No More 4th Amendment: DHS Can Still Seize Belongings Without Reason

No More 4th Amendment: DHS Can Still Seize Belongings Without Reason

Saturday, February 9, 2013 23:05

inShare2

0

(Before It's News)

The Fourth Amendment no longer means what you once thought it did: A new report reveals that the government has shrugged off concerns over the alleged constitutional infringements of its own citizens near international crossings.

An internal review of the US Department of Homeland Security’s procedures regarding the suspicionless search-and-seizure of phones and laptops near the nation’s border has reaffirmed the agency’s ability to bypass Fourth Amendment-protected rights [.pdf].

 

In a two page executive summary published quietly last month to the official DHS website, the agency explains that a civil rights and civil liberties impact assessment of the office’s little-known power to collect personal electronics near international crossings has passed an auditor’s interpretation of what does and doesn’t violate the US Constitution.

Since 2009, the DHS has been legally permitted to seize and review the contents of personal electronic devices, including mobile phones, portable computers and data discs, even without being able to cite any reasonable suspicion that those articles were involved in a crime.

When the initiative was introduced in August 2009 by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, she defended the policy change. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” the secretary said, adding, “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

In that Aug. 09 announcement, Sec. Napolitano ensured the American public that they had nothing to worry about and that an impact assessment would be conducted within 120 days to eliminate any fears. More than two years later, however, the DHS-led study has only now been released in part, and its findings do little to alleviate the concerns of civil liberty advocates who have held their breath since the early days of the Obama administration, waiting anxiously to hear about the legality of a directive that applies to both Customs and Border Protectionagents and officers with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement working under the DHS.

“We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment,” reads the assessment, written by Tamara Kessler of the department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” she adds.

Elsewhere in her report, Kessler dismisses concerns that legalized searches that require Americans to submit their electronic devices without reason would scare citizens from exercising their ability to speak and act freely.

“Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights,” Tessler insists.

David Kravets, a reporter for Wired’s Danger Room, writes of the review, “The memo highlights the friction between today’s reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government’s stated quest for national security.”

Commenting on Wired’s report, American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Catherine Crump voices concern over how DHS agents can essentially bypass the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search-and-seizure. With few exceptions, the government is not permitted to search the belongings of a person without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Near the nation’s borders, though, that requirement is removed entirely.

“There should be a reasonable, articulate reason why the search of our electronic devices could lead to evidence of a crime,” Crump tells Wired. “That’s a low threshold.”

Katie Haas of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program adds in a blog post this week, “the reality is that

allowing government agents to search through all of a traveler’s data without reasonable suspicion is completely incompatible with our fundamental rights. Those rights, she says, are “implicated when the government can rummage through our computers and cell phones for no reason other than that we happen to have traveled abroad.”

“Suspicionless searches also open the door to profiling based on perceived or actual race, ethnicity, or religion,”Haas adds, “And our First Amendment rights to free speech and free association are inhibited when agents at the border can target us for searches based on our exercise of those rights.”

In response to the stripped-down executive summary posted by DHS, the ACLU’s main office has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the government in hopes of obtaining more information on when and why Americans might lose their Fourth Amendment-protected rights. The ACLU seeks the assessment in its entirety and all data, analyses and records gathered during the course of preparing the report.

Where exactly the government can seize personal items without reason is something that has already been determined, though. Last March, the US Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling that legally permitted the use of suspicionless roadblocks not necessarily close to the country’s borders. Back in 2006, the ACLU determined that roughly two-thirds of the entire US population lives within 100 miles of the country’s border, making approximately 200 million Americans in places like Buffalo, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle subject to warrantless and suspicionless searches.

"It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally,” ACLU’s Caroline Fredrickson told Wired for an earlier report.

Sec. Napolitano and the DHS have been sued at least once over allegations that the seizure of personal electronic belonging to a US citizen near an international border violated the Constitution of the country. David House, a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, says his laptop and other devices were confiscated without reason while returning to the US from Mexico in November 2010. According to legal filings, House was grilled about his association with Manning, an accused Army whistleblower arrested six months earlier, and WikiLeaks, the website Manning is alleged to have supplied with hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.

Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare

42

386

Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.¹
And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.
Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.
Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!
I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.
Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!

The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.

In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.² This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.

Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this? Yes! Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” [boldface mine]

That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.
As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry! Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law! See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be. ³
So! In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congress has specific authority under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.16.
In the case of Congress’ requiring ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards to pay the fees to fund the marine hospitals at the dock-Yards, Congress is granted by Art. I, Sec.8, next to last clause, a general legislative power over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards.⁴
But for the country at large, Congress has no broad grant of legislative powers. There, Congress’ powers are few, limited, and strictly defined. See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers.
Now, let us look at obamacare.

What Clause in The Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Us into Obamacare?

Nothing! Over the Country at large (as opposed to the federal enclaves), Congress has only enumerated powers. These enumerated powers are listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 and in the Amendments addressing civil and voting rights. No enumerated power authorizes the federal government to force us into obamacare.
So, Professor Elhauge introduces a nasty bit of poison. He says:

“Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.”

