Barack Obama 2012

[Anchor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown

More detail http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/...-SOPA_blackout

In less than 18hours from when I posted this...

[Referee]

Chris Hedges a very active journalist will take on the White House over leagality of NDAA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GujYTtGj1gU

[DreamsInDigital]

Yay, go him! Maybe he can rally the american people and make it a class action.

[ViralSpiral]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E_XBgig_ZQM

[Bryn ap Gwilym]

The Glider communities response with its friendly warnings.

[Referee]

I went over to Wikipedia to do some research last night I was redirected to get a hold of my Senators and Congressmen..............So I did............ And Maria Cantwells office replied this morning her is what she said......

Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.



On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.



On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.



Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.



The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.



Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.




Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

[Jcannon83]

In this make believe world we live in.

Could this just be another way to control the people.

For example.

Obama has a meeting with the person who 'proposed' the sopa bill. But the meeting was before the proposal and Obama asked him to propose the bill and get lots of congressmen to back the bill. Knowing full well that we the people would greatly oppose the bill of Sopa and pippa. Then Obama comes out and says no, we wont support it and will make sure it does not become law. Thus making Obama the hero again and winning votes in the next presidential election.

Or have I just turned into a cynical bastard.

[Phoenix1304]

Can't help wondering if SOPA/PIPA are just distractions, displacement tactics, especially in light of this:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bOE1HFEL8XA

[Bryn ap Gwilym]

Alex Jones interviews Richard Stallman (rms).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TZlkr-6EcaM

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2xeSFzAroD0

[Kristin]

Chris Hedges, one of my personal heros, has filed a law suit against Obama. Worth looking into... I personally am delighted that he is once again taking a stand for our freedoms.
From the Heart,
Wormhole


Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have “disappeared” into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Section 1031 of the bill defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”

I met regularly with leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. I used to visit Palestine Liberation Organization leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad, in Tunis when they were branded international terrorists. I have spent time with the Revolutionary Guard in Iran and was in northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey with fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. All these entities were or are labeled as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. What would this bill have meant if it had been in place when I and other Americans traveled in the 1980s with armed units of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front guerrillas in El Salvador? What would it have meant for those of us who were with the southern insurgents during the civil war in Yemen or the rebels in the southern Sudan? I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But that does not make me one.

Once a group is deemed to be a terrorist organization, whether it is a Palestinian charity or an element of the Uighur independence movement, the military can under this bill pick up a U.S. citizen who supported charities associated with the group or unwittingly sent money or medical supplies to front groups. We have already seen the persecution and closure of Islamic charity organizations in the United States that supported the Palestinians. Now the members of these organizations can be treated like card-carrying “terrorists” and sent to Guantanamo.

But I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up. Consider the arcane criteria that can make you a suspect in our new military-corporate state. The Department of Justice considers you worth investigating if you are missing a few fingers, if you have weatherproof ammunition, if you own guns or if you have hoarded more than seven days of food in your house. Adding a few of the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement to this list would be a seamless process. On the whim of the military, a suspected “terrorist” who also happens to be a U.S. citizen can suffer extraordinary rendition—being kidnapped and then left to rot in one of our black sites “until the end of hostilities.” Since this is an endless war that will be a very long stay.

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled. So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn’t support it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military. “The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.

But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com


Chris Hedges is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Chris Hedges

http://www.cbc.ca/books/2012/01/chri...ing-obama.html

Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WoqLT5yqE1k

[lindabaker]

Hi, Wormhole! It has been a while. I have always enjoyed your contributions. Linda

[Sidney]

The law could fill the US concentration camps in a day. SCARY I hope the lawsuit is taken seriously.

[Kristin]

I believe the suit will be taken seriously. It is done by a serious contender who has serious lawyers on the case. They will take this one to the supreme court if you ask me. I just hope the rest of us aren't in jail by then... seriously.
From the Heart,
Wormhole

More on Chris Hedges here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...es-and-Reality

[crested-duck]

Turn Over the Chessboard


by Diane Sare -- LaRouche National Candidates Slate

Have you succumbed to the stupid election game? Have you decided that even though you don’t really like anybody running, that you have to choose X because he’s better than Y? Don’t do it!!! These candidates, from Obama to the silly Republicans are a disaster, which our nation cannot afford. The reason we are in this mess is because YOU, the voter have been too willing to go along with a cast of candidates hand picked for you by the enemies of our republic.

If Obama were to be thrown out of office under Section IV of the 25th Amendment, that would turn over the chess board. And why shouldn’t he be impeached? His serious violations of the Constitution are many, and Professor Francis Boyle has even offered his legal advice free to any Congressman prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings.

So what’s the hold up? It’s the same hold up that causes YOU to keep contributing to either party, and voting for stupid candidates when they are all acting against your interests and the interests of the United States. Stop playing the game!

The LaRouche Slate is organizing a second American Revolution. We are running for US Congress, but we, with Lyndon LaRouche, must act for the Presidency. The work done by Ben Franklin and his younger collaborators to create the United States in the first place is a good model. They defeated the British Empire before they had a President. With the groundbreaking scientific work being done by our Basement Team, and LaRouche’s expertise on economy and statecraft, there is no crisis facing mankind that we could not solve, provided YOU decide to jump out of the cage of popular opinion, where you are thrown a few scraps that make you want to vomit, and work with us

[DeBron]

My question is why is he suing Barack Obama? The bill, like all bills was written by congressmen. Why not sue them all? It just seems like an easy out to go after the head guy when it is quite easy to see who sponsored and wrote the bill.

Someone is also requiring him to come down to Georgia to prove that he is a citizen.

People keep ignoring this one idea.....if he is not a citizen, then the electoral college should be sued for fraud or at least sued for malfeasance.

