February 29, 2012

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ Will Make Protest Illegal .

*Source: Russia Today

Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)
Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.



Russ Dizdar "SIGNS WONDERS MIRACLES...Pt. 3 The Counterfeit Are As Real And The Real But Deadly." podcast.

"SIGNS WONDERS MIRACLES...Pt. 3 The Counterfeit Are As Real And The Real But Deadly."



*Russ Dizdar Official Site: http://www.ShatterTheDarkness.net
*Download Russ Dizdar Podcast @ http://preemptionbroadcast.podomatic.com/
*Russ Dizdar's "The Ragged Edge Live Radio Show" @ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/russ-dizdar
*The Black Awakening official site: http://www.theblackawakening.com
*Purchase "The Black Awakening: Rise of the Satanic Super Soldiers and the Coming Chaos" as Ebook or Paperback @ http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/RussDizdar

The Occult Roots of Scientology: Exploring the Influence of Aleister Crowley on L. Ron Hubbard

*Source: The Vigilant Citizen


Aleister Crowley, Jack Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard

Thanks to high-profile members such as Tom Cruise, Will Smith and John Travolta, the Church of Scientology has been receiving great visibility and a whole lot of money from its eight million members worldwide. Although most have heard of Scientology, not many know about its founder L. Ron Hubbard and his past as a member of Aleister Crowley’s secret society Ordo Templi Orientis (known as the O.T.O). Hubbard was a high level initiate of Crowley’s occult order and actively participated in sex magick rituals in order to engender a “Moonchild”.

A new study published in the academic journal Nova Religio explores the link between the O.T.O and Hubbard’s Dianetics, the doctrine of Scientology. According to the study’s author professor Hugh Urban, L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics was highly influenced by Crowley’s occult teachings – many of its concepts were simply recycled and renamed for the purpose of Scientology. Scientology and Crowley’s Thelema are however far from equivalent but, as the study reveals, Hubbard was a firm believe of Crowley’s occult theories and used them to grant his wishes and to propel his own cult.

Hugh Urban’s study named The Occult Roots of Scientology?: L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, and the Origins of a Controversial New Religion, is not freely available (its a paid download) but the following article from Village Voice does a great job summing it up and vulgarizing it. The more serious readers might find the article a little too “vulgarized” but there is still interesting information in there.

Scientology and the Occult: Hugh Urban’s New Exploration of L. Ron Hubbard and Aleister Crowley

Last June, we brought you the first review of The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion by Ohio State professor Hugh Urban, and then the first interviewwith the good professor himself.

During that interview, Urban told us that he was planning to continue his research into Scientology, and would be looking into a variety of areas. But we didn’t know that one of those interests included a closer look at L. Ron Hubbard’s wild occult history that preceded his publication of 1950′s Dianetics.

Longtime Scientology watchers will be at least somewhat familiar with the tale: that after his involvement in WWII, Hubbard shacked up with Jet Propulsion Lab rocket scientist Jack Parsons, a man heavily into the occult, and in particular the teachings of The Great Beast, British occultist Aleister Crowley. You may even know something about the kinky things Parsons and Hubbard did trying to create a “Moonchild.” But what Urban does in a new piece for the journal Nova Religio is produce a thorough, academic study of the ways that Crowley’s “magick” found parallels in what would become Hubbard’s most famous creation, Scientology.

Urban went into some of this material in his book, but he tells me he wanted to explore it more in depth with this article.

Nova Religiois one of those academic journals still doing things the old-fashioned way — its articles don’t appear in full on its website, and readers either need to purchase a copy of the journal or get it through an academic institution or something. So, we’ll play along and hold on to our copy of the story and do our best to describe it here. Perhaps later Urban can convince the publication to allow wider access to the piece.

Urban’s article is titled “The Occult Roots of Scientology?: L. Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, and the Origins of a Controversial New Religion,” and if you’ve read his book, its introduction will seem very familiar.

He then lays out the basics: after returning from his service in the war, Hubbard moved into John Whiteside “Jack” Parsons’s Pasadena rooming house (the “Parsonage”), which was something of a flophouse for his occult friends. Parsons was heavily into Crowley’s “magick,” and soon found a willing partner in Hubbard — and even wrote to Crowley himself about their attempts to engage in some of Crowley’s rituals. The relationship between Hubbard and Parsons ended badly, with accusations of fraud and theft. But later, as Hubbard developed his ideas for Dianetics and Scientology, his experience with Crowley’s “Ordo Templi Orientis” (OTO) seems to have permeated his thinking and even the terminology of the church.

