Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Arizona Immigration Law

I think the question must be, “Who got to the judge?”  She has virtually gutted the bill after last week sounding hopeful of upholding it!

Federal Judge Blocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigration Law

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to President Obama and other opponents of the crackdown and a setback for Gov. Jan Brewer other supporters. (AP)

PHOENIX – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.

Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

READ JUDGE BOLTON'S RULING HERE (PDF)

GOV. JAN BREWER'S STATEMENT ON JUDGE BOLTON'S RULING

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, reacting to the ruling, said the "fight is far from over" and vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."

"The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds," Brewer told The Associated Press.  "They haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."

The Mexican government praised the judge's decision. Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."
In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law.

"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."

A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the court "ruled correctly" with its decision Wednesday.

"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," August said.

The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying the decision "affirms the federal government's responsibilities" to enforce immigration law. The department claimed "unprecedented resources" have been devoted to that effort.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., one of the most vocal advocates on immigration issues on Capitol Hill, applauded the decision.

"Arresting people based on their appearance and holding them until you can investigate their immigration status is patently un-American and unconstitutional," he said.

But supporters of the policy slammed the court's decision.

"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," Brewer said.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling "misguided."

"The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling," he said in a written statement. "There's nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won't do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd."

The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona -- the busiest illegal gateway into the country -- to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

Localities inside Arizona were already preparing to interpret the law in different ways. The Tucson Unified School District's Governing Board approved by a 5-0 vote a policy Tuesday that maintains the district's stance of not enforcing immigration laws in the district's schools.

The hardest-line approach was expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.

Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.

"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."

Elsewhere in the state, police officials were busy wrapping up training sessions this week. Many of the state's 15,000 police officers have been watching a DVD released this month that signs that might indicate a person is an illegal immigrant are speaking poor English, looking nervous or traveling in an overcrowded vehicle. It warned that race and ethnicity do not.

Some agencies added extra materials, including a test, a role-playing exercise or a question-and-answer session with prosecutors.

Click here to read the Arizona immigration law.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

ALSO:

Gov. Brewer Vows to 'Battle All the Way to the Supreme Court'  -  Read The Full Article

This decision comes while the following it happening at the border itself:

SEIU Posts AZ Propaganda Video Linking GOP With Fascists

Arizona was inundated with bussed in SEIU “professional” agitators and protestors today after yesterdays decision and for Governor Brewer’s filing of an appeal.  The protests were not from locals or local illegals.  It should make you worry that this is all being orchestrated by the White House and Obama’s buddy and most frequent White House visitor, Andy Stern and SEIU and other unions.  This is not about Illegals or anyone’s rights.  It is about power and votes from future Hispanic immigrants controlled under the thumbs of Progressives and their Union Pals.

At least eight protesters approached a police line and allowed themselves to be arrested. A group of about two dozen protesters then sat down in the middle of the street or refused to leave, and police arrested them as well.

Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law on Wednesday. Those include a section requiring officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there's a reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally.

Brewer has said she'll take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

There was another huge capture of guns being smuggled in over the Arizona portion of the border last week.  There were enough guns to open a gun shop. But no mention on the nitely news…

And Some Updates from Washington: 

Amnesty Memo and Lawmakers Considering Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens

Silencing the Internet

A new bill has been making its way through the United States Senate and it is controversial … a true tinderbox issue. It is so “hot,” in fact, that it is causing consternation and anger on both sides of the political aisle. And it’s no wonder …

The bill in question, when and if passed, will give President Obama, and all future presidents, as well, the power to shut down the Internet for up to four months, perhaps even longer. Known as the “kill switch,” the bill was recently approved by a key Senate committee and is ready to move to the floor of the Senate where all members will have an opportunity to vote on it … to cast a “yea” or “nay” vote.

It’s called “The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act” … and it has been inflaming passions since it first saw the light of day and made its way into committee. Senator Joe Lieberman, (I) Connecticut, has been a powerful advocate of the bill which, if it becomes law, will provide the head of the federal government (the President) with absolute power to shut down the Internet and block incoming Internet traffic from specific countries during “national emergencies.”

Clearly, such power in the hands of a single individual (even an American president), can be dangerous and lead to tyranny and/or abuse.  It’s not difficult to imagine how this power, used improperly, could create serious free speech problems in America.

In fact, the Center for Democracy and Technology, acting in concert with 23 other privacy and technology organizations, has written letters to Senator Lieberman and other supporters of the bill to express their concern that the legislation can be an instrument that stifles free speech in America.

The widespread criticism of the bill has had some impact. Its sponsors have added language that would require the federal government to obtain congressional approval in order to extend the shutting down of the Internet beyond 120 days (four months), but, of course, it does nothing to address the initial 120 days.

This means that if no further changes are added to the bill, President Obama will have the power and authority to stop all Internet activity – on a whim or for purely political reasons – without congressional oversight or approval for up to four months.

Senators who are behind this bill rejected opposition claims that it was a “kill switch” that could turn the Internet “dark” although they did not deny that President Obama would have the authority to do just that if the legislation becomes law. These senators made the claim that the power to shut down the Internet already exists under the “Communications Act” so their bill essentially only reinforces an existing presidential power.  This begs the question; if the “Communications Act” already authorizes it, why the need for more legislation?

Is their argument correct? It’s possible. Let’s just say it’s open to personal interpretation. The “Communications Act” actually provides the president with the authority to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication when there is a state or threat of war.”

As I said, the power to shut down the Internet, based on the law I just described, is open to interpretation. The language is broad and leaves itself open to differing opinions as to its true meaning.