You know, just how when a gas station operator is prosecuted when he sells cigarettes or liquor to a minor.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Kristin]

Posted by DeBron (here)
My question is why is he suing Barack Obama? The bill, like all bills was written by congressmen. Why not sue them all? It just seems like an easy out to go after the head guy when it is quite easy to see who sponsored and wrote the bill.

Someone is also requiring him to come down to Georgia to prove that he is a citizen.

People keep ignoring this one idea.....if he is not a citizen, then the electoral college should be sued for fraud or at least sued for malfeasance.

You know, just how when a gas station operator is prosecuted when he sells cigarettes or liquor to a minor.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Actually, it's easier to sue one person then all of congress and the senate. Also, Obama is the one who signed his name on the bill and passed it when he promised publicly to veto it. He is responsible to read, overview, and decide if a bill has the best interests of the public at heart. The end of the line is the presidents veto. Here's a three minute video on the subject: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

[DeBron]

Posted by Wormhole (here)

Posted by DeBron (here)
My question is why is he suing Barack Obama? The bill, like all bills was written by congressmen. Why not sue them all? It just seems like an easy out to go after the head guy when it is quite easy to see who sponsored and wrote the bill.

Someone is also requiring him to come down to Georgia to prove that he is a citizen.

People keep ignoring this one idea.....if he is not a citizen, then the electoral college should be sued for fraud or at least sued for malfeasance.

You know, just how when a gas station operator is prosecuted when he sells cigarettes or liquor to a minor.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Actually, it's easier to sue one person then all of congress and the senate. Also, Obama is the one who signed his name on the bill and passed it when he promised publicly to veto it. He is responsible to read, overview, and decide if a bill has the best interests of the public at heart. The end of the line is the presidents veto. Here's a three minute video on the subject: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

Nothing worth doing is ever easy. What are your thoughts on the rest of my post? Thank you for the clip.

It is indeed easier to sue one person, however that would still leave those who actually thought it up (and many other atrocious ideas) free to do it again, or something worse.


Smile....its beautiful

[DreamsInDigital]

The problem is, voting is rigged and no one , not the american people have voted into office anyone since Bush Sr. If not further back. The Electronic Voting machines just made this worse. If there wasn't media manipulation, voting and poling fraud going on, the Ron Paul would be strongly on the road to being the next president, and be winning right now.

[Kristin]

LOL, thanks for taking my little joke as it was intended. I haven't looked into the citizenship aspect of the President Elect. The reason why has two parts. First part is that I'm living in Canada and thus have been dealing with the issues of our government being usurped by Harper and his Bush/Corporate Elite BS. The second is that since Obama has been in office this long the damage is already done, if he is pulled out and shamed at this point... well what's the point. My thoughts on suing the Electoral College are that it would be great to dismantle it entirely. I think that it was an unconstitutional idea to begin with and should be dismantled. That would have to end by the Supreme Court ruling that the EC is in fact unconstitutional and must come to an end. I would like to see a law suit that created this possibility and would support its conception.

My hope and the desire of suing the President with concerns to the bill is to over turn this bill and create a safer place for Americans to live by preserving the rights of it's citizens. To keep our presidential office honest and accountable for it's actions. To quell the idea that it is OK for the President Elect to outright LIE to the citizens of the US and then do exactly the opposite. We've become so used to this that in many ways we have become emotionally defeated and feel hopeless to change... Hedges is doing a great service here.
Form the Heart,
Wormhole

Dreams in Digital just sent me this link, I do not know if it is genuine, but interesting to say the least. Thanks Dreams. Perhaps another thread if you wish to pursue the citizenship aspect?
http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/p/oba...cate-file.html

[GlassSteagallfan]

Another Murder By Obama's Drones

January 26, 2012 • 8:51AM

On Saturday in Somalia, the U.S. fired missiles from a drone and killed the 27-year-old Lebanon-born, ex-British citizen, Bilal el-Berjawi. His wife had given birth 24 hours earlier, and the speculation is that the U.S. located him when his wife called to give him the news.

According to a column by Glenn Greenwald, "Roughly one year ago, El-Berjawi was stripped of his British citizenship, obtained when his family moved to that country when he was an infant, through the use of a 2006 British anti-Terrorism law — passed after the London subway bombing — that the current government is using with increasing frequency to strip alleged Terrorists with dual nationality of their British citizenship (while providing no explanation for that act). El-Berjawi's family vehemently denies that he is involved with Terrorism, but he was never able to appeal the decree against him for this reason:

"Berjawi is understood to have sought to appeal against the order, but lawyers representing his family were unable to take instructions from him amid concerns that any telephone contact could precipitate a drone attack. Obviously, those concerns were valid.

So, first the U.S. tries to assassinate people, then it causes legal rulings against them to be issued because the individuals, fearing for their life, are unable to defend themselves. Meanwhile, no explanation or evidence is provided for either the adverse government act or the assassination: it is simply secretly decreed and thus shall it be.

According to Greenwald, a Daily Beast report says that the Obama administration is finally going to break its silence on the Awlaki killing, but instead of handing over the memo justifying his extrajudicial assassination, they merely intend to send Attorney General Eric Holder out to make a major address on the administration's national-security record. Embedded in the speech will be a carefully worded but firm defense of the government's right to target U.S. citizens.

"An early draft of Holder's speech identified Awlaki by name, but in a concession to concerns from the intelligence community, all references to the American citizen were removed. As currently written, the speech makes no overt mention of the Awlaki operation, and reveals none of the intelligence the administration relied on in carrying out his killing.

"In other words, they're going to dispatch Eric Holder to assert that the U.S. Government has the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination by — CIA — drone, but will not even describe a single piece of evidence to justify the claim that Awlaki was guilty of anything."


Source: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/21326