Yes, I think so...

What passport did Barack Obama use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

How did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981 to study at Columbia University and without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

When Barack Obama was shuttling between New York, Jakarta and Karachi, what passport did he present when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

The debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. 

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. 

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion:When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter,the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born"American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. 

If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon.

The Supreme Court ruled that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who earlier ruled that New Haven officials acted properly.

The reversal could be used as ammunition by some senators who don't want to see Sotomayor confirmed. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill swiftly issued statements on the ruling and scheduled media appearances to discuss it.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, applauded the decision and suggested trouble ahead for Sotomayor. He stated, "The Senate Judiciary Committee should carefully examine Judge Sotomayor’s role in the Second Circuit’s opinion on this case. Discrimination and racial preferences have no place in our courts, let alone on the highest court in the land.”

Sotomayor's views on race have been the focal point of criticism as she seeks a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. She has also been scrutinized for her statement outside the court that a "wise, Latina woman" would come to better conclusions more often than a white man.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearing is currently scheduled to begin on July 13. It will be interesting to see if Obama's controversial pick makes it through all the scrutiny.

John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE  IN JAPAN) for 6 am.

While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN HONG KONG), he put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE) and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA).  

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA) he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today.

After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN) to the radio (MADE IN INDIA), he got in his car (MADE IN GERMANY) filled it with GAS (from Saudi Arabia) and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his computer (made in MALAYSIA),  John decided to relax for a while.  

He put on his sandals (MADE IN BRAZIL), poured himself a glass of wine (MADE IN FRANCE) and turned on his 

TV (MADE IN INDONESIA), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT MADE IN KENYA. 

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments...

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000..00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer), We can expect to get an average of
$1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us

Then sit back.....

And see how fast they would fix it!

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." John Adams.

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." John Adams, 1765.

"Let justice be done though the heavens should fall." John Adams in a letter in 1777.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin, 1759.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." Ben Franklin, 1766.

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Nathan Hale's last words before being hanged by British.

THOMAS PAINE CHAMPION OF FREEDOM AND REASON

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry.

"One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle." James Otis, 1761.

"These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value." Tom Paine after the Declaration of Independence.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Tom Paine.

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE QUOTES: GEORGE WASHINGTON

"We began a contest for liberty ill provided with the means for the war, relying on our patriotism to supply the deficiency. We expected to encounter many wants and distressed… we must bear the present evils and fortitude…" George Washington in 1781.

"The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are free men, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men." George Washington, 1776.

"President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.

On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.

Asked about the president-elect's decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.

'Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw,' said the aide.

Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected."

nbcwashington.com, April 12, 2009

"President Barack Obama and his family celebrated Easter at St. John's Church, the first public worship services for the president since he took office.

The Obamas opted for the safe choice for Easter Sunday, visiting the pale yellow church across from the White House where other presidents have worshipped. The pick puts off -- for now -- a decision on a new permanent congregation for the first family.

Where a president worships -- and whether he goes to church at all -- tends to draw political as well as social significance. For Obama, his place of worship has been of keen interest, given his history with a Chicago pastor whose bombastic sermons almost destroyed Obama's presidential bid. Obama's friend and pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was seen on video condemning the United States and suggesting the government was to blame for the HIV/AIDS scourge on black communities.

Obama left his Trinity United Church of Christ and has since been without a home church. Aides and advisers have visited more than a dozen Washington-area churches in recent weeks; Obama is expected to check out many of them before settling on a new church.

It seems that President Obama is distancing himself from the National Day of Prayer by nixing a formal early morning service and by not attending a large Catholic prayer breakfast the next morning. It seems that all he will do for tomorrow's National Day of Prayer is sign a proclamation honoring the day, which originated in 1952 when Congress set aside the first Thursday in May for the observance. Wow, that's a major snub and calls into question the depth of his religious faith. He does not attend church on a regular basis, so how can he claim his faith is deep?

Christianpost.com, June 19, 2009

President Obama will be making an appearance at the 2009 National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast on Friday and is expected to speak to the more than 750 Hispanic leaders gathered.