Urban notes that the church itself has virulently denied that Hubbard’s occult activities had anything to do with Scientology, or that remnants of Crowley’s occult ideas can be found in its scriptures. But one of the most useful things about Urban’s article is the way he shows that it’s the church’s own statements and legal maneuvers which tend to verify the connection between Crowley’s “magick” and Hubbard’s “tech.”

If you’ve read Urban’s book, you’ll know that he accomplishes this neat trick with calm, deeply researched and thoroughly convincing material told in a crystal-clear prose style.

To begin his investigations, Urban goes back to the early 20th century and Aleister Crowley’s rise as the most famous occultist of his day. Joining OTO and then becoming one of its leaders, Crowley wrote widely, and Urban focuses particularly on his book Magick in Theory and Practice, which Hubbard would later cite in lectures.

When Urban began to describe some of the ideas in that book, this Scientology watcher has to admit to the hairs on the back of his neck going up. The similarities to what Hubbard would later say about his own “technology” are stunning…

First and foremost, Crowley repeatedly emphasizes that Magick is a science. To distinguish his practice from parlor tricks and stage illusions, Crowley spells Magick with a “k” and insists that it is an exact science based on specific laws and experimental techniques. Hence his book begins with a “postulate” followed by twenty-eight “theorems” presented as “scientifically” as chemistry or mathematics. This science is fundamentally about the correct knowledge of the individual self and its potential. In short, “Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one’s conditions.”Oh, L. Ron, you are so busted.

Urban goes on to explain how in Crowley’s magick, the fundamental concept is Thelema, which represents a person’s inner will, and the ability to do “what thou wilt.” Doing the processes of Crowley’s magick rituals, the point is for a magus to astrally project himself so that he can ultimately become an all-powerful being who is “capable of being, and using, anything which he perceives, for everything that he perceives is in a certain sense a part of his being. He may thus subjugate the whole Universe of which he is conscious to his individual Will.”

Sound familiar? In Hubbard’s Scientology, which he insists is a science that will allow you to discover your true nature, you learn that you are a thetan, and through his processes you will ultimately be able to leave your body and become an all-powerful being able to create universes.

Wow. L. Ron didn’t even change the handwriting to throw off the teacher.

But that was in the future. In 1945, Hubbard moved in with Parsons, and the two got up to some seriously kinky activities. Early in 1946, Parsons began what he called his “Babalon Working” experiments as he and Hubbard began trying to take Crowley’s ideas into new territory.

Crowley had written about the possibility of a “magickal child” or “Moonchild,” and Parsons decided he’d try to make one. He identified a woman named Marjorie Cameron as the person who would be his “elemental,” and then the two got busy, Urban writes…

According to Parsons’ remarkable personal accounts of these rites, Hubbard was intimately involved in the Babalon Working…Hubbard was asked to serve as Parsons’ seer or “scribe” during the Babalon Working; indeed, Hubbard became nothing less than the “voice” for Babalon herself, who spoke through him and was recorded by Parsons.So was Ron sitting by taking notes, or speaking in tongues, or something else while Jack was having occult-flavored sex with Marjorie? Whatever the three got up to, on March 6 Parsons wrote to Crowley saying that the deed was done and that in nine months a Moonchild would be born.

Crowley was not impressed. He wrote to a friend in April, “Apparently Parsons or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these goats.”

But all was for naught, apparently. No child was born, Hubbard made off with another of Parsons’s girlfriends, Betty Northrup, and absconded to Florida in a sailboat-sales scheme gone haywire, and in 1952, Parsons blew himself up with an accidental chemical explosion in his home lab.

Urban, meanwhile, is only getting warmed up.

“Perhaps the most remarkable part of this whole story is that the Church of Scientology admits that all of this did happen,” he writes. Apparently unable to deny entirely that Hubbard took part in wild occult sex rites with a rocket scientist, the church has, over the years, floated the howler that Hubbard was actually on a military mission to infiltrate Parsons’s little black magic club in order to neutralize it.