Opponents clearly believe that the legislation’s aim is to bring the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government so that it can begin to dismantle free speech. It’s a frightening thought, but it may have some merit. Here’s why …

Senator Lieberman has stated that the idea behind the impending new law was to copy (or mimic) China’s stringent policies of policing and controlling the free flow of information through the use of censorship and coercion. That a U.S. senator would feel comfortable stating publicly that we should copy China, a nation with a notorious track record for civil liberties, is troubling.

Currently, the Chinese government has the power to disconnect parts of the Internet in times of war. The senator from Connecticut wants the American government to have that same power.

While public attention has been focused on the tragic Gulf coast oil spill and other serious problems, Democrats in Congress have been working quietly to lay the groundwork for this bill which will become, in effect, a technological iron curtain that turns over complete control of the Internet to the federal government.

This can open the door to potential governmental tyranny, something one would never have imagined could ever occur in America. But consider the facts. Many suspect that the real agenda driving this bill rests in an unshakeable determination to strangle this rapidly-growing alternative to traditional media because it is not part of the establishment, will not “play ball” with politicians … and will instead expose government misdeeds, cover-ups and cronyism.

In truth, this bill, if passed, can be used by those in power to literally silence anyone who is critical of government or individuals in government. That makes it a potentially very dangerous weapon … a threat to the freedom that Americans have always enjoyed… another threat to our Constitution.  (Remember what Obama’s Supreme Court Judge Nominee said",  “The Constitution changes with the times”… meaning at the whim of Progressive Judges to transform American, exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers designed. (Original Intent)

The pros and cons of this bill need to be debated openly and honestly — in full view of the American electorate

Jul 26th, 2010 | By Andrew at Off the Grid

Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life

Uncle Sam Wants You to Have an Online ID

As our daily interactions and transactions have become increasingly “wired,” we have yet to see any truly comprehensive attempts at securing online identities.

Our complex system of usernames and passwords is astoundingly outdated and increasingly prone to security breaches and theft. Yet, so far it has been mostly up to the individual to protect himself against various forms of identity fraud—with larger corporations taking relatively little responsibility.

But this could change in a big way. Right now the federal government is proposing a new system being referred to as the “Identity Ecosystem”—which was highlighted in the recently-released draft paper, “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace” [NSTIC].

The Identity Ecosystem would allow Americans to choose to obtain a single authenticated ID for online transactions. Like a passport, this single ID could travel with them online and be used to access everything from e-mail, to online health records and banking information. Furthermore, the Identity Ecosystem would only reveal the least amount of information necessary for each transaction.

To highlight the potential consumer benefits of such a system, the White House’s proposal uses the example of an individual filling a prescription online. Under the “smart ID card,” the pharmacy would only receive proof that the individual is over 18 and that the prescription is valid. No other information like birth date or the reason for the prescription.

Right now the only online ID management options available to consumers are tools like OpenID and Microsoft’s U-Prove. While these systems work across a variety of popular platforms such as Google (GOOG: 484.99 ,+0.64 ,+0.13%), Yahoo (YHOO: 13.76 ,-0.11 ,-0.79%) and Blogger, they are best used for cases of low-assurance clearance (i.e., personal e-mail and social networking sites). So-called “high-assurance” sites, like banking and health services, aren’t set up to support wide-access systems; they present too much of a liability.

What’s important to note is that membership in the smart ID program would be voluntary—both for consumers and companies. Individuals who wanted to become members might apply for a smart identity card through their state government. Because the program is voluntary, the government is stressing the importance of consumer confidence, education and usability.

It’s easy to see why consumers would benefit from an easy-to-use, secure and universal system. What’s harder to understand is the overall impact on e-commerce.

This program could eliminate the biggest obstacle to the e-commerce industry:  fear of identity theft and fraud, which could literally lead to billions of dollars in new online spending. It could also jumpstart health e-commerce, a market that has yet to take off because of serious privacy and security risks.

But the costs associated with implementing such a system would likely be enormous. The NSTIC has anticipated some kickback and will be offering businesses incentives such as tax credits/breaks, insurance, grants and loans for early adoption.

However, the question is: Are these incentives enough?

Although the NSTIC proposal is somewhat vague on this issue, the government will have to be prepared to work with the hardware industry in order to ensure that smart-card readers, scanners, etc. are integrated with standard systems. Obviously, consumers that adopt such a system with their existing hardware will need to somehow upgrade their systems. It will certainly require a lot of negotiations within the industry, as the government may run into disputes over patent ownership between companies with conflicting interests. In order to integrate the system into existing sites, companies will need to pour money and resources into writing code to integrate an ecosystem with existing Web assets.  And it is tantamount to their task that Web developers avoid security blunders in the process.

Consider how long it has taken us to get this far - and it’s easy to see how challenging it will be to teach common users how to successfully utilize an ecosystem that controls all of your online authentication with various “user-controlled” settings.

Should this system be implemented, consumers must be prepared for a “new” experience and accept that convenience over security can no longer be their daily mantra.

Implementing such a comprehensive system will be tough—and requires widespread and fairly immediate support. The government must be able to win over consumers and businesses at the same time—or the Identity Ecosystem is likely to become a chicken-egg problem—with consumers unwilling to join a program that businesses aren’t a part of, and vice versa.

Furthermore, many modern services are complex. Take for instance online health: this would require the collaboration of doctors, hospitals, insurance providers, pharmacies and individuals.

The bottom line here is that the White House’s proposal depends on businesses voluntarily agreeing to turn the current e-commerce system upside down, incur massive new costs and collaborate with competitors – a dim possibility, to say the least.

