Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag
- Thread starter ax1
- Start date
southpaw23
Well-known member
I believe Obama's lizard alien grandparents caused a hurricane that kept him from enrolling in the second semester. I might have that wrong
I think you're right. The real truth is Obama's father isn't from Kenya, he's Electro from Marvel Comics.
southpaw23
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Ill take Lyon...Not only is she better looking but she very intelligent and is very courageous for standing up to the Joseph Gobbles style control that CNN delivers on its journalists.
ax1
Legend
Sandy Refugees Complain of Prison-like Conditions at FEMA Tent Camps
Adan Salazar
November 9, 2012
Residents whose homes were ravaged by Superstorm Sandy and are now having to endure yet another wintery storm, are revealing through first-hand accounts that camps FEMA is providing in New Jersey are more like prisons.
Invalid Link Removed
Photos taken by Brian Sotelo of the tent city set up at Monmouth Park in Oceanport by FEMA for victims of Sandy.
According to the Invalid Link Removed, some displaced New Jersey residents have had to relocate to FEMA tent camps in the northeastern part of the state in alleged efforts to secure better shelter, running hot water and washing machines, but members of the camp are saying that none of what was promised is available.
“At (Pine Belt) the Red Cross made an announcement that they were sending us to permanent structures up here that had just been redone, that had washing machines and hot showers and steady electric, and they sent us to tent city. We got (expletive),” distraught Oceanport camp resident Brian Sotelo said.
As if adding insult to injury, the camp is referred to as “Camp Freedom,” however, Sotelo says camp residents feel more like they’re imprisoned: “Everybody is angry over here. It’s like being prison [sic].”
As no media is allowed beyond the fences of the camp, what little news has managed to escape the area is disturbing. Angered residents are revealing that they are intentionally being kept quiet, being denied electricity to charge their phones and suspect surveillance by roving vehicle patrols.
“As Sotelo tells it, when it became clear that the residents were less than enamored with their new accommodations Wednesday night and were letting the outside world know about it, officials tried to stop them from taking pictures, turned off the WiFi and said they couldn’t charge their smart phones because there wasn’t enough power,” reports Stephen Edelson of the Asbury Park Press.
Sotelo also noted that several members of the camp had tried to contact the media regarding the horrendous living conditions, but were met with opposition: “After everyone started complaining and they found out we were contacting the press, they brought people in. Every time we plugged in an iPhone or something, the cops would come and unplug them.”
According to Sotelo, victims are not being allowed to return to their homes, even though, as part of a relief crew, he’s passed his own rented home several times, noting it had only sustained about a foot’s worth of water damage.
A FEMA spokesperson refuted Sotelo’s claims, saying that “staff at the micro-city are providing for the needs of all the evacuees.”
Reportedly, several FEMA centers in New Jersey and Staten Island were also Invalid Link Removed anticipated from yesterday’s nor’easter.
Yesterday, NJ Gov. Chris Christie expressed confidence in his ability to Invalid Link Removed put in place about a week ago after residents were having to wait 3 to 4 hours for gas.
Today, Christie tried to Invalid Link Removed and deflect negative criticism by praising utility crews and labeling the storm as the main perpetrator of all the suffering: “The villain in this case is Hurricane Sandy.”
Also today, FEMA announced that it would grant Governor Christie’s request to provide Invalid Link Removed to those unable to work “as a direct result of the damages caused by the storm.”
Adan Salazar
November 9, 2012
Residents whose homes were ravaged by Superstorm Sandy and are now having to endure yet another wintery storm, are revealing through first-hand accounts that camps FEMA is providing in New Jersey are more like prisons.
Invalid Link Removed
Photos taken by Brian Sotelo of the tent city set up at Monmouth Park in Oceanport by FEMA for victims of Sandy.
According to the Invalid Link Removed, some displaced New Jersey residents have had to relocate to FEMA tent camps in the northeastern part of the state in alleged efforts to secure better shelter, running hot water and washing machines, but members of the camp are saying that none of what was promised is available.
“At (Pine Belt) the Red Cross made an announcement that they were sending us to permanent structures up here that had just been redone, that had washing machines and hot showers and steady electric, and they sent us to tent city. We got (expletive),” distraught Oceanport camp resident Brian Sotelo said.
As if adding insult to injury, the camp is referred to as “Camp Freedom,” however, Sotelo says camp residents feel more like they’re imprisoned: “Everybody is angry over here. It’s like being prison [sic].”
As no media is allowed beyond the fences of the camp, what little news has managed to escape the area is disturbing. Angered residents are revealing that they are intentionally being kept quiet, being denied electricity to charge their phones and suspect surveillance by roving vehicle patrols.
“As Sotelo tells it, when it became clear that the residents were less than enamored with their new accommodations Wednesday night and were letting the outside world know about it, officials tried to stop them from taking pictures, turned off the WiFi and said they couldn’t charge their smart phones because there wasn’t enough power,” reports Stephen Edelson of the Asbury Park Press.
Sotelo also noted that several members of the camp had tried to contact the media regarding the horrendous living conditions, but were met with opposition: “After everyone started complaining and they found out we were contacting the press, they brought people in. Every time we plugged in an iPhone or something, the cops would come and unplug them.”
According to Sotelo, victims are not being allowed to return to their homes, even though, as part of a relief crew, he’s passed his own rented home several times, noting it had only sustained about a foot’s worth of water damage.
A FEMA spokesperson refuted Sotelo’s claims, saying that “staff at the micro-city are providing for the needs of all the evacuees.”
Reportedly, several FEMA centers in New Jersey and Staten Island were also Invalid Link Removed anticipated from yesterday’s nor’easter.
Yesterday, NJ Gov. Chris Christie expressed confidence in his ability to Invalid Link Removed put in place about a week ago after residents were having to wait 3 to 4 hours for gas.
Today, Christie tried to Invalid Link Removed and deflect negative criticism by praising utility crews and labeling the storm as the main perpetrator of all the suffering: “The villain in this case is Hurricane Sandy.”
Also today, FEMA announced that it would grant Governor Christie’s request to provide Invalid Link Removed to those unable to work “as a direct result of the damages caused by the storm.”
ax1
Legend
Govern? Being the fact that he has more executive orders in the history of our entire universe, more than even the Emperor of Niburu, Obama doesnt govern.
ax1
Legend
How to End the Tragedy in Gaza
Ron Paul
November 26, 2012
As of late Friday the ceasefire in Gaza seems to be holding, if tentatively. While we should be pleased that this round of fighting appears temporarily on hold, we must realize that without changes in US foreign policy it is only a matter of time before the killing begins again.
It feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this kind of violence broke out in Gaza. At that time over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of which just 235 were combatants. The Israelis lost 13 of which 10 were combatants. At that time I said of then-President Bush’s role in the conflict:
“It's our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza…. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp.”
The US role has not changed under the Obama administration. The same mistakes continue. As journalist Glenn Greenwald Invalid Link Removed last week:
Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express US support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies the tragic-comedy of US foreign policy. The US supported the Israeli side because, he said, "No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.”
Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, but she refused to meet with elected Palestinian leaders. Clintonsaid upon ar***** in Israel, “America's commitment to Israel’s security is rock-solid and unwavering.” Does this sound like an honest broker?
At the same time Congress acted with similar ignobility when an unannounced resolution was brought to the House floor after the business of the week had been finished; and in less than 30 seconds the resolution was passed by unanimous consent, without debate and without most Representatives even having heard of it. The resolution, H Res 813, was so one-sided it is not surprising they didn’t want anyone to have the chance to read and vote on it. Surely at least a handful of my colleagues would have objected to language like, “The House of Representatives expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders...”
US foreign policy being so one-sided actually results in more loss of life and of security on both sides. Surely Israelis do not enjoy the threat of missiles from Gaza nor do the Palestinians enjoy their Israel-imposed inhuman conditions in Gaza. But as long asIsrael can count on its destructive policies being underwritten by the US taxpayer it can continue to engage in reckless behavior. And as long as the Palestinians feel the one-sided US presence lined up against them they will continue to resort to more and more deadly and desperate measures.
Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful nations, the US is undermining rather than furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do not right our foreign policy. Ending interventionism in the Middle East and replacing it with friendship and even-handedness would be a welcome first step.
Rep. Ron Paul’s post first appeared on his Invalid Link Removed.
Ron Paul
November 26, 2012
As of late Friday the ceasefire in Gaza seems to be holding, if tentatively. While we should be pleased that this round of fighting appears temporarily on hold, we must realize that without changes in US foreign policy it is only a matter of time before the killing begins again.
It feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this kind of violence broke out in Gaza. At that time over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of which just 235 were combatants. The Israelis lost 13 of which 10 were combatants. At that time I said of then-President Bush’s role in the conflict:
“It's our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza…. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp.”
The US role has not changed under the Obama administration. The same mistakes continue. As journalist Glenn Greenwald Invalid Link Removed last week:
"For years now, US financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and the weapons the use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are paid for, in substantial part, by the US taxpayer…”
Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express US support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies the tragic-comedy of US foreign policy. The US supported the Israeli side because, he said, "No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.”
Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, but she refused to meet with elected Palestinian leaders. Clintonsaid upon ar***** in Israel, “America's commitment to Israel’s security is rock-solid and unwavering.” Does this sound like an honest broker?
At the same time Congress acted with similar ignobility when an unannounced resolution was brought to the House floor after the business of the week had been finished; and in less than 30 seconds the resolution was passed by unanimous consent, without debate and without most Representatives even having heard of it. The resolution, H Res 813, was so one-sided it is not surprising they didn’t want anyone to have the chance to read and vote on it. Surely at least a handful of my colleagues would have objected to language like, “The House of Representatives expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders...”
US foreign policy being so one-sided actually results in more loss of life and of security on both sides. Surely Israelis do not enjoy the threat of missiles from Gaza nor do the Palestinians enjoy their Israel-imposed inhuman conditions in Gaza. But as long asIsrael can count on its destructive policies being underwritten by the US taxpayer it can continue to engage in reckless behavior. And as long as the Palestinians feel the one-sided US presence lined up against them they will continue to resort to more and more deadly and desperate measures.
Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful nations, the US is undermining rather than furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do not right our foreign policy. Ending interventionism in the Middle East and replacing it with friendship and even-handedness would be a welcome first step.
Rep. Ron Paul’s post first appeared on his Invalid Link Removed.
ax1
Legend
New World Order: is the UN about to take control of the internet?
Is there a war on for the web?
TheVerge.com
By Invalid Link Removed on November 29, 2012 02:15 pm
The future of the web will be decided in a dark room by UN politicians and authoritarian governments — at least according to Google and some other opponents of the International Telecommunication Union’s plan to reform its 25-year-old guidelines. Leaked documents have shown that ITU members are interested in adding more internet regulations to the ITU’s mostly telecommunications-focused rules, something critics worry will let countries justify repressive filtering of the internet or upset the current balance of power by pushing more regulation.
Supporters, meanwhile, hope it will help internationalize the internet, counterbalancing the more US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which currently manages domains and controls the internet’s backbone.
Starting December 3rd, these concerns will come to a head, as ITU members meet in Dubai to discuss proposals and hammer out a treaty. The debate over the new regulations has been going on for years, and it will likely continue well beyond this meeting. As the meeting gets underway, we’re likely to see a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt — some of which may be justified. Before talks begin in earnest, here’s what’s on the table, who’s involved, and why it matters.
What is the ITU?
At its most basic level, the International Telecommunication Union is a UN agency that predates both the UN and the telephone. Founded as the International Telegraph Union in 1865, it currently reports a membership of 193 countries and around 700 companies and research institutions, who develop treaties that set technical standards and goals for developing communications networks worldwide.
If the early days of the internet had gone differently, the ITU might help manage our domain name system todayIf things had gone differently in the internet’s early days, the ITU might be one of the agencies behind our domain name system today. In 1996, it served on the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), an early attempt to manage the domain system. But the IAHC drew criticism that echoes the current debate: one complaint said that "little effort has been made to inform consumers, governments or the internet industry about the proceedings, or their potential impact on the internet." The US, meanwhile, suggested that a private non-profit group would be preferable to an international committee. The IAHC’s plan fizzled, and the US Department of Commerce granted control of the domain name system to ICANN in 1998.
Recently, the ITU has primarily worked on issues like broadband penetration and Invalid Link Removed — both obvious activities for a telecom regulatory agency. But there has also been persistent speculation that it’s interested in something more. In 2006, newly elected ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré insisted that "I wouldn’t want to see the ITU trying to take over internet governance," but he said that it still had a "mandate" to protect it and foster growth. Among other things, "security in cyberspace can only be brokered worldwide by ITU." To that end, it’s headed things like anti-spam efforts and released resolutions for protecting children online. Invalid Link Removed
As the ITU prepares to update its decades-old telecom guidelines, it sits in the middle of several heated debates. As an international agency, it’s a counterpoint to ICANN, which derives its authority from the US government and is sometimes seen as representing American interests too heavily. As an intergovernmental body, it raises the hackles of the often strongly libertarian tech industry, which worries about top-down regulation by politicians. And as part of the UN, it’s a target for Americans who harbor a long-running distrust of international policy-making.
What is the proposal?
The center of the debate is WCIT (pronounced "wicket"), the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. From December 3rd to the 14th, the ITU will update its 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which outline how national and international networks should operate at a broad level. Like other UN regulations, these won’t be legally binding unless countries sign on, and countries can sign with reservations, so the idea is to create a fairly broad consensus. That means that for all the talk of backroom deals that will let the UN take over the internet, the ITRs only have teeth if almost everyone involved decides they should.
So far, though, one of the biggest problems is that we’re not entirely sure what’s being debated. The details of the ITU meeting in December and the discussion that’s taken place so far are closed, although some public notices have been posted on the agency’s site. Public discussion has instead been focused around documents posted by Invalid Link Removed, a dedicated ITU leaks site run by a pair of researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. After a trove of information had already been published, Invalid Link Removed a "public viewing period" and posted a draft online, but the country proposals themselves are still available only through WCITLeaks.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the ITU or the UN is trying to keep the dealings secret, but it does point to a disconnect between how its system usually works and what’s expected of internet policy makers. Carleton University media professor Dwayne Winseck is generally supportive of the ITU, which he has Invalid Link Removed over the past months. But he agrees that it "definitely has to do more" to open itself to the public, calling its membership fees in particular "outrageous" — even universities must pay around $4,000 annually for ITU membership, almost three times what a multinational corporation would pay to ICANN. And in a recent resolution, the European Parliament said that it "regrets the lack of transparency and inclusiveness surrounding the negotiations for WCIT-12, given that the outcomes of this meeting could substantially affect the public interest."
As we’ll see, there are a lot of problematic ideas on the table, but having to read about WCIT through a leaks site has done a lot to sour the debate. If the ITU isn’t willing to even publish proposals, the thinking goes, why should anyone trust it to listen to the needs of businesses or citizens?
Taking control from ICANN
Beyond questions of transparency, the core of the debate over WCIT is a proposed shift from treating the ITU as a primarily telecom-oriented agency to one that specifically deals with the internet. Leaked drafts include several mentions of the internet as a branch of telecommunications and add detail to regulatory directives that were developed for a pre-internet world. Instead of describing an international telecommunications network as a "the offering of a telecommunication capability between telecommunication offices or stations," for example, it’s now proposed as the provision of "roaming, international public telegram service, telex," or "traffic termination services (including Internet traffic termination)." Some proposals task the ITU with preventing abuse of numbering resources, long the province of ICANN, and Russia hopes to add a section promising that "member states shall have equal rights to manage the internet," including managing the domain name system and "development of basic internet infrastructure."
The ambiguity here is that because of its broad language, it’s already possible to read the existing 1988 ITRs as covering the internet. Telecommunications, for example, are defined in the 1988 document as "any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems." And depending on who you ask, the fine line between telecom and internet policy means the ITU has already been involved in internet governance for years.
Despite this, companies don’t like the idea of following another set of rules, and public interest groups worry that the ITU won’t be responsive. The agency is seen as too government-focused, giving a voice to repressive regimes while ignoring other stakeholders. Internet advocacy organization Invalid Link Removed it’s "focused on technical telecommunications standards and built around the participation of governments," and Invalid Link Removed, arguing that "only governments have a voice at the ITU."
The story is a bit more complicated than that, of course. National delegations to the ITU are full of telecommunication company representatives — in the US, you’ll find Cisco, Sprint, Apple, AT&T, and many others in the directory. It is fair, though, to say that that ICANN looks for input from a much broader range of stakeholders, and that the ITU’s "one country, one vote" model will give governments final say.
ICANN also, however, runs under the aegis of the US government, something that hasn’t always sat well internationally. Russia’s proposal to essentially turn over ICANN to ITU member states is extreme, but the basic idea of internationalizing the domain name system has supporters worldwide. "Countries [outside the US] balk at being dependent" on ICANN, Winseck says, especially as domain name seizures become an increasingly common tool in the US war on piracy. "They’ve been pushing to internationalize this, and there’s no reason to suspect that they’re not going to continue."