“It is worth noting, however, that neither the Church of Scientology nor any independent researcher has ever produced any evidence for this claim,” Urban calmly notes.

Urban then turns to even more sensitive material that the church has never denied the authenticity of…

One of the most important documents for making sense of the Crowley-Hubbard link and the occult roots of Scientology is a curious text called the “Affirmations” (or “Admissions”) of L. Ron Hubbard. Composed in 1946 or 1947, “Affirmations” appears to be Hubbard’s own personal writings, meant to have been read into a tape recording device and then played back to Hubbard himself. No church official has ever publicly denied that “Affirmations” is an authentic Hubbard document, and Scientology’s own legal position indicates that it does consider the document to be church property and clearly wants to keep control of the text.As Urban says, in these extremely personal writings, Hubbard sounds very much like Crowley.

“Affirmations” indicates that the author is engaged in some kind of magical ritual and hoping that his “magical work is powerful and effective.” In fact, the “affirmations” describe themselves as “incantations” designed to become an integral part of listeners’ natures, impressing upon them the reality of their psychic powers and magical abilities. Perhaps more significant, however, is the repeated mention of a female guardian figure, the most important spiritual adviser and aid to the listener. The emphasis on the guardian here seems to have been directly influenced by Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice…Urban goes on to note parallels between what Hubbard writes in his “Affirmations,” and then goes into a lengthy description of Scientology’s concepts and how they echo Crowley. (He also points out the ways that Hubbard’s midcentury, Cold War-influenced religion is also very different than the Victorian occult ideas of Crowley.)

Urban only includes a couple of short quotes from Hubbard’s “Affirmations,” but he encouraged me to take a longer look at them where Gerry Armstrong — once a trusted employee who was asked by Hubbard to gather his personal papers — put it online in 2000.

Obama Definitely Knows How To Utilize That Race Card.

Rev. Bill Graham Denies That Jesus Is The Only Way To Heaven.

Defense Minister Warns About Iran's 'Secret Weapons'

*Source: World Net Daily

Nuclear23

In an interview with the Fars News Agency today, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi claimed that Iran is in possession of secret weapons along with top secret capabilities that could be used to confront the United States.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has many hidden capabilities, which are kept for rainy days,” Vahidi said in the interview. “We have not yet revealed all our capabilities.”

Referring to the U.S. assets positioned in the Persian Gulf, Vahidi stated: “These days Americans badly fear that an incident happens in the region and they can’t stand against the Islamic Republic’s firm positions vis-à-vis that given event.”

Vahidi then, in an ominous warning to America, said, “Undoubtedly, since our defense is an independent and defensive one based on our own defensive policies, special defense doctrines and internal capabilities, the U.S. will face a completely new environment when [it] gets involved with the new issues that Iran is pursuing and it will be obliged to think of this new environment.”

The Iranian defense minister went on to say that the American armed forces’ passivity in a possible confrontation with the Islamic regime’s forces will be due to the fact that Iran has not shown all weapons in its arsenal.

Get “A Time to Betray” and read the warnings about Iran.

Vahidi is wanted by Interpol for the 1994 Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, that killed more than 80 people and injured 100.

Vahidi also, as the chief commander of the Guards’ intelligence unit, directed the Marine barracks bombing killing 241 U.S. servicemen. He has been involved in many other terror attacks that collaborated with Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida.

Today, Vahidi oversees the Islamic regime’s missile and nuclear program along with proliferation of arms to al-Qaida, Taliban, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

As revealed recently, Iran’s supreme leader has issued an order to activate all terror cells under his command, including the Quds forces and Hezbollah, to attack U.S. and Israeli interests in America and around the world. The Guards also have been ordered to prepare for missile attacks against U.S. military bases in the region and Israel and for the closing down of the Strait of Hormuz.

In a recent speech to students at a Tehran military college, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, stated, “Iran is not a nation to sit still and just observe threats from fragile materialist powers which are being eaten by worms from inside.”