Although the White House should be applauded for this idea, it is doubtful that such a voluntary approach is likely to win over the big companies who will end up footing the bill or passing it on to consumers.

The private industry has been trying to enact this type of online assurance model for some time now, and with little success. It is far more likely that the White House will have to work with Congress to legislate this type of a reform.

Jay Bavisi is president and co-founder of the International Council of E-Commerce Consultants (EC-Council), a global organization that researches, consults and provides training on issues of e-commerce and cybersecurity. Jay is a regularly featured speaker at e-commerce and cybersecurity conferences in the U.S., Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

Then today we find out…

Yesterday we find out that the SEC has new expanded powers… today the administration is asking for new powers for the FBI.  The FBI will be able to demand all the Internet information of not only the company but all its employees… if they deem it a terrorist threat, without going to a judge first… and if they do access and take your information, you cannot even tell someone (under the guise of Homeland Security).  Hmmm… if it is a terrorist threat, why would they not want to go to a judge first?  What happened to the promise of the most transparent presidency ever???  What happened to American rights and the Constitution??

The Amnesty Memo… and Some Other Interesting Twists and Turns

  By: Robert VerBruggen  -  NRO – The Corner

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.
Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.
In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy — and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation’s de facto amnesty.

Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

Published July 29, 2010 - | FoxNews.com

Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill July 20. (AP Photo)

The federal court decision blocking key provisions of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect could light a fire under lawmakers considering an alternative -- and some say radical -- approach to reining in illegal immigration.

Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."

Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.

"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states.

Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent.

"It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."

He said immigrants are not by and large crossing illegally into the United States just to have children. For starters, he said the parents would have to wait 21 years before their children could sponsor them for legal residency.

Wildes, former mayor of Englewood, N.J., said changing the citizenship ground rules would fundamentally alter the foundation of the United States. It is a rarity for a country to offer citizenship to anyone just because they're born on that country's soil -- but that principle has shaped the U.S. population.

"America has always been a beacon to the immigrants," Wildes said. "As a result of that, we have made ourselves the greatest superpower in the world."

Children of immigrants include droves of accomplished Americans, including former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, born in Kentucky to Jewish immigrants from Europe; actor/dancer/singer Fred Astaire, born to an American mother and Austrian father; singer Christina Aguilera, whose father was born in Ecuador; and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, born to Italian immigrants -- not to mention President Obama, whose father is from Kenya.

Those looking to fiddle with the 14th Amendment, though, aren't looking to go after children of legal immigrants.

A bill introduced in April 2009 by former Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal called for the law to be changed so that "birthright citizenship" as prescribed in the 14th Amendment only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or national, or a legal immigrant.

That bill has languished in the House since last year, though it currently lists 92 co-sponsors.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce told Fox News last month that he was working with some of the co-sponsors, as he considered a similar bill at the state level in Arizona. Pearce was behind the Arizona law that was partially struck down by the court Wednesday.

Pearce contends that the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans.

"Illegal wasn't illegal then," he said. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have -- the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that."

A spokesman for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the co-sponsors, said he wouldn't be surprised if the bill started to kick back up "in the wake of Arizona."

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator is currently "discussing the issue" but would not say what route he would take.

"It is something he is very interested in pursuing further," Bishop said.

Brewer Seeks Dismissal of Obama Challenge to Immigration Law

(Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Arizona Immigration Law… But maybe without the authority?!?)

--> ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial <--

Friday, July 30, 2010 8:19:55 AM · by afraidfortherepublic · 1 replies

Canada Free press ^ | 7-29-10 | Publius Huldah

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face. Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the... 

Excerpt:

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you

See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”?  THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

 

Virginia legal opinion supports checks of immigration status

By Anita Kumar and Rosalind S. Helderman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 3, 2010

RICHMOND -- Virginia joined the national debate over immigration Monday when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II issued a legal opinion that authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police officers for any reason.

Previously, law enforcement officers in Virginia were required to investigate the legal status only of those who were arrested and jailed.

Cuccinelli's opinion is less stringent than the portion of an Arizona law that was stopped by a federal court last week. Under that law, Arizona authorities were required to question people who they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants.

"Our opinion basically said that Virginia law enforcement has the authority to make such inquiries so long as they don't extend the duration of a stop by any significant degree,'' Cuccinelli (R) said at a news conference Monday. "That's consistent with Supreme Court authority."

The attorney general issued the opinion in response to a request from Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who sought clarification on whether local police, conservation officers and zoning officials could inquire about legal status.

Marshall said he chose to seek the legal opinion because he feared that the Senate, under Democratic control, would not approve legislation permitting law enforcement officers to inquire about legal status during routine stops. Bills seeking similar powers were killed in the Senate in recent years.

Marshall wrote to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) on Monday asking him to codify Cuccinelli's opinion through executive order. He said he thinks that Virginia can avoid legal trouble by allowing but not mandating the checks by police.

By Anita Kumar and Rosalind S. Helderman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 3, 2010

RICHMOND -- Virginia joined the national debate over immigration Monday when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II issued a legal opinion that authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police officers for any reason.

Previously, law enforcement officers in Virginia were required to investigate the legal status only of those who were arrested and jailed.

Cuccinelli's opinion is less stringent than the portion of an Arizona law that was stopped by a federal court last week. Under that law, Arizona authorities were required to question people who they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants.

"Our opinion basically said that Virginia law enforcement has the authority to make such inquiries so long as they don't extend the duration of a stop by any significant degree,'' Cuccinelli (R) said at a news conference Monday. "That's consistent with Supreme Court authority."