Obama’s speech will be especially meaningful as it comes less than a month after he announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first Supreme Court nominee.

Hmmm...Obama can forget about the National Prayer Breakfast but attend the Hispanic Prayer Breakfast ...why?

Draw your own conclusions about what he has been doing...

All I know is who sends aids to check out prospective churches?  That is a personal decision if you are truly devoted to your faith and not just using it for show and political ends.

Enough said...what do you think?

In a nutshell: The AmeriCorps Inspector General, Gerald Walpin, accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.  Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money.  Obama fires AmeriCorps Inspector General.

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general?

Just the facts: Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.

Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts."  As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps. 

Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money.  According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car." Walpin asked federal prosecutors to investigate.  In April, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, a Bush holdover, declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and also criticized Walpin's investigation.

On Wednesday night June 10, after the White House counsel's office called AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin on his cell phone to tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired, Walpin sent an extensive e-mail account of the call to the man who had phoned him, Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. 

In the e-mail, Walpin explained that he would not make a decision in such a short period of time.  He also noted that Eisen had said any appearance of a connection between Walpin's firing and recent conflicts over Walpin's handing of high-profile investigations was "coincidence."  Here is the whole e-mail, sent from Walpin to Eisen at 7:32 p.m. on June 10:

“My email responds to your telephone call to me while I was in a car driving on a highway, at about 5:20 p.m.  I have now reached a destination and therefore can write you this email.

In your telephone call, you informed me that the President wishes me to resign my post as IG of CNCS [Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps].  You told me that I could take no more than an hour to make a decision.

As you know, Congress intended the Inspector General of CNCS to have the utmost independence of judgment in his deliberations respecting the propriety of the agency's conduct and the actions of its officers.  That is why the relevant statute provides that the President may remove the IG only if he supplies the Congress with a statement of his reasons--which is quite a different matter than executive branch officials who serve at his pleasure and can therefore be removed for any reason and without notification to Congress.

I take this statutorily-mandated independence of my office very seriously, and, under the present circumstances, I simply cannot make a decision to respect or decline what you have said were the President's wishes within an hour or indeed any such short time.  As you are aware, I have just issued two reports highly critical of the actions of CNCS, which is presently under the direction of the President's appointee and, I am advised, someone with a meaningful relationship with the President.

Chairman Solomont and I have had significant disagreements about the findings and conclusions contained in these reports.  It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated--and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity--if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request.

I heard your statement that this request that you communicated on behalf of the President and the timing of our reports and disagreement with the CNCS Board and management are "coincidence," as you put it on the phone, but I would suggest there is a high likelihood that others may see it otherwise.

I suspect that, when presented with the circumstances I have just discussed, the President will see the propriety of providing me additional time to reflect on his request.  If however he believes that my departure is a matter of urgency, then he will have to take the appropriate steps toward ordering my removal, without my agreement.

Gerald Walpin”

The Inspectors General Reform Act requires that the President give at least 30 days notice to Congress with the reasons for the termination of any inspector general. When Obama was a Senator from Illinois he co-sponsored this same act but now as President himself it looks like the Obama  administration tried to strong arm it's way around the requirements of this act, which reeks of Chicago tactics! 

Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders on Wednesday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters. 

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General," the president wrote.  "That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General." 

Just the facts…what’s up here President Obama?

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:41 PM

Subject: Fwd: This pretty much sums it up. From Todd!!

Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:34 pm
Subject: This pretty much sums it up.

Dear President Obama:

You are the ninth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. -Thomas Jefferson

Twenty years ago the U.S. ranked 1st in the world in high school diplomas and college degrees and now ranks 18th out of 24 industrialized nations in effectiveness.

The debate over American education services grows more heated and reports are continually released showing that the academic abilities of American students continue to fall when compared to those in other countries.

To solve the crisis, politicians, community leaders, and the education community all repeat the same lines.

Students fail, they tell us, because "expectations haven't been set high enough."

