Friday, June 7, 2013


Facebook and Google insist they did not know of Prism surveillance program



Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg sharply deny knowledge of Prism until Thursday even as Obama confirms program's existence
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg called the press reports about the existence of Prism 'outrageous'. Photograph: Robert Galbraith/Reuters
America's tech giants continued to deny any knowledge of a giant government surveillance programme called Prism, even as president Barack Obama confirmed the scheme's existence Friday.
With their credibility about privacy issues in sharp focus, all the technology companies said to be involved in the program issued remarkably similar statements.
All said they did not allow the government "direct access" to their systems, all said they had never heard of the Prism program, and all called for greater transparency.
In a blogpost titled 'What the…?' Google co-founder Larry Page and chief legal officer David Drummond said the "level of secrecy" around US surveillance procedures was undermining "freedoms we all cherish."
"First, we have not joined any program that would give the US government – or any other government – direct access to our servers. Indeed, the US government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called Prism until yesterday," they wrote.
"Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don't follow the correct process."
The Google executives said they were also "very surprised" to learn of the government order made to obtain data from Verizon, first disclosed by the Guardian. "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users' internet activity on such a scale is completely false," they wrote.
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, described the press reports about Prism as "outrageous". He insisted that the Facebook was not part of any program to give the US government direct access to its servers.
He said: "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of Prism before yesterday."
Zuckerberg also called for greater transparency. "We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."
Yahoo said: "We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network."
The leaked National Security Agency (NSA) document obtained by the Guardian claims Prism operates with the "assistance of communications providers in the US".
The document names AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk and Yahoo and gives dates when they "joined" the scheme, aimed at intercepting data from people outside the US.'' The presentation talks of "legally compelled collection" of data.
All the companies involved have now denied knowledge of the scheme to the Guardian.
In one slide, the presentation identifies two types of data collection: Upstream and Prism. Upstream involves the collection of communications on "fibre cables and infrastructure as data flows past." Prism involves: "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple."
Obama confirmed the existence of the scheme Friday and said Congress was "fully apprised" of the situation and that it was being conducted legally with a "whole range of safeguards involved".
But despite Obama's acknowledgment, senior figures said they remained puzzled and surprised by the news. Speaking off the record one said their company regularly complied with subpoenas for information but had never allowed "collection directly" from their servers.
Some speculated that the wording of the document was incorrect or that the author had over-hyped the scheme.
Security experts and civil liberty figures were less convinced. "I was assuming that these tech companies were just lying," said security guru Bruce Schneier. "That's the most obvious explanation."
"Could it possibly be that there's a department within these companies that hides this from the executives? Maybe," he said. "I don't know, we don't know. This points to the problem here. There's so much freaking secrecy that we don't know enough to even know what is going on."
He said he was not surprised by the news. "There are no surprises here. We all knew what was going on and now they have finally admitted it."
"The NSA would not have done this surreptitiously, they want the tech companies on their side," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "I can't make sense of their statements at all."
He said it was clear that tech companies in general were more than happy to co-operate with the US authorities and said he was puzzled why there seemed to be such a gap between the two sides' story.
Ali Reza Manouchehri, CEO and co-founder of MetroStar Systems, an IT consultant that works closely with government agencies, said: "There are situations that come up where they have to communicate with the security agencies. At the end of the day they are working in the interest of national security."
"I can't comment on what's going on inside the company. It's hard for me to believe that Google doesn't know," he said. "It is either transparent or it is surreptitious. It is hard for me to believe that at this level, at this volume it is surreptitious." He said if the companies really did not know then "we have some serious issues."
The news has sparked widespread concern in the US. Nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition at Progressive Change Campaign Committee calling on Congress to hold investigations.

Why FISA Judge Roger Vinson Must be Impeached... By the way, who are these judges? Are they loyal to Obama?