The attorney general issued the opinion in response to a request from Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who sought clarification on whether local police, conservation officers and zoning officials could inquire about legal status.

Marshall said he chose to seek the legal opinion because he feared that the Senate, under Democratic control, would not approve legislation permitting law enforcement officers to inquire about legal status during routine stops. Bills seeking similar powers were killed in the Senate in recent years.

Marshall wrote to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) on Monday asking him to codify Cuccinelli's opinion through executive order. He said he thinks that Virginia can avoid legal trouble by allowing but not mandating the checks by police.

McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said the governor will review the opinion, saying it built upon an opinion he issued as attorney general in 2007. "That opinion detailed how local and state law enforcement officials can work in cooperation with federal authorities to ensure the criminal immigration laws of this nation are upheld and enforced," Martin said in a statement.

'The same inquiries'

In his opinion, Cuccinelli also wrote that local law enforcement officers can arrest those they suspect of committing criminal violations of immigration laws -- crossing the border -- but not those they think have violated civil immigration statutes -- overstaying visas. But he says that checking immigration status is different than arresting for a violation, and that law enforcement can inquire.

"Virginia law enforcement officers have the authority to make the same inquiries as those contemplated by the new Arizona law. So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime," he writes.

Cuccinelli said, however, that local law enforcement can arrest those suspected of violating criminal laws, but that it is generally "inadvisable" to arrest those suspected of committing civil violations. "The ability to arrest lies clearly when there is a criminal offense and it is decidedly unclear where there is a civil offense," he said.

The attorney general's legal opinion was issued amid a growing national debate about immigration. A U.S. district judge temporarily blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's law, which took effect last week. Nearly 20 states have introduced bills similar to the Arizona law, and nine states, including Virginia, are filing appellate briefs supporting Arizona.  (Read Rest of Article Here)

CA: Another Reason to Vote “NO” - Against Jerry Brown

Please read, save and this message from Bernadine Smith

Better Read This… Especially Californians!!

This is a very important. Keep it,  in case!   This early evening  -- Monday, July 26, 2010  -- actually about 6:30 p.m. --   on a radio station out of Fresno, California  -- KMJ are the call letters of the station -- while I was getting ready to go out to the grocery store and had the radio on, and I heard a number of people reporting that when they visited their doctors, they were being asked  if they owned a gun -- also if they were ever depressed  -- and if they ever felt like committing suicide.  I knew the doctors were lining people up for gun confiscation if they admitted to ever being depressed.  I forget what it was that caused me to call in and get lined up on this talk show, but maybe it was the cynical nature of the people telling what the doctors were doing.  They expressed in one way or another that they knew what was up.  One man gave the name of a big gun protective organization that was aware of the motive behind these quizzes by doctors:  the gun grab is underway!   It has already been reported that the Small Arms Treaty will cause the government to force every person to surrender any hand guns they possess.  Hillary has signed the Small Arms Treaty already.   I felt compelled to  call in and get listed as a caller on this talk show.  I scribbled main notes that I would have to refer to in order to keep my report clear and understandable.  My turn came up on the show.   When they called my name I told the moderator these things:

"Some years ago, about 1975, the federal government had over all the States the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration  (L.E.A.A.)  and the moderator acted as if he knew of it.  It was put over all the States in the nation with the intention of revising their state's Standards and Goals, the result of which was to make the nation more amenable to control by a military government.  I said we saw it happen in California,  but L.E.A.A. was assigned to do the same thing to every state.  California used 17 working citizen committees.  What they did was to be "the voice of ALL the people of California".  When these committees were finished with what they were supposed to revise, they were dismissed and these participants were disbanded.  Their recommendations and changes of the State's Standards and Goals were put into what was called the "Governor's Master Set".  However, after they were gone, and fully dismissed, a page was added at the back of their work  in this Master Set, and it  was numbered as the 340th Page.  This page called for a total prohibition in California of  all hand gun ownership,  for establishment of a "Surrender Agency" to be created, and for people and cars to be stopped and frisked by police searching for handguns.  There was a date when all handguns would no longer be allowed in the State of California.   "What this group did was a crime", I said.  The L.E.A.A. worked the other States over as well.  Reagan was supposed to enact the whole Master Set (including this 340th Page) into law; however we caught Reagan and he, knowing he wanted to run for the presidency, did not sign the proclamation to pull all this into law. The whistle was blown on him, but  Jerry Brown (currently trying to run to be California's next governor after Schwarzenegger leaves) was then the governor of California who followed Reagan as governor.  Governor Jerry Brown would not allow us to see him on this subject so we could stop him and Page 340 from going through.  I said I spoke to a member of one of the 17 committees who told me that she had never missed a meeting of her sub-committee; nor missed a meeting of the full committees, and she told me that these committees never studied the gun issue!!!!

Some where, as I was telling all this, as clearly and factually and as calmly as possible for anyone to do, the moderator cut me off and said we have to hurry along. I found that I was cut off, even though I could hear him talking about "head lice" -- a new subject he wanted to discuss, but my access had been cut off from the audience.   He himself went on about this head lice subject, on and on and on, despite the fact that an interesting highly controversial subject had been under way.   The listeners like talking about the gun grab, but  he cut me off.   I believe the word had gotten to him to have me stopped right now.  I do not know exactly when I was cut off, or what part of what I was telling was eliminated.  They have a delay switch, I am told, where they can cut off what was already said, but I do not know how far back in seconds they can erase what had been said.