Every Ameican education services leader and nearly every politician presents the same "solution" to the education crisis: more money, better pay for teachers, and smaller classroom numbers so the children get enough attention from the teachers.

Consequently, there are two specific categories in which the U.S. excels, compared to the rest of the world.

First, the U.S. ranks second in the world in the amount we spend per student per year on education = $11,152 and is a leader in having some of the smallest classroom numbers in the world.

Every American should understand that these three items: higher pay, smaller classrooms and more money for schools are the specific agenda of the National Education Association (NEA).

The NEA is not a professional organization for teachers but a labor union and its sole job is to get more money into the american education services, and more pay for its members… the NEA is not about education but money and a political agenda.

America's education system has been completely restructured to deliberately move away from teaching basic academics to a system that focuses on little more than training students for menial jobs and specifically designed to deliberately dumb-down the children.

The field of psychology has very much taken over the public school system, and is doing its best to take over private schools.

Before the advent of psychology into the schools, American education services involved learning to read, acquiring mental skills and developing the ability of conceptual thinking. The idea behind traditional education was to prepare the student with as wide and strong a base as possible for future success.

The modern psychologists have a different idea, and this involves ensuring the students possess correct beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. The attention in American education services has gone from cognitive skills and effective thinking ability, to how the student feels, what he believes and what attitudes he has.

The real culprit is outcome-based education.

Professor Benjamin Bloom, the Father of Outcome-based Education (OBE) said: "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students."

Psychologist B.F. Skinner determined, that to bring about such changes in the students values and beliefs, relentless specific programmed messages must be inputted.

Skinner once bragged: "I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule." Whole psychological studies were produced to prove that individuals could be made to believe anything, even to accept that black was white, given the proper programming.

OBE is not education. It's a combination of academic control and behavior modification. It is social engineering which uses behavior modification and values clarification to control the level of knowledge acquired and change attitudes, behaviors, beliefs and values.

OBE restricts academic achievement to the level of the lowest achiever. No student will achieve more than another. Fast learners will be held back until slow learners catch up.

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) are used to change complex human behaviors. HOTS, "critical thinking skills" and "higher order thinking skills" are the same, and they all change students' beliefs in absolutes of right and wrong/good and bad, which most parents teach children.

Traditional American education services focuses on teachers instructing students in various academic subjects K-12. Specific subjects must be covered to satisfy credit units. Knowledge is determined through tests. Passing grades result in promotion. Graduation occurs when all required subjects have been passed.

Outcome-Based Education focuses on what the student is, not on what he knows. It is designed for every child to FEEL successful.

Since businesses say they need workers that conform to the group, educators have decided to teach conformity by giving group assignments and group grades. Each student may be given a different task which, when put together with the other assignments, make up a complete project.

No student will be required to do the entire assignment, much like a factory worker would put a bolt or nut on a car and another would install the windows, etc. Each man can do his own particular job, but not one of them can assemble a whole car. That can be very beneficial in a factory, but not for a school.

Cooperative learning does not accurately reflect employment policies, either. No employer will put up with workers who consistently have to do their work over. Real-life employers fire individuals who can't or won't do the job.

Cooperative learning fools low achievers when it allows the fast learner to do all the work and rewards both of them the same. Real life doesn't let the slow learner repeat and repeat until he gets it right. An employer might allow that during training; but inevitably, every man must carry his own load.

Make no mistake, he knows exactly what he is doing. This is a first-rate power grab by a power-hungry President. You see the great thing about czars is that they operate with impunity and they are "under the radar" when it comes to making policy. They are accountable to nobody, except the administration.

So in effect we have NON-ELECTED officials, who are backed by The White House, who are given the tools and resources to do the bidding of the President and they are accountable to NO ONE! These czars don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, they just get appointed.

The following is a list of Obama's Czar's/Kings:

Energy czar Carol Browner

Urban czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.

Infotech czar Vivek Kundra

Faith-based czar Joshua DuBois

Health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle

New TARP czar Herb Allison

Non-proliferation czar Gary Samore

Terrorism (I thought they didn't use that word) czar John Brennan

Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein

Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske

Guantanamo closure czar Daniel Fried.

