Speak Up Now

Blog on Accountability
Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Politics’

The truth shall keep us free — Edward Snowden has awakened a giant, by Andrew Napolitano (June 27, 2013)

June 28, 2013 By: admin Category: Judicial, Politics, Societal

Which is more dangerous to personal liberty in a free society: a renegade who tells an inconvenient truth about government law-breaking, or government officials who lie about what the renegade revealed?

That’s the core issue in the great public debate this summer, as Americans come to the realization that their government has concocted a system of laws violative of the natural law, profoundly repugnant to the Constitution and shrouded in secrecy.

The liberty of which I write is the right to privacy: the right to be left alone. The Framers jealously and zealously guarded this right by imposing upon government agents intentionally onerous burdens before letting them invade it.

Whatever one thinks of Snowden’s world-traveling odyssey he has awakened a giant.

They did so in the Fourth Amendment, using language that permits the government to invade that right only in the narrowest of circumstances.

The linchpin of those circumstances is “probable cause” of evidence of crime in “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If the government cannot tell a judge specifically what evidence of crime it is looking for and precisely from whom, a judge may not issue a search warrant, and privacy — the natural human yearning that comes from within all of us — will remain where it naturally resides, outside the government’s reach.

Congress is the chief culprit here, because it has enacted laws that have lowered the constitutional bar that the feds must meet in order for judges to issue search warrants. And it has commanded that this be done in secret.

And I mean secret.

The judges of the FISA court — the court empowered by Congress to issue search warrants on far less than probable cause, and without describing the places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized — are not permitted to retain any records of their work. They cannot use their own writing materials or carry BlackBerries or iPhones in their own courtrooms, chambers or conference rooms. They cannot retain copies of any documents they’ve signed. Only National Security Agency staffers can keep these records.

Indeed, when Edward Snowden revealed a copy of an order signed by FISA court Judge Roger Vinson — directing Verizon to turn over phone records of all of its 113,000,000 U.S. customers in direct and profound violation of the individualized probable cause commanded by the Constitution — Vinson himself did not have a copy of that order. Truly, this is the only court in the country in which the judges keep no records of their rulings.

At the same time that Vinson signed that order, NSA staffers, in compliance with their statutory obligations, told select members of Congress about it, and they, too, were sworn to secrecy. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden was so troubled when he learned this — a terrible truth that he agreed not to reveal — that he mused aloud that the Obama administration had a radical and terrifying interpretation of certain national security statutes.

But he did more than muse about it. He asked Gen. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, who was under oath and at a public congressional hearing, whether his spies were gathering data on millions of Americans. Clapper said no. The general later acknowledged that his answer was untruthful, but he claimed it was the “least untruthful” reply he could have given. This “least untruthful” nonsense is not a recognized defense to the crime of perjury.

After we learned that the feds are spying on nearly all Americans, that they possess our texts and emails and have access to our phone conversations, Gen. Keith Alexander, who runs the NSA, was asked under oath whether his spies have the ability to read emails and listen to telephone calls. He answered, “No, we don’t have that authority.” Since the questioner — FBI agent turned Congressman Mike Rogers — was in cahoots with the general in keeping Americans in the dark about unconstitutional search warrants, there was no follow-up question. In a serious public interrogation, a committee chair interested in the truth would have directed the general to answer the question that was asked.

Since that deft and misleading act, former NSA staffers have told Fox News that the feds can read any email and listen to any phone call, and Alexander and Rogers know that. So Alexander’s “no,” just like his boss’s “no,” was a lie at worst and seriously misleading at best.

This is not an academic argument. The oath to tell the truth — “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” — also makes those who intentionally mislead Congress subject to prosecution for perjury.

President Obama is smarter than his generals. He smoothly told a friendly interviewer and while not under oath that the feds are not listening to our phone calls or reading our emails. He, of course, could not claim that they lack the ability to do so, because we all now know that he knows they can.

These Snowden revelations continue to cast light on the feds when they prefer darkness. Whatever one thinks of Snowden’s world-traveling odyssey to avoid the inhumane treatment the feds visited upon Bradley Manning, another whistleblower who exposed government treachery, he has awakened a giant.

The giant is a public that has had enough of violations of the Constitution and lies to cover them up.

The giant is fed up with menial politicians and their media allies demonizing the messenger because his message embarrasses the government by revealing that it is unworthy of caring for the Constitution.

Think about that: The very people in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for preservation, protection, defense and enforcement have subverted it.

Snowden spoke the truth. Knowing what would likely befall him for his truthful revelations and making them nevertheless was an act of heroism and patriotism.

Thomas Paine once reminded the Framers that the highest duty of a patriot is to protect his countrymen from their government. We need patriots to do that now more than ever.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/27/truth-shall-keep-us-free/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2XUVuznBc

Bryan Cooper (San Diego)

May 21, 2013 By: Bryan Cooper Category: Politics

When I worked at Thrasher Magazine in San Francisco one of my 

bosses was a Punk Rocker, Photographer named MoFo and he 

really was a great guy but one of his moto’s was- “Question 

Authority!”  I grew up with the belief that Authority was not wrong, 

now I know better!    

Obama High-Fives IRS with $92 Million in Bonuses

 
Could the government take money from your bank account?

The IRS scandal is becoming more insane by the minute.  After the testimony on Friday from the Inspector General and the now “retiring” acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, things couldn’t be more convoluted.  First of all, Obama came out and said that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had “demanded the resignation” of Miller, when in fact, Miller was due to leave his post by June of this year.  So there was no “resigning” going on, and he will leave with all of his benefits intact.  Wow!  No accountability, no answers, no penalties. Next we find out that during the four year period between 2009 and 2012 more than $92 million in bonuseswere handed out by IRS executives to thousands of tax agency employees.  These bonuses were mostly given out to managers and executives for “performance based incentives”. So let me get this straight.  These people were paid a salary by the taxpayers, and then given a bonus by the taxpayers to reward them for harassing and intimidating the taxpayers.  Ok, got it.  There are over 97,000 employees of the IRS, 16,910 of them got some sort of bonus for “a job well done”.  The largest bonus went to former IRS Commissioner Richard E. Byrd who received $60,270. Digging a little deeper we find out that Lois Lerner, the woman who told us publicly that her agency was improperly singling out conservative and other groups including religious organizations, received more than $42,000 in bonuses over that four year period.  She ADMITTED wrongdoing and yet was rewarded once again with OUR money! But the best is yet to come.  Sarah Hall Ingram who was in charge of tax-exempt organizations while the Tea Party and conservative groups were being targeted has conveniently been relocated within the IRS and now is in charge of the IRS office responsible for overseeing Obamacare.  Promoted for a job well done!  Joseph Grant, the executive who seems to be the one taking the fall for Ingram during that time is now resigning his post. He took over for Ingram when she was promoted.  During the years 2010-2012 he received three bonuses totaling $83,950 in addition to his salary of $177,000.  Job well done Joe!