The fact is that the State government had "doctored  up" the Master Set, by inserting stuff in it that was never authorized by the people. Not even studied or discussed!   But by falsifying the Master Set, they have put themselves in a position to claim that the Second Amendment no longer applies to the nation;  that the " voice of the people",  (in the 1975-1976 time period)  changed and  superseded what James Madison, Patrick Henry and other founding fathers did to protect our natural right  in a Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is now superseded by the people of today.  This is the basis upon which they will justify taking away the guns.  (It is unconstitutional, dishonest and illegal…  it is the Progressive way!) I did not get to say that, but it is the fact we must now face.  The old deadline is no doubt superseded by a more modern future date.  All the callers who were so  sure that the government could not  take away the guns  must deal with the fact that they have been defrauded. 

The people do not  realize the jeopardy they are in. If a member of the family has depression, or are on certain drugs, that family will lose all their guns. We all know that the Bill of Rights is not subject to repeal, revoke or rescinding, but these anti-gunners have set themselves up with Page 340 as the "voice of the people"  as their grounds for disarming the people.  They will claim
that the people have superseded the "Bill of Rights"  and have disavowed the Second Amendment!  

It appears to some gun owners that this is the reason that  Jerry Brown wants to be elected governor.    He will play along with the plan for completely disarming every Californian.   He will be Obama's buddy for disarming the people of California, and once again be the pilot governor in this act.   Page 340 was never taken out of the Master Set.  The original deadline on it could easily be updated to suit today's time period and the damage the Small Arms Treaty will do to this nation. 

Now, please pass this message on to others on your list to let them know why doctors are engaging in asking questions as well as teachers quizzing the kids in schools about whether they have guns in their homes.  You will find Page 340 on my website. www.libertygunrights.com   John Kennedy signed Public Law 87-297 in September of 1961 which calls for the elimination of armaments of all kinds.  All of our presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have participated in removing our safeguards and rebuilding us toward world government operation.

This is all I can tell you right now.  Sometimes it takes a lot of nerve to be faithful to our Founding Fathers, but I had to expose this on the air today.  Please keep a record of this.

Bernadine  Smith    www.libertygunrights.com

Urgent: 3-Day Journey Part 2 - Please Watch

We are only steps away from having our Republic turned into a Democracy… exactly what our Founding Fathers warned us about… They purposely gave us a Republic for Democracies always fail!!!

If we allow them to do away with the ‘electoral college’ we sign our death warrant and give the Progressives to steal elections

Mass. Legislature Approves Plan to Bypass Electoral College

OUR DUTY, BECAUSE WE ARE A REPUBLIC!  The real joy and beauty of living in a Republic is that the people themselves are in charge of maintaining their liberty, but they can only do this by remaining an armed nation! Unless they possess the proper tools, they cannot uphold their liberty!  Who has any authority to support legislation which obtrudes upon this duty? Does it make any sense whatsoever for the people to provide a salary for any public official who supports legislation which infringes upon the peoples' right to arms, and obtrudes in the peoples' duty?

The real problem with a Republic is that it requires an educated public to survive and that we do not allow our Republic to be undermined because if we are not educated about it and our history and allow groups, like the Progressives to steal it from us.  Getting rid of the Electoral College is just that…!

Inside a Radical Manifesto

The Weather Underground recognized that revolution usually takes two steps

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

FNC By Glenn Beck

The Weather Underground recognized that revolution usually takes two steps

I just want to say that I, for one, am proud to be an American. I wanted to get that off my chest, because I sure haven't heard radical jingoism like that lately. Last I checked, America is the beacon of hope in the world. People aren't risking life and limb to swim through shark-infested waters or barren deserts to start a new life in France. They come here — to the land of opportunity, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I don't hear much talk about the great promise of America. What I do hear a lot about how the police are acting stupidly in Massachusetts and they're about to be racist in Arizona. I hear about the mistakes America has made and I'm constantly reminded about her shortcomings. I hear about the greed and how violent the people that wave teabags are. I hear how stupid we are. How our system has failed. How we need to be fundamentally transformed.

Do you believe that? I sure don't. But our president and those around him do.

PART 1 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

On Monday night, I showed you the Weatherman manifesto from 1969 and how they and other likeminded revolutionaries are now in very powerful positions. They hate America — hate it. But they've been washed clean. Regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein brushed off criticism: "I feel very uncomfortable with their past, but neither of them is thought of as horrible types now. So far as most of us know, they are legitimate members of the community."

That's great that you aren't worried, Cass. They're not "thought of" as radicals now. But here's the worrisome part: The Weatherman manifesto notes that revolution must be clandestine. Kind of like Nancy Pelosi saying we'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Read the bill? Why read the bill?

PART 2 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 3 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 4 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

MANDATORY SERVICE FOR EVERYONE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18 AND 42.

Some of you might think Americans cannot be FORCED into serving the government; think again - and READ THE BILL.  Please talk to your family and neighbors to let them know about this.

This bill is on the move - it was introduced by the Democrats (Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY15]) and was referred to committee on July 15, 2010.

Below is the short summary of the bill, and links where you can view the status and entire content of this bill.

H. R. 5741  -  To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

PDF of the full bill:  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5741ih.txt.pdf

Status of this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-5741

Jul 15, 2010: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Make no mistake, this is mandatory service required by the President for whatever purpose he sees fit.  During the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel talked about the National Civilian Security Force Obama wanted, and Rahm stated it would be mandatory for those between 18 and 25 years old.  Clearly they are expanding the age group for this mandatory National Civilian Security Force.

If you wondered what he meant when he talked about this Civilian Force during the campaign, no need to wonder anymore.