The Obama team is using the appointment of czars to reinvent how the executive branch operates.

The Obama administration has announced that the latest czar will be  "Special Master for Compensation" who will ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.

Czardom does not sit well with Sen. Robert Byrd. Though slowed by age, the West Virginia Democrat remains vigorous in his defense of the powers ceded to the Congress by the Constitution. He said he believes czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress.

Former Rep. Ernest Istook said he doesn't like the term czar either because it's too Russian.

"We could just call somebody the big boss, el jefe, head honcho, the big cheese," he said. "My father used to refer to people as the chief cook and bottle washer."

However wrong Obama is about things that are traditionally American, he is not stupid.  He may have been educated in a perverted and polluted way, but intellectually he's not stupid, nor are people that work with him.  They are doing the exact opposite of what everybody knows will work.  His multitude of policies will not work, but from whose viewpoint will they not work?  Ours. 

From Obama's standpoint, it's working like a charm.  He is getting more control over everything.  He is creating more dependency on the part of the general population for the government.  The latest statistics show that one of every six dollars the American people earn is from the government.

Internet security and privacy have become so maddeningly vague that the only way to fix the problem is to start over.

What a new internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would be almost like a “gated community” where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety.

Today this is already the case for many corporate and government internet users.

As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current internet might end up as the bad neighborhood on the other side of cyberspace.

You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there.

“Unless we’re willing to rethink today’s internet,” says Nick McKeown, a Stanford engineer involved in building a new Internet, “we’re just waiting for a series of public catastrophes.”

The reality of this threat was driven home late last year, when a malicious software program, thought to have been unleashed by a criminal gang in Eastern Europe, suddenly appeared after easily getting around the world’s best cyberdefenses.

Known as Conficker, it quickly infected more than 12 million computers, ravaging everything from the computer system at a surgical ward in England to the computer networks of the French military.

Conficker remains a ticking time bomb.

This virus now has the power to lash together those infected computers into a vast supercomputer called a botnet that can be controlled clandestinely by its creators.

What comes next remains a puzzle.

Conficker could be used as the world’s most powerful spam engine, perhaps to distribute software programs to trick computer users into purchasing fake antivirus protection.

Or much worse, it might also be used to shut off entire sections of the internet.

But whatever happens, Conficker has demonstrated that the internet remains highly vulnerable to a determined attack.

“If you’re looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships streaming toward us on the horizon,” Rick Wesson, the chief executive of Support Intelligence, a computer consulting firm, said recently.

The internet’s original designers never predicted that the academic and military research network they created would one day bear the burden of carrying all the world’s communications and commerce.

There was no one central control point and its designers wanted to make it possible for every network to exchange data with every other network. Little attention was given to security.

“In many respects we are probably worse off than we were 20 years ago,” said Eugene Spafford, the executive director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Purdue University.

Despite a thriving global computer security industry and the fact that in 2002 Microsoft itself began an intense corporate wide effort to improve the security of its software, internet security has continued to worsen globally.

Even the most heavily protected military networks have proved vulnerable.

Last November, the United States military command in charge of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars discovered that its computer networks had been purposely infected with software that may have permitted a devastating espionage attack.

In January 2009 a worm infects millions of computers worldwide. This is causing scientists armed with federal research dollars and working in collaboration with the industry to work on figuring out the best way to start over.

At Stanford, where the software protocols for the original internet were designed, researchers are creating a system to make it possible to slide a more advanced network quietly underneath today’s internet. By the end of the summer it will be running on eight campus networks around the country.

A new internet with improved security and the capabilities to support a new generation of not-yet-invented internet applications is the ultimate goal. They also want to correct some things the current internet does poorly such as supporting mobile users.

The Stanford Clean Slate project won’t by itself solve all the main security issues of the internet. It will equip software and hardware designers with a toolkit to make security features a more integral part of the network.

This will ultimately give law enforcement officials more effective ways of tracking criminals through cyberspace. That alone may provide a disincentive.