Absolute

American Dr. Mengele-s

October 02, 2010 By: admin Category: International, Politics, Societal

US “apologizes”? And that’s supposed to solve the situation? This is crimes against humanity, if I ever seen one.

Who will be held accountable for this one?  How does this contribute to American “moral authority” to lecture around the world? Compensations? (Reminder: the US (just like North Korea and Iran) has never signed the Human Rights Convention). How is this different from the medical experiments the Nazis performed in the concentration camps?

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101001/hl_yblog_upshot/u-s-apologizes-to-guatemalans-for-secret-std-experiments

Fri Oct 1, 1:04 pm ET

U.S. apologizes to Guatemalans for secret STD experiments

By Brett Michael Dykes

By Brett Michael Dykes brett Michael Dykes Fri Oct 1, 1:04 pm ET

U.S. scientific researchers infected hundreds of Guatemalan mental patients with sexually transmitted diseases from 1946 to 1948 — a practice that only came recently to light thanks to the work of an academic researcher. On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a formal apology to the Central American nation, and to Guatemalan residents of the United States.

“Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health,” said Clinton and Sebelius in a joint statement. “We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices.”

[Related: Winston Churchill’s UFO cover-up]

The discovery of the long-ago experiments stems from another, far better known episode of federal tampering with test subjects to study sexually transmitted diseases: the long-running “Tuskegee experiment,” studying 399 poor black men from Macon County, Ala., who had been diagnosed with syphilis but never informed of their condition. Federal scientists simply told the men they had “bad blood” and researchers compiled a four-decades-long study monitoring “untreated syphilis in the male Negro.” Researchers never treated the illness over its usually fatal course, even after the simple remedy of penicillin was shown to be an effective syphilis treatment; participants received only free meals and medical exams, together with federal funding of their funeral expenses after they died. The study began in 1932, continuing right through to 1972, when it was exposed in media reports.

One of the better-known experts on the Tuskegee scandal is Susan Reverby, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Wellesley College who has published two books on the subject. As she was researching her most recent book, Reverby learned of the Guatemalan project, in which researchers from the U.S. Public Health Service conducted experiments on 696 male and female patients housed at Guatemala’s National Mental Health Hospital. The scientists injected the patients with gonorrhea and syphilis — and even encouraged many of them to pass the disease on to others.

“It was done in conjunction with the Guatemalan government,” Reverby told The Upshot in a phone interview Friday morning. “They had permission from the Guatemalan government.”

Reverby explained that she learned of the Guatemala study purely by accident.

[Related: Japan offers big apology to South Korea]

“I was in the archives of the University of Pittsburgh looking at the papers of the surgeon general at the time,” Reverby said. “And the papers there were also the papers of a man named John Cutler, who had also been involved in the Tuskegee study. When I opened the boxes of the Cutler papers, there was nothing in it about Tuskegee, but there was everything about this Guatemala study.”

Reverby — who was instrumental in getting former President Bill Clinton to offer an apology for the Tuskegee experiment in 1997 — told us that she informed Dr. David Sencer, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control; Sencer then passed the discovery up the chain of command in the U.S. government.

“As with many of these things, it was just pure serendipity,” Reverby said. “I was the right person in the right place at the right time.”

(Photo via AP)

something

To what extent is Barry Zimmerman personally responsible for the death of the little Alaina Stockdill?

September 22, 2010 By: admin Category: Judicial, Local Politics, Politics, Societal

One week before she was killed by her mother, the little 8 years old Alaina was complaining to her neighbors that mom was trying to strangle her.  Neighbors reported to Barry Zimmerman’s office. He himself acknowledged this communication in the TV interview.  His office did nothing to protect the little girl.

Barry Zimmerman from the Ventura County Human services has to be held personally accountable for the death of 8 years old Alaina Stockdill. His smug lawyering comments on the KCBS news tonight were disgusting. His services were warned before. See the LA Times article from April 22, 2010 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/22/local/la-me-molest-20100422 below. This girl’s death is HIS responsibility. When are we going to start holding government employees accountable for their stupidity, negligence or incompetence, Jerry Brown? You want to be governor? Do your job as AG first!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/09/21/autopsy-results-delayed-for-dead-ventura-girl/

Autopsy Results Delayed For Dead Ventura Girl

September 21, 2010 5:49 PM

VENTURA (AP) — The Ventura County Medical Examiner has completed the autopsy of an 8-year-old girl who authorities suspect was slain by her mother, but officials have not immediately released a cause of death.

Chief Deputy Medical Examiner James Baroni said Tuesday that the autopsy results would likely be released a day later, after further investigative work is completed.

Twenty-five-year-old Blair Stockdill was arrested Monday after police responded to reports of a knife fight between a man and woman.

At an apartment, officers found a man with stab wounds on his arm and inside the home, police found the body of Stockdill’s daughter, Alaina, who had been dead for several days.

Stockdill was arrested on suspicion of murder and remained jailed in lieu of $500,000 bail.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/22/local/la-me-molest-20100422

Ventura County to review handling of child abuse complaints

Supervisors raise concerns after a local school district board member pleads guilty to sexually molesting a young girl over a five-year period and fathering her child.

April 22, 2010|By Steve Chawkins

The young girl told classmates, who told school employees, who told county social workers.

But her sexual abuse by a school board member continued for years and some of the school officials who worked with him want to know why.

Last week, Brian E. Martin, 49, a member of Ventura County’s Rio School District board since 2006, pleaded guilty to continuous sexual molestation of a girl under age 15 and inflicting “great bodily harm” — by impregnating her.

The girl, now 15, is among four children who Martin and his wife, Cristina Carreño Martin, took in after a relative of hers with drug problems abandoned them six years ago. The girl’s baby boy, born in December, has been placed with an adoptive family.

In the wake of Martin’s guilty plea, Ventura County supervisors have ordered a review of the county’s procedures for dealing with child abuse complaints.

Officials with the Rio district, which covers parts of the Oxnard area, say county social workers did not investigate thoroughly even after receiving reports at least six times over two years.

“We’re pushing for higher standards by Child Protective Services,” said Tim Blaylock, the board’s president. “There are steps they could have taken to validate our concerns.”

Barry Zimmerman, head of the county’s Human Services Agency, declined to comment on the case or his department’s procedures, citing legal requirements for confidentiality.

Martin entered his plea in a brief, somber court appearance last week. At times, his wife held his hand and quietly sobbed. Under his plea agreement, he faces 17 years in prison.

A special election will be set for November to replace him on the district’s board.