Do you see what he is doing? Surely he knows that obamacare is not authorized by any enumerated power. So! He asserts that nothing in the commerce clause says Congress can’t force us into obamacare. He thus seeks to pervert Our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to an abomination which says the federal government can do whatever it pleases as long as the commerce clause doesn’t forbid it.
Furthermore, what he says is demonstrably false. The Federalist Papers & Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention show that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. For actual quotes from Our Framers and irrefutable Proof that this is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, see: “Does the Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress to Force Us to Buy Health Insurance?”.
Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. And it does much more than force us to buy medical insurance. Obamacare turns medical care over to the federal government to control. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services will decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they will get; and who will be denied medical treatment. If you think the federal government is doing a great job feeling up old ladies and little children at airports, wait until they are deciding whether you get medical care or “the painkiller”.
Folks! The Time has come that we must recognize that social security and Medicare are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. We must confess that it is wicked to seek to live at other peoples’ expense! And when a People renounce Personal Responsibility – as we did when we embraced social security & Medicare – the federal government takes control.
Social security and Medicare are fiscally bankrupt. Obamacare, which will prevent old people from getting medical care, is the progressives’ way of dealing with the unfunded liabilities in these programs: Kill off old people by preventing them from getting medical care!
The Piper will be paid. Shall we pay him by killing off old people?
Or, shall we return to Personal Responsibility and dismantle (in an orderly fashion) the wicked, unconstitutional, and fiscally unworkable social security and Medicare programs?
Endnotes:
¹ Our Framers gave us an elegant system of Checks & Balances: Each branch of the federal government has a “check” on the other two branches. This is expressed primarily in the Oath of Office (Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause) which requires each branch to obey the Constitution and not the other branches! The supreme Court’s check on Congress is to declare their Acts unconstitutional: See (in addition to the Oath) Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1; Federalist No. 78 (8^th -15^th paras); and Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Congress’ check on the judicial branch is to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp power (Federalist No. 81, 8^th para).
² Here is the URL for the Militia Act of 1792: Read it! And note how short it is. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
³ In “The Patriot”, Mel Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia – civilians who took up arms against the British. Everyone knew that “the Militia” was the armed citizenry – farmers, trappers, shopkeepers, clergy, etc. It still is.
⁴ Attorney Hal Rounds provides fascinating additional information on this issue: “Ships will dump sick sailors wherever they may make landfall, and the locals have the burden of dealing with the victim. Their care then raises the legal right to compensation for their services, which the law of nations allows to be levied against the nation, not just the owners, of the ship.” For Mr. Round’s full comment see the Postscript of April 7, 2012 here.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/why-congress-may-lawfully-require-citizens-to-buy-guns-ammunition-but-not-to-submit-to-obamacare/#ixzz2KYjq4E43

20

7

By chairman of the board
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Breaking : Chris Dorner Posts on Facebook

Sunday, February 10, 2013 17:10

0

<a href="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=50cea33e4473b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=326914&cs=50cea33e4473b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>

(Before It's News)

On the run Chris Dorner, ex LAPD and Navy Seal, has alledgedly been posting updates on Facebook within the last two days,  which have been taken down and has been reinstated by himself while on the run. 

"The internal affairs investigation in the academy involving Schefres was spurned by a complaint that I had initiated toward two fellow recruit/offifcers. While on a assigned patrol footbeat in Hollywood Division, Officers Hermilio Buridios IV and Marlon Magana (both current LAPD officers) decided that they would voice their personal feelings about the black community. While traveling back to the station in a 12 passenger van I heard Magana refer to another individual as a nigger. I wasn’t sure if I heard correctly as there were many conversations in the van that was compiled of at least 8 officers and he was sitting in the very rear and me in the very front."  - Which Chris Dorner posted on Facebook on Monday the 11 February (alledgedly)

He went on to say "During the BOR, the department attempted to label me unsuccessfully as a bully. They stated that I had bullied a recruit, (name withheld by us), in the academy when in reality and unfounded disposition from the official 1.28 formal complaint investigation found that I was the one who stood up for (name withheld) when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning Jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp. How fucking dare you attempt to label me with such a nasty vile word. I ask that all earnest journalist investigating this story ask Ofcr. (name withheld) about the incident when Ofcr. Burdios began singing a nazi youth song about burning jewish ghettos." 

"I’m not an aspiring rapper, I’m not a gang member, I’m not a dope dealer, I don’t have multiple babies momma’s. I am an American by choice, I am a son, I am a brother, I am a military service member, I am a man who has lost complete faith in the system, when the system betrayed, slandered, and libeled me. I lived a good life and though not a religious man I always stuck to my own personal code of ethics, ethos and always stuck to my shoreline and true North. I didn’t need the US Navy to instill Honor, Courage, and Commitment in me but I thank them for re-enforcing it. It’s in my DNA."