This is not the first time a replacement has been proposed for the current internet. Modern Windows and Macintosh computers already come equipped to support a new internet protocol known as IPv6 that would fix many of the shortcomings of the current IPv4 version.

Because of cost, performance and compatibility questions this protocol has suffered.

The Stanford engineers are not discouraged and say they are on a mission to “reinvent the internet.” They argue that their new strategy is intended to allow new ideas to emerge in an evolutionary fashion, making it possible to move data traffic seamlessly to a new networking world.

Like the existing internet, the new network will almost certainly have no one central point of control and no one organization will run it. It is most likely to emerge as new hardware and software, which are built in to the router computers that run today’s network and are adopted as internet standards.

The internet’s current design virtually guarantees anonymity to its users. That anonymity is now the most vexing challenge for law enforcement. An internet attacker can route a connection through many countries to hide his location, which may be from an account in an internet cafe purchased with a stolen credit card.

“As soon as you start dealing with the public internet, the whole notion of trust becomes a quagmire,” said Stefan Savage, an expert on computer security at the University of California, San Diego.

A more secure network is one that would almost certainly offer less anonymity and privacy. That is likely to be the great tradeoff for the designers of the next internet. One example, would be to require the equivalent of drivers’ licenses to permit someone to connect to a public computer network.

Proving identity is likely to remain remarkably difficult in a world where it is trivial to take over someone’s computer from half a world away and operate it as your own. As long as that remains true, building a completely trustable system will remain virtually impossible.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund recently reported the unveiling of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) on February 4, 2009, by Representive Rosa DeLauro, Democrat from Connecticut, to both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture.

Cosponsored by 36 other Congressmen, all Democrats, H.R. 875 would essentially transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly-established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Its bill could lead to the elimination of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations due to overbearing federal regulations one-sidedly determined by the FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.

Representative DeLauro and her husband Stan Greenberg are friends of the Obama administration. They gave Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel free rent for several years.

One of Greenberg’s clients is biotech giant Monsanto, which has created and promoted genetically altered foodstuffs for over a decade.

HR 875 represents a tremendous expansion of federal power, particularly the power to regulate intrastate commerce. While the proposed legislation tries to address the many problems of the industrial food system, the impact on small farms if the bill becomes law would be substantial and not for the better.

HR 875 is a major threat to sustainable farming and the local food movement.

HR 875 charges the administrator of FSA with developing a national food safety program to protect the public health. In carrying out the program, the administrator must “adopt and implement a national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments.”

Under the bill, farms are designated as ‘food production facilities’.

A “food establishment”, according to the bill, means “a slaughterhouse, a factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any state that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.”

The FSA is given the power by the bill to visit and inspect them to determine that they are operating in compliance with the food safety law under HR 875 ‘food safety law.’

The agency also would have the power to have access to and copy all records maintained by farms in order to be able to (1) determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law or (2) track the food in commerce.

FSA is charged with establishing a national traceability system that requires farmers to keep records that enable FSA to track “the history, use, and location of an item of food”. Farmers selling direct to consumers would have to make their customer list available to federal inspectors.

The food traceability records are not the only written documentation farmers are to supply FSA under the terms of the bill. Each food production facility must have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards”.

Farmers will be required to do the following in developing a plan for their farming operation:

• Conduct a hazard analysis-a list the pathogens that could be present in the farming operation.
• Determine critical control points where pathogens would most likely be present or could be introduced.
• Establish critical limits.
• Establish monitoring procedures.
• Establish corrective actions.
• Establish verification procedures.
• Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures.

FSA’s rulemaking authority includes extensive power to regulate farming practices as well.

The agency would issue regulations that establish ”minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water” with respect to “growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations”; and, “with respect to animals raised for food.’

The regulations are to establish “minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption”.

The federal government’s expanded power to regulate commerce under the bill would place the legality of the sale or other distribution of raw milk in intrastate commerce in jeopardy. The FDA has long wanted a complete ban on the sale of raw milk.