Blaylock said the abuse emerged after the girl “confided to some of her classmates.”

“They were very concerned and wanted to help her,” he said. “These kids don’t just make up this stuff. Most of the time, it’s true.”

In interviews with social workers, the girl denied any sexual relationship with Martin, Blaylock said.

But, he said, the investigators should have anticipated that she would be fearful and asked a judge to order a physical exam. They also failed, he said, to interview district Supt. Sherianne Cotterell, who contacted the child protection agency after Martin’s wife shared her suspicions with her.

Reached by The Times on Wednesday, Cristina Carreño Martin, who said she is planning to file for divorce, was not quite as critical of county social workers.

Follow up to Soviet Active Measures

September 17, 2010 By: admin Category: Economy, History, International, Politics, Science and Technology, Societal

Just posted the following on the Linkedin.com discussion on Systems Thinking:

1. Haven’t I brought up few weeks ago (in this very thread) the tendency to ever changing “fad” or “crisis” of the day? We’ve got a new one!!!

Yesterday ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/ )  Quote:
From the administration that brought you “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation,” another terminology change is in the pipeline.

The White House wants the public to start using the term “global climate disruption” in place of “global warming” — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

White House science adviser John Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a “dangerous misnomer” for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.  Unquote

2. Thought it might be of interest to see what positions are / were held by the scientific adviser to Barack Obama:

Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich  argued that, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[19]  In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization  for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[10][21]

Other early publications include Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defenses and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), and Conversion of Military R&D (1998).[12]
from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

3. In the same Wikipedia summary on J Holden, we find the following references (under Awards):
# Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, December 1995
# Chair of the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, 1987-1997
It should be duly noted that the Pugwash Conference was known for decades as being manipulated, if not outright controlled by the KGB:
http://www.speak-up-now.com/wp-content/uploads/sovietactivemeasures.pdf    paragraph 77, page 17. (See also the mentions of KGB using the environmentalist societies in the same document)

Soviet Active Measures

August 10, 2010 By: admin Category: Business, Economy, History, International, Politics, Societal

SOVIET ACTIVE MEASURES[1]

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905)

Introduction.

In 10 days, August 20-21, it will be the 42nd anniversary of the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia. Persons and activities surrounding this event might hold the key to understanding our present, and who knows, maybe the near future. This is my attempt at “connecting-some-dots” and submitting for discussion the question “Where do we think we are heading?”

Every now and then we see someone doing something totally unexpected, “out-of-their –character,” goes the expression. Our typical reaction in such a situation might be, for example, “What in the world is going on?” or “Is he/she gone crazy?” “Why did he/she (Spitzer, Gibson, Lohan …) do that?”

More often than not, we don’t have all the personal, historical, cultural elements that would explain, rationalize, person’s seemingly illogical behavior. Many stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, numerous classic movies and made-for-TV criminal series are based on that premise: – The key to someone’s today’s behavior may be found in distant past and / or a distant land. Unless a person is certifiably psychologically ill, digging deeply enough in his/her past, will always lead to a logical explanation.

The following account is based on the author’s best recollection of the events as they happened some time ago and over several decades. The purpose of this narrative is to help with understanding of recent / current events and maybe assist in forecasting of possible things to come. There will always be people arguing that “history does not repeat itself” since the conditions can never be systemically “identical.” That may be true, in general. However, the Principle of Causality has been sufficiently validated, recognized and is now respected as to help us with acceptance of some degree of predictability based on either some “eerie similarities[2]” or parameters already in place (ex. population segmentation by age)[3].

Is failure to “connect the dots” a US specific illness due to someone’s incompetence[4] or is it something much more nefarious? I let you decide.

I just submit the following series of events, facts, observations and thoughts, for discussion. While going over the series of events, please, recognize that at any point in time we DO NOT KNOW what will happen next week, month, – never mind years or decades later. Right now, we may speculate about the outcome of the November 2010 elections but we do not know their results. Just as now in August 2010 we do not know what will happen in October, November, December this year, or in 2011, 2012, 2013, – in 1960s nobody could predict what would happen in 1979, January 1993. Or could he?

Chapter 1

August 20-21, 1968, Prague, Czechoslovakia

Moscow, Tuesday August 20, 1968 about 4 PM Local Time [2 PM Prague, 8 AM New York City]

Czechoslovak Ambassador Pavlovský in Moscow allegedly receives a brief phone call. The caller says just one sentence, “It was decided for tonight” and hangs up. The Ambassador calls immediately the First Secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Alexander Dubček in Prague with this information. Dubček gets a note about the call but does not share it with anyone[5].

Prague, Ruzyně Airport, August 20, 1968 – mid afternoon

An unscheduled flight with about 100 very athletic looking young men, allegedly some kind of sports team, arrives from Moscow. All men carry sizeable duffle bags and go straight out without being stopped by the customs officers. A couple of busses chartered by the Russian Embassy are waiting for them. They leave for an unknown destination.

Prague, Hradčany Castle, August 20, 1968 evening.

A meeting of key party and government officials is taking place at the Hradčany Castle, the Czech equivalent of the White House or Palais de l’Elysée. Dubček still does not say a word about the afternoon warning call to his colleagues. Allegedly, he does not believe it. At about 10 PM the Minister of Communications Hoffman excuses himself, goes out and orders his people to shut down all international phone communications.

Prague, Ruzyně Airport, August 20, 1968 about 10:40 PM Local Time [4:40 PM New York City]

The Russian athletic looking men, now in commando gear, appear back at the Ruzyně Airport. They quickly overpower the night crew and take control of the control tower. Few minutes later at about 11 PM local time the first Russian Air Force transport planes start landing in very short intervals one after another. They very quickly offload the troops and tanks and immediately take off and fly back.

At the same time, Russian units, with some relatively small numbers of Polish, East German, Hungarian and Bulgarian soldiers start crossing the borders all around the country.

The news of the crossings by the border guards reaches the meeting in Prague. Dubček bursts into tears, “They should not have done this to me. I trusted them,” he is said to have uttered, crying. For those who have not seen Dubcek in those days, just visualize the whining Jimmy Carter. The body language is eerily similar.

It is said the President Johnson[6] had advance information about the (preparation of the) invasion but he decided against giving a heads-up to the Czech leaders.

Prague, Downtown, Wednesday, August 21, 1968

Less than eight hours after the beginning of the military operation, the population wakes up to a sight of Russian tanks all over the streets of downtown Prague. One should be impressed by the logistics and the execution. Books were written about the events that followed.

Chapter 2

15 years later: January 1983, Glendale, Arizona

In 1979, a high ranking KGB officer, Stanislav Levchenko defected to the United States[7]

On December 17, 1982 a document titled “Unmasking Moscow’s “Institute of the U.S.A.” was published by the Heritage Foundation[8]. The Heritage Foundation document was based on July 7, 1981 declassified CIA’s debriefings of Stanislav Levchenko.