"Pray for me... I need to keep moving. I won't have internet connection for few hours. Thank you for your prayers!" Chris Dorner

Tiny insect size drones seen as a "tactical advantage in war " by U.S military

• 
  

Tiny drones represent a future trend in warfare. The U.S. is seeking to develop drones so small they are barely visible to the human eye. Some worry these insect drones could be used for the purposes for spying and assassinating people in the future.

They look like mosquitoes and small flies, about the size of a pencil head. They are the newest trend in drones being developed by scientists working for the military industrial complex. The hope is to make the drones so small as to be near impossible to detect. They could then be used to spy, record, and even kill enemy personnel (by injecting them with nano poisons or exploding themselves in someone face or ear).
The new tiny drones are based on insect designs that have evolved over hundreds of millions of years. They represent a future trend now in science.
Expect to see more of them soon.
If the military gets their way they would deploy “swarms” of them on the battlefield.
Judging how drones are used now by the military to target, bomb and assassinate people, we expect that to continue in the future.
According to a recent RT news report the U.S. military is seeking to use these miniature drones to achieve what it calls a "tactical advantage in war":

© 2012 Nokia© 2013 Microsoft Corporation

Location: Defense Advanced Rsch Project

38.883009 ; -77.104438

“This is another step away from bulky heavily armed aerial vehicles or humanoid robots to a much smaller level of tiny remote-control devices. While current drones lack maneuverability, can’t hover and move fast enough, these new devices will be able to land precisely and fly off again at speed. One day the military hope they may prove a crucial tactical advantage in wars and could even save lives in disasters. They can also be helpful inside caves and barricaded rooms to send back real-time intelligence about the people and weapons inside.” (See article: US military surveillance future: Drones now come in swarms? http://www.rt.com/news/us-drones-swarms-274/ ).
Research into the area of drones already is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
We expect that trend to also continue as civilian scientists and engineers clamour to cater to the darkest desires of the military.

Besides the United States other countries are seeking to develop insect size drones, including the Germans, French, Netherlands and Israel.
In the case of Israel, Their latest project – a butterfly-shaped drone weighing just 20 grams - the smallest in its range so far – can gather intelligence inside buildings. (see article: Spy-Butterfly: Israel developing insect drone for indoor surveillance http://www.rt.com/news/israel-drone-indoor-butterfly-672/ ).
Drones are also being developed to mimic other forms in nature, including birds and fish…
More on Insect Sized Spy Drones?!
Airforce developing tiny insect spy drones
http://gizmoinsider.com/air-force-developing-tiny-flying-insect-drones-92936....
Spy-Butterfly: Israel developing insect drone for indoor surveillance
http://www.rt.com/news/israel-drone-indoor-butterfly-672/
Micro-machines are go: The U.S. military drones that are so small they even look like insects. cyborg insect drones
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2013802/U-S-military-drones-sm...
Robert Tilford

FAA Releases New Drone Authorization List — See Who Applied to Have Them

Last year, alarm was raised among some Americans regarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s expanding legislation for drone use over U.S. soil and the list of 63 authorized drone sites in the country. With more recent news that the Obama administration has approved drone strikes on some U.S. citizens, which some have said is “chilling” and the government saying “we can kill you,” the FAA has recently released an updated list of domestic drone authorization applicants.

The list was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The list shows 20 new applicants, mostly law enforcement and universities but also the first tribal entity, EFF noted.

(Image: Google Maps/EFF)

Here are few of the new authorization applicants EFF called out:

• The State Department
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California)
• Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho)
• Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon)
• Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota)
• King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington)
• Medina County Sheriff’s Office (Ohio)
• Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio)
• Sinclair Community College (Ohio)
• Lorain County Community College (Ohio)

EFF’s Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney for the privacy advocacy organization, wrote the hope of the nonprofit in releasing this information is that people will ask their own local law enforcement about their plans for drone use.

“We also encourage people to ask hard questions of government officials about who is funding drone development in their communities and what policies the government will demand agencies follow if they fly drones,” Lynch wrote on the website. “We need greater transparency and citizen push-back to protect Americans from privacy-invasive domestic drone use.”

An example of local law enforcement authorized to fly drones that just now might be getting ready to deploy them is the Arlington Police Department in Texas.

According to WFAA News 8, the city has two drones purchased in 2011 with grant money from the Department of Homeland Security that it has not yet used. Here’s some explanation as to the reason why, according to the news station:

The FAA regulates unmanned aerial systems, commonly known as drones. Arlington does have the agency’s permission to test the aircraft away from crowds, buildings, and highways. Practice sessions with the aircraft have been restricted to Lake Arlington, behind the police department’s training academy.

“The process can be frustrating, but ultimately we understand that the process takes time,” Rivera said.

The FAA turned down our request to go on camera, but they sent us a statement regarding unmanned aerial systems, saying safety it its top concern.

“The FAA regulates operation of Unmanned Aerial Systems to ensure that they pose no hazard to manned aircraft or people and property on the ground,”  said FAA spokesperson Lynn Lunsford.