Part II on next post.........................................................................................
Is there a war on for the web?
TheVerge.com
By Invalid Link Removed on November 29, 2012 02:15 pm
The future of the web will be decided in a dark room by UN politicians and authoritarian governments — at least according to Google and some other opponents of the International Telecommunication Union’s plan to reform its 25-year-old guidelines. Leaked documents have shown that ITU members are interested in adding more internet regulations to the ITU’s mostly telecommunications-focused rules, something critics worry will let countries justify repressive filtering of the internet or upset the current balance of power by pushing more regulation.
Supporters, meanwhile, hope it will help internationalize the internet, counterbalancing the more US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which currently manages domains and controls the internet’s backbone.
Starting December 3rd, these concerns will come to a head, as ITU members meet in Dubai to discuss proposals and hammer out a treaty. The debate over the new regulations has been going on for years, and it will likely continue well beyond this meeting. As the meeting gets underway, we’re likely to see a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt — some of which may be justified. Before talks begin in earnest, here’s what’s on the table, who’s involved, and why it matters.
What is the ITU?
At its most basic level, the International Telecommunication Union is a UN agency that predates both the UN and the telephone. Founded as the International Telegraph Union in 1865, it currently reports a membership of 193 countries and around 700 companies and research institutions, who develop treaties that set technical standards and goals for developing communications networks worldwide.
If the early days of the internet had gone differently, the ITU might help manage our domain name system todayIf things had gone differently in the internet’s early days, the ITU might be one of the agencies behind our domain name system today. In 1996, it served on the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), an early attempt to manage the domain system. But the IAHC drew criticism that echoes the current debate: one complaint said that "little effort has been made to inform consumers, governments or the internet industry about the proceedings, or their potential impact on the internet." The US, meanwhile, suggested that a private non-profit group would be preferable to an international committee. The IAHC’s plan fizzled, and the US Department of Commerce granted control of the domain name system to ICANN in 1998.
Recently, the ITU has primarily worked on issues like broadband penetration and Invalid Link Removed — both obvious activities for a telecom regulatory agency. But there has also been persistent speculation that it’s interested in something more. In 2006, newly elected ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré insisted that "I wouldn’t want to see the ITU trying to take over internet governance," but he said that it still had a "mandate" to protect it and foster growth. Among other things, "security in cyberspace can only be brokered worldwide by ITU." To that end, it’s headed things like anti-spam efforts and released resolutions for protecting children online. Invalid Link Removed
As the ITU prepares to update its decades-old telecom guidelines, it sits in the middle of several heated debates. As an international agency, it’s a counterpoint to ICANN, which derives its authority from the US government and is sometimes seen as representing American interests too heavily. As an intergovernmental body, it raises the hackles of the often strongly libertarian tech industry, which worries about top-down regulation by politicians. And as part of the UN, it’s a target for Americans who harbor a long-running distrust of international policy-making.
What is the proposal?
The center of the debate is WCIT (pronounced "wicket"), the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. From December 3rd to the 14th, the ITU will update its 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which outline how national and international networks should operate at a broad level. Like other UN regulations, these won’t be legally binding unless countries sign on, and countries can sign with reservations, so the idea is to create a fairly broad consensus. That means that for all the talk of backroom deals that will let the UN take over the internet, the ITRs only have teeth if almost everyone involved decides they should.
So far, though, one of the biggest problems is that we’re not entirely sure what’s being debated. The details of the ITU meeting in December and the discussion that’s taken place so far are closed, although some public notices have been posted on the agency’s site. Public discussion has instead been focused around documents posted by Invalid Link Removed, a dedicated ITU leaks site run by a pair of researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. After a trove of information had already been published, Invalid Link Removed a "public viewing period" and posted a draft online, but the country proposals themselves are still available only through WCITLeaks.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the ITU or the UN is trying to keep the dealings secret, but it does point to a disconnect between how its system usually works and what’s expected of internet policy makers. Carleton University media professor Dwayne Winseck is generally supportive of the ITU, which he has Invalid Link Removed over the past months. But he agrees that it "definitely has to do more" to open itself to the public, calling its membership fees in particular "outrageous" — even universities must pay around $4,000 annually for ITU membership, almost three times what a multinational corporation would pay to ICANN. And in a recent resolution, the European Parliament said that it "regrets the lack of transparency and inclusiveness surrounding the negotiations for WCIT-12, given that the outcomes of this meeting could substantially affect the public interest."
As we’ll see, there are a lot of problematic ideas on the table, but having to read about WCIT through a leaks site has done a lot to sour the debate. If the ITU isn’t willing to even publish proposals, the thinking goes, why should anyone trust it to listen to the needs of businesses or citizens?
Taking control from ICANN
Beyond questions of transparency, the core of the debate over WCIT is a proposed shift from treating the ITU as a primarily telecom-oriented agency to one that specifically deals with the internet. Leaked drafts include several mentions of the internet as a branch of telecommunications and add detail to regulatory directives that were developed for a pre-internet world. Instead of describing an international telecommunications network as a "the offering of a telecommunication capability between telecommunication offices or stations," for example, it’s now proposed as the provision of "roaming, international public telegram service, telex," or "traffic termination services (including Internet traffic termination)." Some proposals task the ITU with preventing abuse of numbering resources, long the province of ICANN, and Russia hopes to add a section promising that "member states shall have equal rights to manage the internet," including managing the domain name system and "development of basic internet infrastructure."
The ambiguity here is that because of its broad language, it’s already possible to read the existing 1988 ITRs as covering the internet. Telecommunications, for example, are defined in the 1988 document as "any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems." And depending on who you ask, the fine line between telecom and internet policy means the ITU has already been involved in internet governance for years.
Despite this, companies don’t like the idea of following another set of rules, and public interest groups worry that the ITU won’t be responsive. The agency is seen as too government-focused, giving a voice to repressive regimes while ignoring other stakeholders. Internet advocacy organization Invalid Link Removed it’s "focused on technical telecommunications standards and built around the participation of governments," and Invalid Link Removed, arguing that "only governments have a voice at the ITU."
The story is a bit more complicated than that, of course. National delegations to the ITU are full of telecommunication company representatives — in the US, you’ll find Cisco, Sprint, Apple, AT&T, and many others in the directory. It is fair, though, to say that that ICANN looks for input from a much broader range of stakeholders, and that the ITU’s "one country, one vote" model will give governments final say.
ICANN also, however, runs under the aegis of the US government, something that hasn’t always sat well internationally. Russia’s proposal to essentially turn over ICANN to ITU member states is extreme, but the basic idea of internationalizing the domain name system has supporters worldwide. "Countries [outside the US] balk at being dependent" on ICANN, Winseck says, especially as domain name seizures become an increasingly common tool in the US war on piracy. "They’ve been pushing to internationalize this, and there’s no reason to suspect that they’re not going to continue."
Part II on next post.........................................................................................
ax1
Legend
Taxing the internet, locking down the web?
Once you get past the basic concept of the ITU’s expansion, you’ll reach specific internet management proposals, submitted by dozens of countries and organizations. These have drawn the most vehement complaints, and for good reason. A number of them are unremarkable, or even helpful — agreeing to prioritize emergency communications or to fight certain kinds of phone fraud, for example. But among these, you’ll find calls to make internet filtering more acceptable and undermine net neutrality.
The ‘internet tax’ is one of the most frequently cited parts of the leaked WITC documents. In June, Forbes wondered "Is the UN trying to tax the internet?," and Engadget dubbed the move a "Facebook tax." Both were responding to a proposed addition from the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO), which suggested that networks or web companies should negotiate deals in which they’d pay to send traffic to other countries. International operators "shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services," the paper read, "and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays." Secretary General Touré seems to have defended the idea as a way to subsidize internet or mobile roaming costs. "We can find ways to bring down the cost of internet connectivity in developing countries," he said in a speech, "while ensuring sufficient revenues for operators to deploy broadband infrastructure."
If the proposal were adopted widely, it could fundamentally change the way information passes over the internet. The "differentiated quality of service delivery" that ETNO proposed would fly in the face of net neutrality efforts, suggesting that a company or network will need to either pay up or deal with limited access. Cisco’s Robert Pepper has said that it could backfire for recipients as well, leading companies to turn down agreements with unprofitable developing countries that would then "effectively be cut off from the internet." The European Parliament didn’t address the plan specifically, but it called on states to reject any measures that violated the principles of net neutrality.