The original CIA debriefings document titled “Soviet Active Measures” came to my possession at Thunderbird School of Global Management in early January 1983. It was distributed by Werner Wagenlerner, then, allegedly, the West German Undersecretary of Defense, i.e. the highest West German Defense career official. He was our professor for a course titled “Selected Topics on Europe.”

As you can see in the document itself, since 1960s, that is in the years leading to the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union had a very thorough and consistent strategy of manipulating Western media as well as potential future persons of influence. Let’s leave aside for now their specific use of fake information and disinformation of the West through the media. I let you read about that in the document.

As part of their strategy to manipulate the public opinion in the West in their favor, the Soviet Union founded in 1960 the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow[9] . The role of this University was to attract young students from all over the world and to convert them to the Russian, socialist / communist way of thinking as well as develop friendly personal relationships.

For the sake of intellectual integrity, let’s acknowledge that the strategy of influencing future leaders in other countries is common elsewhere. Switzerland, for one, likes to have foreign students in their Universities too (I know, I studied with them), hoping that once they return to their countries of origin (mostly in the third world), they will favor trade with Swiss companies instead of French, German or British ones. That’s the Swiss / Western approach.

The Russian approach, as documented by Levchenko is significantly more devious. Since the early sixties they clearly, strategically and deliberately manipulated the psyche of as many youngsters from all over the world as they could. The goal was to inoculate the socialist way of thinking and friendly attitude to the Soviet long term strategy of world domination. Yes, world domination. That’s what we, as kids, were taught daily in the middle and high schools in the sixties in the Socialist Czechoslovakia: “The Communist regime is the best and will ultimately prevail worldwide.” There was no secret about that. It was the mantra. The goal of the future Russian / communist world domination was taught to us daily and openly[10].

They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams:

10 / 25 years later: Wednesday, January 20, 1993, Washington DC

At 12 Noon, William Jefferson Clinton, becomes the 42nd President of the United States. Anyone heard the term “Manchurian Candidate”? See the Chapter 4, below, for more. But wait, the story is not over yet.

Chapter 3

Three years later: Tuesday, October 1, 1996

On October 1, 1996 I arrived to Prague for a short visit to the old country. In a magazine coincidentally available on the newsstands that day, I found a large (two large pages) article by several Czech journalists (possibly Mlady Svet?) on Hillary Clinton’s stay that summer[11]. It was an outstanding piece of journalistic investigation, completely ignored in the West. (One might ask “Why?”). The authors documented that 1. She was not there in any official capacity or on invitation by the Czech government, and 2. She was not staying in any hotels but was staying in numerous private residences. They then listed, first and last names, the hosting families. All these hosts were identified as former, hard core communists from the sixties, now out of power. Anyone heard about this in the US?

One thing we have to give her, – she clearly did stay loyal to her old college friends. It has been extensively documented (and discussed BEFORE Bill Clinton became President) how both, Bill and Hillary as boyfriend and girlfriend frequently traveled between London where Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Moscow and Prague. Yet nobody in the Western Media seems to have connected the dots. Anyone wants to suggest an explanation?

Excerpt: ….Quote from Footnote [11]:

Clinton first used it in an address at the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters in Prague on July 4, 1996. The kicker then wasn’t a call to restore American greatness abroad, but to safeguard hard-won freedoms from the Soviet incursion. “Freedom has come, and now it is up to each of us to determine what freedom will mean,” she told the crowd in Prague. Unquote.

Thirteen years later: Thursday, January 21, 2009 to present

Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the 67th United States Secretary of State – person in charge of the United States foreign affaires, and thus privy to all United States secrets. It is she who now negotiates with Vladimir Putin in the name of the United States. Is it reasonable to think someone in the Congress got “asleep at the wheel” during her confirmation hearings?

Chapter 4

Bill Clinton’s Russian connection[12]:

Quote

As a Georgetown junior, Clinton inherited his antiwar orientation from his part-time employer, Senator J. William Fulbright. Fulbright’s views on Vietnam had in turn been influenced by scholar Bernard Fall. Fall had an academic background at institutions linked to Chinese Communist apologist Owen Lattimore. He had recently co-authored a book on Vietnam with Marcus Raskin, cofounder of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which disseminated Marxist propaganda aimed to sway Fulbright and other decision-makers. Fulbright’s office was also in regular contact with Igor Bubnov, a KGB operative on Capitol Hill. President Johnson had ordered the FBI to monitor Fulbright and his staff for suspected Communist contact at the time Clinton went to work for Fulbright.

Clinton remained relatively quiet about his war views during his first year as a grad student at Oxford from fall 1968 to spring 1969. He took an activist turn in summer 1969 while seeking to avoid being drafted. During summer vacation, he worked with the Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC), a US antiwar group which was helping a Communist-dominated coalition called the New Mobe to organize fall protests.

Upon Clinton’s return to Oxford that fall, he and his friend Richard Stearns helped a British VMC counterpart called Group 68 organize Americans in England for Moratorium protest events. (A supplementary background profile of Group 68 follows the body of the article, exploring the group’s links to a British antiwar network centered around Bertrand Russell and Russell’s associate Tariq Ali. Russell’s network helped the North Vietnamese and Soviets disseminate anti-US propaganda through channels such as the International War Crimes Tribunal, sponsored by the Soviet front the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam.)

Over winter vacation of 1969-1970, Clinton toured Moscow, where he had been preceded by his roommate Strobe Talbott. Talbott was then translating the memoirs of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, which had been leaked to him by Victor Louis, a KGB disinformation agent and talent spotter. Clinton and Talbott’s other roommate Frank Aller was doing similar work on the unpublished notes of Edgar Snow, an academic associate of Lattimore.

The conclusion suggests possible directions for further research, considering where additional information on Clinton’s early activity might be found in government files and other sources.

Unquote

And again in the same document:

Quote

Meanwhile the KGB tried to influence Fulbright’s staff directly. In 1967, Soviet ambassador Igor Bubnov, an active KGB operative on Capitol Hill, initiated regular discussions with Fulbright’s chief of staff Carl Marcy. (After retiring from government service in 1973, Marcy would work for several organizations associated with Communist or IPS activity, including the Council for a Liveable World, the Center for International Policy, and the American Committee on United States-Soviet Relations aka American Committee on East-West Accord.)