[...]

Also delaying the program’s final approval is Arlington’s location.

A big chunk of the city lies in one of the busiest air corridors in the country. D/FW International Airport, as well as Arlington and Grand Prairie Municipal Airports are all nearby.

These regulations aside the police department told WFAA in a statement that within six weeks they expect to make a positive announcement regarding its drone program. The department said the equipment would be used in situations including search and rescue, SWAT and major accidents.

Watch WFAA’s report:

Video | News | Weather | Sports

Thu Feb 07 21:05:50 PST 2013

Arlington police hopeful their drones will soon be taking flight

The City of Arlington has two unmanned aerial drones, but they’ve never flown a single mission. News 8 has learned the police department’s unmanned aircraft program might finally get to fly in the coming weeks. view full article

Read more in the EFF’s post here. See the map EFF pulled together of all the domestic drone sites here.

(H/T: Gizmodo)

Report From The Rockaways: Working-Class Whites—The Swing Vote Nobody Admits to Wanting

By Nicholas Stix on February 8, 2013 at 11:20pm

Here on New York City’s Rockaway Peninsula, Ground Zero for Hurricane Sandy, my majority-Irish, overwhelmingly Catholic, white working/middle class community will hold its annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, one of the biggest in the country, on March 2. It will showcase many of the same pipe-and-drum marching bands that will perform in the even bigger parade down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue 14 days later.

And the Stix Family will be there, as usual.

When Michael Bloomberg, whom some neighbors call “the Mayor of Manhattan,” marches up front, no one will cheer. Some of my neighbors will boo him, and some will give him a one-finger salute. I will engage in my annual ritual of turning my back on him.

The hatred is well-earned. Bloomberg started it, by waging war on us in a million different ways.

Keep in mind that Bloomberg, like the previous three white mayors—Beame, Koch, and Giuliani—owes his power very largely to white working/middle-class communities like ours.

A colleague (Steve Sailer?) wrote that in supporting Giuliani, whites were creating an implicit racial community. They did that with Beame, Koch, Giuliani too, but their beneficiaries never repaid them. (Koch clashed publicly with blacks because he refused to suck up to them and they hated him with a passion, but he hired blacks like crazy.)

Conversely, although Bloomberg apparently calculates that the white working class has no place else to go and routinely engages in shameless pandering to blacks and Hispanics, they vote against him—even with a weak black opponent, like former comptroller Bill Thompson in 2009.

Paradoxically, the same qualities of spontaneous self-organization and self-reliance that made my community resilient enough to endure the devastation of Hurricane Sandy invite neglect by politicians. When things don’t go their way, my neighbors don’t riot, loot, or whine. So they get ignored.

Is my neighborhood full of bums, to deserve such lousy treatment? Not exactly.

In fact, it is a neighborhood of heroes—firemen and cops. On 9/11, we probably lost more men charging into the flames than any other neighborhood.

A few days after 9/11, the local Catholic parish church, St. Francis de Sales, had a memorial service for all of the West End men who’d perished.

The Boss saw the overflow service on the way to work, and called to tell me to go, but I was working online, and we only had dial-up then, so she couldn’t get through. Otherwise, I would have carried our toddler there, to commiserate with our Catholic neighbors.

But Bloomberg (and for that matter George W. Bush) repaid the overwhelmingly white New York Fire Department by instituting an aggressive Affirmative Action campaign, hiring incompetent black and Hispanic firemen. (And it wasn’t aggressive enough for some people.)

Another example: Bloomberg’s black schools chancellor, Dennis Walcott. A poverty pimp who previously ran the New York Urban League, Walcott discriminates against the over 95 percent white schoolchildren in the community, and on behalf of black and Spanish kids from other communities. He forbids white and Asian children living literally on the wrong side of the street to attend our elementary/middle school, and unhesitatingly breaks a law mandating yellow buses for kids in my neighborhood, including my son, to attend a magnet school further away, while using forced busing  in order to bring in troublemaking black kids from miles outside of our school district.

The city promised the community its own high school, but then betrayed it by flooding the new school with a majority of non-white students from other districts, and discriminating against most local kids, who have to go to school in Brooklyn and northern Queens.

East End blacks took over and destroyed two beautiful, formerly white high schools at both ends of the peninsula. The city sought to “close” and re-brand both schools, but is now re-branding only one.

At a post-Sandy public meeting at local elementary school P.S. 114, Walcott stood in front of hundreds of parents and smugly told them that not only did their school not have a mold problem, but that he would not so much as test for mold.

After Sandy, neighbors asked me to look over their garages. The black marks on the ceilings were unambiguous. As we’re a peninsula less than a half-mile wide, we all have mold—and rust—issues in the best of times, though usually no one will admit to it. (But the summers are beautiful!)

One white father told Walcott: “Nobody has confidence in you.” [Parents: No Confidence in DOE by Howard Schwach, The Wave, December 7, 2012.]

Had Walcott’s arrogance prevailed, he would have ended up costing the city hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits. Then again, who pays for the city’s lawsuits? Us!