(DAILY KOS) -- Judge Roger Vinson, the FISA judge who allowed the FBI to collect all phone records (Verizon for three months, but various folks have implied that he has allowed this to go on for a long time and from every carrier) must be impeached as must every other FISA judge who approved these fishing expeditions. His disdain for the Fourth Amendment shows a total lack of concern for our constitution and for the rights protected in it.
His court order shows no valid reason for his sweeping decision to allow the FBI to monitor every single phone call in the country (yes, this is Verizon only for this order, but be sure that the FBI requested these illegally broad orders from every single carrier).
This judge did this as the FISA judge, but it is clear from the breadth of his order that the order was far beyond anything that could legally be ordered under FISA. The only possible method of getting similar information under FISA would be under Section 215 which does not authorize this incredibly broad collection of data. Sure the NSA can use it analyze, but the FBI could find out about crimes if it had 300 million cameras watching each of us, too.
It is the duty of Judge Vinson to say "no" to any administration that tries to use laws like this as an unlimited right to spy on everyone. Nothing in his order told the FBI or the NSA that they had to limit the use of the documents being sought. It was just the world's largest unrestricted trawl of data. Judge Vinson failed us and failed the Fourth Amendment with his overly broad order in his Star Chamber hearings.
It's a sad thing. The Star Chamber was originally designed to be a method of providing equitable relief to those who had suffered injustice. It became, over time, the perfect example of injustice. It did everything the FISA court now does. It criminalized discussion of what went on in it and it eventually gave oppressors unrestricted power. The FISA Court is doing everything that we were warned against.
Too bad the right-wing's allegedly huge fan of the Fourth Amendment, Antonin Scalia, decided to ignore his standards in Clapper v. Amnesty International. Had he stood up for the Fourth Amendment there instead of meekly signing on with Alito's "we don't care" opinion, we might not have been surprised that the US government is spying on every single person in the United States. We would have found out about this abuse of power.
I hope that Glenn Greenwald isn't in the US at the moment. I wouldn't want him to be arrested for the crime of Embarrassing the Administration. This was indeed a time when we saw all three branches of government join together to destroy our constitutional rights, but we need to start by impeaching the judges who had the duty to stop it. Read more via Daily Kos...
Nat'l Intel Director May Have Lied to Congress About NSA Data Collection The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper may have lied to Congress when he told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12 that the National Security Agency does not collect data on millions of Americans. On Thursday, Breitbart News broke the story about Clapper's previous testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee by unearthing video of his exchange with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden asked Clapper if the NSA collects "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper responded, "No, sir." Revelations about his past remarks may have compelled Clapper to attempt to clarify his previous testimony in a phone interview to National Journal on Thursday in which he told the publication, "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that." But even outlets like Yahoo! News noted on Thursday, after examining the word-for-word exchange, that this "looks bad" because while "that may have been what Clapper meant," "it wasn't what he said. And it certainly wasn't what he was asked" then: Wyden: "And this is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer, because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. "Last summer the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, '... the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.' "The reason I'm asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don't really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper: "No, sir." Wyden: "It does not." Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly." Wyden: "All right. Thank you. I'll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer." Breitbart News posted the video after it was revealed the Obama administration got a court order that forced Verizon to hand over all records of domestic and international calls an on "ongoing basis" and before details about the the federal government's PRISM program came to light on Thursday evening. The government is even reportedly constructing a Data Center in Utah to store all of this information. On Thursday night, in response to these reports, Clapper released a statement claiming reports in the UK Guardian (Verizon) about the Washington Post (PRISM) had some "inaccuracies." He claimed, contrary to widespread reports, that these programs did not "intentionally" target U.S citizens, but did not indicate how the National Security Agency could have obtained information solely on "non-U.S. persons outside the U.S." without collecting "any type of data" on Americans. Clapper's fill statement is below: The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies. Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States. Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons. Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate. Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.