He continued, “Anyone who harbors any thought of invading the Islamic Republic of Iran – or even if the thought crosses their mind – should be prepared to receive strong blows and the steel fists of the military, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, and the Basij…”

Ali Akbar Velayati, ex-Iranian foreign minister and current special adviser on foreign affairs to the Iranian supreme leader, openly acknowledged that the Iranian Quds forces have been involved with the Arab uprisings and are managing the events in the region, including in Iraq and Lebanon. It was the first time an Iranian official acknowledged the activities of Iran’s Quds forces, designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

Velayati is also wanted by courts in Argentina for his involvement in the Jewish community center bombing of 1994.

The secret weapon Vahidi cites could be that Iran already has a nuclear bomb.

As revealed in October, the Iranians actively approached the former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and managed to get the bomb. Sources within the U.S. State Department have confirmed the acquisition, though it is unknown if the Iranians got the code.

One thing is clear, the radical leaders of the Islamic regime in Iran have crossed every red line in their pursuit of the nuclear bomb and currently have enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs.


Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray.” He is a senior fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board member of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

Obama Issues New Guidelines For Indefinite Detention and Torture.

*Source: Russia Today

Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

President Obama issued a policy directive on Tuesday that was quickly portrayed as a resolve to his right to detain US citizens without trial. In reality, the plan is a carefully crafted PR move that doesn’t strip his absolute power over Americans.

The presidential policy directive released by the White House this week comes nearly two months to the day after US President Barack Obama approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA FY12), a detrimental law to each and every American that has attracted criticism from all sides of the political system since passed. On December 31, 2011, the president inked the legislation allowing for the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists and the confinement of those accused under the jurisdiction of the US military without due process. In his latest offering from the Oval Office though, Obama is insisting that the United States requires more wiggle-room in how it goes about regulating the provision that puts suspects in the Pentagon’s custody.

[A .PDF COPY OF THE NDAA IS AVAILABLE HERE]

The signing could indeed bring a cease to the requirement of military detainment for alleged adversaries of America, a requirement that is authorized under Section 1022 of the act. It does not, however, squash the indefinite detention without trial provision of Section 1021, nor does it negate the fact that the US government has already allowed itself to approve a nasty legislation that denounces the civil liberties of every American and has marred the administration of a president who campaigned on upholding constitutional rights.

Only hours after the New Year’s Eve signing, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero said, "President Obama's action … is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

The president is now responding, but the truth is his reply is much too little and almost, legally, too late.

In explaining his reasoning for issuing this week’s directive, Obama did not exactly denounce any provision of the NDAA, but instead insisted that the White House "must retain the flexibility to determine how to apply those tools to the unique facts and circumstances we face in confronting this diverse and evolving threat.” To do so, wrote the president, the United States government must go about handling Section 1022 of the NDAA in a different manner that would relieve the country from any added security threat.

Under Section 1022 as approved by Congress and authorized by the president, the US Armed Forces can hold and capture a wide range of applicants under military provision, including but not limited to “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and anyone “to have participated in the course of planning of carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

In section ‘a,’ paragraph 3 of the provision, “Military Custody for Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists,” the president is allotted the power to pen a waiver for national security that would waive selected foreign parties from the military detainment allowance. Section ‘c,’ paragraph 1, gives Obama 60 days to detail procedures for implementing Section 1022 — this week’s policy directive comes exactly 59 days into the two-month window.

Under his latest addendum, the president argued that placing alleged terrorists into military custody “would undermine the national security interests of the United States, compromising our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals."

“That system … must continue to be an unrestricted counterterrorism tool going forward,” added Obama.

As a compromise to the military detainment provision, the president is now insisting that alleged terrorists don’t necessarily have to be handed over to the Pentagon for prosecution or, as otherwise granted in the NDAA, indefinite detention without trial under the watch of the Armed Forces. Instead, wrote Obama, a captured alleged criminal should be subjected to the standard practices for federal law enforcement that agencies have acted on according to pre-NDAA operating procedures; until, of course, a handful of governmental high-ups authorize the transfer to a military prison. At that point, every word of the NDAA will once again be a-okay.

Under the directive, the requirement to go straight to military jail is waived if doing so will impede counterterrorism cooperation with other nations, interfere with US detainees held abroad, jeopardize the security of the captive’s cooperation and a handful of other categories. Even under this change, however, the final decision is still up to the president to make.

Simply put, the White House is asking for a little leeway in how it goes about handling detainees before putting them on the boat to Guantanamo Bay.

