Glenn Zarmanov
2/8/10
WeAreChangeNewJersey.ORG
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_Green_Police
The modern Green Police are an environmental task force comprised of collaborative law enforcement groups assembled to crack down on emissions in large US metropolitan cities.
It is assembled as the active arm of political debates amongst policy holders in the fight against climate change. Also, it is seen by agencies as some of the first real world action in the United States since the discussion in Copenhagen.
In the UK, the Green Police, based in Warrington, Cheshire, have the authority to call on the Environmental Agency’s national network of hundreds of pollution inspectors, many of whom will soon be trained in CO2 monitoring. The Green Police will also be able to demand energy bills from utilities without having to inform the companies that they are being monitored. If that’s not enough, the green police will also publish an annual league table ranking companies by their performance in cutting emissions. The intent is to “shame” companies into better energy efficiency.
Although it appears humorous in this SuperBowl advertisement, the notion of eco-cops or environmental “green” police is a reality.
HERE ARE SOME ARTICLES TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA:
Environmental Conservation Police Officers
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2437.html
Polluters, Beware: These Eco-Police Officers Are for Real
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/nyregion/26ecocops.html
Pint-Size Eco-Police, Making Parents Proud and Sometimes Crazy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10green.html
TATTLE-TALE PROGRAM
http://www.climatecops.com/
I-PHONE APPLICATION
http://www.ecosnoop.com
British Kids Encouraged To Become “Climate Cops”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/280708climatecops.htm
Climate Cops To Fine “Wasteful” Homeowners & Businesses
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-cops-to-fine-wasteful-homeowners-businesses.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html?hpt=C2
By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent
February 4, 2010
(CNN) — When Annie Brown’s daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.
While grateful to have the information — Isabel received further testing and she doesn’t have the disease — the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel’s genes in the first place. After all, they’d never consented to genetic testing.
It’s simple, the pediatrician answered: Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it’s often done without the parents’ consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.
In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies’ DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.
Many parents don’t realize their baby’s DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents’ concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it’s appropriate for a baby’s genetic blueprint to be in the government’s possession.
“We were appalled when we found out,” says Brown, who’s a registered nurse. “Why do they need to store my baby’s DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance.”
According to the state of Minnesota’s Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.
Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don’t first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. “It’s paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies,” he says.
However, he added that storage of DNA for long periods of time is a different matter.
“I don’t see any reason to do that kind of storage,” Caplan says. “If it’s anonymous, then I don’t care. I don’t have an issue with that. But if you keep names attached to those samples, that makes me nervous.”
DNA given to outside researchers
Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.
Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state. (To find out how long your baby’s DNA is stored, see this state-by-state list.)
Brad Therrell, who runs the federally funded genetic resource consortium, says parents don’t need to worry about the privacy of their babies’ DNA.
“The states have in place very rigid controls on those specimens,” Therrell says. “If my children’s DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn’t be worried a bit.”
The specimens don’t always stay in the state labs. They’re often given to outside researchers — sometimes with the baby’s name attached.
According to a study done by the state of Minnesota, more than 20 scientific papers have been published in the United States since 2000 using newborn blood samples.
The researchers do not have to have parental consent to obtain samples as long as the baby’s name is not attached, according to Amy Gaviglio, one of the authors of the Minnesota report. However, she says it’s her understanding that if a researcher wants a sample with a baby’s name attached, consent first must be obtained from the parents.
More Empowered Patient news and advice
Scientists have heralded this enormous collection of DNA samples as a “gold mine” for doing research, according to Gaviglio.
“This sample population would be virtually impossible to get otherwise,” says Gaviglio, a genetic counselor for the Minnesota Department of Health. “Researchers go through a very stringent process to obtain the samples. States certainly don’t provide samples to just anyone.”
Brown says that even with these assurances, she still worries whether someone could gain access to her baby’s DNA sample with Isabel’s name attached.
“I know the government says my baby’s data will be kept private, but I’m not so sure. I feel like my trust has been taken,” she says.
Parents don’t give consent to screening
Brown says she first lost trust when she learned that Isabel had received genetic testing in the first place without consent from her or her husband.
“I don’t have a problem with the testing, but I wish they’d asked us first,” she says.
Since health insurance paid for Isabel’s genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.
“It’s really a black mark against her, and there’s nothing we can do to get it off there,” Brown says. “And let’s say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive — that would be on there, too.”
Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn’t be known to the insurance company.
Caplan says taking DNA samples without asking permission and then storing them “veers from the norm.”