Is this okay with you?

PART 5 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

So… Where are the Weatherman Now?

Beginning of a 3-Day Journey… Please Watch

Nutroots…. Uh Netroots Nation Attacks Glenn Beck and American Patriots…

Please go to: GlennBeck.com and read the Weatherman’s Manifesto; it is imperative for all of us to understand!

As promised: The Weathermen manifesto
The radical playbook that Glenn believes the President and like minded revolutionaries around him are using to achieve their ultimate dream: a classless state controlled by government. It's quite a charge - but when you look at the views, steps and progress made, it's tough to argue this ISN'T the goal. Read it HERE and don't miss Glenn TONIGHT on Fox News at 5pm as he picks this radical manifesto apart.

Inside a Radical Manifesto

July 28, 2010 - 22:16 ET

I just want to say that I, for one, am proud to be an American. I wanted to get that off my chest, because I sure haven't heard radical jingoism like that lately. Last I checked, America is the beacon of hope in the world.  Full Story

----------

I, along with many people who are much smarter than I, warned everyone two years ago to educate themselves on the Weimar Republic…  Why?… because the lessons there, of what was coming, were endless, and it is now happening.  My parents lived through that time so I know the stories well.  Below is one of many comments by someone else who lived through it.

All the signs and warnings were there… just like in the Weimar Republic (before Obama was elected and throughout the past 18-months).  The difference is that we had those facts as a model and warning to learn by…  start educating yourself and standing up now!  It is almost too late!! M~

Miguel Angel Fleitas Jr.3:23 pm

I left Cuba in 1980 in the Mariel Boat lift at the age of 12. I witnessed the struggle my father had to go through under Socialism. I admired him for doing what he had to do for us, the family. I have come to love this nation, my adopted nation and as you can see in the picture I am part of the United States armed forces, the USA Navy. Petty Officer Second class. I chose to serve to give back to a nation that has given me Freedom, something many do not know what it is. I will not let Socialism come into my life again and my family. No way, no how.

Those of us who have gone through it, have been warning others. I did the same in Venezuela in 1997 and the people over there told me it could never happen. Well now they tell me how wrong they were. I face the same situation even inside the military. They tell me the same, it could never happen here. I tell them that no one though 9/11 could happen but it did. I fear for this nation from an outside enemy surrounding us & internal one.

Please Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET & 2p.m. and 11p.m. PT on Fox Cable News Channel… and especially this week

United Nations:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Finally, after waiting nine months, to complete the task, HJR 369, the resolution urging our US Senators to REJECT the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, passed the State Senate on Monday evening, February 22. Readers may recall the problem we had in the Senate on the last day of the 2009 session (Here).  With little debate, the final vote was 26-3-1. It has been sent to the Governor for his signature.

We are very grateful to the 26 Senators who supported HJR 369.  We do wonder why the others are not concerned about ratifying a treaty that  would, based on Article VI of the US Constitution, become the law of the land and give to the United Nations and an 18-member committee meeting in Geneva the authority to oversee and enforce the provisions of the document that would move the recognized 'needs' of children into 'rights under international law' and could interfer with the right of families to raise their children as they see fit as well as interfere with states rights and family law.

Senators voting aye were: Beavers, Black, Bunch, Burchett, Burks, Crowe, Faulk, Finney L, Ford, Gresham, Henry, Herron, Jackson, Johnson, Kelsey, Ketron, McNally, Norris, Overbey, Southerland, Stewart, Tracy, Watson, Woodson, Yager, Mr. Speaker Ramsey -- 26.
Senators voting no were: Berke, Harper, Marrero -- 3.
Senators present and not voting were: Haynes -- 1.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by Whitney Ann Dotson

How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity by Aaron Young

Watch: Parental Rights and Your Rights as a Parent in America under the United Nations Convention

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed by the Clinton Administration in 1995, but, thankfully,  has never been ratified by the United State Senate.  First, ANY United Nations treaty is suspect on its face.  Second, according to Article VI, any treaty ratified by the US Senate becomes 'law of the land':

Article VI

"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The United Nations has no business telling parents how to raise their children.

Family law has always been a 'states rights' issue and a UN treaty should not be overriding our state laws.

Because of the Democrat control Sen. Barbara Boxer (California) wants to bring this treaty up for ratification.

This MUST NOT happen.  Rep. Mike Bell (R-Riceville) has introduced a resolution urging the US Senate to reject this proposal.

*HJR 0369 by *Bell

Memorials, Congress - Urges United States Senate to reject ratification of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

On June 1, 2009, HRJ 369 passed the House 70-20-2.
On June 15, is passed the Senate Finance Committee 8-1-1.
On June 18, it was on the Senate floor for the third time after having been posponed two times. Because it had been left off the Calendar, a motion was made to suspend the rules to place it back before the body.  Themotion to suspend  requires 22 votes. When the votes went up it was20-11, meaning the motion failed. HRJ 369 will be brought back to the calendar in January!

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child document

In additional to reading the "Ten Things You Need to Know" below, you will want to check out these links:

"Child Rights" Forces Mobilize

UN Treaty Jeopardizes Homeschool Freedom in Britain

ParentalRights.org

Refuting the "Myths" from ChildRightsCampaign.org

Understanding the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

List of Organizations supporting this effort

In addition to this state effort, at the Federal level, a Parental Rights Amendment to the US Constitution is being introduced to permanently protect parents rights.

H.J.RES.42
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights.