Some are saying that the latest statement comes as a breath of fresh air in terms of a law that has already caused an immense backlash of critics of the NDAA. It does not, however, nowhere in the directive, do anything to dismiss Section 1021 of the Defense Act, where alleged terrorists, “including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces,” can be detained “under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities.”

When Obama authorized the NDAA last year, he did so by including an addendum in which he pledged, “[M]y Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” adding, “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war and all other applicable law.”

The ACLU’s Anthony Romero was quick to tell The Atlantic, however, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

Nine states have so far offered their own legislation which would condemn, at least in part, the NDAA. Earlier this week, a bill drafted in the Commonwealth of Virginia successfully passed the Senate after being approved by the House days earlier. The State of Washington has also drafted a bill that would relieve itself of the detainment provisions and, just recently, Utah offered a resolution of their own.

As lawmakers on a local level rally to dissolve themselves from the NDAA, President Obama’s directive this week could easily be perceived as an attempt to align himself with a growing mass of angry Americans alienated by last year’s signing. In mainstream headlines and press releases it might seem like the president is putting the NDAA to rest, but the fine print reveals that Obama’s actual addendum is nothing but a skillfully orchestrated PR move. Indefinite detention without trial? Yup, it’s still there. For those pesky probable-war criminals, however, they will be freed — at least momentarily — from Gitmo’s orange hoods and advanced interrogation techniques.

The truth behind the directive: don’t believe the hype.


Doctors Call For HPV Shots For Boys.

*Source: The Washington Times

**FILE** One dose of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, developed by Merck & Co., is displayed Feb. 2, 2007, in Austin, Texas. (Associated Press)

Despite lackluster acceptance among girls for a vaccine to prevent cancer-causing sexually transmitted viruses, the American Academy of Pediatrics is fully recommending that boys get the shots as well.

Boys 11 and 12 should be immunized routinely, with three doses of a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), the AAP said Monday in its online issue of Pediatrics. This formally updates the academy’s previous policy of “permissive recommendation” for vaccination of males.

The AAP has recommended since 2007 that girls ages 11 and 12 receive the HPV vaccine.

The new policy should end any resistance among health insurers to covering HPV vaccines for boys. Each HPV shot cost about $130 in July; three shots are needed for the vaccine to be fully effective.

Merck & Co.’s Gardasil is the only approved HPV vaccine for males; both Gardasil and Cervarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline, are approved for females.

The HPV vaccine exploded into a presidential political issue last year when Texas Gov. Rick Perry entered the race.

In 2007, when the first HPV vaccine was approved for girls ages 11 and 12, Mr. Perry issued an executive order mandating it for Texas girls. An outcry ensued over the usurping of parental rights and the idea that the vaccine gave tacit permission for children and teens to engage in premarital sex.

The Texas Legislature quickly overturned the order, and as a presidential candidate, Mr. Perry called it “a mistake” he regretted because he didn’t discuss it “with the people of the state of Texas.”

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota also hit a buzz saw of controversy when she said that the HPV vaccine “can have very serious side effects,” and that a mother had told her that her daughter had become mentally damaged after receiving the HPV vaccine.

The AAP quickly said there was “absolutely no scientific validity” to the claim that the vaccine “is dangerous and can cause mental retardation.”

As for safety, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program says that as of early February, a total of nine claims have been filed for HPV-vaccine-related deaths and 163 claims filed for injuries. So far, 25 claims have been compensated and 33 have been dismissed, the federal program said.

Some 40 million HPV vaccine doses have been administered to girls in the past five years, and “no discernible, vaccine-specific adverse effect, with the exception of rare anaphylaxis to vaccine components, has been detected,” the AAP said in its new policy. Anaphylaxis refers to an allergic reaction with symptoms such as difficulty breathing, nausea and rashes.

HPV is the nation’s most commonly transmitted sexual infection. While there are dozens of HPV strains that resolve themselves without ill effects, a handful of HPV strains cause cancer. HPV 16 and 18, for instance, cause 15,000 cancer cases in women and 7,000 cases of cancer in males every year, the AAP said.

HPV vaccines are given at a young age because they only work against HPV strains before they are acquired, and most sixth-graders have not yet engaged in any sexual activity.