US intelligence came to suspect Communist influence on Fulbright. In February 1966, President Johnson ordered FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to investigate whether Fulbright and other Senate critics of US policy in Vietnam were receiving information from Communists. Hoover produced a report which demonstrated a correlation between the Soviet party line and the public statements of Fulbright and Senator Wayne Morse, but without authorization for wiretaps he was unable to confirm any direct contact with Communists or foreign agents. Ordered to seek confirmation, Hoover spent the next weeks producing a 67-page review of FBI wiretap records of contacts between Soviet bloc embassies and US Senators, Representatives, and Congressional staff, covering the period from July 1965 to March 1966. Hoover continued submitting biweekly follow-up reports to Johnson through January 1968. Johnson tasked other intelligence agencies to conduct similar inquiries. In 1968 Johnson boasted that he knew within minutes what Fulbright was saying over lunch at the Soviet embassy. Secretary of State Dean Rusk conveyed this fact to Marcy, telling him, “We know every time that you or people on your staff meet with people in the Soviet bloc.”

While US intelligence was investigating Fulbright and his staff, Georgetown junior Bill Clinton joined Fulbright’s staff in summer 1966. Clinton had looked to Fulbright as a role model since high school, when he first learned that Fulbright had attended England’s Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, a career path Clinton would follow as a graduate student. He got the job with Fulbright through Jack Holt, a local politician who was supported by Clinton’s uncle Raymond. After Uncle Raymond got him on Holt’s campaign, Clinton approached Holt and expressed his interest in working for Fulbright. Holt recommended him to Fulbright’s administrative assistant Lee Williams. Williams offered Clinton a job as an assistant clerk on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Clinton continued working for Fulbright into his senior year. According to his autobiography My Life, he worked in the document room of the committee’s offices on the fourth floor of what was then called the New Senate Office Building (later renamed the Dirksen Senate Office Building), while Carl Marcy and a few committee senior staff worked in a larger room at the Capitol Building. Clinton’s primary duty was “taking memos and other materials back and forth between the Capitol and Senator Fulbright’s office, including confidential material for which I would have to receive proper government clearance. Beyond that, I would do whatever was required, from reading newspapers and clipping important articles for the staff and interested senators to answering requests for speeches and other materials, to adding names to the committee’s mailing list.” He often read “material stamped ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ that I had to deliver from time to time”.

According to Clinton, he adopted an antiwar position while working under Fulbright. A few months after he began working for Fulbright, he had the Senator autograph a copy of his book The Arrogance of Power, which criticized US foreign policy on Vietnam and other topics. Clinton says his antiwar orientation was also influenced by members of Fulbright’s staff who encouraged him to study the issue of draft deferment.

Unquote

And Bill Clinton in Prague, from the same publication.

Quote

The delegation Clinton met sounds like it may have been related to the activities of the Committee of Liaison with Families of Servicemen Detained in North Vietnam (COLIFAM), an antiwar group formed in summer 1969 which negotiated POW exchanges in return for pro-Communist propaganda statements. However this is only informed speculation that has not been verified.

Clinton stayed in Moscow about five days. Several accounts say he left via the Soviet airline Aeroflot, but Clinton says “Nikki and her Haitian friend Helene put me on the train”.

In either case, Clinton’s next stop was Prague, Czechoslovakia, where he arrived on January 6, 1970. There he looked up the family of his Oxford friend Jan Kopold. Kopold’s family was well-connected in Czech Communist circles. Clinton received a guided tour of Prague from Marie Svermova, the widow of Czech Communist Party hero Jan Sverma, who was Jan Kopold’s grandfather. In 1969 the Kopolds ostensibly held dissident political views against the ruling regime, which had grown unpopular among reformers and student activists after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia the previous year.

Clinton stayed in Czechoslovakia through January 12. According to his account, he then went on to Munich, West Germany to visit his friend Rudy Lowe and celebrate Faschingsfest, a Carnival Season festival with costumes similar to Mardis Gras or Halloween.

Unquote

Then there is the Bill Clinton Czech Communist Connection from article by Joel A. Ruth from April 30, 1999[13].

Quote

Activities such as Clinton’s were not at all out of character for Oxford students during that period and it has been estimated that even today, upwards of 60 percent of all British professors hold moderate to extreme Socialist views. For such, the Universities had long been the home recruiting ground of the international communist movement. Its successes were exemplified by their recruitment of the traitors Kim Philby and Donald MacLean.

While Bill Clinton has never explained who paid for his trip to Moscow, he was accompanied by a friend and fellow Oxford student, Czech Jan Kopold. They were to attend a meeting of the War Moratorium Committee to be held January 2, 1970. Upon arrival, Clinton did not check into a youth hostel, but rather stayed at the Hotel National, the most exclusive and expensive one in Moscow of that time — a ritzy place usually reserved for foreign ambassadors and high-level Communist Party apparatchiks.

In today’s terms, that trip would probably cost several thousand dollars. Clinton only had his tiny $275 Rhodes stipend to live on and never held a job. Thus, it is easy to believe that this tab and the arrangements could only have handled by the KGB, which during that epoch limited no expenses in its attempts to recruit promising American students in Europe.

Clinton has also never accounted for the 11 days spent in Moscow before the actual meeting of the War Moratorium and has never revealed who paid his expenses or what he did or whom he met with during that time. However, for a tourist visiting Red Square in Moscow, a trip to Lenin’s Tomb is usually on the itinerary. For a visiting leftist, such a visit is as requisite as a Moslem’s visit to the Kabah while in Mecca. Standing before the mummy of the High Priest of Communism and Atheism on Christmas Day, for a communist, had long represented a symbolic, ritual act of contempt and abnegation of all the religious, spiritual, and ethical values which most Americans cherish.

Even more telling was Clinton’s January 4 return trip from Moscow on another Aeroflot jet. The flight terminated in Prague, then the capital of the Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic (CSSR)[14]. There, Clinton was a guest of Jan Kopold’s father, Bedrich Kopold and Jan’s maternal grandmother Maria Svermova, who was the original founder of the Czech Communist Party in the 1930s. During his visit, she took a liking to young Bill; they walked and talked. Svermova’s deceased husband was the original editor of Rude Pravo, the Czech Communist Party paper before the War.

After the Soviet-backed Communist coup of Czechoslovakia in February 1948 had disposed of Democratic President Jan Masaryk by tossing him out a window of the Foreign Ministry, Rudolf Saltzman, a.k.a. Slansky, became the new president. Karel Svab, Maria’s brother, was appointed Commissar of Secret Police and was responsible for the subsequent murders, tortures, and deportations to Russian gulags of several hundred thousand Christians, democracy advocates, anti-Communists, and even religious Jews who had survived the Holocaust. Under the Saltzman/Slansky regime (1949-1952), Maria Svermova was Secretary of the Communist Party and the Central Committee, the supreme ruling body. While the majority of Jews in pre-war Czechoslovakia were anti-Communist, the Party itself was dominated by a clique of apostate Jews who had long since abandoned the principles of their religion to embrace the False God of Marxism.