At the same time, the basic idea is hardly unique to the ITU. A Invalid Link Removed plans to charge customers extra for using VoIP services like Skype, and Invalid Link Removed that app developers should shoulder the cost for their users’ data. Google and organizations like Public Knowledge are open about fighting for net neutrality elsewhere, but Winseck complains that some other opponents of the ITU expansion (including Pepper, who opposes net neutrality) are "conspicuously silent" about these so-called taxes when they crop up in the US.
Similarly ominous proposals have come in from overtly pro-censorship regimes. The UAE has pushed to add sections that grant states explicit rights to filter their internet for just about any reason, and Russia asks that "member states shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of internet governance, and to regulate the national internet segment."
They’re fairly straightforward attempts to let countries control the data that crosses their borders, and the ITU has been accused of making content blocking easier in its latest talks.
The ITU has defended itself against these charges, but it’s essentially done so by saying that internet filtering isn’t anything new. In a June 22nd speech, Touré pointed to Article 34 of the ITU constitution, which allows member countries to cut off communications they deem "dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order, or to decency." He also argued that "all countries impose some restrictions" on content, whether it’s to stop copyright infringement or limit political speech.
Cutting this proposal is unlikely to get countries to loosen their restrictions, but codifying it further can only be bad for online speech. Instead of just being listed in the constitution, filtering would be front and center in the regulations, granting legitimacy to countries that practice it. At the same time, there’s a certain amount of alarmism in fears that this will lead to a new wave of censorship. And like several of the more controversial proposals, it seems unlikely to get wide support.
Overall, the best description of the worst ITU proposals probably comes from Winseck, who called the suggestions "a raft of threats that, in their entirety, would usher in the foundation of controlled and closed national internet spaces." Outside the more widely debated issues, he’s noted a push for using real names on the internet (something that’s already happening in countries like China), downplaying privacy concerns, and allowing countries to curtail the right to communication if "sensitive information" is being sent. He argues, however, that the more extreme proposals are more of a wish list than anything that will actually get traction, and that the chance of ITU members actually getting control over anything that ICANN currently manages is "absolutely zero."
Who is the opposition?
The ITU’s plan has inspired a surprisingly unified and very vocal opposition. Google’s campaign against the changes is perhaps the most visible — it’s currently running a petition under the slogan "A free and open world depends on a free and open internet," and its Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf has been one of the biggest names to Invalid Link Removed increased ITU oversight. Google has good reason to be against many of the proposals: it relies on being able to send traffic anywhere on earth at a low cost, and as a relative newcomer in the telecommunications industry, it doesn’t want to have to deal with another regulatory body.
Major public interest groups and lobbies have also come out against expansion. In some cases, that’s predictable: the libertarian Cato Institute, for example, isn’t going to support UN oversight of the internet, nor is the US Chamber of Commerce. Other groups oppose it because of the relatively opaque proceedings and the proposals under discussion. Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, urge the ITU to remain focused on technical telecommunications development, and the EFF calls it a "slow-moving and bureaucratic regulatory organization." The Center for Democracy and Technology, which has criticized the ITU as a governing body, has assembled a letter signed by about fifty non-governmental organizations across the globe.
Given that it’s a UN organization, the most important opponents are member states themselves. In the US, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a resolution against expanding the ITU’s scope earlier this year, and the Obama Administration has likewise opposed it. The European Parliament issued its resolution last week, leading the ITU to complain that it was based on a "flawed understanding" of the plan. It’s theoretically possible that these bodies could be overruled, but they have enough clout to resist areas that would require real and unwanted change. Add the fact that the ITU’s regulations are meant to be formed by consensus rather than majority rule, and their position looks very strong indeed.
Who supports the changes?
The hardest part of talking about WCIT is not just separating fairly innocuous changes from genuinely ugly suggestions, it’s keeping track of who submitted each one. So far, the biggest player is Russia, the source of proposals to internationalize control of the domain name system, add cybersecurity directives to the ITRs, and condone internet filtering. Russia recently Invalid Link Removed, ostensibly to block sites featuring child pornography or information about drugs, and it’s been active in ITU discussions about the internet. In 2011, Vladimir Putin met with Secretary General Touré, promising heavy involvement in the ITU and asserting that "If we are going to talk about the democratization of international relations, I think a critical sphere is information exchange and global control over such exchange." At the same meeting, he commiserated with Touré about the importance of cybersecurity and the danger the internet could pose for children.
"WCIT is definitively not about taking control of the Internet."
China is obviously a general proponent of keeping control over its segment of the internet, and its leaked proposals so far are cybersecurity-related, asking to add sections that would affirm the right of a state to "have responsibility and right to protect the network security of information and communication infrastructure." Other countries, like Indonesia, have also proposed cybersecurity changes. According to the WCITLeaks site, many proposals remain unknown, but requests to add internet-focused language or assertions of national sovereignty online aren’t unusual.
There’s also the question of what the ITU itself wants. Secretary General Touré and other ITU leaders have stayed relatively neutral on specific proposals, insisting that it’s there to provide an "impartial forum" for debate. "WCIT is definitively not about taking control of the Internet or restricting people’s freedom of expression or freedom of speech," Touré told Columbia University students in September. He also says, however, that the idea of separating telecommunications and internet oversight is "plainly ridiculous. Who today can tell me the difference, in terms of traffic passing across networks, between voice, video, and data?" That suggests that even if nothing changes in this round of updates, ITU meetings are bound to keep raising questions about its role.
What’s next?
If you oppose the ITU’s changes, you’re in good company. Invalid Link Removed is still taking names, and the CDT urges readers to circulate its Invalid Link Removed to member countries, many of whom are already against expanding the ITU. The public comment period on WCIT 2012 has passed, but the ITU is still on the defensive, downplaying the extent of any changes. Even if the WCIT debates are closed, public opinion will shape whether countries accept the new regulations — ACTA, a treaty that was also accused of being forged in secret, ran into Invalid Link Removed when it came time for implementation. The bottom line is that the UN is capable of creating norms of behavior, but it’s not going to take over anything, much less institute a top-down enforcement regime on its own.
While the WCIT talks on December 3 to 14th won’t be completely public, it’s still possible to follow parts of them. Some sessions will be streamed live, and the Invalid Link Removed will have links to videos and speeches from the event. WCITLeaks will post more documents if they become available, and member states will likely have their own updates. The EFF, Public Knowledge, and the Center for Democracy and Technology cover many of the issues raised around WCIT on a daily basis, as do individual regulatory agencies like the FCC. ICANN, meanwhile, keeps a Invalid Link Removed that are open for public comment on its site.
Much of the latest debate over internet governance has been muddled, conflating individual proposals with official regulations or drawing on American fears of the UN. But there’s a real debate to be had over the proposals — from who should manage domain naming to when, if ever, internet filtering is acceptable — and it’s not limited to the talks in Dubai.
Source: Invalid Link Removed
Once you get past the basic concept of the ITU’s expansion, you’ll reach specific internet management proposals, submitted by dozens of countries and organizations. These have drawn the most vehement complaints, and for good reason. A number of them are unremarkable, or even helpful — agreeing to prioritize emergency communications or to fight certain kinds of phone fraud, for example. But among these, you’ll find calls to make internet filtering more acceptable and undermine net neutrality.
The ‘internet tax’ is one of the most frequently cited parts of the leaked WITC documents. In June, Forbes wondered "Is the UN trying to tax the internet?," and Engadget dubbed the move a "Facebook tax." Both were responding to a proposed addition from the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO), which suggested that networks or web companies should negotiate deals in which they’d pay to send traffic to other countries. International operators "shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services," the paper read, "and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays." Secretary General Touré seems to have defended the idea as a way to subsidize internet or mobile roaming costs. "We can find ways to bring down the cost of internet connectivity in developing countries," he said in a speech, "while ensuring sufficient revenues for operators to deploy broadband infrastructure."
If the proposal were adopted widely, it could fundamentally change the way information passes over the internet. The "differentiated quality of service delivery" that ETNO proposed would fly in the face of net neutrality efforts, suggesting that a company or network will need to either pay up or deal with limited access. Cisco’s Robert Pepper has said that it could backfire for recipients as well, leading companies to turn down agreements with unprofitable developing countries that would then "effectively be cut off from the internet." The European Parliament didn’t address the plan specifically, but it called on states to reject any measures that violated the principles of net neutrality.