Why we need the Parental Rights Amendment

List of Congressional Supporters

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law.  It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation.  Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty.  This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures.  This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
5. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

‘I Am a Child’ is great and impressively delivered speech by a smart but brainwashed kid… brainwashed by fear-mongering leftist Progressive teachers (and who knows who else)… and you can bet she didn’t write this speech!  Obama doesn’t even write his own speeches and books, as we are finding out more and more!  Most of the things she fears, “they”, the Progressives in charge of our government, created… and the UN should be one of her greatest fears! See Agenda 21, which the United States signed in 1992 but Americans are still in the dark about.

I am the first one who believes we should be better stewards of our earth and kinder and more responsible to the humans, animals and flora we share it with.  I am a huge animal lover, trumpeter against the evils of bad Big Government, Big Pharma and Big Agriculture who are knowingly killing us, if not purposely  But, they, especially the UN, have no intention of fixing anything. Everything they are passing will make things worse for kids and generations of the future.  You can hear she has been programmed to hate capitalism and her Country.  America is not perfect and unfortunately we cannot help the whole world… or maybe we could if the corrupt governments of the places we keep sending our aid and money would really use it for the people instead of stealing it, but if America slips away, the world will be a much crueler place!!

I am Only a Child - Video

I am Only a Child -  Facebook

The UN promotes programs and beliefs like:

 Cap and Trade

Agenda 21

The Rights of the Child Treaty (anti-family - ParentalRights.org)

The Small Arms Ban Treaty (anti the U.S. second Amendment)

Codex Alimentarius

Senate Bill S510 Makes it Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade, or Sell Homegrown Good

and the list goes on… 

Progressives including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promote them as well.

“A total population of 250-300 million people in the United States, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”— Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, think about it!

AGENDA 21 - DEPOPULATION 2009 PART 1 - Video

-----------

United Nations Agenda 21  was signed by the United States in 1992!  What do you know about it?

AGENDA 21 Videos and Why Are Americans IGNORANT of ‘AGENDA 21’?

Agenda 21 - by pincerpal

AGENDA 21 - DEPOPULATION 2009 PART 1 – Video

San Joaquin Valley CA Federally Created Dust Bowl – Water Crisis Meeting

Related:

GN:  Sustainable Development – Stealth Globalism

Sean Hannity Travels to California’s Fields to get the Water Turned On

Journalist Files Charges Against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder

Charges Filed Against Obama, WHO and UN For Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder {1 of 3} – Video

AGENDA 21 Videos and Why Are Americans IGNORANT of ‘ AGENDA 21’

Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

We Have Until December… (Thank God this was averted because of  ClimateGate… so keep praying and fighting!!)

The Dumbing Down of America Series

Keep praying and searching for the truth America… It is our only hope and will set you free!

Beginning of a 3-Day Journey… Please Watch

This and Parts 2 & 3 Are Important for Every American to watch and I ask that you please do.

June 18th, 1969… The Manifesto From the Weathermen Underground

• Where are the Weathermen now?
  • Rehabilitating Radicals

Rehabilitating Radicals

Where Are the Weathermen Now?

FNC -  By Glenn Beck.. Revolution, man

I believe there's one document that explains the reason for many of the actions we're seeing from this administration. It's the June 18th, 1969 manifesto from The Weathermen.

I know this will seem to many like ancient history, but if you don't know history you won't know where you are and you won't know your future. This manifesto sounds crazy to us, sure, but judging by their actions, there sure are an awful lot of people in and around the administration who buy into the philosophy contained in these pages.

Can you ever remember a time where so many Americans — including the president — have labeled America the bad guy? How many apology tours has the president gone on around the world? Even "Captain America" isn't safe. A movie about the comic character is coming out, but according to the director he "wants to serve his country, but he's not this sort of jingoistic American flag-waver."

He's Captain America. If he's waving American principles, I'm cool with that. But even Superman isn't doing that anymore. If you saw the last movie, they changed truth, justice and the American way to: truth, justice — and that's it.

Where is this hatred for America coming from? From people who share the ideology found in this manifesto. It was "submitted" by a handful of Weathermen radicals, most notably Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jeff Jones.

The Weathermen were an offshoot of the radical group Students for a Democratic America (SDS). They formed in 1969 and the main goal for their "revolution" was "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: World communism" and to "achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat."

They talk about Cloward and Piven and collapsing the system from within. This is very important, because that's where we are headed. People in the media will say that these people are not directly connected to the White House. But they won't ask a more important connection: Have the views from the radicals of the '60s, '70s '80s, '90s — and even more recently — changed? What was their pivot point?

These guys wanted to destroy America. What caused them to act this way?

• Jeff Jones grew up in California. His dad worked for Disney and was a pacifist and conscientious objector to the war. His beliefs were not well thought out and he was easily swept into the radical movement when he went to college in 1965

• Bernadine Dohrn grew up in Wisconsin in an upper class suburb and attended college — the time of her first-known dive into radicalism. She's known for uttering this unfortunate statement about the Charles Manson murders: "Dig it... First they killed those pigs then they ate dinner in the same room with them then they even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach. Wild!"

Dorhn, now a respected member of society, says she was "lucky they didn't kill anyone." Apparently she doesn't consider Ted Gold, Terry Robbins and Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughton
"people" because they did die in a premature explosion of some bombs they were making in 1970. Dohrn was also an FBI 10 most-wanted fugitive from 1970 to 1973.

• Bill Ayers grew up in the upper-middle class suburbs of Illinois. His dad was CEO of a giant utility company, Commonwealth Edison. He attended an exclusive prep school — maybe that's why he uses such fancy language — but says he "hated every minute there" and liked the "free thought" he found at the University of Michigan. Ayers was key in turning towards militancy. He now says about the bombings that he doesn't "have anything to apologize for. I wish we had done more"

More?