The entire Kopold clan was a significant part of the ruling Communist party elite and was responsible for those murders and deportations either by the act or as formulators of policy. In fact, 11 out of 12 Politburo leaders of the Czech Communist Party were apostate Jews who had taken refuge in Moscow just prior to the German occupation of the Czech rump state in 1939. It was easy for the Communists to seize control in 1948 without popular resistance because the Germans had confiscated all private weapons during the War.

In 1948, Saltzman/Slansky smuggled guns and explosives to Palestine to arm the Zionist organizations, the Haganah, the Stern Gang, and the Irgun to enable them to keep killing British officials until Britain became fed up and pulled out. In 1949 these gangs organized the ethnic cleansing of over one million Palestinian Arabs from their lands which were then confiscated and made an integral part of the nascent State of Israel. President Saltzman/Slansky in turn paid with his life for assisting the Zionists. Accused of harboring Jewish nationalist sentiments, which were in opposition to Marxist internationalism, Stalin sent him to the gallows in 1952.

Years later, when Clinton was President, he again flew to Moscow, this time on Air Force One, to meet Boris Yeltsin. Then, on his return flight he had the plane stop in Prague, where, besides playing the saxophone — important stuff — he went to visit the parents of his Oxford friend Jan Kopold. By then, Maria Svermova had died of old age. As for Jan Kopold, he had been killed earlier in an “accidental fall” in Turkey in 1970, becoming perhaps the first of a long string of former Clinton friends and associates to meet an untimely end. Interestingly, Clinton told the news media people accompanying him on the Prague pit stop that the Kopolds were “old friends he had long admired.” Nothing appeared in the press, however, about Clinton’s admiration for and association with this family once such an intimate part of the ruling echelon of the murderous criminal Soviet puppet government that had enslaved Czechoslovakia.

Unquote

In conclusion, some open questions:

Jan Masaryk ( + March 10, 1948, Foreign Ministry Building, Prague)[15] —— Vince Foster (+ July 20, 1993, Marcy Park, Washington, DC)[16] ——  ?

Do you still remember the series of suspicious deaths of personalities (besides Vince Foster) during the Clinton years?

The deaths of the two personalities, Jan Masaryk and Vince Foster, happened some forty five years apart and on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, – yet the Modus Operandi (of questionable suicides) looks so strangely similar! Should we / are we allowed to be asking questions? If not, what does it say about us?

In your opinion, how would Rahm Emmanuel’s famous sentence (“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week”) reported by The Wall Street Journal online on November 21, 2008[17] fit in the process?

Do you see it fitting in 1929-1932 Germany?

It is early August 2010. What’s next? Is there anybody else who sees eerie similarities with other historical events? Anyone would venture into forecasting or at least asking “Why?”


[1] The term “Active Measures” is used for undercover / intelligence activities with the goal of manipulating public opinion in a wide variety of ways.

[2] See also Leonard Peikoff’s Ominous Parallels, © 1982, Meridian – Penguin Books 1983 (Library of Congress Catalog Number 83-60247) for his take on some other scary historical parallels.   http://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-Brilliant-parallels-pre-Hitler/dp/0452011175/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280432538&sr=1-3

[3] A 1977 book by Helène Carrère d’Encausse titled L’Empire Eclaté predicted the fall of the Russian Empire. The prediction was based on the birthrates of the Russian Christian vs. Muslim populations and upcoming conflict within the Red Army – officers mainly Christian, soldiers mainly Islamic. In spite of this publication, the CIA was “surprised” by the 1989 fall of Berlin wall. I guess they don’t read French.

[4] The FBI failure (“failure”?) to “connect-the-dots” before the 9-11 is still in everybody’s fresh memory.

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia now says it was the Czechoslovak Ambassador to Hungary, Jozef Pučik who allegedly received the warning call. In the days after the invasion, this author was told / the word on the street was, that it was the Ambassador Pavlovský in Moscow who received that warning phone call.

[6] To get a better perspective on the various events, here is the timeline of the American Presidents during the events described in this article:

Lyndon Johnson                     November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969

Richard Nixon                         January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974

Gerald Ford                              August 9, 1974 – January 20, 1977

Jimmy Carter                          January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981

Ronald Reagan                       January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

George H.W. Bush                 January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

William J. Clinton                 January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

George W. Bush                     January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009

[7] See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Levchenko and references cited there.

[8] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1982/12/Unmasking-Moscows-Institute-of-the-USA

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_Friendship_University_of_Russia

[10] The logic was: The Communist regime is the best. Those who disagreed must then be mentally ill. Hence unlimited incarceration of opponents (without any judicial proceedings) – mainly in the former Soviet Union. Also well documented.

[11] From the Time magazine of July 12, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1643100,00.html

[12] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884984/posts

[13] http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16122

[14] Correction: CSSR stood for Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, not for Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Republic as said in the article above.

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Masaryk (as review with other primary references)

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster (as review with other primary references)

[17] http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB122721278056345271.html

Hispanic Leaders Speak Out

August 09, 2010 By: admin Category: Illegal immigration - Arizona, Politics

Bryan Cooper says:

PLEASE READ THIS AND CONSIDER THE IMMENSE VALUE OF THAT NEW ARIZONA LAW.

“You old white people. It is your duty to die.”

HISPANIC LEADERS SPEAK OUT!

Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; “Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die . . Through love of having children, we are going to take over.

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. “They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay.”

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, “The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot.”

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; “We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it.”

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, “Remember 187–proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens–was the last gasp of white America in California.”

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, “We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country . . . I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, “I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back.”

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.”

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, “We are practicing ‘La Reconquista’ in California.”

Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University; “We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos . . . ”

Are these just the words of a few extremists? Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes. Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders.

THE U.S. VS MEXICO:
On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, “This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession.”

Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It’s called affirmative action or racial privilege. The Emperor of Japan or the President of Mexico could migrate here and immediately be eligible for special rights unavailable for Americans of European descent. Recently, a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants.

Corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more.

DID YOU KNOW?:
Did you know that Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals? Did you know that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so? According to the L.A. Times, Orange County, California is home to 275 gangs with 17,000 members; 98% of which are Mexican and Asian. How’s your county doing?

According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide.
A Wall Street Journal editorial dated December 5, 1994 quotes law enforcement officials as stating that Asian mobsters are the “greatest criminal challenge the country faces.” Not bad for a group that is still under 5% of the population.

Is education important to you? Here are the words of a teacher who spent over 20 years in the Los Angeles School system. “Imagine teachers in classes containing 30-40 students of widely varying attention spans and motivation, many of whom aren’t fluent in English. Educators seek learning materials likely to reach the majority of students and that means fewer words and math problems and more pictures and multicultural references.”