At the same time, the basic idea is hardly unique to the ITU. A Invalid Link Removed plans to charge customers extra for using VoIP services like Skype, and Invalid Link Removed that app developers should shoulder the cost for their users’ data. Google and organizations like Public Knowledge are open about fighting for net neutrality elsewhere, but Winseck complains that some other opponents of the ITU expansion (including Pepper, who opposes net neutrality) are "conspicuously silent" about these so-called taxes when they crop up in the US.
Similarly ominous proposals have come in from overtly pro-censorship regimes. The UAE has pushed to add sections that grant states explicit rights to filter their internet for just about any reason, and Russia asks that "member states shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of internet governance, and to regulate the national internet segment."
They’re fairly straightforward attempts to let countries control the data that crosses their borders, and the ITU has been accused of making content blocking easier in its latest talks.
The ITU has defended itself against these charges, but it’s essentially done so by saying that internet filtering isn’t anything new. In a June 22nd speech, Touré pointed to Article 34 of the ITU constitution, which allows member countries to cut off communications they deem "dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order, or to decency." He also argued that "all countries impose some restrictions" on content, whether it’s to stop copyright infringement or limit political speech.
Cutting this proposal is unlikely to get countries to loosen their restrictions, but codifying it further can only be bad for online speech. Instead of just being listed in the constitution, filtering would be front and center in the regulations, granting legitimacy to countries that practice it. At the same time, there’s a certain amount of alarmism in fears that this will lead to a new wave of censorship. And like several of the more controversial proposals, it seems unlikely to get wide support.
Overall, the best description of the worst ITU proposals probably comes from Winseck, who called the suggestions "a raft of threats that, in their entirety, would usher in the foundation of controlled and closed national internet spaces." Outside the more widely debated issues, he’s noted a push for using real names on the internet (something that’s already happening in countries like China), downplaying privacy concerns, and allowing countries to curtail the right to communication if "sensitive information" is being sent. He argues, however, that the more extreme proposals are more of a wish list than anything that will actually get traction, and that the chance of ITU members actually getting control over anything that ICANN currently manages is "absolutely zero."
Who is the opposition?
The ITU’s plan has inspired a surprisingly unified and very vocal opposition. Google’s campaign against the changes is perhaps the most visible — it’s currently running a petition under the slogan "A free and open world depends on a free and open internet," and its Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf has been one of the biggest names to Invalid Link Removed increased ITU oversight. Google has good reason to be against many of the proposals: it relies on being able to send traffic anywhere on earth at a low cost, and as a relative newcomer in the telecommunications industry, it doesn’t want to have to deal with another regulatory body.
Major public interest groups and lobbies have also come out against expansion. In some cases, that’s predictable: the libertarian Cato Institute, for example, isn’t going to support UN oversight of the internet, nor is the US Chamber of Commerce. Other groups oppose it because of the relatively opaque proceedings and the proposals under discussion. Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, urge the ITU to remain focused on technical telecommunications development, and the EFF calls it a "slow-moving and bureaucratic regulatory organization." The Center for Democracy and Technology, which has criticized the ITU as a governing body, has assembled a letter signed by about fifty non-governmental organizations across the globe.
Given that it’s a UN organization, the most important opponents are member states themselves. In the US, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a resolution against expanding the ITU’s scope earlier this year, and the Obama Administration has likewise opposed it. The European Parliament issued its resolution last week, leading the ITU to complain that it was based on a "flawed understanding" of the plan. It’s theoretically possible that these bodies could be overruled, but they have enough clout to resist areas that would require real and unwanted change. Add the fact that the ITU’s regulations are meant to be formed by consensus rather than majority rule, and their position looks very strong indeed.
Who supports the changes?
The hardest part of talking about WCIT is not just separating fairly innocuous changes from genuinely ugly suggestions, it’s keeping track of who submitted each one. So far, the biggest player is Russia, the source of proposals to internationalize control of the domain name system, add cybersecurity directives to the ITRs, and condone internet filtering. Russia recently Invalid Link Removed, ostensibly to block sites featuring child pornography or information about drugs, and it’s been active in ITU discussions about the internet. In 2011, Vladimir Putin met with Secretary General Touré, promising heavy involvement in the ITU and asserting that "If we are going to talk about the democratization of international relations, I think a critical sphere is information exchange and global control over such exchange." At the same meeting, he commiserated with Touré about the importance of cybersecurity and the danger the internet could pose for children.
"WCIT is definitively not about taking control of the Internet."
China is obviously a general proponent of keeping control over its segment of the internet, and its leaked proposals so far are cybersecurity-related, asking to add sections that would affirm the right of a state to "have responsibility and right to protect the network security of information and communication infrastructure." Other countries, like Indonesia, have also proposed cybersecurity changes. According to the WCITLeaks site, many proposals remain unknown, but requests to add internet-focused language or assertions of national sovereignty online aren’t unusual.
There’s also the question of what the ITU itself wants. Secretary General Touré and other ITU leaders have stayed relatively neutral on specific proposals, insisting that it’s there to provide an "impartial forum" for debate. "WCIT is definitively not about taking control of the Internet or restricting people’s freedom of expression or freedom of speech," Touré told Columbia University students in September. He also says, however, that the idea of separating telecommunications and internet oversight is "plainly ridiculous. Who today can tell me the difference, in terms of traffic passing across networks, between voice, video, and data?" That suggests that even if nothing changes in this round of updates, ITU meetings are bound to keep raising questions about its role.
What’s next?
If you oppose the ITU’s changes, you’re in good company. Invalid Link Removed is still taking names, and the CDT urges readers to circulate its Invalid Link Removed to member countries, many of whom are already against expanding the ITU. The public comment period on WCIT 2012 has passed, but the ITU is still on the defensive, downplaying the extent of any changes. Even if the WCIT debates are closed, public opinion will shape whether countries accept the new regulations — ACTA, a treaty that was also accused of being forged in secret, ran into Invalid Link Removed when it came time for implementation. The bottom line is that the UN is capable of creating norms of behavior, but it’s not going to take over anything, much less institute a top-down enforcement regime on its own.
While the WCIT talks on December 3 to 14th won’t be completely public, it’s still possible to follow parts of them. Some sessions will be streamed live, and the Invalid Link Removed will have links to videos and speeches from the event. WCITLeaks will post more documents if they become available, and member states will likely have their own updates. The EFF, Public Knowledge, and the Center for Democracy and Technology cover many of the issues raised around WCIT on a daily basis, as do individual regulatory agencies like the FCC. ICANN, meanwhile, keeps a Invalid Link Removed that are open for public comment on its site.
Much of the latest debate over internet governance has been muddled, conflating individual proposals with official regulations or drawing on American fears of the UN. But there’s a real debate to be had over the proposals — from who should manage domain naming to when, if ever, internet filtering is acceptable — and it’s not limited to the talks in Dubai.
Source: Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Nearly two years after Zadroga bill signed, Ground Zero workers and others sickened or injured in 9/11 attacks haven't been paid
Ground Zero responders and lower Manhattan residents sickened or injured in the 9/11 attacks can forget about any financial help from Uncle Sam before the holidays.
Nearly two years after President Obama signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on Jan. 2, 2011, no one has gotten a dime.
“We’re going into the third year of the law, and the fact that no one’s been compensated after eight years of hard work to get the bill passed is unacceptable,” fumed Ground Zero advocate John Feal.
Congress appropriated $2.7 billion for a reopened Victim Compensation Fund to dole out $875 million in the first five years and the rest in 2016.
Invalid Link Removed
Richard Palmer
So far, 15,000 firefighters, cops, hardhats and others who lived, worked or went to school downtown have registered as potential claimants. But only 1,500 have filed applications, officials told The Post.
Cancers were recently added to the covered illnesses, but the fund has yet to issue the forms for those applications.
Claimants must first prove they suffered a covered illness caused by exposure to Ground Zero or other 9/11 site, then prove an "economic loss" not met by other payments.
Those who qualify for compensation can get a portion of their estimated award -- possibly 10 percent or so -- in 20 days.
“That 10 percent could have helped people enjoy a happy, healthy holiday and put toys under the tree for their kids,” Feal said.
“It’s the same crap — no different than what we went through with the city settlement,” said Richard Palmer, a former Rikers Island warden who suffers from asthma. “It’s frustrating. Let’s get moving already.”
One lawyer said he has filed nearly 100 applications but has no idea where they stand: “We haven’t gotten any feedback from anybody. It’s like a black hole.”
Another lawyer, Andrew Carboy, said that his firm has filed about 200 applications but that the only response so far was a request for one client to re-sign a form. “The signature wasn’t close enough to the signature line,” he said.
But Sheila Birnbaum, special master of the fund, told The Post that most applications have arrived incomplete. Only 500 claimants have sent in the required signatures; others lack key details. “Nobody wants to get money out quicker than I do,” she said. “We’ve been disappointed that we just don’t have all the information to do it.”
Twelve claimants have been found eligible, mainly FDNY members with such problems as sleep apnea and lung, sinus and digestive diseases. But one had “no economic loss,” and three were already compensated by the first 9/11 fund, Birnbaum said.
Payments, such as pensions or a settlement in the mass lawsuit against the city, will be deducted from the awards. Birnbaum said the VCF staff has been forced to track down missing information.
Birnbaum, who negotiated $500 million in settlements with 92 families of those killed on 9/11, said she hopes to start making awards in January.
“There’s this tension in the fund to make sure the claims are legitimate and at the same time to bend over backward to give awards to everybody who deserves it,” she said.
Invalid Link Removed
- By SUSAN EDELMAN
- Last Updated: 9:41 AM, December 9, 2012
- Posted: 12:40 AM, December 9, 2012
- New York Post
Ground Zero responders and lower Manhattan residents sickened or injured in the 9/11 attacks can forget about any financial help from Uncle Sam before the holidays.
Nearly two years after President Obama signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on Jan. 2, 2011, no one has gotten a dime.
“We’re going into the third year of the law, and the fact that no one’s been compensated after eight years of hard work to get the bill passed is unacceptable,” fumed Ground Zero advocate John Feal.
Congress appropriated $2.7 billion for a reopened Victim Compensation Fund to dole out $875 million in the first five years and the rest in 2016.
Invalid Link Removed
Richard Palmer
So far, 15,000 firefighters, cops, hardhats and others who lived, worked or went to school downtown have registered as potential claimants. But only 1,500 have filed applications, officials told The Post.
Cancers were recently added to the covered illnesses, but the fund has yet to issue the forms for those applications.
Claimants must first prove they suffered a covered illness caused by exposure to Ground Zero or other 9/11 site, then prove an "economic loss" not met by other payments.
Those who qualify for compensation can get a portion of their estimated award -- possibly 10 percent or so -- in 20 days.
“That 10 percent could have helped people enjoy a happy, healthy holiday and put toys under the tree for their kids,” Feal said.
“It’s the same crap — no different than what we went through with the city settlement,” said Richard Palmer, a former Rikers Island warden who suffers from asthma. “It’s frustrating. Let’s get moving already.”
One lawyer said he has filed nearly 100 applications but has no idea where they stand: “We haven’t gotten any feedback from anybody. It’s like a black hole.”
Another lawyer, Andrew Carboy, said that his firm has filed about 200 applications but that the only response so far was a request for one client to re-sign a form. “The signature wasn’t close enough to the signature line,” he said.
But Sheila Birnbaum, special master of the fund, told The Post that most applications have arrived incomplete. Only 500 claimants have sent in the required signatures; others lack key details. “Nobody wants to get money out quicker than I do,” she said. “We’ve been disappointed that we just don’t have all the information to do it.”
Twelve claimants have been found eligible, mainly FDNY members with such problems as sleep apnea and lung, sinus and digestive diseases. But one had “no economic loss,” and three were already compensated by the first 9/11 fund, Birnbaum said.
Payments, such as pensions or a settlement in the mass lawsuit against the city, will be deducted from the awards. Birnbaum said the VCF staff has been forced to track down missing information.
Birnbaum, who negotiated $500 million in settlements with 92 families of those killed on 9/11, said she hopes to start making awards in January.
“There’s this tension in the fund to make sure the claims are legitimate and at the same time to bend over backward to give awards to everybody who deserves it,” she said.
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
NORAD acknowledges missile launchNORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs
December 11, 2012
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. - North American Aerospace Defense Command officials acknowledged today that U.S. missile warning systems detected and tracked the launch of a North Korean missile at 7:49 p.m. EST. The missile was tracked on a southerly azimuth. Initial indications are that the first stage fell into the Yellow Sea. The second stage was assessed to fall into the Philippine Sea. Initial indications are that the missile deployed an object that appeared to achieve orbit. At no time was the missile or the resultant debris a threat to North America.
Source: Invalid Link Removed
North Korean TV special news bulletin on rocket launch
12/12/2012
ax1
Legend
Xi orders PLA to become ready for 'real combat'
Updated: 2012-12-13 01:00
(China Daily)
Invalid Link Removed
[TD="bgcolor: #CCCCCC"][/TD]
Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, has ordered the country's army of 2.3 million to intensify its "real combat" awareness to sustain military readiness.
Xi made the remarks during an inspection conducted from Saturday to Monday at the Guangzhou military theater of operations, a term usually used to emphasize the coordination and joint operations by forces in the air, land and sea, according to a news release issued by military authorities on Wednesday.
Xi also chairs the CPC Central Military Commission, the top decision-making body for China's armed forces.
China's People's Liberation Army, with 2.3 million enlisted personnel, is the largest in the world.
Xi asked PLA officers and non-commissioned officers to adopt real combat criteria in military training and intensify such awareness among soldiers.
Xi also reaffirmed the PLA's core task of improving its abilities to win regional wars in the information age and conduct diversified military operations.
"Bear in mind that it is the soul of the military to obey the command of the Party without compromise, it is the top priority for the military to be able to fight and win battles, and it is fundamental that the military consolidates itself through governing the troops lawfully and austerely," Xi told officers above the division level of the garrison troops in Guangzhou.
Video footage from Central China Television showed Xi, wearing an army-green suit during his inspection, boarding a PLA Navy destroyer, the Haikou, and having dinner with sailors on the warship. He also examined an armored vehicle and observed a military drill.
Xi urged PLA officers and soldiers to maintain their loyalty to the CPC by studying and implementing the spirit of the CPC's 18th National Congress.
"The PLA should unconditionally implement the principles to govern the military lawfully and austerely, train the troops through strict discipline, always focus on grassroots units and further improve fighting capabilities," Xi said.
He showed his firm belief that on the way to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the heroic PLA must carry forward the cause, forge ahead into the future and effectively implement the historic mission.
Li Jie, a professor at the Naval Military Studies Research Institute, said Xi's order that the PLA strengthen "real combat" awareness comes at a time when the country faces complicated international situations, particularly tensions in its maritime territories.
"Currently there are many unstable factors in the nation's maritime domain, such as the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea. We need to ensure that the PLA is getting prepared for any challenges," he said.
Li said the PLA has not fought for more than two decades. "If you compare the intensity of training between the PLA and the US Army, the PLA lags far more behind and the latter also had many real battlegrounds to fight on over the years," he said.
Li said the emphasis of the rule of law in the army is also necessary.
"It's true that there's a lack of law awareness among some PLA soldiers and officers. We need to enforce law in the army to ensure the authority of the country, as well as the Party's discipline system," he said.
China Daily - Xinhua
Invalid Link Removed
Updated: 2012-12-13 01:00
(China Daily)
Invalid Link Removed
[TD="bgcolor: #CCCCCC"][/TD]
Xi made the remarks during an inspection conducted from Saturday to Monday at the Guangzhou military theater of operations, a term usually used to emphasize the coordination and joint operations by forces in the air, land and sea, according to a news release issued by military authorities on Wednesday.
Xi also chairs the CPC Central Military Commission, the top decision-making body for China's armed forces.
China's People's Liberation Army, with 2.3 million enlisted personnel, is the largest in the world.
Xi asked PLA officers and non-commissioned officers to adopt real combat criteria in military training and intensify such awareness among soldiers.
Xi also reaffirmed the PLA's core task of improving its abilities to win regional wars in the information age and conduct diversified military operations.
"Bear in mind that it is the soul of the military to obey the command of the Party without compromise, it is the top priority for the military to be able to fight and win battles, and it is fundamental that the military consolidates itself through governing the troops lawfully and austerely," Xi told officers above the division level of the garrison troops in Guangzhou.
Video footage from Central China Television showed Xi, wearing an army-green suit during his inspection, boarding a PLA Navy destroyer, the Haikou, and having dinner with sailors on the warship. He also examined an armored vehicle and observed a military drill.
Xi urged PLA officers and soldiers to maintain their loyalty to the CPC by studying and implementing the spirit of the CPC's 18th National Congress.
"The PLA should unconditionally implement the principles to govern the military lawfully and austerely, train the troops through strict discipline, always focus on grassroots units and further improve fighting capabilities," Xi said.
He showed his firm belief that on the way to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the heroic PLA must carry forward the cause, forge ahead into the future and effectively implement the historic mission.