Why NSA's PRISM Program Makes Sense

The National Security Agency's headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland is the nexus for signals-intelligence activity in the intelligence community. The agency's PRISM program is designed to intercept terrorist and other hostile traffic on the Internet that originates outside the United States but passes through domestic communications infrastructure en route to its destination. (Photo credit: octal)
President Obama’s firm defense of the National Security Agency’s “domestic” eavesdropping program on Friday should calm some of the more extravagant fears provoked by public disclosure of its existence.  I put the word “domestic” in quotes because the effort to monitor Internet and other communications traffic isn’t really about listening in on Americans, or even foreign nationals living here, but rather intercepting suspicious transmissions originating overseas that just happen to be passing through the United States.
That is an eminently sensible way of keeping up with terrorists, because it is so much easier than tapping into network conduits in other countries or under the seas (not that we don’t do that).  In order to grasp the logic of the NSA program, which is code-named PRISM, you have to understand how the Internet evolved.  It was a purely American innovation at its inception, with most of the infrastructure concentrated in a few places like Northern Virginia.
I live a few miles from where the Internet’s first big East Coast access point was located in the parking garage of an office building near the intersection of Virginia’s Routes 7 and 193, an area that some people refer to as Internet Alley.  Because the Worldwide Web grew so haphazardly in its early days, it was common until recently for Internet traffic between two European countries to pass through my neighborhood.  There were only a few major nodes in the system, and packet-switching sends messages through whatever pathway is available.
The Washington Post story on PRISM today has a graphic illustrating my point about how bandwidth tends to be allocated globally.  Like a modern version of ancient Rome’s Appian Way, all digital roads lead to America.  It isn’t hard to see why Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper could say on Thursday that “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect.”  No kidding: PRISM generated an average of four items per day for the President’s daily intelligence briefing in 2012.
The key point to recognize, though, is that this really is foreign intelligence.  The architecture of the Internet enables NSA to collect it within U.S. borders, but there is no intention to spy on U.S. citizens.  A few elementary algorithms used in narrowing the analysis of traffic should be sufficient to assure that the privacy of American citizens is seldom compromised.  President Obama stressed in his comments today that safeguards have been put in place to prevent the scope of NSA eavesdropping from expanding beyond its original purpose.
I don’t want to minimize the dangers to civil liberties associated with such a program.  It needs to be monitored closely, which is one reason why Congress has been kept informed about its existence. However, compared with the danger posed by terrorists bent upon destroying America, PRISM presents at worst only modest danger to our liberties.  Its main purpose is to protect those liberties, not subvert them.