“In the military, for instance, they take and store DNA samples, but they tell you they’re doing it, and you can choose not to join if you don’t like it,” he says.
What can parents do
In some states, including Minnesota and Texas, the states are required to destroy a baby’s DNA sample if a parent requests it. Parents who want their baby’s DNA destroyed are asked to fill out this form in Minnesota and this form in Texas.
Parents in other states have less recourse, says Therrell, who runs the genetic testing group. “You’d probably have to write a letter to the state saying, ‘Please destroy my sample,’” he says.
He adds, however, that it’s not clear whether a state would necessarily obey your wishes. “I suspect it would be very difficult to get those states to destroy your baby’s sample,” he says.
Maafa 21 is a documentary about the history of contraception and abortion in the United States, and links them to the eugenics movement; in particular, the film attempts to provide evidence of a conspiracy and describes Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood as racist.
The title comes from the Swahili term “Maafa”, which means “tragedy” or “disaster”, and is used to describe the centuries of oppression and diaspora resulting from slavery. “21″ refers to the ‘maafa’ of the 21st century, which the film claims is abortion.
The film discusses Planned Parenthood’s origins (formerly the American Birth Control League), attributing to it a “150-year-old goal of exterminating the black population”.
The film alleges that currently, abortion is the #1 killer of blacks in America, and that, in 2004, abortion killed 2.8 times as many blacks than HIV/AIDS, gang violence, accidents, cancer, and heart disease, combined.
The film was released on June 15, 2009, and the premiere screening was held on June 18, 2009, on the eve of Juneteenth, at the United States Capitol Visitor Center.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61251Z20100203
Spy agencies can target Americans: official
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- In unusually frank comments, the top U.S. intelligence official acknowledged on Wednesday that spy agencies can target for killing Americans who are involved in terrorism.
“We take direct action against terrorists, in the intelligence community,” Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, said.
“If … we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that,” he told the House (of Representatives) intelligence committee.
Blair did not mention where the permission came from.
The Washington Post reported last week that President Barack Obama approved a December 24 strike against a compound in Yemen where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was believed to be meeting with regional al Qaeda leaders.
He was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, but is now on a list of targets, the newspaper said. The American advisers in Yemen do not participate in raids but help plan missions and provide weapons, the newspaper report said.
The CIA and the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command maintains lists of individuals they seek to kill or capture, and both lists included at least three Americans, The Washington Post said.
The comment on American targets in a public setting is highly unusual from a current intelligence official and even the congressman asking the questions was caught by surprise.
In making such decisions, “whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans, those are the factors involved,” Blair said.
“We don’t target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans,” he said.
“I’m actually a little bit surprised you went this far in open session,” Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra said.
Blair replied: “The reason I went this far in open session is I just don’t want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless about endangering — in fact we’re not careless about endangering lives at all — but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country.”
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman and David Storey)
Barack Obama is continuing a policy that targets American enemies abroad. The policy says that American citizens abroad that are associated with terrorism can be caught, imprisoned and even killed.
Read the Articles of Freedom- http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/ArticlesofFreedom.aspx
Take the pledge http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/Pledge.aspx
An Introduction to the Articles of Freedom
Think of the millions of folks, including members of the Armed Forces, who have raised their right hand and said, “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Think of the millions who have placed their right hand over their heart and said, “I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
How could anyone who has pledged their devotion to the Constitution, reconcile the following violations of the Constitution that are destroying America? When will it end?
- For decades, our Government has been meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, without any Constitutional authority, causing foreign nationals to direct their hostilities towards us, which has given us a War on Terror and a growing Police State that is repugnant to the Fourth Amendment and the General Welfare of a Free People;
- For decades, we have had undeclared wars in violation of the War Powers clauses of Articles I and II;
- We are now gifting and lending public money and credit to private corporations for decidedly private purposes (corporate welfare), without any constitutional authority, whatsoever;
- We have a fiat currency, in violation of the money clauses of Article I;
- We have been emitting trillions of dollars worth of Bills of Credit through or under the auspices of the Federal Reserve Systemin violation of Article I;
- We have been incurring trillions of dollars worth of debt for the payment of expenditures for programs and activities that are not enumerated in Article I, and therefore not authorized;
- We have a fraudulently ratified 16th Amendment in violation of Article V, a direct, un-apportioned tax on labor in violation of the tax clauses of Article I, and a judicial system that refuses to consider the evidence, in violation of Article III;
- For decades we have had unenforced immigration laws in violation of that mandate, plainly-worded in Article II, that requires the President to “faithfully execute” all the laws passed by Congress;
- We have a President who apparently is not a natural born citizen, a violation of Article II;
- We are counting our votes in secret, as all machines do, in violation of our constitutional right not only to vote but to know that our votes are being accurately counted;
- We have an absence of well-regulated state militias, and we have federal gun control laws, all in violation of the Second Amendment;
- For decades, in violation of the sovereignty clauses of the Declaration of Independence, the United States has been entering into treaties, contracts and relationships with foreign entities, and giving authority to international bodies, dissipating, destroying and undermining America’s sovereignty;
- We have private land being taken for private purposes in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- We have a Government about to become a provider of Health Care, and about to order the People to purchase a product, powers that are not enumerated in Article I, and therefore not authorized.