The agency believes that raw milk should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any reason and does not consider this subject to be debatable refusing to send representatives to any conference concerning the safety of raw milk when they know anyone with an opposing viewpoint will be present.

In the event the FSA does not issue a regulation establishing a ban, raw milk producers can expect regular, unannounced visits from inspectors.

The inspector paying a visit to the raw milk producer will have had training based on a curriculum developed by the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO). AFDO’s position on raw milk is that all milk should be pasteurized.

The FSA's power to enforce the food safety law is considerable. The administrator can assess civil penalties of up to one million dollars for each violation. Each day during which the violation continues is considered a separate offense. The criminal sanctions are severe as well.

If a violation with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the perpetrator can be imprisoned for up to five years; if the same results in death, the penalty can be up to ten years.

The FSA has also expanded its authority to seize, detain and condemn food. It would have the power to condemn food without having to resort to the judicial process. This would create every incentive for the agency to levy fines, with all fines collected being deposited in a treasury account.

FSA “may use the funds in the account without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation . . . to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law”. It could also use the funds in the account “to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.”

Passage of HR 875 into law will result in a much greater degree of federal control of food production and food regulation in the individual States as well as on a national level. The Feds would control to a much greater degree the inputs farmers can use as well as the products farmers can produce (raw milk).

Unannounced federal inspections of small farms will be the order of the day, reducing the level of protection provided by the Fourth Amendment. There will be little left of the states’ police power to regulate food.

The burdensome requirements the bill imposes on small farms and the intrusive federal control it creates over small farm operations threaten the future viability of sustainable agriculture and the local food movement.

HR 875 has been assigned to both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Agriculture.

It needs to be stopped. Anyone who values freedom of food choice and the rights and independence of small farmers should contact their elected representatives and the members of the two committees to ask that they oppose HR 875.

Irradiation is job in the food science industry…

It uses high-energy Gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays which are all millions of times more powerful than standard medical X-rays to break apart the bacteria and insects that can hide in meat, grains, and other foods.

Radiation can do strange things to food, by creating substances called "unique radiolytic products."

These irradiation byproducts include a variety of mutagens:

• Substances that can cause gene mutations
• Polyploidy, an abnormal condition in which cells contain more than two sets of chromosomes
• Chromosome aberrations, often associated with cancerous cells
• Dominant lethal mutations, a change in a cell that prevents it from reproducing in human cells

Making matters worse, many mutagens are also carcinogens.

Research also shows that irradiation forms volatile toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene, chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects.

Irradiation also causes stunted growth in lab animals fed irradiated foods.

An important 2001 study linked colon tumor promotion in lab rats to 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB's), a new chemical compound found only in irradiated foods.

The FDA has never tested the safety of these byproducts.

Irradiation has also been shown to cause the low-level production of furans (similar to cancer-causing dioxins) in fruit juice.

In addition to proposed weakening of the labeling requirements for irradiated food, the Food and Drug Administration's rule would also severely limit them by requiring companies to label irradiated food only when the radiation treatment causes a 'material change' to the product.

Examples include changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life of a food. Published research on irradiated foods in food science research reveals that it does change, and can actually ruin, the flavor, odor, appearance, and texture of food.

Such food science research repeatedly finds that irradiated foods smell rotten, metallic, bloody, burnt, grassy, and generally off. The taste has been described as like sulfur, singed hair, burnt feathers, burnt oil, and rancid fat.

Beyond the obvious yuck factor, serious questions remain as to whether irradiated foods are safe to eat. Irradiated foods can lose from 2-95% of their vitamins.

For example irradiation can destroy:

• Up to80% of the vitamin A in eggs
• Up to 95% of the vitamin A and lutein in green beans
• Up to 50% of the vitamin A and lutein in broccoli
• 40% of the beta-carotene in orange juice
• Irradiation also doubles the amount of trans fats in beef

Despite 50 years of research, food science researchers still do not fully understand how these changes take place. Much of the ongoing research, in fact, is focused on devising new ways to hide these changes, rather than addressing the cause of the changes themselves.