But instead, a group of white parents got together and paid for the testing themselves. It was positive, for both mold and asbestos. [PS 114 Parents Prove to be Right by Howard Schwach, The Wave, December 14, 2012.]

In a just world, Bloomberg would constantly praise and support New York’s embattled white working class. (In 1950, New York City was 90 percent white, and communities like mine were the norm. In 2011 New York was only 33.3 percent non-Hispanic white).

Instead, they do not exist for him.

Bloomberg has repeatedly made clear that his priority is education and jobs for blacks and Hispanics.  He’s  proclaimed “blacks and Latinos are not fully sharing in the promise of American freedom,” and  "A job is the best anti-poverty and anti-crime program ever devised anywhere in the world." [NYC program for young men draws praise, questions, August 4, 2011] He’s given   millions of dollars of his own money, and more of the taxpayers to an initiative targeted specifically at young blacks and Latinos.

I have never heard Bloomberg say a word about the need to educate and find jobs for whites (or Asians).

He hires virtually no whites to issue traffic tickets, and then dispatches armies of “brownies” (their uniforms used to be that color) in commando raids on the local elementary school at dismissal time, to ticket the parked cars of white parents—who are cooperating with the principal by not driving up to the schoolhouse door in order to pick up their little ones.

When I lived in far more populous black Far Rockaway, I saw no such ticket blitzes.

Likewise, Bloomberg hires virtually no whites to work in the Parks Department. Ironically, he has banned smoking in all city parks—but, pre-Sandy, my son and I saw black, show-no Parks employees openly smoking on the boardwalk, a few feet away from the “no smoking” signs.

Bloomberg is a plutocrat, to be sure, but he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His late father worked as a bookkeeper, and the Mayor’s lovely late mother, who attended his first two swearings-in (and who died in 2011 at the age of 102) was, until her husband died, a stay-at-home mom.

However, Bloomberg burned his bridges behind him, even affecting a fake, “mid-Atlantic” accent.

My neighborhood’s problem is that, for most offices, our voting strength is diluted, combined in electoral districts with other communities. And of course, the city is wearing down our numbers, year after year, by increasingly refusing to hire whites and by its illegal alien sanctuary policy.

In 2011, we did briefly send libertarian retired businessman Bob Turner, 70, to the House of Representatives.

Turner had shot himself in the foot in his 2010 campaign by referring to all civil servants as “parasites.” (I said he’s a libertarian.) The policemen and firemen whose votes he needed either voted against him, or undervoted. But he won the 2011 special election to replace disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner by emphasizing his opposition to abortion and his support for Israel. (Ed Koch endorsed him).

However, Turner became an indirect victim of illegal immigration—because illegal aliens are counted for apportionment purposes, creating numerous “rotten boroughs” in the West, New York State lost two seats. Turner’s West End based was lumped into an African American Brooklyn district. He ran for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who had been an upstate moderate (e.g., pro-Second Amendment) until Sen. Chuck Schumer took her under his wing. But he was blocked by the state GOP, whose bland candidate was subsequently, of course, trounced.

I once spoke with Turner and found he understood how the minority mortgage meltdown had set the recession in gear. He was just the sort of citizen the Founding Fathers had in mind for public service.

On October 29, when Sandy hit, Turner saw his house in Breezy Point burn down—along with 110 other Breezy homes.

On Sandy+3, I met a neighbor named Jim (with a Germanic last name), who lost his house to flooding, and who almost drowned when he got locked out, trying to help a driver who it turned out had abandoned his car with the lights on.

Jim promoted a conspiracy theory, whereby Bloomberg and other plutocrats sought to run the working and middle-class whites out of the Rockaways’ West End, and turn it into a preserve for themselves. It sounded paranoid to me. But last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, using “climate change” as a pretext, proposed buying destroyed shoreline homes on prime real estate with taxpayer money, supposedly to use as flood zones.

Right.

New York’s ruling elites have gleefully destroyed one white working and middle-class school and neighborhood after another. Vanity and class hatred blind Bloomberg and his class comrades to even their enlightened self-interest.

They need those white working stiffs as a buffer between themselves and the burgeoning, black and brown mob that the plutocrats created.

The outlook for New York’s white working class is bleak. As central as their votes are to citywide elections, they have not found a way to leverage those votes into power.

They can, however, serve as a cautionary tale.

In those parts of the country where they are still numerically dominant, working-class whites are going to have to change their ways, develop a shared consciousness and help each other.

What would it take for a candidate to get my neighbors’ votes? The same thing that VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow recently said, citing classics scholar Enoch Powell’s popularity in Britain, that it would take for a candidate, any candidate, to get the votes of the white working class nationally: Just stand up for their interests.

Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

In Chicago, There’s Now No Right to Self-Defense OR Police Protection: Police Will No Longer Respond to Most 911 Calls (A Black History Month Moment)

By Nicholas Stix on February 8, 2013 at 8:54pm

Fox News’ Title, “Chicago police will no longer respond to all 911 calls,” is on the understated side.
(In case the video fails to load, hit either this link or this one.)
As defense attorney Arthur Aidala points out in the videotape, robbers and burglars will know that no police are coming, even if someone calls the police, and so they will feel no fear, or need to run. Thus, there will not only be more burglaries and rapes, but more burglaries will lead to rapes and murders.
And if police refuse to come to the scene of a robbery or burglary to take a report from the victim and interview any witnesses, the CPD will “disappear” the crime altogether. Police operators aren’t going to make police reports.
The victim will be completely out in the cold. But if he successfully defends himself, you’d better believe that the CPD will appear, and make an arrest—of the victim, who will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Sam Francis  had a name for it—“anarcho-tyranny.”
"The rule of crime" also works.
[Thanks to reader-researcher “W” for the sendalong.]

Obama Administration's War on Persecuted Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim
Investigative Project on Terrorism
August 2, 2012

The Obama administration's support for its Islamist allies means lack of U.S. support for their enemies, or, more properly, victims—the Christian and other non-Muslim minorities of the Muslim world. Consider the many recent proofs:
According to Pete Winn of CNS:

The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports. The new human rights reports—purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered—are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath. Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role. For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports covering 2011… (emphasis added).

The CNS report goes on to quote several U.S. officials questioning the motives of the Obama administration. Former U.S. diplomat Thomas Farr said that he has "observed during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed." Leonard Leo, former chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, said "to have pulled religious freedom out of it [the report] means that fewer people will obtain information," so that "you don't have the whole picture."
Of course, censoring information is a regular theme under Obama: if the administration is suppressing knowledge concerning the sufferings of religious minorities under Islam, earlier it suppressed knowledge concerning Islam itself (see here for a surreal example of the effects of such censorship).
In "Obama Overlooks Christian Persecution," James Walsh gives more examples of State Department indifference "regarding the New Years' murders of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the ravaging of a cathedral," including how the State Department "refused to list Egypt as 'a country of particular concern,' even as Christians and others were being murdered, churches destroyed, and girls kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. "
And the evidence keeps mounting. Legislation to create a special envoy for religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia—legislation that, in the words of the Washington Post, "passed the House by a huge margin," has been stalled by Sen. James Webb (D-Va):

In a letter sent to Webb Wednesday night, Rep. Frank Wolf [R-Va, who introduced the envoy bill] said he "cannot understand why" the hold had been placed on a bill that might help Coptic Christians and other groups "who face daily persecution, hardship, violence, instability and even death."

Yet the ultimate source of opposition is the State Department. The Post continues:

Webb spokesman Will Jenkins explained the hold by saying that "after considering the legislation, Senator Webb asked the State Department for its analysis." In a position paper issued in response, State Department officials said "we oppose the bill as it infringes on the Secretary's [Hillary Clinton's] flexibility to make appropriate staffing decisions," and suggested the duties of Wolf's proposed envoy would overlap with several existing positions. "The new special envoy position is unnecessary, duplicative, and likely counterproductive," the State Department said (emphasis added).

But as Wolf explained in his letter: "If I believed that religious minorities, especially in these strategic regions, were getting the attention warranted at the State Department, I would cease in pressing for passage of this legislation. Sadly, that is far from being the case. We must act now…. Time is running out."
Much of this was discussed during Coptic Solidarity's third annual conference in Washington D.C. last month, which I participated in, and which featured many politicians and lawmakers—including the U.K.'s Lord Alton, Senator Roy Blunt, Congressman Trent Frank, Congressman Joseph Pitts, and Frank Wolf himself. As Coptic Solidarity's summary report puts it, "All policy makers voiced strong support to the Copts…. Some policy makers raised concerns about the current U.S. Administration's overtures towards religious extremists."
There was little doubt among the speakers that, while Webb is the front man, Hillary Clinton—who was named often—is ultimately behind the opposition to the bill. (Videos of all speakers can be accessed here; for information on the envoy bill and how to contact Webb's office, click here).
Even those invited to speak about matters outside of Egypt, such as Nigerian lawyer and activist Emmanuel Ogebe, after describing the sheer carnage of thousands of Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, lamented that Obama's response was to pressure the Nigerian president to make more concessions, including by creating more mosques (the very places that "radicalize" Muslims against "infidel" Christians). This, of course, is consistent with the administration's position that the ongoing massacres of Christians have nothing to do with religion.
Indeed, while the administration vocally condemned vandal attacks on mosques in the West Bank (where no Muslims died), it had nothing to say when Islamic terrorists bombed Nigerian churches on Easter Sunday, killing some 50 Christians and wounding hundreds. And when the Egyptian military indiscriminately massacred dozens of unarmed Christians for protesting the nonstop attacks on their churches, all the White House could say is, "Now is a time for restraint on all sides"—as if Egypt's beleaguered Christian minority needs to "restrain" itself against the nation's military, a military that intentionally ran armored-vehicles over them at Maspero.
In light of all this, naturally the Obama administration, in the guise of the State Department, would oppose a bill to create an envoy who will only expose more religious persecution for the administration to suppress or obfuscate.
Such is the current state of affairs. In its attempts to empower its Islamist allies, the current U.S. administration has taken up their cause by waging a war of silence on their despised minorities—the Christians and other non-Muslims of the Islamic world.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics:  Anti-Christianism, US policy  |  Raymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete AND ACCURATE information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Obama Gives Foreign Cops New Police Powers in U.S.

Posted by: The Liberty Beacon™ Staff
Published February 4, 2013, filed under GOVERNMENT

A little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.
At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.
Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.
That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”
“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.
Obama’s order said he was removing the Reagan limitations on INTERPOL:
“AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.
At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.
“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.
“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.
“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.
“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.”
Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.
Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.
“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.
At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.
“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”
But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.”
Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will “full immunity” from U.S. laws and “with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.”
At National Review Andy McCarthy asked, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”
At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol’s headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn’t much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail. But he confirmed, “As to the specific reason why the Obama administration would decide, last week, to extend to INTERPOL the same suite of diplomatic privileges that are typically accorded to international organizations? I don’t have a good answer for that. My sense is that it probably has something to with the accessibility of INTERPOL’s secure criminal databases (on things like stolen passports and the like).”
But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren’t convinced.
“By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?”

Read original here: http://www.wnd.com/2009/12/120363/#l3LmRMeUbrFsLqgU.99

CIA Nominee Brennan: FBI Training ‘Substandard and Offensive’ to Muslims really ifind it hard to let a muslim chop off my head for i wont convert to islam

CIA Nominee Brennan: FBI Training ‘Substandard and Offensive’ to Muslims

Posted on February 10, 2013 by creeping

It all makes sense knowing that CIA nominee Brennan is a Muslim. via Brennan Letter: FBI Training ‘Substandard and Offensive’ to Muslims.

On Oct. 19, 2011, Muslim Advocates President and Executive Director Farhana Khera sent a letter to Chief Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, listing numerous Islamic-based grievances against the FBI. On Nov. 3, 2011, Brennan capitulated and began a fundamental change of FBI practices.

Khera charged that the FBI was bigoted, that they kept “antiquated and offensive documents about Muslims and Islam” on their intranet, and that some new recruits to the FBI were taught “that Islam is a religion that ‘transforms a country’s culture into 7th-century Arabian ways.’”

Regarding the “antiquated and offensive documents,” it appears the FBI had kept 19th and early 20th century texts which do not comport with politically correct language on their intranet. Khera was saying that old texts and other FBI counterterrorism training materials had to go.

Brennan responded:

I am aware of the recent unfortunate incidents that have highlighted examples of substandard and offensive training that some United States Government elements have either sponsored or delivered. Any and all such training runs completely counter to our values, [and] our commitment to strong partnerships with communities across the country…

Khera’s letter requested the creation of an “interagency task force” to address these issues and bring the FBI and all of DHS into compliance with Islamic sensibilities.

Brennan said such a review was already underway by the administration in order to improve training for “countering violent extremism” (CVE). The process would include combining “cultural awareness” with the CVE “training guidance and best practices” directives. It also meant putting out “a bulletin” to state, local, and tribal entities that “regularly leverage federal grants to fund CVE-related trainings” to provide guidance in their efforts.

FBI training curriculum was changed, and Brennan assured Khera that even more changes were on the way to improve “cultural competency training across the United States Government.”

America’s greatest strength is its values, and we are committed to pursuing policies and approaches that draw strength from our values and our people irrespective of their race, religion or ethnic background.

Brennan’s letter can be found in its entirety below:

Letter at breitbart.com.
Farhana’s group is the same Muslim group that asked the DOJ to start enforcing sharia blasphemy laws in the U.S.