- We have money bills originating in the Senate, in violation of Article I.
- We have a Senate that is using a supermajority vote to decide whether to enact a law, without an amendment to the Constitution, all in violation of Article I, Sections 3 and 5, and Article 5.
These violations have challenged the Constitutional Republic of the United States and Her People to Its core.
Above all, we have government officials who, for fourteen years, and more, have refused to honor their fundamental obligation to respond to the People’s First Amendment Petitions to Redress these violations. I call this the “capstone grievance.”
It is well settled in American Jurisprudence that if anyone has an obligation to respond and he fails to do so, his silence amounts to admission. It is also well settled that any Right that is not enforceable is not a Right – that is, with every Right there is a Remedy. However, the Constitution cannot defend itself. It is the duty of the People to defend it.
The We The People Foundation exists for the purpose of protecting and defending our federal and state Constitutions and to ensure the day comes when the American People will have institutionalized citizen vigilance for the purpose of routinely holding their elected officials accountable to their Constitutions, regardless of their political stripes and whether they voted for them.
The vision for Continental Congress 2009 came in December of 2008, while I was preparing to give a speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston. The idea was well received. From January 1 – May 1, I traveled to 88 cities in all 50 states to meet with People to see if this was an idea they would support and help make a reality. They agreed.
On May 21, the Foundation sponsored a meeting of leaders of the Freedom movement at the Jekyll Island Club in Georgia. This was the place where the Federal Reserve was first conceived in 1910. We stood in the Federal Reserve Room, as it is called, and asked our Creator to put a new and righteous record for America in the place of what had gone before. We believe our prayers were answered. We discussed Continental Congress 2009 and if this was an idea they could support and help make a reality. They all agreed.
From June 1 – October 10, a national structure was established to accommodate Continental Congress 2009. State coordinators in nearly every state volunteered their time and energy along with other citizens. A small national management team formed to assist. Delegates were nominated in each state to attend the Congress.
A Constitutionally – correct election was held on October 10. On November 11, 2009, the delegates attended Continental Congress 2009 at the Pheasant Run Conference Center in St. Charles, Illinois, sponsored by the Foundation. The Delegates of Continental Congress 2009 were not professional legislators or wordsmiths. They were ordinary, non-aligned citizens from across America and all walks of life. They set aside their lives for this Assembly. They represented You and Me, the Free People of America.
The conclusion of their efforts, their recommended Course of Action to restore and maintain Constitutional obedience in America, is This Document called ‘‘Articles of Freedom.’’
It is proposed that these Articles be distributed to All in the Land, with the intent to draw the attention and courage of a “goodly number of millions of People” who, entitled to their Freedom and essential to Its maintenance, Arise to Restore and maintain the Constitution for the United States of America.
Then and only then shall America’s Destiny be Fulfilled.
Please take the time to read the Articles of Freedom. Learn about the Constitution. Take the Pledge to stand with millions of Americans as the Articles of Freedom are served on our elected officials, and then, if necessary, to participate in coordinated, non-violent, legal and Constitutional civic actions to stop the violations.
Founder and Chairman
We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
www.GiveMeLiberty.org
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows
Supreme Court Allows Corporations To Run For Political Office
WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. “This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. “Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people’s—or their pet’s—needs.” Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’” blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as “unrefreshing” and urges New Yorkers to “taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2
FANTASY MEETS REALITY:
NO, REALLY, HERE’S THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THIS SATIRE IS BASED ON:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/?scp=3&sq=corporation%20election&st=cse
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be “democracy’s next step”: It is running for Congress.
With more than a twinge of irony, Murray Hill Incorporated, a liberal public relations firm, recently announced that it planned to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.
Here is the company’s first “campaign” ad:
