Will The Internet Shutdown on Jan. 23, 2012?

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!!
Mark Matheny
January 17, 2012

There are concerns that the Internet may be shut down on January 23, due to the SOPA bill. Is there a need to worry?

An article posted 5 days ago on Buzzfeed states:

Congress is about to vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act, which could give the government power to shut down any website with copyrighted content. Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Amazon are considering a day of blackout to protest the “Stop Online Piracy Act” or SOPA

First off, let's look at SOPA. It stands for Stop Online Piracy Act.

This Bill is also known as HR 3261, and was introduced back on October 26, 2011 by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors.
The bill itself states in the introduction that its purpose is: 

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.

 According to an article at PC World,

The bill, called SOPA, would allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders requiring online advertising networks, payment processors and other organizations to stop payments to websites and Web-based services accused of copyright infringement.

Proponents of the Bill argue that they are simply trying to protect the intellectual  property market  and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and this bill is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites.


According to the Washington Post, this bill would protect artists' intellectual property, and basically make it harder for internet users to download free versions of their content, by directing users to purchase the content instead. The article shows that among those supporting the bill are powerful groups of lobbyists  including the Motion Picture Association of America, pharmaceuticals makers, media firms and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


However, as they say, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And there are plenty of groups and individuals who are in opposition to this bill. Among those groups opposing is a group called NetCoalition,  a group that represents Web firms and various public interest groups who opposed to the law.


The Director of NetCoalition, Markham C. Erickson stated, "Inexplicably, and almost overnight, SOPA has morphed into a full-on assault against lawful U.S. Internet companies." Other opponents of the Bill argue that this bill could put severe restrictions on blogsites and other alternative websites, as well as You Tube account users. "The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar", stated Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon, who formerly worked for CNN, and is now a blogger and co-founder of Global Voices Online. 


The other concern is that search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Twitter for example may block sites which are deemed to be "offensive". 


According to Electronic Frontier Foundation, under this bill:

.. service providers (including hosting services) would be under new pressure to monitor and police their users’ activities.  Websites that simply don’t do enough to police infringement (and it is not at all clear what would qualify as “enough”) are now under threat, even though the DMCA expressly does not require affirmative policing.  It creates new enforcement tools against folks who dare to help users access sites that may have been “blacklisted,” even without any kind of court hearing. The bill also requires that search engines, payment providers (such as credit card companies and PayPal), and advertising services join in the fun in shutting down entire websites.  In fact, the bill seems mainly aimed at creating an end-run around the DMCA safe harbors. Instead of complying with the DMCA, a copyright owner may now be able to use these new provisions to effectively shut down a site by cutting off access to its domain name, its search engine hits, its ads, and its other financing even if the safe harbors would apply. 

Recently Presidential Candidate Ron Paul condemned SOPA during a speech while out campaigning:

" Freedom really has been tested over such a short period, when you look at six thousand years of human history. Most of history has been tyrants, dictators and kings and pharaohs and... governments telling people how to live. So we have this wonderful test and the greatest prosperity, and we're losing it.
This is why I fear the economic crisis coming, this is why I fear this endless militancy overseas, this is why I fear the underminig of the protection of our rights here at home. There's a bill now... the Stop Online Piracy Act. They want to takeover the Internet! I mean can you imagine how...much we're going to be curtailed in the spreading of our information if we lose the internet? But there's a bill ... that's supposedly going to stop privacy, but actually what it's going to do is take over the internet, and be able to... restrict everybody in what they do, and monitor everything we do on the internet."

Infowars Nightly News has also reported on the unconstitutionality of this bill:




According to Buzzfeed  there have been calls for a day of "Blackout", and among those Companies considering this are Google, Face Book, Yahoo, and Amazon. "Anonomous" has called for a day of blackout as well in a You Tube video, as well as providing flyers that can be passed out and hung.

It appears however, that recently that the SOPA bill has been given a threat of Veto by the White House administration according to SHTF plan.com. The article states in part:

Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

So at least for now it would appear that the bill is dead in the water, but- It is important to remember that Obama said he would Veto the NDAA bill when it was in his hands as well and later changed his mind. Can we really trust the Administration when they say they will Veto this bill?

It is not apparent whether the Black out scheduled for January 23, 2012 will happen, but one thing is sure - SOPA may be on the shelf for now, but I believe it is not the last we will hear of it.

Arizona Legislature OKs Presidential 'Birther' Bill

AP

Feb. 27: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, co-chair, Special Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety, National Governors Association appears at at committee hearing on the states role in protecting against insider threats, hackers and terrorists, in Washington.

FOX News.com

April 15, 2011

PHOENIX -- The Arizona Legislature gave final approval late Thursday night to a proposal that would require President Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state's ballot.

Arizona would become the first state to require such proof if Gov. Jan Brewer signs the measure into law.

Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, the author of the bill, said the bill wasn't about opposition to Obama. "This bill is about the integrity of our elections," Seel said.

Thirteen other states have considered similar proposals this year. The proposals were defeated in Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine and Montana.

The bill won final approval from the state House in a 40-16 vote.

So-called "birthers" contend since the last presidential election that Obama is ineligible to hold the nation's highest elected office because, they argue, he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland. The Constitution said a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificates have been made public. Even though the courts have rebuffed lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, the issue hasn't gone away.

"It's a fringe issue in my view, and it's going to cause people to look again at Arizona and say what's all this craziness going on there," said Democratic Rep. Daniel Patterson of Tucson, an opponent of the bill.

The Arizona proposal would require political parties and presidential candidates to hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age and to provide the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

If candidates don't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

If it can't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates are eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would be able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements have been met.

The names of candidates can be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state doesn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

Reid Rams Through 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' but Dream Act Fails

Newsmax.com

Saturday, 18 Dec 2010 07:08 AM

 

WASHINGTON – In a landmark vote for gay rights, Sen. Harry Reid and fellow Democrats in the Senate voted Saturday to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.

Earlier in the day, though, another Democratic initiative failed. Senate Republicans blocked a bill to grant hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.

Sponsors of what they call the Dream Act needed 60 Senate votes for it, but fell five short. The House passed the bill last week. It was a last-ditch effort to enact it before it Republicans take control of the House from Democrats in January.

Immigrant advocates viewed the measure as a step toward providing a path to legal status for up to 12 million illegal immigrants by focusing on the most sympathetic among them first. Critics called it a back-door grant of amnesty that would encourage more illegal immigration.

Read more: Reid Rams Through 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' but Dream Act Fails

Members Strip Controversial Items from Defense Bill -- Abortion, DADT, Alternate Engine Gone

FOX News.com

by Trish Turner 

December 15, 2010

In a last ditch effort to save a crucial defense spending bill, known as the Defense Authorization Act, Fox has learned that the chairmen and Ranking Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committee have agreed to strip out controversial items from the bill, including the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, federal money for abortions at military facilities, and money for an alternate engine for the F-35, a provision that engendered a White House veto threat.

"We have stripped out all the controversial language," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Wednesday, adding that he is "confident" the bill will be considered in the lame duck session.

A senior Senate GOP aide tells Fox, "The (bipartisan group) all signed on to the slimmed down bill. We plan on putting out a statement soon."

The legislation must pass with the unanimous approval of every member in the Senate due to the abbreviated legislative calendar, a move that the chairman called "tough," but with the bipartisan approval of the top four members of the defense panels, the chance of passage increases.

Congress has, for 49 years, passed a defense authorization bill, a popular piece of legislation that contains a pay raise for troops, money for the Armed Services Retirement Home and the Defense Health Program, and funds for education and training, among many items.

A stand-alone measure to repeal the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, the military's ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, is expected to pass the House Wednesday and should then be taken up by the Senate in the lame duck session. That bill appears to have the 60 votes needed for passage, though the dwindling time on the calendar could affect support. Republican supporters of repeal, like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., have said they support repeal but want to have time for debate and consideration of amendments by opponents of the measure.

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

CFIF.org
By Senator Jeff Sessions
Thursday, November 18 2010

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

Read the entire article 

Despite massive protests, US Senate passes S 510 Food Safety Bill

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
November 30, 2010

The new Food Tyranny Act — called the “Food Safety Modernization Act” in the U.S. Senate — has been passed by the senate today. It would give the FDA vast ew powers to criminalize and imprison farmers and food producers while doing absolutely nothing to address to real root of the food contamination problem: Factory animal farm operations (which are regulated under the USDA, not the FDA).

The bill passed 73 to 25, with Sen Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) emerging as the greatest “voice of reason” in the debate. His last-ditch amendment to reduce the scale of the bill was defeated this morning.

Here’s the official vote record: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L…
Notably, there wasn’t a single Democrat who opposed the bill.

This bill, as originally written, would have outlawed most nutritional supplements through “harmonization” with European laws. It also would have authorized ten-year prison sentences for farmers selling raw milk to their neighbors. Both of those provisions were eventually stripped out of the bill thanks to some last-minute amendments, but it gives you an idea of the outright police state mentality of the original bill authors who attempted to put in place complete government control over food, gardens, raw milk and more.

To give you an idea of how clueless U.S. Senators are about food, the New York Times is reporting that when Senate staff members met to discuss this bill, they would eat Starburst candies and jellybeans. As the NYT reports, “In the midst of negotiations, the negotiators — nearly all women — took a field trip to a nearby food market so that a Republican staff member could teach the Democrats how to buy high-quality steaks.”

So what we have here is a new food tyranny law that was essentially negotiated by a group of women who eat dead foods, animals products and candy.

No wonder they still don’t get it. The contamination of lettuce and other fresh produce is caused by factory animals farms, not by produce farms. (E.coli can only thrive in the digestive tracts of animals, not plants.)
The “small farms” exclusion will soon be meaningless

The Tester Amendment of the bill did manage to exclude some smaller farmers from the more tyrannical provisions of the bill. As currently stated, this would exclude small farms that sell less than $500,000 worth of food and which sell most of their food locally.

However, Senators failed to consider what’s going to happen when the Federal Reserve keeps printing counterfeit money, devaluing the dollar and causing massive food price inflation. A farm that right now produces merely $100,000 worth of food (which could be a small, two-person farm) will soon find itself producing $500,000 worth of food (or more) due to the rapidly falling value of the U.S. dollar.

This is how the Federal Reserve’s money counterfeiting actions will further destroy America and place small family farms under the tyranny of the FDA.

Read the entire article

GOP Blocks One-Year Unemployment Extension, Wants Spending-Cut Offsets

Opencongress.org
November 30, 2010 - by Donny Shaw

On Tuesday afternoon, Democrats called on the Senate to pass the Unemployment Insurance Stabilization Act under the expedited unanimous consent procedure. As expected, Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA], acting on behalf of all Republicans, objected and will force a full-fledged debate on the issue that will likely last several weeks and be rolled together with unrelated tax issues. Federal unemployment benefits expire today for millions of long-term unemployed workers.
The bill Democrats tried to pass today would extend federal unemployment benefits until January 3, 2012. Because its costs (approx. $54 billion) are not offset, there was never much of a chance that the Republicans would allow the bill to go through so easily. Republicans have repeatedly said they want to pay for unemployment benefits with corresponding spending cuts (something that’s never been done) before they’ll vote for it, and because the Democrats don’t have a filibuster-proof majority they have a god deal of leverage for enforcing their position.
Immediately after objecting to unanimous consent, Sen. Brown turned the table and called for unanimous-consent passage of a one-year unemployment extension that is fully paid for by rescinding unspent non-security appropriations. Democrats objected.

Read the entire article

Bill Would Shun Obama Birth Certificate Requests

Wednesday, 21 Apr 2010 07:55 PM
Newsmax.com


Hawaii lawmakers are moving closer to passing a measure allowing the state to ignore repeated requests for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.

A conference committee unanimously voted Tuesday to advance the bill to final votes in the House and Senate.

The proposal allows state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.

The bill is aimed at so-called "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They say he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.



——

The bill is SB2937.



——

Information from: Honolulu Star-Bulletin, http://www.starbulletin.com/

The National Biometric ID Card: The Mark of the Beast?

by John W. Whitehead


"This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." ~ Revelation 13:18


As technology grows more sophisticated and the government and its corporate allies further refine their methods of keeping tabs on the American people, those of us who treasure privacy increasingly find ourselves engaged in a struggle to maintain our freedoms in the midst of the modern surveillance state.

Just consider the many ways we’re already being monitored and tracked: through our Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; by way of our correspondence and communications devices – email, phone calls and mobile phones; through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing. Data corporations are capturing vast caches of personal information on you so that airports, retailers, police and other government authorities can instantly identify and track you. Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us. All the while, banks and other financial institutions must verify the identities of new customers and make such records of customer transactions available to the police and government officials upon request.

In recent years, this information glut has converged into a mandate for a national ID card, which came to a head with Congress’ passage of the REAL ID Act in 2005. REAL ID requires states to issue machine-readable drivers’ licenses containing a wealth of personal data. However, because the REAL ID Act has been opposed by many states due to its cost and implementation, we have yet to be subjected to a nationwide implementation of a national ID card. That may all change depending on what happens with the immigration reform bill now before Congress.




A centerpiece of the immigration bill as proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a requirement that all U.S. workers, citizen and resident alike, be required to obtain and carry biometric Social Security cards (national ID cards under a different name) in order to work within the United States. Attempting to appease critics of a national ID card, Schumer and Graham insist that "no government database would house everyone’s information" and that the "cards would not contain any private information, medical information, or tracking devices." However, those claims are blatantly false. Indeed, this proposed biometric card is nothing more than an end-run around opposition to a national ID card.

Civil and privacy rights advocates, as well as liberal-, conservative-, and libertarian-leaning organizations, have long raised concerns that a national ID card would enable the government to track citizens and, thus, jeopardize the privacy rights of Americans. President Reagan likened a 1981 proposal to the biblical "mark of the beast," and President Clinton dismissed a similar plan because it smacked of Big Brother.

Most recently, The Rutherford Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, along with a host of other organizations, voiced their opposition to the biometric ID card. In a letter to both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees, Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee and the White House, this coalition of groups declared that such a national ID card would "not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work. As happened with Social Security cards decades ago, use of such ID cards would quickly spread and be used for other purposes – from travel to voting to gun ownership." And the national biometric ID card would "require the creation of a bureaucracy that combines the worst elements of the Transportation Security Administration and state Motor Vehicle Departments."

At a minimum, these proposed cards will contain a memory device that stores distinct – and highly personal – physical or biological information unique to the cardholder such as fingerprints, retina scan information, a mapping of the veins on the top of your hand, and so on. Eventually, other information, such as personal business and financial data, will probably also be stored on these cards. For the cards to be effective, an information storage system and central database, which will be managed by the government and its corporate handlers, will be required. That means a lot of taxpayer dollars will be used to create the ultimate tracking device to be used against American citizens.



As journalist Megan Carpentier reports, "The federal government wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and force employees and employers still suffering from a recession to do the same, to create and make accessible to every employer a national database of the fingerprints of all Americans from the time they are 14 years old. And they want to do it in order to keep an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants – less than 4 percent of the total population of the United States – from accessing the job market." Under threat of substantial fines by the government and in what promises to be a cumbersome, bureaucratic process, employers will have to purchase ID card scanning devices (or visit their local DMV) in order to scan the cards of every individual they wish to hire before that individual can be employed. What this amounts to, essentially, is a troubling system in which all Americans would have to get clearance from the federal government in order to get a job.

Furthermore, the law’s requirement that machine-readable technology be incorporated into the card opens the door for radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to be placed on the cards. RFID is a tiny, automatic identification system that enables data – in this case the private information of American citizens – to be transmitted by a portable device. This will provide the government with unprecedented access to American citizens’ personal information. In addition, RFID tags emit radio frequency signals that allow the government to track the movement of the cards, as well as the cardholders. In other words, wherever your card goes, so do the government monitors.

When all is said and done, the adoption of a national biometric ID card serves one purpose only: to provide the government with the ultimate control over the American people. As one commentator has remarked, this is a "naked government power grab."

The time to resist is now. If we don’t, eventually, we will all have to possess one of these cards in order to be a functioning citizen in American society. Failing to have a biometric card will render you a non-person for all intents and purposes. Your whole life will depend on this card – your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on.

What we used to call science fiction is now reality. And whether a national ID card is the mark of the Beast or the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same.