Research finds the vaccines are highly effective in preventing HPV-related precancerous conditions in men and women. Studies are still needed to see how the vaccines work against the growing problem of HPV-caused head and neck cancers.

Dr. Michael Brady, chairman of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases for 2011-2012, said the AAP changed its HPV policy on boys because “it has become apparent that HPV causes infection and [the resulting conditions] in both females and males.”

It was initially hoped that providing HPV vaccine only to girls would interrupt sexual transmission and provide protection to boys as well, Dr. Brady said. But instead of seeing 80 percent vaccination coverage in girls, only 32 percent have gotten the three doses, which is inadequate to dent transmission, he said. “Also, providing girls only with HPV vaccines does not interrupt transmission in those males who have sex with males.”

So AAP decided to concur with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ decision in October that the HPV vaccination policy be “broadened to include both genders,” Dr. Brady said.

Older teens and young adults, including those who have engaged in sexual activity, also are advised to get vaccinated, as it can still protect them if they haven’t already acquired the dangerous HPV strains.

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) and American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS) both endorse HPV vaccinations as long as they are not mandated or required for school entry.

However, the CMDA opposes “safe-sex” marketing messages that might give the erroneous idea that the HPV vaccines provide “total protection” against disease and other negative consequences of a promiscuous lifestyle, said Dr. David Stevens, chief executive of CMDA.

Also, 30 percent of cervical cancers are caused by HPV strains that are not covered by vaccines, ACPEDS said in its newly revised HPV policy.

Currently, the District of Columbia requires all sixth-grade girls to receive the HPV vaccine unless their parents or guardians sign an “opt out” certificate.

Virginia also mandates HPV vaccinations for girls, with a parental opt-out. But its House of Delegates and a state Senate committee recently passed a bill repealing the mandate, and the issue is now before the Senate.

Victims Of 9/11 Plane Crashes Dumped In Landfill.

*Source: Russia Today

New York: The panels containing names of the victims of the terrorist attacks are viewed on December 29, 2011 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP)

A report released by the Pentagon on Tuesday reveals that the remains of some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks were incinerated and dumped in a suburban Virginia landfill.

This latest news comes as the findings of a Defense Department-led investigation into the alleged mismanagement at the military mortuary at the Dover Air Force base in Delaware are revealed to the press.

Last year, the DoD acknowledged that the remains of at least 274 fallen troops were sent to the King George County landfill outside of Washington, DC. At the time, the military estimated that more than 2,700 fragments of body parts were entered into eternal rest at the garbage dump around 70 miles due-south from the Pentagon. Now, say officials, victims of 9/11 were also disposed of at the site.

The report, released Tuesday, says that the remains of the passengers killed in two separate tragedies on 9/11 were sent to the landfill. Victims of both the plane that was downed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania and those aboard the jet that struck the Pentagon in Northern Virginia are some of those that were sent to Dover, then the landfill. Between the incidents involving both aircraft, a total of 223 people perished on September 11, 2001.

The Defense Department review reveals that “several portions of remains” made it to the Virginia landfill, but does not specifically account for a number. The body parts in question, says the Pentagon, “could not be tested or identified” due to charring and other damages that resulted from the tragedy.

The report adds that mortuary officials first believed that, “after final incineration, nothing remained” of the victims. Reviewing the report, the Washington Post reveals that residual material from 9/11 victims did exist, however, which were handed to a “biomedical waste disposal contractor” hired by the Pentagon that then approved for the remains to go to the landfill.

The mortuary at Dover is typically the site of examination for fallen soldiers killed in battle during America’s foreign wars. Following the September 11 attacks, however, experts at site undertook the examination of several victims. Previously the mortuary also analyzed the remains of the Americans killed during the mass-suicide at the Jonestown camp in 1978.

The Washington Post reveals on Tuesday that, earlier this month, Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), wrote Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to ask whether the Defense Department could confirm that “no 9/11 victims’ remains were incinerated, mixed with medical waste and sent to a landfill?” Staffers for the congressman confirm to the Post that they did not receive a response to their inquiry.

As an investigation into mortuary practices at Mortuary revealed gross mismanagement, one unnamed employee told investigators that “it was kind of hard to keep track of everything,” and noted that medical examiners were regularly “messing” with the Ziploc bags that contained various body parts.