bama Revealed More Than His Birth Certificate Last Year

By Ronald Jay Polland
When President Obama released his long-form Certificate of Live Birth on Apr. 27, 2011, (Picture 1), everyone in the press and the public had forgotten about the other birth certificate he released in 2008: the short-form Certification of Live Birth that his campaign staff posted on its website (Picture 2).
Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth
Short-Form Certification of Live Birth
...Everyone, that is, except Obama, his White House staff and legal counsel, and CNN.
At a press conference held the day before, 4/26/2011, a CNN reporter confronted Jay Carney with the following:
Jay, my colleague, Gary Tuchman, just went to Hawaii and established again that there's evidence suggesting that the President was born in the United States. However, Trump and others keep saying that that's not the actual birth certificate, and as you know, Hawaii Department of Health says that you can request a birth certificate; you put in a Freedom of Information request, and within a few weeks, you'll get a copy out of the vault. Why doesn't the President do that?
On April 25, CNN had shown Part 1 of a two-part, two-day investigation into Obama's birth certificate.  (The network had shown Part 2 on April 26.)  The investigation focused exclusively on the short-form while briefly noting that the original vault birth certificate was still available to Hawaiians, but a person had to file a Freedom of Information Act and wait three to four weeks before receiving it.  CNN insisted that the short-form was more legal than the long-form because the long-form "is no longer certified for use."
As for Carney, he angrily responded to CNN that "[t]his is a settled issue.  The birth certificate that the campaign put up online has been available for everyone to see around the globe."  Carney knew that two copies of Obama's long-form birth certificate had arrived two days earlier, but he kept silent on this fact until the following day, when a special press briefing, known as a "Press Gaggle," was held just prior to Obama's official press conference.  No recording devices or photography was permitted.  Only paper-and-pencil notes.  (Banning physical recordings?  What ever happened to transparency?)
The briefing was actually led by Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, with Carney and White House Counsel Robert Bauer there for support.  After copies of the long-form and short-form birth certificates were handed out, Pfeiffer began to double down on the importance of the short-form; according to Pfeiffer, "the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008" had settled the issue of his birth place and presidential eligibility.
Pfeiffer then provided the press with a brief history of the short-form birth certificate:
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President's campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. We received that document; we posted it on the website. ... To be clear, the document we presented on the President's website in 2008 is his birth certificate.
When Robert Bauer got up to speak, one of the reporters asked him, "Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years?  Was it Donald Trump who prompted you to issue this?"  One month earlier, Trump was a guest on the TV show The View and had asked, "Why does Obama refuse to show his long-form birth certificate?"
Bauer let Pfeiffer, now noticeably more frustrated, answer the question:
I don't think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved -- for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008.  And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.
It was hardly a settled issue, though, since the short-form is what prompted calls for the release of the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate.  Since June 2008, there have been more than 80 lawsuits filed to get it released and $2 million spent by Obama to keep it hidden.
Obviously, the White House wanted to make everyone think that the long-form birth certificate was "an unnecessary distraction," since his birth in Hawaii was a "settled issue" in 2008.  When Obama finally arrived at the podium to discuss the release of his long-form birth certificate, he would never mention it by name.  In his opening remarks, he said, "As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth."  He did mention, however, that "[w]e've posted the Certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.  People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate."
This was the first time that Obama had ever personally stated, on national TV, that he had posted his birth certificate on the internet "for everybody to see" -- for everybody, that is, except Obama, who never said that he saw it.  Anyone watching CNN the night before also had a chance to see it.
Here is a video capture from CNN's "Birther investigation" broadcast on April 26, 2011:
It shows two digital photos of the Certification taken by in August 2008.  According to the White House, this is the same Certification that Obama requested and received in June 2008, of which he had a scan copy posted on his website.  The photo on the left is the back-side of the Certification, which the campaign refused to scan -- and we can see why.
It has a date-stamp of "June 6, 2007," the date that the form was issued.  The form itself is also a 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) because, in 2008, the design of the form was significantly changed.  
(arrow points to date-stamp printed on other side)
(arrow points to date-stamp printed on other side)
(Reverse side with official stamps)
(arrow points to date-stamp printed on other side)
(Reverse side with official stamps)
The scans listed herein are genuine 2007 and 2008 COLBs with their 2007 or 2008 date-stamps.  The composite image above is a section of a genuine 2008 COLB overlaid on Obama's Certification to highlight how different the borders and the text placements are.
These images prove that what Obama posted on the internet was an image of a 2007 COLB or short-form birth certificate, date-stamped June 6, 2007, and not a genuine scan copy of a genuine 2008 short-form.  Had Obama ordered and received a short-form COLB in 2008, it would look like the 2008 COLB with the open border and realigned text as in the overlay above and have a date-stamp of June 6, 2008, not June 6, 2007.
From June 2008 until April 2011, the Hawaii Health Department refused to confirm that they had issued a short-form birth certificate to Obama or anyone acting on his behalf.  They refused to authenticate the scan image posted on Obama's web site and the photos posted on  Dr. Jerry Corsi, of World Net Daily, was the first to report that Hawaii refused to authenticate the online COLB.  The reasons should be obvious by now: they never produced a genuine 2008 Certification of Live Birth for Obama, or even a genuine 2007 Certification of Live Birth; hence, there was nothing to authenticate.