WHEN I WAS YOUNG:
When I was young, I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island. They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breath free. They wanted to become Americans. Now too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges–affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture.

HOW CAN YOU HELP?:
Send copies of this letter to at least two other people, 100 would be even better. Help us get the word out.

AZ immigration defense fund donation page

July 10, 2010 By: admin Category: Business, Illegal immigration - Arizona, Politics

AZ immigration defense fund donation page:

https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/donation_information.xhtml

Written by Mary McHugh
Friday, 09 July 2010 11:50

On July 6, the federal government announced it was suing the State of Arizona over its Senate Bill 1070, due to go into effect July 29. This bill is part of Arizona’s efforts to defend itself against the illegal immigration pouring over its southern border shared with Mexico, and the multitude of problems and dangers this has ensued both locally and nationally.

In the wake of the government’s announcement, a defense fund originally set up through executive order by Gov. Jan Brewer on May 26 immediately began amassing thousands of dollars from concerned parties of all 50 states, plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. The total donated as of Thursday morning was about $500,000, with $330,000 arriving between July 6-8 alone; 7,008 of the 9,057 total online contributions since May were also made during this time period, with an estimated 88 percent of the fund’s total donations coming from these online contributors. Generally, the contributions were small, from between $5 to $2,000, and many of those donating were retirees. One concerned contributor, Mary Ann Rohde from Rialto, California, stated, “Arizona needs our help. It’s a disgrace what our government is doing.” She and her husband donated $20. According to the Associated Press:

More at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3986-donations-from-other-states-being-made-to-az-defense-fund

Defending Arizona

July 09, 2010 By: admin Category: Illegal immigration - Arizona, Judicial, Politics

The following thorough argumentation article was just published by Law Prof. Kris Kobach (University of Missouri, Kansas City). It addresses all possible arguments against the Arizona SB 1070

http://article.nationalreview.com/437656/defending-arizona/kris-w-kobach

Kris W. Kobach                                                         July 6, 2010 4:30 P.M.

Defending Arizona
From the June 7, 2010, issue of NR.

A law that basically makes a few small, carefully considered changes in police procedure, Arizona’s S.B. 1070, has inspired a vastly disproportionate response. Few laws have ever been so grossly mischaracterized by so many leaders on the left. From President Obama on down, they rushed to the microphone after it was enacted to hyperventilate about an impending police state in Arizona. Excitable bloggers invoked Jim Crow, apartheid, and the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany.

Their charges are completely false. Most stem from misunderstandings, perhaps willful and perhaps merely ignorant, of what the law is about and how it works. The false charges have been numerous, but the three most common are the following.

First, and most outrageously, critics incorrectly claim that the law would promote racial profiling. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) said this, along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.), and the rest of the race-baiting caucus in Congress. But since so many members of Congress don’t bother to read bills anymore, their error was hardly unexpected. More surprising was the commentary from the country’s top lawyer. Attorney General Eric Holder sternly warned the nation on Meet the Press that the law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” A few days later, when pressed about his comments in a House of Representatives committee hearing, Holder admitted that he hadn’t actually read the law. Another S.B. 1070 opponent, secretary of homeland security Janet Napolitano, says she has not read the law either.

If they had read it, Holder and Napolitano would have seen that S.B. 1070 expressly prohibits racial profiling. In four different sections, the law reiterates that a law-enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status. With this language, S.B. 1070 goes to extraordinary lengths to protect against racial profiling; most state and federal statutes do not include such special protection in their text. In addition, all the normal Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against racial profiling will continue to apply.

Second, critics have declared that the law will require aliens to carry documentation that they weren’t otherwise required to possess. President Obama claimed, “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers . . . you’re going to be harassed.” The president would do well to familiarize himself with current federal immigration laws. Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens not to keep certain registration documents on their person or not to register with the federal government. The Arizona law prohibits aliens from violating these federal statutes (8 U.S.C. §§ 1304(a) and 1306(e)). In other words, the Arizona law simply adds a layer of state penalty to what was already a crime under federal law.

For legal permanent resident aliens, the relevant document is a green card. For short-term visitors from a visa-waiver country (one of 36 countries whose citizens may visit the United States for up to 90 days without a visa), the relevant document is an I-94 registration receipt, which is placed in their passport at the port of entry. The consequences of violating the Arizona law are the same as the consequences of violating the federal law: a fine of up to $100 and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days. Any American who has traveled abroad knows that just about every country in the world imposes similar documentation requirements on U.S. citizens. It is hardly unfair or unusual to enforce our own laws on the subject.

There’s nothing new about police officers’ taking illegal aliens into custody, in Arizona or elsewhere. The documentation provisions of S.B. 1070 simply give Arizona law enforcement one more option in how to deal with them. Previously, when officers encountered illegal aliens in the course of their normal duties enforcing other laws, they could turn them over to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) for handling under federal procedures, or else make a case under Arizona’s human-smuggling statute. Now S.B. 1070 offers a third course of action: Illegal aliens without documentation can be jailed under state law even if human-smuggling provisions do not apply. If a local police department prefers to turn all illegal aliens that it encounters over to ICE, it can certainly continue to do so.

Third, critics have claimed that the law requires police officers to stop people in order to question them about their immigration status. Here too, President Obama misrepresented the law. Offering the example of a Hispanic family going to an ice-cream parlor, Obama said a police officer might walk up to the father and start interrogating him about his immigration documents. But Section 2 of S.B. 1070 stipulates that in order for its provisions to apply, a law-enforcement officer must first make a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest . . . in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

The original wording made reference to “lawful contact”; this was revised to “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” to make clear that officers could not stop someone simply on suspicion and ask for his papers. So in President Obama’s example, S.B. 1070 might come into play if the person came running out of the ice-cream shop with a gun in one hand and a bagful of money in the other (and then only if race-neutral indicators that the person was an illegal alien came to light). But an officer could not demand identification without the initial lawbreaking that justified the stop.

The law operates in straightforward fashion. If a police officer, during a detention to investigate another offense, develops reasonable suspicion that the subject is an illegal alien, then the officer must take specific steps to verify or dispel that reasonable suspicion. And contrary to the claims of critics, “reasonable suspicion” is a well-defined concept. Over the past four decades, the courts have issued more than 800 opinions defining those two words in the context of immigration violations.

The most common situation in which S.B. 1070 will come into play is during a traffic stop. Suppose a police officer pulls over a minivan for speeding. He discovers that 16 people are crammed into the van and the seats have been removed. Neither the driver nor any of the passengers have any identification documents. The driver is acting evasively, and the vehicle is traveling on a known human-smuggling corridor. Courts have held that those four factors can give an officer reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupants are aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

At that point, S.B. 1070 kicks in and requires the police officer, “when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person” by verifying it with the federal government (ICE maintains a 24/7 hotline for exactly that purpose). Indeed, many police officers in Arizona were already regularly contacting ICE before S.B. 1070 was enacted. Critics of the law evidently think police officers should turn a blind eye to any violations of federal immigration law that they come across. The Arizona legislature and the people of Arizona felt otherwise.