April 20, 2010



Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute.



Copyright © 2010 The Rutherford Institute

Dissenters To Be Detained As “Enemy Belligerents”?

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Monday, March 8, 2010


Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.




The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.


Read the entire story

Obama Health Scare Bill passes in House

Mark Matheny


Well folks, the health care bill has passed in the house today, 220 for the bill, and 215 against. You can also thank one of the traitor republicrats- Anh "Joseph" Cao- for voting for the 1,990 page monstrosity. I had a feeling the bill would pass in the House even though I was praying that it would not. I do want to thank all the Republicans who voted against the bill as well as the Democrats who also voted no on the bill.( 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted no on this $1.2 trillion legislation)


Congressman Mike Mcintyre, of North Carolina's 7th District voted against the bill, and here is what he had to say as to why he voted the way he did (from his website ):

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Mike McIntyre, who will vote no on the health care bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, released the following statement:

“The need for health care reform is clear, but the focus should be on lowering the skyrocketing costs of health care, bringing down the cost of premiums, and ensuring access and affordability of health care for all.

“During these tough economic times, I could not support this bill because it was flawed in four major ways:

1. It costs way too much money – more than $1 trillion dollars on top of a $12 trillion national debt;
2. It does not take the steps necessary to effectively bring down long-term health care costs;
3. It raises too much in new taxes and imposes new requirements that will harm the ability of too many small businesses to compete and create jobs; and
4. It tries to do too much too soon instead of targeted changes that can immediately help people.

“Instead, we should tackle health care reform in targeted ways. Those include:
1. strengthening Medicare and Medicaid;
2. improving Medicare reimbursement rates for rural health providers,
3. expanding the use of electronic medical records;
4. expanding and strengthening community health centers;
5. allowing small business owners to join pools of coverage to access better insurance rates;
6. allowing states to form compacts to allow the purchase of insurance across state lines; and
7. providing tax credits for  long-term care.

“These are just some of the many examples where we can make needed health care changes without further bankrupting the country, and I remain committed to meaningful reform that maintains cost-effective principles that put our nation again on the path to reform.”

At the protest in Washington D.C. on thursday, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner said "This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years I've been here in Washington." Clearly there are millions of Americans who feel the same way, although the media would never reflect this truth. Mark Levin, a Talk Radio Host on 610 WTVN also attended the Protest on Washington and had this to say about the Obama Bunch : "They want to control you, they want to control your children, your parents, your doctor, your nurse,- the bottom line is they want to play God, and decide who lives and who dies!"


This all is bad enough, but what really makes me so upset is the fact that the Obama Politburo didn't even have enough respect for our Military soldiers who experienced a great loss at Fort Hood when a terrorist attack ended up with 13 dead and 30 or more wounded. No black arm bands, or a break in business as usual, but instead PUSH, PUSH, PUSH!!!!! They would rather push their Social medicine than to mourn a great loss here on American soil! And have you noticed how careful they are not to characterize this horrific attack as a "terrorist" attack? Just because the man yelled "Allah u ackbar!" doesn't mean it's a terror attack? Hogwash!


People, the bill still has to go to the Senate, and there are millions of us who are opposed to this Obamacare takeover- so let's tighten up our bootlaces and get ready to rumble! Call your Senators and congressmen and women and demand that they vote no on this Obamanation! Remind them of who they work for! We cannot afford this bill! The freedom of America is on the line. If they nationalize this bill, our very lives and bodies will be nationalized! Please stand up in unison, regardless of your ethnicity, religion or creed.


Finally, I want to leave those who would believe that Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the Politburo are out for the people's best interest, with a passage from Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny (pg 8):


"....the Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are set on his next meal even before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And in furtherance of that purpose,the Statist speaks in the tongue of the demagogue, concocting one pretext and grievance  after another to manipulate public perceptions and build popular momentum for the divestiture of liberty and property from its rightful possessors. The industrious, earnest, and successful are demonized as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies governmental intervention on behalf of an endless parade of "victims." In this way, the perpetrator and the victim are subordinated to the government's authority- the former by outright theft, the latter by a dependent existence. In truth, both are made victims by the real perpetrator, the Statist."