The only way Obama or anyone could get a 2007 COLB, date-stamped June 6, 2007, in June 2008 is to have one forged, and that is exactly what they did.  Normally, if you wanted to authenticate a birth document, you would have a forensic document expert compare the forged facsimile with the real document.  However, if no real document exists, then there is nothing for a forensic document examiner to examine.
If Obama's short-form birth certificate does not exist, then any images of it cannot be authentic, either.  However, how does one prove it?  The first step is to answer the question, "Was the online image made naturally by an image scanner using a genuine paper COLB, or was it fabricated by human intervention and graphics software?"
I spent six months in 2009 reverse-engineering the online image to determine exactly how it was made.  I attempted to make it naturally using three different scanners and three genuine 2007 COLBs.  After several hundred hours of making trial images, I concluded that no scanner on the planet could ever have made the Obama COLB image, and the image did not look like any genuine 2007 COLB ever made.  This was a one-of-a-kind image that Factcheck photographed as a printout and not as a real paper birth certificate.
After deconstructing Obama's online COLB image, I forensically reconstructed an exact duplicate of it using Adobe Photoshop.  The reason why I created a clone of Obama's online COLB was to achieve two objectives.
First, it demonstrated that the online image was a fabrication made by someone using pieces of other people's COLBs and then assembled to look like an original 2007 COLB.  I created a video on how I reconstructed it and posted it on my YouTube channel.
Secondly, I wanted to demonstrate that a person looking at my COLB clone could not tell it apart from Obama's COLB.  I managed to get my image listed by as being Obama's actual COLB, and it worked.  Millions of people have viewed it, posted links to it, and commented that my forgery was sufficient proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
I started writing about Obama's COLB from the first day the Obama campaign posted it.  I included a high-resolution copy of the image on my blog, and Snopes decided to post a link to it instead of linking to the original image posted on the Obama campaign website.
At the Press Gaggle, the White House distributed to reporters copies of both the long-form birth certificate and the short-form birth certificate.  Although both certificates were printed on the same kind of green-patterned security paper, the copies given to the media had no backgrounds.  The long-form birth certificate was a high-resolution bluish copy, while the short-form was a low-resolution black-and-white copy taken from a printout of the Obama COLB as shown on the Snopes website.  The Snopes printout is on the White House website, and the COLB image is the one I made, and not one by the campaign.  More proof that the campaign never had a genuine paper short-form to scan and post.
Xerox copy of a printout made from a web page found on
The White House also used a black-and-white printout from the Snopes web page to hide the fact that they had posted a 2007 COLB, and not a 2008 COLB as repeatedly reported.
At the end of his press conference, Obama told his audience, "I don't have time for sideshows and distractions.  I have better things to do."  With that, he left the Brady Room, boarded Air Force One with Michelle, and flew to Chicago so that they could go on Oprah and discuss the "outing of the birth certificate," as Oprah had described it.
When her show began, Oprah said that "[b]y the time this show airs, everyone will have seen your hospital-issued birth certificate which people started asking about two and a half years ago."  It was at that moment that Michelle blurted out, "It's been four years!," confirming the fact that many people had been asking to see his original birth certificate since 2007.
CNN was not done promulgating the importance of the short-form birth certificate.  On May 30, 2012, they rebroadcast Part 2 of their April 2011 "Birther report" -- this time with a new title, "Busting the Birther Conspiracy Theory," and a new, fraudulent bait-and-switch.
In the original April 2011 broadcast, CNN reporter Tuchman held up a Photostat and said, "Here is a copy of a long-form birth certificate belonging to another man. As you can see, it has a little more information on it than the short-form. It has the name of the hospital where he was born, the doctor's signature[,]" and so forth.  For comparative purposes, Tuchman was showing what an actual long-form birth certificate looks like.
Screenshot from April 2011 CNN broadcast
In the May 2012 rebroadcast, they used the same shot of Tuchman holding the Photostat, but he now calls it a copy of the short-form birth certificate that Obama released in 2008.
Screenshot from May 2012 CNN broadcast
In the April broadcast, CNN displayed the COLB scan with Factcheck's photos on either side of it.  In the May rebroadcast, the scene was the same, but they omitted the "From" reference that appeared at the top-right corner of the original broadcast:
Screenshot from April 2011 CNN broadcast
Screenshot from May 2012 CNN broadcast
Also, in the original April 2011 broadcast and May 2012 rebroadcast, Gary Tuchman told the audience that Obama's birth announcement had appeared in Honolulu's Star-Bulletin on August 14, 1961.  However, they zoomed in on the birth announcement that was in the Honolulu Advertiser, since "highway" is abbreviated as "Hwy." in the announcement.  In the Star-Bulletin, the highway name and the word "highway" are spelled out.
Honolulu Advertiser, August 13, 1961
Honolulu Star-Bulletin Aug. 14, 1961
The White House wanted to prove that Obama's citizenship was "a settled issue."  They wanted to prove that Obama's birth in Hawaii was "a settled issue."  Finally, and most importantly, they wanted to prove that Obama's presidential eligibly was "a settled issue."
The only issue that Barack Obama and his White House staff had settled was that he used a fake birth certificate image to convince voters that he was born Hawaii, that he is an American citizen, and that he is eligible to be president.
But Obama cannot be president.  He is an imposter and usurper who refuses to provide any concrete evidence of his born identity, his birthplace, his citizenship, his parents' names and citizenship, or his own eligibility.  If these were made public, they would prove that Obama is usurping the office he now holds.