Li Jie, a professor at the Naval Military Studies Research Institute, said Xi's order that the PLA strengthen "real combat" awareness comes at a time when the country faces complicated international situations, particularly tensions in its maritime territories.
"Currently there are many unstable factors in the nation's maritime domain, such as the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea. We need to ensure that the PLA is getting prepared for any challenges," he said.
Li said the PLA has not fought for more than two decades. "If you compare the intensity of training between the PLA and the US Army, the PLA lags far more behind and the latter also had many real battlegrounds to fight on over the years," he said.
Li said the emphasis of the rule of law in the army is also necessary.
"It's true that there's a lack of law awareness among some PLA soldiers and officers. We need to enforce law in the army to ensure the authority of the country, as well as the Party's discipline system," he said.
China Daily - Xinhua
Invalid Link Removed
steppinRazor
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Person of the Year: President Barack Obama: “Architect of the New America”
Mac Slavo
Invalid Link Removed
December 19th, 2012
Editor’s note: No more Mister Hope and Change. The 2013 Obama is enshrined in the darkness of authoritarianism.
One of the most prestigious awards (in addition to a Noble Prize) that can be bestowed upon a member of the elite is Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.
This year, the award goes to the “Architect of a New America”, none other than Barack Obama.
The President joins such notable figures and social architects as Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939, 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), Richard Nixon (1971, 1972), Henry Kissinger (1972), The Endangered Earth (1988), Ted Turner (1991), Bill Clinton (1992, 1998), George Bush (2000, 2004), Vladimir Putin (2007), and Ben Bernanke (2009).
Via Invalid Link Removed:
Invalid Link Removed [Time.com]
Watch: Fundamentally Transforming America
Mac Slavo
Invalid Link Removed
December 19th, 2012
Editor’s note: No more Mister Hope and Change. The 2013 Obama is enshrined in the darkness of authoritarianism.
One of the most prestigious awards (in addition to a Noble Prize) that can be bestowed upon a member of the elite is Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.
This year, the award goes to the “Architect of a New America”, none other than Barack Obama.
The President joins such notable figures and social architects as Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939, 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957), Richard Nixon (1971, 1972), Henry Kissinger (1972), The Endangered Earth (1988), Ted Turner (1991), Bill Clinton (1992, 1998), George Bush (2000, 2004), Vladimir Putin (2007), and Ben Bernanke (2009).
Via Invalid Link Removed:
Kill lists, illegal detention, illegal torture, illegal wiretapping of citizens, endless unconstitutional wars, drone attacks on men, women and children… you’ve got to do a LOT to get this honor. Congrats Obama!
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed [Time.com]
Watch: Fundamentally Transforming America
ax1
Legend
[h=1]Invalid Link Removed[/h]Infowars.com
Dec 20, 2012
As Obama grandstands and uses the Sandy Hook crisis to, in the words of Eric Holder “brainwash the public” that guns are bad and the cause of violent crime and misery, We decided to show just a few of the documented cases of drone attacks that he personally ordered where children were killed. Drone attack after drone attack you will see the real face of the Globalists. This man does not care about children he cares about disarming the American people to bring in a totalitarian government.
ax1
Legend
We petition the obama administration to:
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.
Created: Dec 21, 2012
Signatures needed by January 20, 2013 to reach goal of 25,000
124
Total signatures on this petition
24,876
Sign Petition Here at Whitehouse.gov
Invalid Link Removed
Piers Morgan Blows Up on Larry Pratt Over Gun Rights - 12/18/2012
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.
Created: Dec 21, 2012
Signatures needed by January 20, 2013 to reach goal of 25,000
124
Total signatures on this petition
24,876
Sign Petition Here at Whitehouse.gov
Invalid Link Removed
Piers Morgan Blows Up on Larry Pratt Over Gun Rights - 12/18/2012
ax1
Legend
What happens when governments disarm their citizens?
Warrior Times
by Carlo
Warrior Times
by Carlo
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese. (note from ax1, 80-100 million Chinese dead to date)
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe - because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]
Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.
I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.
In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.
The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese. (note from ax1, 80-100 million Chinese dead to date)
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe - because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]
Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.
I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.
In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.
The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.
ax1
Legend
Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence
Ron Paul
December 24, 2012
The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.
Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.
The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.
While I certainly agree that Invalid Link Removed and that Invalid Link Removed, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.
Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.
Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.
Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and Invalid Link Removed? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.
Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.
Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
This article first appeared on Ron Paul’s congressional site Invalid Link Removed.
Ron Paul
December 24, 2012
The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.
Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.
The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.
While I certainly agree that Invalid Link Removed and that Invalid Link Removed, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.
Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.
Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.
Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and Invalid Link Removed? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.
Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.
Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.
This article first appeared on Ron Paul’s congressional site Invalid Link Removed.
steppinRazor
Well-known member
What's this civil society based on religion talk? Religion has no place in regards to building a societies values.
ax1
Legend
Ron is a Christian, so thats the bias you will get with him. He did mention other means to a civil society, but I hope he knows that religion is not a requirement to the development of a civil society.
ax1
Legend
Media Ignores Shooting Stopped by Law-Abiding Gun Owner
Invalid Link Removed
December 31, 2012
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.
On December 17, 2012, recent breakup set off a shooting spree that ended with the suspect wounding a man at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 movie theater Sunday night before being shot by an off-duty deputy, authorities said. Police are shown questioning men outside the theater Sunday night.. Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at a nearby China Garden restaurant, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him.
Read more: Invalid Link Removed
(Hat-tip Skip)
I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons.
~ Hardnox
Invalid Link Removed
December 31, 2012
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.
On December 17, 2012, recent breakup set off a shooting spree that ended with the suspect wounding a man at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 movie theater Sunday night before being shot by an off-duty deputy, authorities said. Police are shown questioning men outside the theater Sunday night.. Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at a nearby China Garden restaurant, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him.
Read more: Invalid Link Removed
(Hat-tip Skip)
I remain disgusted with the media’s deliberate attempt to whitewash news while at the same time creating their own narrative for whatever sinister reasons.
~ Hardnox
ax1
Legend
Barry Soetoro (Obama) 4 Life?
Soure from official Congress website:
Invalid Link Removed
Full Bill PDF:
Invalid Link Removed
Introduced in House (01/03/2013)
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2013
Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: `
`Article-- `
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''.
Soure from official Congress website:
Invalid Link Removed
Full Bill PDF:
Invalid Link Removed
Introduced in House (01/03/2013)
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2013
Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: `
`Article-- `
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.''.
fightbackhxc
Well-known member
Still going Love all the info ax
AE14
Board Sponsor
Not going to happen.
fightbackhxc
Well-known member
Couldnt they just exec order it like Eventing else?
ax1
Legend
Obama has already ripped the Constitution in his shredder, but I dont think he will pull this one off.
Each president is basically a corporate/banker puppet president, so in reality there are no terms.
southpaw23
Well-known member
[video=youtube;AtyKofFih8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y[/video]
Yeah, he's definitely not a whack job. Lol.
Yeah, he's definitely not a whack job. Lol.
ax1
Legend
Why? Because he spit the truth last night all over that red coat monster Piers Morgan?
southpaw23
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
I was laughing my ass off last night to tell you the truth, Piers is a subversive terrorist and deserved it.
There was supposed to be a 3rd segment but the producer ran on the stage crying after Alex was exposing building 7 and goverments history of false flag operations, etc...and him and Piers kicked Alex off the stage.
southpaw23
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Okay tin tin.Points to the radio personality for managing to bring up a boxing ring, great white sharks and mountain climbing all in one interview. Lol. Awesome.
Did you watch the later part when Alex transformed himself into a Brit? Its not in the video you posted.
southpaw23
Well-known member
Trauma1
Legend
Say what you want about Alex Jones and his performance, but he absolutely slaughtered Piers Morgan last night. Morgan needed the in-your-face lashing that he got. Alex knew he was being led into a trap to look like a lunatic by CNN's viewers, but he didn't back down and laid into him. In typical CNN fashion, they went into panic mode and threw him off the show before he could debate Alan Dershowitz in the 3rd segment; further adding to their agenda to make Alex look like a lunatic. The whole CNN approach/spin was so transparent and anticipated that it's pathetic. It's too bad, because I would have loved to see that 3rd segment.
-T1
-T1
southpaw23
Well-known member
You can't set a trap for a lunatic, they just show up and put themselves on display.What most people saw was comedy, an uneducated radio personality becoming unhinged. Piers remained calm while tubby just had a meltdown, it was hilarious.
ax1
Legend
Although I got some laughs last night, Alex bought up very serious matters largely ignored by the media. For example, most of these shooters from Columbine to Colorado are on prescription psychiatric drugs that have warning inserts that contain warnings of potential suicide and violent outbreaks.