It was also revealed earlier this month that some top-brass within the Air Force attempted to discipline the whistleblowers from the mortuary that came clean with the allegations of mismanagement.


Chrislam Starts To Spread In America.

Pastors that are really wolves in sheep’s clothing

You knew this day was going to come, when the liberal “love gospel” preachers who, desiring to fill their seats and bank accounts, would find a way to merge apostate christianity with the Devil’s religion of Islam. That day is here.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:14-16

Rick Warren with his new best friend, Christ rejector Cat Stevens, who changed his name to Yusef Isalm

Just recently, Rick Warren, founder and pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Orange County California, addressed the convention of the Islamic Society of North America. Warren stated that Muslims and Christians must work together to combat stereotypes, promote peace and freedom, and solve global problems. Christians and Moslems – faith mates, soul mates and now work mates! Chrislam!

Quote of the Day: “Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.” – Rick Warren in a speech to Muslims.

This weekend, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church in Houston along with Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit will initiate a series of sermons that have been designed to produce an ecumenical reconciliation between Christianity and Islam. In addition to the sermons, the Sunday school lessons will center on the inspired teachings of the Prophet Mohammad. Qurans will be placed in the pews next to the Bibles. (NOTE: Due to the overwhelming response that this article has generated, the Pastor of Memorial Church has issued a semi-denial of the events we reported. They do not, however, deny supporting and teaching a doctrine called “Jesus in the Koran. Click here to read their semi-denial. So until other information is made available to NTEB, we will run the story as is, along with their side, and you the reader can decide what’s going on. But people, ask yourself…would any real, bible believing church try and teach it’s members about “Jesus in the Koran”? That’s blasphemy.)

The sign may be Photoshop, but the message it carries is all too real. Chrislam must be stopped now. If your church teaches this heresy - run!

The concept of Chrislam, now embraced by such preachers as Rick Warren and Robert Schuller, appears to have emerged from a program on the meaning of “love your neighbor” at Grace Fellowship Church in Atlanta, Georgia “In 2001, like most Americans, we were pretty awakened to the true Islamic presence in the world and in the United States,” says Jon Stallsmith, the outreach minister at Grace Fellowship. “Jesus says we should love our neighbors. We can’t do that without having a relationship with them.”

Stallsmith maintains that a rapprochement between Muslims and Christians can be achieved by the fact that Jesus is mentioned twenty-five times in the Quran.

The Chrislam movement has gained impetus by statements from President George W. Bush and that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God and by Rick Warren’s reference to Isa (the Muslim name for Jesus) in his prayer at the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Only 30 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims, according to a Pew Forum poll. At the same time, more than half the country says they know “not very much” or “nothing at all” about the Islamic faith. “The recent political developments and the fact that we’re fighting two wars in Muslim countries should sharpen that need to know how to talk to these guys,” Stallsmith insists “We want to find peace, reconciliation around a scriptural understanding of Jesus.”

Jesus in the Quran is neither the only-begotten Son of God nor the Messiah who was divinely appointed to restore the House of David. He is rather viewed as a prophet who was appointed by Allah to prepare mankind for the coming of Mohammad.”

Russ Dizdar "QUANTUM WHAT? SIGNS WONDERS MIRACLES...Pt. 2 What Are They For." podcast.

"QUANTUM WHAT? SIGNS WONDERS MIRACLES...Pt. 2 What Are They For."


*Russ Dizdar Official Site: http://www.ShatterTheDarkness.net
*Download Russ Dizdar Podcast @ http://preemptionbroadcast.podomatic.com/
*Russ Dizdar's "The Ragged Edge Live Radio Show" @ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/russ-dizdar
*The Black Awakening official site: http://www.theblackawakening.com
*Purchase "The Black Awakening: Rise of the Satanic Super Soldiers and the Coming Chaos" as Ebook or Paperback @ http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/RussDizdar

February 28, 2012

Russ Dizdar "QUANTUM WHAT? SIGNS WONDERS MIRACLES..in the Ski and on the Ground Pt. 1" podcast.