In 1969 they bombed The Haymarket police statue; they bombed several Chicago police cars parked in a precinct parking lot. Then they decide to go underground. In 1970, they were suspected of a bombing at the San Francisco Police Department. It was about that time that the three Weather Underground members were killed when the bomb they were preparing for Fort Dix went off.

Ayers ran from the law and went deep underground. It was during that time he married Bernadine Dohrn. But the bombings continued: The National Guard Association building in D.C.; an NYPD headquarters. And let's not forget the 1981 armored truck robbery which they stole $1.6 million and eventually led to a shootout with police, leaving two police officers and one Brinks guard dead and wounding several others.

Their most notorious bombings were:

• March 1, 1971: The United States Capitol in "protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos"

• May 19, 1972 (Ho Chi Minh's birthday): The Pentagon in "retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi"

• January 29, 1975: The bombing of the United States Department of State Building in "response to escalation in Vietnam"

If there is a turning point in any of these people, I haven't heard it. And it matters. Why? Just look where they are now. These violent radicals aren't just washing cars. We've flipped places. The Man is now the activist and the activist is now The Man:

PART 1 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

• Jeff Jones has his own consulting firm that helps "progressive groups achieve their goals." He's on the board of Movement for a Democratic Society, working closely with SDS (which is growing the new Weathermen and Weather Underground — now available possibly in your child's high schools now) and he's a member of the Apollo Alliance. They, with funding from Tides, helped write the stimulus package. Unconstitutional, sure, but Jeff Jones helps decide where your tax money through the stimulus is going

• In 1997, Bill Ayers won citizen of the year award for his work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project. He's a professor at the University of Chicago. He served on the board with President Obama at the Woods Foundation. They were neighbors and Obama attended a campaign event at his house. He's now a respected and influential member of society

• Bernadine Dohrn, married to Bill Ayers, she is now associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and was director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center. Teaching kids — that's great. Dohrn (and Ayers) played a key role in organizing Free Gaza Movement, which launched the flotilla whose crew attacked Israeli soldiers who boarded, stabbing them violently and even throwing one over the deck

By the way, they have two adult children and have legal guardianship of Chesa Boudin, son of Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert. Boudin and Gilbert were also former Weather Underground members. Kathy was convicted in 1984 of felony murder for her participation in an armed robbery that resulted in the killing of three people. She later became a public health expert while in prison. She was released from prison in 2003. David Gilbert is still in prison, serving 75 years to life.

Speaking of prison, let's talk about:

• Linda Sue Evans, a Weather Underground member. She was sentenced to 40 years in the 1981 cop-killing that I mentioned earlier. In 1990 she was convicted of other violent acts. Her sentence was commuted in 2001 by Bill Clinton. Today she's out there campaigning for inmates' rights as an organizer for "All of Us or None," a group that "combats the many forms of discrimination that [felons, prisoners and former prisoners], as the result of felony convictions." She's pushing for felon voting rights.

In 2008, Evans spoke at a nice event — the Soros Justice Fellowships meeting, on a panel for prison reform alongside the executive director of the Ella Baker Center, which is Van Jones' organization. In fact, Evans received the Soros Justice Fellowship in 2001, awarded to "outstanding individuals" who will implement innovative projects to reform the United States' criminal justice system.

Soros... Soros... where have I heard that name before?

Anyway:

• Mark Rudd, another Weather Underground member, now teaches at a junior college in New Mexico

These violent radicals have dropped the radical prose for the radical ends. They've been washed, shined up and put back on the shelf as normal members of society.

The most dangerous man in America, Cass Sunstein, says of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn: "I feel very uncomfortable with their past, but neither of them is thought of as horrible types now — so far as most of us know, they are legitimate members of the community."

"So far as most of us know" — who talks like that?

No one is asking the question: Do you still hate America and want to destroy it? And the whole dictator thing, I'd like to call that a crazy theory, but have you noticed the trends that we're heading toward?

During the progressive Netroots convention, President Obama said there's still work to be done:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm confident that America is once again moving forward...

Still, change hasn't come fast enough for too many Americans. I know that. It hasn't come fast enough for me either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

What more is there to be done? Have we not given you everything you asked for in order to "save" us? Health care? Done. Stimulus? Done. Financial reform? Done.

He said he didn't want single-payer. So why do we still have to work on health care? After financial reform, government controls 70 percent of the economy. How much more control do you want? Well, Phase 2 of the Weather Underground plan: Install a dictator.

Oh, I know that's "heavy" — to use '60s lingo — but is it possible? That's for you to decide. The only thing you can go by are their actions.

PART 2 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 3 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 4 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

PART 5 can now be seen here!  -  CLICK FOR VIDEO

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency

Please Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET & 2p.m. and 11p.m. on Fox Cable News Channel… and especially this week

Nutroots…. Uh Netroots Nation Attacks Glenn Beck and American Patriots…

Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Read it yourself:  Eight Stages of the Process of Social Movement Success

The MAP  -  Model for Organizing Social Movements

Glenn talked about this on TV last night and on radio today - it's the 'how to' from a career leftist activist. You've been working and raising a family, these guys study movements. But there are lessons for the Tea Parties to learn because it’s at a critical stage that each and every movement faces. Take a look at the MAP and listen to Glenn's comments today. ( Transcript, Insider Audio, FREE Insider Extreme clip)

We are at Stage 5 and need to step up our efforts and keep praying to get through this stage and move on to victory!!