In sum, the law does not make any radical changes. Rather, it gives Arizona police officers a few additional tools to use when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law-enforcement duties. It also ensures that local cooperation with ICE will occur more regularly. Other provisions that have received less media hype prohibit Arizona cities from restricting enforcement of immigration laws (for example, by preventing their officers from contacting ICE), and make it a misdemeanor for an alien who lacks work authorization to solicit work in a public place.

S.B. 1070 was drafted in the full expectation that the ACLU would sue, as indeed it has. In anticipation of a challenge, S.B. 1070 was designed to withstand any argument that the ACLU lawyers can throw at it — regardless of whether they happen to be working inside the Holder Justice Department or outside of it. Let’s consider their available arguments one by one.

Opponents of the law have been raising a hue and cry about racial profiling, but that argument is a non-starter. Because the initial legal challenge was filed before the law was actually applied, the challenge is a “facial” one — asserting that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional on its face. Consequently, the challengers are basing their claims on speculation: They hypothesize that police officers might act in bad faith and violate the express terms of S.B. 1070.

The Supreme Court has held that such speculation cannot serve to strike down a law as unconstitutional. In the 1987 case of United States v. Salerno, the Court made clear that a “facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” Here, Arizona need only point out that if its police officers follow the clearly stated terms of S.B. 1070, no racial profiling will occur.

The ACLU’s only remotely plausible argument is that the law is unconstitutional through preemption — meaning that legislation passed by Congress prohibits the State of Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070. The problem here is that no such legislation exists. While controlling immigration is a job of the federal government, Congress has never enacted a statute that expressly bars states from assisting it in the manner contemplated by the Arizona statute. Without any express preemption to rely on, the challengers must resort to making a more difficult “implied preemption” argument. This is a claim that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law, and therefore interferes with the fulfillment of congressional objectives. However, the numerous judicial precedents supporting the Arizona law will make this an uphill climb.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states can enact statutes to discourage illegal immigration without being preempted by federal law. In the landmark 1976 case of De Canas v. Bica, the Supreme Court upheld a California law that prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. The Court rejected preemption arguments, since “respondents . . . fail to point out, and an independent review does not reveal, any specific indication in either the wording or the legislative history of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] that Congress intended to preclude . . . state regulation touching on aliens in general.” States and cities can enact laws discouraging illegal immigration, and can assist the federal government in enforcing federal immigration laws in other ways, as long as their actions don’t conflict with federal law.

In the case of S.B. 1070, the ACLU will be hard-pressed to find any such conflict. Indeed, S.B. 1070 is a mirror image of federal law. The documentation provisions of the Arizona law penalize precisely the same conduct that is already penalized under federal immigration law: “In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Because S.B. 1070 matches federal law so precisely, it is protected by the legal doctrine of “concurrent enforcement.” As the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona, recognized in Gonzales v. City of Peoria (1983), “where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.”

If the documentation section of the Arizona law isn’t preempted, what about the rest of the law — for example, the section requiring police officers to contact the federal government when they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they are investigating for violating another law is an illegal alien? Here too, Arizona’s law is on solid legal ground. The Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have all recognized the inherent authority of state and local officers to make immigration arrests.

In Gonzales v. Peoria, the Ninth Circuit specifically held that local police could make such arrests: “The general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. . . . Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes — the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry.” And in 2005 a unanimous Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena recognized the authority of local police officers to inquire into the immigration status of individuals who have been lawfully detained.

Moreover, since the Gonzales v. Peoria decision, Congress has taken numerous steps to promote, not discourage, assistance by state and local police in making immigration arrests. As the Tenth Circuit observed in the 1999 case of United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.” In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Congress wisely put in place a federal statutory requirement that federal officials must respond whenever a state or local police officer requests verification of an alien’s immigration status (8 U.S.C. § 1373(c)).

Congress also began appropriating funds in 1994 for the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates the 24/7 hotline for requests from local police. The purpose of the LESC is to assist law-enforcement agencies in determining whether persons they have contact with are illegal aliens. In fiscal year 2005, the LESC responded to a staggering 504,678 calls from state and local police. That’s an average of 1,383 calls per day. This high volume reflects the fact that police in all 50 states are already arresting illegal aliens, and in most cases transferring them to federal custody. S.B. 1070 does not create state and local arrest authority; it makes that existing authority more systematic and efficient.

The only argument the ACLU has left is the dubious claim that more vigorous enforcement of federal immigration laws in Arizona will conflict with federal purposes, perhaps by compelling LESC personnel to respond to a much larger number of calls from Arizona. But the U.S. District Court for Arizona already rejected that line of thinking in Arizona Contractors Association v. Napolitano (2007), evaluating Arizona’s 2007 law that required all employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the work authorization of employees. According to the court, “the fact that the Act will result in additional inquiries to the federal government is consistent with federal law.” (In that case, Janet Napolitano, as governor of Arizona, defended the law; now, as homeland-security secretary, she opposes S.B. 1070.)

In summary, we’ve heard all these arguments before. Many of the people and organizations that are now declaring S.B. 1070 to be unconstitutional made the same claims regarding previous Arizona statutes: Arizona’s last three major laws concerning illegal immigration were all challenged in court — Proposition 200 in 2004, the Human Smuggling Act in 2005, and the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. (I assisted in the defense of the last two.) In every case, the Arizona law in question was sustained. Most recently, in 2008 Arizona won an impressive victory in the Ninth Circuit when the Legal Arizona Workers Act was upheld against a preemption challenge. I expect that when the dust settles after S.B. 1070 is litigated, Arizona will still be undefeated in defense of its immigration laws.

Kris W. Kobach was one of the principal drafters of Arizona S.B. 1070. He is professor of law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) and senior counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute. From 2001 to 2003, he served at the U.S. Department of Justice as Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security. He is currently a candidate for Kansas secretary of state. This article originally appeared in the June 7, 2010, issue of National Review.

Contribution from Lon Bishop 6-1-10

June 02, 2010 By: admin Category: Politics, Societal

What is Cap & Trade?
Obama’s campaign promise to save everyone’s home.
Read My Lips, not taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000
Obama giving away US sovernity.

After you visited this site, please do not forget to "Share" our Vial Lido Facebook page (The “Share” function is on http://www.facebook.com/pages/Via-Lido/113135125384472, in the pull down menu under the Settings button, - (the flower / dented wheel sign placed just next to the “Like” button. You will have to "Log In" yourself first). Thanks!