"QUANTUM WHAT? SIGNS WONDERS MIRACLES..in the Ski and on the Ground Pt. 1"


*Russ Dizdar Official Site: http://www.ShatterTheDarkness.net
*Download Russ Dizdar Podcast @ http://preemptionbroadcast.podomatic.com/
*Russ Dizdar's "The Ragged Edge Live Radio Show" @ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/russ-dizdar
*The Black Awakening official site: http://www.theblackawakening.com
*Purchase "The Black Awakening: Rise of the Satanic Super Soldiers and the Coming Chaos" as Ebook or Paperback @ http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/RussDizdar

Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

*Source: Yahoo News

Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran, threw the case out after ruling that there was insufficient evidence. But then he berated the plaintiff in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence, refusing to allow a grainy video of the incident to be entered in. But then he suggested to Perce that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus." In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin's view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Words almost fail.

The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.

The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-" It does not say "unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered." Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.

That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.

It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.

* Original article has been corrected as to the judge's official reason for throwing the case out. Also, even though the recording of the proceeding seemed to have the judge say he is a Muslim convert, in fact Judge Martin later said that he is a Lutheran.

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

*Source: The Blaze

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Alberto Giubilini (Photo: Academia.edu)

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Francesca Minerva (Photo: Academia.edu)

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.


February 26, 2012

THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP!

Homeland Security Manual Lists Government Key Words For Monitoring Social Media, News .

*Source: The Huffington Post



Ever complain on Facebook that you were feeling "sick?" Told your friends to "watch" a certain TV show? Left a comment on a media website about government "pork?"

If you did any of those things, or tweeted about your recent vacation in "Mexico" or a shopping trip to "Target," the Department of Homeland Security may have noticed.

In the latest revelation of how the federal government is monitoring social media and online news outlets, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has posted online a 2011 Department of Homeland Security manual that includes hundreds of key words (such as those above) and search terms used to detect possible terrorism, unfolding natural disasters and public health threats. The center, a privacy watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued to obtain the release of the documents.

The 39-page "Analyst's Desktop Binder" used by the department's National Operations Center includes no-brainer words like ""attack," "epidemic" and "Al Qaeda" (with various spellings). But the list also includes words that can be interpreted as either menacing or innocent depending on the context, such as "exercise," "drill," "wave," "initiative," "relief" and "organization."

These terms and others are "broad, vague and ambiguous" and include "vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters," stated the Electronic Privacy Information Center in letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

The manual was released by the center a week after Homeland Security officials were grilled at a House hearing over other documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that revealed analysts were scrutinizing online comments that "reflect adversely" on the federal government. Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and Richard Chavez, director for the National Operations Center, testified that the released documents were outdated and that social media was monitored strictly to provide situational awareness and not to police disparaging opinions about the federal government. On Friday, Homeland Security officials stuck by that testimony.

A senior Homeland Security official who spoke to The Huffington Post on Friday on condition of anonymity said the testimony of agency officials last week remains "accurate" and the manual "is a starting point, not the endgame" in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats. The official denied Electronic Privacy Information Center's charge that the government is monitoring dissent. The manual's instruction that analysts should identify "media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities" was not aimed at silencing criticism but at spotting and addressing problems, she added.

Still, the agency agrees that the manual's language is vague and in need of updating. For instance, under terrorism watchwords, the manual lists "Hamas" and "Hezbollah" but also the "Palestinian Liberation Organization." The PLO was once considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government but now that it has a diplomatic mission in Washington and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has met with presidents Bush and Obama, the inclusion of this term could be deemed questionable.

"To ensure clarity, as part of ... routine compliance review, DHS will review the language contained in all materials to clearly and accurately convey the parameters and intention of the program," agency spokesman Matthew Chandler told HuffPost.

The Huffington Post was given a sample of the social media nuggets and news reports picked up by Homeland Security analysts by using its watchword list. An internal report circulated by the agency on Feb. 17 to top officials indicated it had collected reports about everything from hotels in Nigeria increasing security as the terrorist group Boko Haram regroups to the arrest of a Bakersfield, Calif., teen in connection with a bomb plot. Other reports covered subjects including a multi-vehicle crash that resulted in the closing of I-85 in North Carolina, a norovirus outbreak at George Washington University, a suspicious package at an Alabama courthouse and an evacuation of a school in New York City's Bronx boroughas a result of an unknown substance.

**Read the Homeland Security manual here @ http://www.scribd.com/doc/82701103/Analyst-Desktop-Binder-REDACTED