Another good issue that Piers ignored are the FBI statistics that crime rates have gone although gone ownership has gone up over the last decade. Also, how Sweden which has guns has the least amount of crime rate in Europe and England who has strict gun control laws has the worst crime rates. After gun control laws in Piers own country, crime rates tripled...and so on.
It was comical but a very serious confrontation with a globalist media goon.
Trauma1
Legend
I never said that he is, or that I believe he is in fact a lunatic. He knew what their agenda was, but he did it anyway. Maybe it's how you view him, but I don't.
What most people saw? Uneducated? Tell us more about what we all saw or should believe...
ax1
Legend
**DICTATORSHIP ALERT**
Biden Says Obama to Use “Executive Action” to Restrict Second Amendment
Kurt Nimmo
January 9, 2012
On Wednesday during a press conference with attorney general Eric Holder, vice president Joe Biden said president Obama is considering taking “executive action” to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the American people.
“The president is going to act,” said Biden. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
“As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
In other words, according to the Obama administration and the Justice Department, if trashing the Constitution saves one life, it is worth it.
Issuing an executive action, unlike an executive order, does not modify a law. Executive actions, a Obama administration office told Invalid Link Removed in October, concern “regulation, enforcement, statements of policy… and numerous other things.”
Obama, unlike his predecessors, “is not expanding executive power to meet the demands of an external crisis. Instead, he is counteracting a new pattern of partisan behavior – nonstop congressional obstruction – with a new, partisan pattern of his own,” Invalid Link Removed wrote for Newsweek prior to the election.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told Newsweek Obama will “work with Congress where we can – and then be willing to act where they won’t.”
Obama has already used executive action to instruct the Invalid Link Removed. In September, Obama’s Justice Department gave the ARF authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” In other words, the agency now has the power to seize firearms from people not convicted of a crime or even charged with a crime.
In July, as the Fast and Furious scandal unfolded, Obama’s Justice Department devised new rules requiring border-state gun dealers to report large purchases of firearms made by individual buyers over short periods of time.
Biden Says Obama to Use “Executive Action” to Restrict Second Amendment
Kurt Nimmo
January 9, 2012
On Wednesday during a press conference with attorney general Eric Holder, vice president Joe Biden said president Obama is considering taking “executive action” to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the American people.
“The president is going to act,” said Biden. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
“As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
In other words, according to the Obama administration and the Justice Department, if trashing the Constitution saves one life, it is worth it.
Issuing an executive action, unlike an executive order, does not modify a law. Executive actions, a Obama administration office told Invalid Link Removed in October, concern “regulation, enforcement, statements of policy… and numerous other things.”
Obama, unlike his predecessors, “is not expanding executive power to meet the demands of an external crisis. Instead, he is counteracting a new pattern of partisan behavior – nonstop congressional obstruction – with a new, partisan pattern of his own,” Invalid Link Removed wrote for Newsweek prior to the election.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told Newsweek Obama will “work with Congress where we can – and then be willing to act where they won’t.”
Obama has already used executive action to instruct the Invalid Link Removed. In September, Obama’s Justice Department gave the ARF authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” In other words, the agency now has the power to seize firearms from people not convicted of a crime or even charged with a crime.
In July, as the Fast and Furious scandal unfolded, Obama’s Justice Department devised new rules requiring border-state gun dealers to report large purchases of firearms made by individual buyers over short periods of time.
ax1
Legend
Larry Pratt Slams Piers Morgan Over “Sham” Gun Control Argument
CNN host is still ludicrously claiming that gun control made England safe, when it is the most violent country in Europe
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 10, 2013
Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt re-appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight and proceeded to school Morgan on his ridiculous argument that England, a country with the highest violent crime rate in Europe, was made safe by gun control.
Crucially, the number of violent crimes in England per person compared to America is significantly higher. England is a far more violent place than America, despite having a total gun ban.
In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be Invalid Link Removed than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.
CNN host is still ludicrously claiming that gun control made England safe, when it is the most violent country in Europe
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 10, 2013
Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt re-appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight and proceeded to school Morgan on his ridiculous argument that England, a country with the highest violent crime rate in Europe, was made safe by gun control.
Pratt savaged Morgan’s contention that gun control reduces violent crime and murders, labeling the CNN host’s position a “sham”.
Morgan’s argument that England, a country with a higher violent crime rate than even poverty-stricken South Africa, was made safe by gun control, is patently ludicrous and can be debunked in all manner of different ways.
For a start, Morgan’s claim of only 39 gun murders in England and Wales in 2011 has to be balanced against the fact that top police bodies in England Invalid Link Removed that crime figures are being manipulated to reduce the number of recorded crimes and that, “the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”
A 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary found that the way England records homicides is completely inaccurate in comparison with the American method and that, “With such differences in reporting criteria,comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham.”
Invalid Link Removed, “the true level of gun crime” (in England) is (still) far higher than the Government admits in official statistics.
Invalid Link Removed
Crucially, the number of violent crimes in England per person compared to America is significantly higher. England is a far more violent place than America, despite having a total gun ban.
Invalid Link Removed show that the number of violent crimes per 100,000 residents in England is around 2,000 compared to just 466 in America. For all Piers Morgan’s claims about the proliferation of guns leading to an increase in violence, it’s four times safer to live in American than England and Invalid Link Removed, America’s violent crime rate continues to fall.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be Invalid Link Removed than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.
Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decadeInvalid Link Removed
England is routinely either number one or number two in the rankings of the highest violent crime rate in Europe.Switzerland on the other hand, with its almost universal gun ownership, is routinely ranked as Invalid Link Removed, again proving that gun control does not reduce violent crime.
Gun control has never reduced violent crime in Britain, nor has it reduced gun crime. Last year, Invalid Link Removed by 35 per cent. England’s Invalid Link Removed after all handguns were banned in 1996.
While England’s violent crime rate continues to accelerate, America’s violent crime rate drops as more and more law-abiding people own firearms.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed, “the notoriously violent city of Washington D.C. just saw its murder rate fall below triple digits for the first time since 1963 and just four years after the Supreme Court overturned the city’s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller.”
Invalid Link Removed also highlight the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.
Invalid Link Removed
Meanwhile, in gun control “havens” like Chicago, banning firearms has only emboldened criminals and caused violent crime to rise. Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns Invalid Link Removed, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.
Invalid Link Removed
“Does anyone actually believe that Piers Morgan is oblivious to the fact that the statistics he has been citing relentlessly in recent weeks are a notoriously unreliable “sham”?” Invalid Link Removed
These figures completely decimate Piers Morgan’s argument that gun control creates a safer, less violent society.
His primary example in making that argument – England – has one of the most draconian gun control ban policies in the world, yet is also routinely in the top two of the most violent countries in the developed world – and is a significantly more violent place to live than America - which is probably one of the reasons why Piers left in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invalid Link Removed
Infowars.com
Jan 10, 2013
Alex welcomes former Congressman Ron Paul to speak about the establishment’s attempt to “brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” to quote Eric Holder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invalid Link Removed
Infowars.com
Jan 10, 2013
Alex welcomes former Congressman Ron Paul to speak about the establishment’s attempt to “brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” to quote Eric Holder.
ax1
Legend
How do you feel about this whole gun thing thats going on in politics now?
EasyEJL
Never enough
its sad that apparently intelligent people can be putting forth the idea of limiting assault weapons to make sure an incident like Sandy Hook never happens again, even though assault weapons weren't used in Sandy Hook. Sadder is that other apparently intelligent people support this over the constitution. The reality is that banning all guns wouldn't have the effect they desire, and it doesn't curb general crime/violence. The UK that has had a gun ban for forever has 4x the violent crime of the US per 100,000 people. And Australia's murder rate has gone up since they did their ban. Granted, more are killed with knives + other items now and less with guns, but it still had no positive impact on deaths. Really all they will accomplish even if they somehow attempt to push a gun ban is creating a new revenue stream for criminals. Guns will become more valuable than they were, enormously growing the black market just like the war on drugs did.
AE14
Board Sponsor
Are you sure about assault weapons not being used in sandy hook? That is the official story as far as I heard.
ax1
Legend
I dont think anybody knows for sure...conflicting reports. I saw NBC reporting that federal officials reported that 4 handguns were recovered and thats it, the assault rifle was left in the car.
I remember the cops said they were chasing down other shooters in the area and what happened to that?