Somali Coast)
Pirates seize U.S.-owned, Italy-flagged tugboat
Pirates Hijack Second US Vessel
Sources: U.S. tugboat hijacked by pirates
Pirates seize 10 Italians in US - owned tugboat
Canadian warship thwarts pirates again
Rescued French yacht captain Florent Lemacon may have died in friendly fire PIRACY UPDATE
Death on the high seas French commando raid brought a five-day hostage crisis to a bloody end
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Sad, but true. Hanson describes every leftist dictatorship (Hitler and Lenin included) in the history of the world. B
April 4, 2009
President Obama’s First 70 Days-- It really does all make sense.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
In just the first 70 days of the new administration, a number of Obama supporters have expressed some dismay at their new president.
Some find his ethically challenged appointments at odds with his soaring moral rhetoric.
Others lament his apparent inability to stir up supporters in impromptu speeches, at least in the manner he did with set oratory on the campaign trail.
And they worry about his occasionally insensitive remarks. Many cannot quite figure out why, after lambasting George W. Bush for running a $500-billion deficit, Obama has outlined eight years of budgetary red ink that would nearly match the debt run up by all previous U.S.presidents combined.
But such disappointments should be tempered.
Not only is Obama simply drawing on his past 30 years of education, writing, work, and associations, but he is also properly reflecting the world view of many of those working for him.
What, then, is the mindset behind America’s new approach to domestic policy and foreign affairs?
If you believed that average Americans are not well educated, do not think in sophisticated and rational ways, and cannot be trusted to make good decisions, whether for themselves or for their nation, then you would expand the power of better-educated and wiser government overseers.
This would ensure that, instead of millions of private agendas that lead individuals improperly, and at times recklessly, to acquire and consume, we would have benevolent and far-sighted powers directing our lives in ways that benefit the environment, the economy — and themselves.
If you believed that highly educated and sometimes distracted liberals occasionally slip on rather mundane questions of taxes, lobbying, and conflict of interest — but not at all in the felonious, premeditated manner of the corporate hierarchy — then it would be necessary to overlook such minor lapses for the greater good of marshalling talented and well-disposed experts into progressive government.
If you believed that socially minded liberals are tolerant and extraordinarily empathetic, then their rather impolite speech is not at all offensive.
Constant disparagement of the previous administration, and jokes about fellow Americans — ranging from the physically or mentally impaired, to Nancy Reagan and her séances, to the stereotyped religion and culture of a clinging middle America, to the purported prejudices of a “typical white person” — are not insensitive, let alone callous.
No, the evocation of these occasional infelicities reflects the tally-sheet of nitpicking right-wing agitators, keen to bring down a hard-working progressive sacrificing for thepeople.
If you believed that compensation in this country was intrinsically unfair — that income is arbitrary and quite capriciously rewards some while unjustly shortchanging others — then you would wish to hike income and payroll taxes on high earners to reach confiscatory levels so that a fairer government could correct the errors of an unfair market for the benefit of the many.
Higher taxes on some, then, are not just a means of raising revenue, but an important redistributive tool of government to spread the wealth around.
If you believed that government does too little for the average citizen — that at present, with its unnecessary wars and perks for the wealthy, it cannot ensure everyone lifelong entitlement — then you would wish to double, even triple present federal expenditures.
The key would be to borrow enough now to provide relief to the people first, and only afterwards to worry how to pay off the resulting deficit of $1.7 trillion.
Once people are accustomed to the services they deserve, they will ensure that their representatives find the right revenue mechanisms to guarantee that such "necessary benefactions" continue.
If you build programs to help the people now, the necessary taxing and borrowing for a $3.6-trillion budget will come.
If you had little idea of how businesses are created, how they are run, and why they sometimes go broke, and if you thought that the truly talented and sophisticated never go into business but instead gravitate to the Ivy League to be trained as lawyers, professors, writers, and organizers, then youwould assume that our present problems are largely the fault of the former, and can best be addressed by putting as many of the latter in your government as possible.
If you believed that Main Street and Wall Street have little, if anything,to do with why publishers can afford to extend million-dollar book advances, or why the Ivy League has millions in scholarships for students, or why foundations, universities, and governments can afford to hire so many advisors, consultants, administrators, lawyers, and professors, then you would never really connect the conditions that promote good business with those that allow intellectuals, technocrats, and bureaucrats to thrive.
If you believed that those with capital have had an unfortunate head start, or have done dubious things that others less fortunate would not, then you would seek ways to forgive loans, to allow the indebted to start over with a clean slate, to ensure new borrowing with record-low interest rates, to lower or eliminate taxes on most people, and to expand in turn the financial help from the government — and not worry that stocks are down, dividends are nearly nonexistent, interest on deposits is at a record low, equity in real property has often disappeared, and accumulated capital is itself often diminished or insecure.
If you believed that the story of the United States is more a narrative of gender, race, and class oppression than of brave souls promoting liberty and trying to deify the promise of the Constitution, then you would have empathy for fellow victims of such endemic Western oppression.