Irradiation has been touted as the solution to food-borne illness in everything from spinach to deli meats. But a good, hard look at the systemic food and agricultural problems that cause these tragic outbreaks in the first place has yet to be undertaken by government agencies.

Irradiation is an after the fact "solution" that does nothing to address the unsanitary conditions of factory farms, and actually creates a disincentive for producers and handlers to take preventative steps in production in handling.

The longer shelf life created by irradiation, affording longer shipping distances also provides greater opportunity for post-treatment contamination via shipping, handling, etc.

Additionally, irradiation does not work to stop toxins produced by some bacteria (like botulism); viruses, like foot and mouth disease or hepatitis, are resistant to the irradiation doses used in food; and prions, thought to be the cause of BSE, or Mad Cow disease are resistant as well.

The motivation for expanding irradiation to additional categories of food may be less about getting rid of disease-causing organisms, and more about increasing market share in international trade. Irradiation can dramatically increase the shelf life of food.

This gives corporations more flexibility in marketing and transportation, making it easier for large companies to move some operations to countries with lower labor costs and lower sanitary and safety standards.

As in many other "outsourced" industries, American workers, farmers and ranchers, could lose their jobs.

In other words, food irradiation supports globalization at its worst, where concerns over long-term health risks carry less weight than the lure of expanded markets.

Additionally, since irradiation has become a tool for the globalization of U.S. food production, food irradiation procedures are modeled for large, centralized operations.

This furthers the consolidation of "Big Ag" companies and contributes to the destruction of small U.S. family farms - further degrading the security and diversity of our food supply.

There are so many corrupt things going on in today’s world in government and private industry that we really should not be concentrating so much on entertainment but look at solving some of the real problems around us.

People liked to blame former U.S. President George Bush for the ills of the country, while he was in office.

In fact, much of Bush's policy originated under former president Bill Clinton. A case in point is genetically-modified, or (GM) food.

Under Clinton, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) staffers and executives like Michael R. Taylor, who also worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, were responsible for abandoning the precautionary principle in favor of indirect but obvious corporate sponsorship.

Taylor, who is currently a senior fellow and director of the Resources for the Future (RFF) Center for Risk Management, served in the FDA from 1981 to 1994, first as a staff lawyer and executive assistant to the FDA Commissioner, then as Deputy Commissioner for FDA policy.

From 1994 to 1996, he was Administrator of the U. S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service, going from there directly to Monsanto as vice president for Public Policy.

Taylor's whole career reflects episodic bungee-jumping from government to private sector employment with none other than top biotech firms like Monsanto, and then back again.

Through a revolving door of insider political appointments and manipulation, Monsanto successfully created for itself a favorable FDA ruling, which allows Monsanto and others to introduce genetically modified food into our supermarkets without safety testing or even labeling.

For example, Taylor, at the time a lawyer working for Monsanto, was hired by the FDA to re-write the new GMO regulations as, "substantially equivalent", eliminating safety testing or even labeling.

Other Monsanto insiders playing in the game were Donald Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas, Margaret Miller and Susan Sashan.

This clear conflict of interest is what led to today’s failed FDA and USDA, at least in terms of their stated mandate to protect the food safety of the American public.

This is nowhere more evident than as relates to the issue of genetically modified food, which in 2001 was banned or restricted for use in such nations as:

• Algeria, Egypt, Zambia, Sri Lanka,
• Thailand, China, Japan, the Philippines,
• Norway, Austria, Germany, The UK,
• Most of Central America, Spain, Italy,
• Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal,
• Brazil, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Australia,
• New Zealand and 14 South Pacific nations

Some nations, facing starvation, have lifted their bans. Others, like Zambia, remain adamant. Honduras, facing crop failures, has lifted its ban on GM corn.

The rest of Central America remains committed, largely because of indigenous strains of native maize, which have been successfully grown for four centuries and are readily contaminated by GM corn.

And this is the crux of the GM issue; that even countries, which abstain are likely to find their native crops contaminated by GM breeds from thousands of miles away.