H.R. 347: Another Step in the Elimination of the First Amendment

H.R. 347: Another Step in the Elimination of the First Amendment

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Kurt Nimmo
March 5, 2012
It is fairly obvious Obama and Congress rushed through H.R. 347 in order to curtail demonstrations that will undoubtedly occur during both Democrat and Republican conventions this summer. Also known as the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” the bill makes it a felony to disrupt or protest at any place or event attended by any person with secret service protection.
“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway,” Michigan Rep. Justin Amash wrote on his Facebook page. “[H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”
Amash, Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, and Ron Paul were the lone dissenting voices opposed to this bill, which is being called  the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” designed specifically to counter the Occupy movement and other political groups opposed to the bankster regime in control of the Congress and the presidency. Democrats have characterized opposition to the bill as “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing.”
Gene Howington, a guest blogger on law professor Jonathan Turley’s blog, contends that the government deliberately made the language of H.R. 347 vague and overly broad. Howington writes that “it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing ‘wiggle room’ for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority.”
While the recently enacted and also vaguely worded NDAA “poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition,” Howington notes. “As currently worded, it might as well have been called the ‘Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011′ or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the ‘First Amendment Rights Eradication Act’ because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are ‘authorized’ to be protected by the Secret Service.”
In 1998, Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62 establishing the National Special Security Events, or NSSE, a directive making the Secret Service responsible for security at designated events, including presidential nominating conventions. Other events under NSEE include summits of world leaders, meetings of international organizations, and presidential inaugurations. In other words, with the passage of this bill, it will now be a felony to protest the G20 and globalist “trade” summits and other neoliberal confabs where international banksters and their minions plot our future behind closed doors.
Such a draconian restriction of the First Amendment is another step in an effort to outlaw all protest against the government, especially at events where the controllers discuss and finalize their plans to implement world government and a centralized global banking system. The global elite have repeatedly demonstrated their animosity toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Taking down the First Amendment – in addition to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and most importantly the Second – under the bogus and contrived aegis of a manufactured war on terror amply reveals what they have a mind: a gulag panopticon where resistance is not only futile, but illegal, and where the slaves are disarmed and powerless to effectuate change.

but the islamic dick tater head can give our tax payer money to terrorist

HR 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

HR 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 Dr. Lance Parmely
Numerous inquiries, questions, and concerns have been brought to the attention of Americans politicians and citizens alike concerning HR 347: the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” bill. Many of the claims made regarding piece of legislation are untrue in nature still disturbing. This law updates a measure that has been public knowledge since it was signed by the president at the time; Richard Nixon made it a crime to trespass upon grounds previously secured by the Secret Service in 1971. So far there have been no new penalties attached, but there was much speculation as to whether or not the bill was signed in secret. Although many public officials have stated that “the bill was not signed secretly”, just as many claim differently. The White House did, however, announce the signing of this bill publicly.
The law was sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney (R- Florida). There have been rumors that the bill has indeed been tossed around Congress for years. Rooney first introduced the idea of in 2009 and spoke on the House floor about passing the bill in 2010. The current Congress passed the bill by an overwhelming margin — by “unanimous consent” in the Senate and only three votes of dissent in the House of Representatives. It merely amended Title 18, Chapter 84, and Section 1752 of the U.S. Code, just as then-President George W. Bush did in 2006 when he signed the Patriot Act. 
The new law specifies that it is unlawful to enter secured areas of the White House and its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence and grounds. Previously, according to the report, the law prohibited unlawful entry to any building or ground secured by the Secret Service where the President or Vice President is “temporarily” visiting. That, for lack of a better word, cornered the Secret Service to relying on a District of Columbia law that only mentions “minor misdemeanor infractions”, even if somebody were to breach the White House residence itself. The new law revises the standard that prosecutors must meet to gain a conviction, from proving that a violation was committed “willfully and knowingly” to merely proving that it was committed “knowingly.” The bill reached the House floor on February 28, 2011, but no one spoke out against it during the seven minutes of debate. The House then passed it by a vote of 399 to 3.
This brings to mind certain fundamental questions:
  • Is it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is?
  • Are people being arrested for the wrong reasons? What are the implications of this bill on the right to assembly?
“The mission of the Libertarian Party of Washington is to advance liberty by electing Libertarians and passing legislation that will reduce the size and scope of intrusive government.”
Please consider helping us expand our outreach efforts by donating what you can today.

STUNNING REVELATION! OBOTS are in a TIZZY over this one!

"This ought to serve as a warning shot across the bow to the naysayers of our criminal investigation..."
- Mike Zullo

On June 1, 2013 Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse lead investigator, Mike Zullo, revealed for the first time that Reed Hayes of Hawaii is the Certified Document Examiner (CDE) who produced the 40 page opinion referenced in an Alabama court affidavit. Hayes' report concluded that Obama's White House .pdf birth certificate image was a complete fabrication and a 100% forgery.