The cries from the heart we are hearing from Bolivia and Cuba, from Iran, Syria, and the West Bank, are not anti-American, much less illiberal: they are efforts to articulate the oppression that the people in those places have suffered at the hands of others.
While in the short run the once-victimized may need to be deterred in their anger from harming the United States or themselves, in the long run their legitimate grievances must be addressed through a variety of concessions, apologies, or dialogues in order to promote the general peace.
That a Hugo Chávez calls Americans “gringos,” or Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula daSilva blames “white, blue-eyed” bankers for the financial mess, or that state-run Palestinian papers refer to Jews as “pigs and apes,” or that the Iranian president serially claims the Holocaust is a concoction of Zionists, is all an unfortunate rhetoric of the oppressed (in the same way Reverend Wright once referred to Italians as “garlic noses”), brought on by colonization and exploitation, rather than proof that a large portion of the world beyond our shores is run by racist — and rather loony — people.
If you believed that the traditions and customs of the United States are largely a story of the oppressed overcoming the perniciousness of the privileged, rather than the collective efforts of the many to stop tyranny, then you would talk about past oppression, past victimization, and past unfairness far more than you would evoke Shiloh, the Meuse-Argonne, or Iwo Jima.
If you believed that the United States is hardly exceptional, but merely one nation not all that different from others, then you would have confidence in the aggregate wisdom of the United Nations, and the cultural and economic paradigms provided by the nations of the European Union.
If you believed that wars, crises, and international tensions are brought about by miscommunications, misunderstandings, and Western insensitivity, rather than by despots trying to advance illiberal agendas whenever and wherever they sense an opening, then you would blame past administrations for our present ills, with all their bellicose and retrograde talk of preparedness, deterrence, and pre-emption.
You would grandly proclaim a new age of harmonious relations, and count on your rhetorical abilities and charisma to persuade past rivals and mischaracterized enemies that, at this rare but opportune moment, there are no real differences between us — and thus no reasons for future disputes.
In other words, if you believed as President Obama and many of his advisors do, then you would do what Obama and his advisors are now doing.
(Dismantling American sovereignty and survival)
Thursday, April 02, 2009
April, 1, 2009 Phone: (703) 383-0880
April 1th, 2009, Fairfax, VA— House Republican members today unveiled an alternative proposal to the Democrat budget, calling for $4.8 trillion less spending over the next decade and an immediate freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.
Speaking exclusively to ALG News Bureau, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) elaborated, on why it was necessary for the House of Representatives to introduce an alternative Budget.
“On the Senate side, we are not introducing an alternative budget; the House only gets four hours to do a debate, so they have to do it in a comprehensive way. On the Senate side, we get 50 hours of debate – so we are taking each item of the budget and putting in a substitute for that item. If just half of the things that the Republicans in the Senate are introducing are accepted, it would be an acceptable budget. It would drive down those costs and debt and taxes!”
(See Video Below)
Senator Enzi, added that it is important to get “back to basics” and attempt to halt a massive train wreck of spending. The alternative budget also includes proposal to make the President Bush's 2001 and 2003 taxes permanent.
Congressman Louie Gohmert, detailed on the importance of an alternative budget that places emphasis on restructuring our capitalist economy and avoiding the rapid move towards Socialism, telling ALG News.
“…We are moving rapidly [towards socialism], in three month time we have moved so far, that its just unbelievable, who would have ever thought that we own the current interest in AIG, and in Wall Street and in the Big banks of America, and in the Big car companies….People are saying we are moving toward a European style Socialism, we are moving more towards a pilgrim style socialism, because half of them nearly starved that first winter…the answer is not more socialism, its going back to basic that made us the greatest country in the history of the world, before its too late.”
(See Video Below)
The Republican proposal comes on the heels of one of the largest budgets proposed by Democrats in the nation's history. According to Republicans, at the Alternative Budget unveiling, Obama's 3.7 Trillion is simply “Unacceptable”. With limited numbers in both the House and Senate, the Republicans are not likely to pass their version, unless they are able to pressure moderate Democrats into a deal.
The GOP proposal also includes measures to assist businesses by cutting the corporate income tax from a record 35% to 25% and cutting the capitol gains tax in 2009 and 2010. Speaking to ALG News, Congressman Robert Adelhort (R-AL) predicted the astonishing tax rates that will be implemented on the public, if the current spending levels continue at this rate.
“…the tax rates, the lowest will be about 25%, the middle will be at about 65% and the highest for small business will be 88%, and so with those numbers, when people see those numbers, and see what that does to their children and grandchildren, I think that they will fall behind what the Republican alternative will be.” (See Video Below)
The Alternative Budget bill is expected to come to the house floor this afternoon.
To watch the exclusive interviews from today, please follow the link below:
Americans for Limited Government is a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms,private property rights and core American liberties. For more information on ALG please call us at 703-383-0880 or visit our website at www.GetLiberty.org.