Why fight genetically modified food? Because genetically modified crops are, literally, "Frankenfood", linked to such problems as allergies, asthma, genetic damage and even cancer.

GM foods are suspected by many, including England's Prince Charles, of being the precursor of an environmental disaster…the likes of which humanity has never seen. Cautious scientists agree that GM foods may be causing unknown and inestimable harm to both living and future generations of humanity.

In fact, we haven't been eating GM food long enough to know the final consequences, though one effect is already emerging. As an independent study from Austria shows, GM harms fertility in mice.

This 20-week study, based on long-term feeding regimens containing only a third of GM corn, showed "statistically significant" drops in reproductive capacity in the third and fourth generations, and the mice born were noticeably smaller.

The study, conducted by Dr. Jurgen Zentek, professor of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna, should alarm those whose diets contain large amounts of GM food, as is clearly the case in the U.S.

In fact the greater agenda aims to place control of all food in the hands of a few, multinational agribusiness giants like Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and Bunge, and the control of nations in the hands of a few elite.

Monsanto et al, who up to now have either conducted all the existing research on gentically modified foods, or paid research institutions, insist that GM crops will rescue the world from hunger.

This finding has not been borne out by independent research, but perhaps they will be able to if there are less people to feed because GM food causes sterility.

As you undoubtedly know we live in a very corrupt world with many problems. Instead of spending so much time in the fantasy world, wake up, get educated and involved.

In a recent report authored by Dr. Gary Null and Dr. Carolyn Dean noted that some 780,000 Americans are killed by their doctors or by the medical system each year.

106,000 of these die from prescription drugs in properly prescribed doses and over two million people are hospitalized because of adverse effects from taking these FDA-approved prescription drugs.

The directors of the companies who manufacture these drugs know the harm they cause but do all they can to keep such adverse information from the public.

These criminals are driven by greed and profit; they could care the least about people's health or their lives.

A good example is the scandal of Vioxx, a drug that was kept on the market even though it was known to cause heart attacks.

Vioxx is believed to have killed between 50,000 and 70,000 people. Other dangerous drugs include Baycol, Bextra, Celebrex, and the list goes on...

Presciption drug comapanies are involved in rigging drug trials, ghostwriting the reports of "independent" researchers, bribing politicians, doctors, and scientists, and hiding reports unfavourable to their drugs.

One particularly nasty example of collusion that appeared recently on NaturalNews.com was the case of Dr. Biederman of Harvard University who advocated mind-altering drugs for children while being secretly paid off 1.6 million dollars from the drug companies.

To maintain their markets, prescription drug companies are very active in suppressing vitamins, minerals, and natural health foods. They also suppress any information on natural health and are assisted in this by their friends in the FDA and other government bodies.

They are helped by colluding politicians, who push through legislation to favor big corporations and remain unchallenged by mainstream media who have a deeper love for advertising revenue than for people's health.

Food manufacturers poison us with chemical additives, preservatives, colorings, flavorings, trans fats and other harmful ingredients.

The effects of these deadly additives are well known and documented; aspartame, MSG, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, sodium nitrite, and thousands more. It's no wonder most of us are sick, and we're getting sicker.

Governments turn a blind eye to crimes of toxicity and actively promote the dumping of fluoride and chlorine in our water, the use of mercury in vaccines and in dentistry, and to a host of other criminal acts, committed in the pretext of advancing public health.

With government complicity, biotech companies poison us with genetically modified food in a plot to own the patents to the very food that's sustained us for hundreds of thousands of years.

They pose one of the greatest threats to our health and survival on this planet. No one really knows what effects this experimental food will have on us or future generations. Genetically modified food is currently suspected as a cause of Morgellon's Disease.

Monsanto has created a "terminator seed" which is good for one season. Farmers, especially in third world countries gather seeds from crops each year, save and plant the seeds the next year and so forth. The "terminator seeds" are spreading around the globe taking over real seeds and causing food shortages. Third world farmers are forced to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year and they can't do it.

Prescription drug, food and biotech companies are out for the money and not our own well-being. It is truly socking and the word needs to get out to everyone.