The rabid followers of the "O" (Obots) have rushed to denounce Reed Hayes as a "quack." However, one might be surprised to learn that one of Hayes' clients listed in the Expert Witness Directory at this link is an attorney with Perkins-Coie Law Firm. 

Perkins - Coie is the law practice whose partners have provided Obama's personal defense against all birth certificate and natural born citizen litigation over the past five years.  Hmmmmm.  Very interesting indeed

Reed Hayes

If it turns out that Sheriff Arpaio is successful in getting Congress to investigate the authenticity of Obama's BC, the Perkins-Coie legal team, who will be defending Obama, will be hard pressed to simply dismiss Reed Hayes as a "quack."  This fact will be especially significant now that it is a revealed and proven  truth that members of the Perkins - Coie  firm have used Hayes as an expert witness! Their own prior cases, where Hayes was used as a witness, would be severely compromised if they use Saul Alinski-styled mocking  attacks on Hayes.

Reportedly, Obama operatives are already pummeling Hayes with e-mails trying to discover the details in his 40-page forensic analysis of the pdf BC. Thus far Hayes has properly refused to disclose any details. Hayes simply refers the detractors to Arpaio and the CCP who, by the way, now legally own his report.
(Who says Arpaio, Zullo,, aren't brilliant?)

It is further reported that the Obama operative attempt to find "dirt" on Hayes was quickly derailed by their discovery that Hayes had a male "partner" (now deceased). Hayes' partner had been an ACLU lawyer in Hawaii. It stands to reason that Hayes himself was a liberal progressive and likely an Obama supporter. It appears highly doubtful that Hayes was merely some Tea Party "birther" prior to being engaged to examine Obama's BC image.

These facts and stunning revelations ruin the usual Obot playbook firing off the smear tactics against the "birthers." It is reported that the Obots have even debated at length whether personal attacks might be suspended due to this discovery. Their plan is, allegedly, to only attack the Hayes work product. 

CCP lead investigator  Mike Zullo says, regarding the Hayes revelation, "This ought to serve as a warning shot across the bow to the naysayers of our criminal investigation in the Obama fraud case. The impressive credentials of Mr. Hayes, and the fact that he has testified in court cases for Perkins-Coie coupled with the fact that Mr. Hayes is a registered Democrat, demonstrates the integrity of our investigation and our conviction that we possess incontrovertible evidence to back our case. It must be emphasized that we possess much more evidence similar to this revelation that we have not yet released for public information."

Carl Gallups (PPSIMMONS Radio) says, "This is the kind of stuff we have been urging our listeners and subscribers to 'trust us' on. We have been knowing about evidence like this for a long, long time. There is a proper time and place for this kind of information to be released. Trust me, there's a lot more like this and even better than this that is yet to come. This is the kind of information that law enforcement officials and congressmen are now seeing with their own eyes. This matter is far from over. It's just beginning."
We at PPSIMMONS News believe that revelations such as this serve to reveal the true nature of the Obamabot camp and the deception that has been used for the last 5 years - regarding the issue of the legal identification of the man in the White House.

This is going to get very interesting - indeed.  Stay tuned. PPSIMMONS News will cover it all!

From the original article at:
Seizethecarp @ Free Republic

Video Version Of This Report:

HOT HOT!  Penn. Police Chief: Mike Zullo Has Made A Believer Out of Me!

HOT! Sheriffs are already responding to the Zullo revelations at the Sheriff's Convention!

HOT! Lawmen and Elected Officials SHOCKED over Zullo revelations!

PLEASE - consider a donation to the CCP investigation work. All the work, investigation, and travel is done by donation only. No taxpayer money is being used in this endeavor. This truly is a WE THE PEOPLE grassroots movement. We are closer now than ever of having this matter before congress so some real action can take place. Much more work is to be done, much more travel and time will be involved. Please help if you can. Get others involved also. Thank you and God bless you.

You may also mail your donation to us at:
MCSO Cold-Case Posse
P.O. Box 74374
Phoenix, Arizona 85087

Amazon's #1 Selling Book in America   
(Science & Religion)  
Still garnering FIVE STAR reviews! Get your copy now!
Effectively Defending The Christian Faith                                         
by Carl Gallups
Publisher: WND Books - Washington D.C.                                         
A sweeping defense of the Christian faith using the latest scientific evidence, sound logic, and contextually interpreted Biblical truths. Packed with humor, easy to read, and nearly impossible to put down. People are raving about Carl’s book all over the world. Scientists, professors, university presidents and professors, pastors, and other best selling authors have heavily endorsed this book.
Get your copy at today!
"A must-read book! / A muscular defense of the Christian faith. /An arsenal of powerful rebuttals to Christian bashers." (Columnist - Jeff Kuhner of the Kuhner Report WRKO - Boston.)
Featured on TBN (PTL With Dwight Thompson), ATLANTA LIVE, DOVE NETWORK, COAST UP CLOSE TV, CREATION TODAY TV, (To be featured on CHRIST IN PROPHECY TV in January 2013), IN THE MARKET with Janet Parshall (Moody Radio) and in dozens of major radio markets coast to coast (From Mancow in the Morning (Chicago) to Bill Martinez Live (California). THIS BOOK HAS BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL PHENOMENON! Get your copy today.
DON'T FORGET TO CHECK OUT Carl Gallups' Home Page -   This is a daily site of devotions, videos, articles and Biblical inspiration. Use it in your life and use it as a witnessing tool!  
Pastor Carl Gallups is a best selling author, a conservative talk show host veteran, former Florida law enforcement officer, and a long-time senior pastor of a large Gulf Coast Baptist church. He is the founder of the mega-viral and world famous PPSIMMONS YouTube channel. His face, voice, opinions, and ministry materials are known to millions around the world.

BREAKING!     Carl Gallups and WND Books have a brand new and profoundly sensational book on its way accompanied by a full length documentary movie featuring internationally renowned Christian leaders.  Read the story HERE:

Is President Obama a pathological liar? You'd be surprised with what we have discovered.

Is President Obama a pathological liar? You'd be surprised with what we have discovered...

The Obama Record: The most frightening aspect of this president may not be his radical ideology but his rank dishonesty in selling that ideology. Now he's been caught lying about family racism.
This is only the latest example of a growing body of fabrications, embellishments and outright lies told by this president, who has a real and possibly pathological problem with the truth.
Stacked up, his whoppers would make even Bill Clinton blush. Here's a sampling...

Pseudologia fantastica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pseudologia fantasticamythomaniacompulsive lying or pathological lying are three of several terms applied by psychiatrists to the behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".[1] The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.


The defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica are:
  1. The stories told are not entirely improbable and often have some element of truth. They are not a manifestation of delusion or some broader type of psychosis: upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly.
  2. The fabricative tendency is long lasting; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure as much as it is an innate trait of the personality.
  3. A definitely internal, not an external, motive for the behavior can be discerned clinically: e.g., long-lasting extortion or habitual spousal battery might cause a person to lie repeatedly, without the lying being a pathological symptom.[2]
  4. The stories told tend toward presenting the liar favorably. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, knowing or being related to many famous people.
Pseudologia fantastica may also present as false memory syndrome, where the sufferer genuinely believes that fictitious events have taken place, regardless that these events are fantasies. The sufferer may believe that he or she has committed superhuman acts of altruism and love or has committed equally grandiose acts of diabolical evil, for which the sufferer must atone, or has already atoned for in her/his fantasies.

Pathological liars

Lying is the act of both knowingly and intentionally/willfully making a false statement.[4] Most people do so out of fear.[5] Pathological lying is considered a mental illness, because it takes over rational judgment and progresses into the fantasy world and back.[6]
Excessive lying is a common symptom of several mental illnesses. For instance people who suffer from antisocial personality disorder use lying to benefit from others. Some individuals with borderline personality disorder lie for attention by claiming they’ve been treated poorly (though it is not diagnostic).[7] Pathological lying, on the other hand, can be described as an addiction to lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.[8]
There are many consequences of being a pathological liar. Due to lack of trust, most pathological liars' relationships and friendships fail. If the disease continues to progress, lying could become so severe as to cause legal problems, including but not limited to fraud.[9]
Psychotherapy appears to be one of the only methods to treat a person suffering from pathological lying. No research has been performed regarding the use of pharmaceutical medication to treat pathological liars.[9] Some research suggests that certain people may have a “predisposition to lying”.[10]
Pathological lying is a complex phenomenon, differing from other mental illnesses. It has many life-changing consequences for those who must live with the illness. Currently, there is not enough research in the area of pathological lying to guarantee a cure.[9]