Written on April 4, 2012 at 5:15 pm by peter paton

Eighty Five Articles of Impeachment against Obama

There is a growing groundswell within American Republican and Tea Party ranks that impeachment proceedings should be initiated against President Obama on a whole list of violations of the Constitution and the War Powers Act
Congressmen Allen West of Florida (R-Florida) and Darrell Issa (R- California) have consistently and loudly criticized the president for overstepping the political mark and bypassing Congress’s approval on a whole range of dubious policies and issues:and the recent Obama attack on the Supreme Court of Justice and the Russian ” Open Mic ” gaffe on National Security, leads to one question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment? Obama did not become the Democratic nominee for President without the help of several leaders of the Democratic Party who knew that he was not eligible for office
Listed below are the Eighty Five Articles of Impeachment.
1. Appointment of a “shadow government” of some 35+ individuals termed “czars” who are not confirmed by the Senate and respond only to the president, yet have overarching regulatory powers – a clear violation of the separation of powers concept. Obama bypassed the Senate with many of his appointments of over 35 “czars.”
2. No congressional support for Libyan action (violation of the War Powers Act ). Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only “logistical troops.” Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization.
3. Betraying of allies ( Israel and Great Britain. Obama has placed the security of our most trusted ally in the Middle East, Israel, in danger while increasing funding to the Palestinian Authority (Fatah, just another Islamic terrorist group) whilst they have enjoined a reconciliation pact with long-standing terrorist group Hamas and the disclosure of British nuclear secrets to the Russians in the Start Treaty.  Obama gave missile codes to British Trident missiles to Russia.
4. Backdoor implementation of the DREAM Act which would grant 22 million illegals amnesty. Obama passed the Dream Act through an executive order, bypassing Congress again. DREAM is: Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors
5. Telegraphing troop reductions to enemies – against the consult of his experienced field commanders – while embracing negotiations with our enemy, the Taliban, and recognizing another, the Muslim Brotherhood.
6. Betrayal of Arizona. Obama brought a federal lawsuit against a sovereign state, Arizona, seeking to protect its citizens from this threat of mass illegal immigration
7. Obama’s Failure to enforce U.S. law, the Defense of Marriage Act. He’s stripped America of its moral base by his support for homosexuality and the attack on marriage between a man and a women Obama allows the DOJ to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
8. Support of an inept and incompetent attorney general who has failed to prosecute voter intimidation cases (New Black Panther Party), initiated a dangerous gun-smuggling program (Operation Fast and Furious) – which resulted in deaths to one of our own law enforcement agents. Obama allowed Operation Fast and Furious to occur, which allowed hundreds of Mexican nationals and Border Agent Brian Terry to be murdered with illegal arms given out by the ATF and DOJ.
9. Increasing the regulatory burden on American business through bypassing the legislative process with his executive branch agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
10. Failure to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, termed as “repel invasions” in our United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 4. Obama has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
11. Inappropriately commanding the release of strategic oil reserves and providing Brazil $2 billion for its offshore oil exploration.
12. Illegally soliciting funds from within the White House ($5 dinner video fundraiser). The unalienable rights endowed to us by the Creator; life, liberty, and the pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness – are being threatened by the Obama administration. This current government has abridged the consent of the governed and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends. It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
13.Taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare.
14.”Open Mic ” gaffe in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election
15. Occidental College Transcripts Reveals Obama Claimed Foreign Citizenship to Get Scholarship? http://tinyurl.com/czldzx8
16. Obama’s secret back channel Nuclear deal with Iran, a sworn enemy of America and our Allies
17. Obama’s offer of a seat at the table for our avowed enemy the Taliban
18. Barack Hussein Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS because he was born in Kenya
19. Obama and his Administration leaking previously classified information about our intelligence communities’ efforts to slow down Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry.
20. Obama destabilized Western Ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and allowed the Militant  and Anti West Muslim Brotherhood to take over the Egyptian Regime, posing a mortal threat to our Ally Israel and our own Western assets and interests in the region. Obama instigated a revolution in Egypt against an ally in the War on Terror.
21. Obama has appointed Muslim Brotherhood advisers, enemies of the State, to the White House. Aid and comfort to the Muslim Brotherhood is TREASON per Article 3 Sec III of the US Constitution.. http://tinyurl.com/3x88l2s
22. Obama bypassing Congress again by Executive Decree to allow Illegal Immigrants to remain and vote in America for partisan electoral purposes and reasons.
23. Obama selling citizenship to criminals in direct opposition to Federal Law.
24. Obama admin assisted Egypt in remilitarizing the Sinai, “something forbidden by the Camp David Accords” http://is.gd/nDwdbl
25. Obama has attempted to compel religious institutions to pay for abortion services — a clear violation of First Amendment rights
26. Obama apologizing on 9/11 day to our sworn Islamist enemies, the Salafists, the same day these terrorists massacred the American Ambassador and three other American officials in the Benghazi Embassy, Libya. and ramsacked and looted the Cairo Embassy in Egypt.
27. Obama spending billions in aid on America´s enemies, while disregarding the needs of the US.
28. Obama is directly responsible for the many wars and murders of Christians in the Middle East
29. Obama has financially ruined this country, and his actions are leading to the demise of the dollar. President Obama is either an idiot or he is purposely trying to destroy the American economy.
30. Obama is hollowing out our military, and destroying our intelligence gathering capability.
31. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro deliberately concealed his true illegal background to be POTUS, TRUTH out: why #Obama records sealed FOREIGN student ID http://twitpic.com/aufduf  Can we trust Pres. who games system – lies
32. Criminal cover up by the White House over BengaziGate, where four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens were murdered by Islamic Extremists.
33. #CANDYGATE Collusion with CNN Moderator Candy Crowley at the 2nd Debate  to cover up BengaziGate  The Candy-Obama Controversy : Get the Transcript’  http://amsp.ec/1P1Dyy
34. Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign money.
35. Obama Administration defining the Fort Hood Terrorist Act as a Workplace Accident, which gave succour and comfort to our enemies.
36. The Border-gate arms deal offense that resulted in the death of a border patrol agent as well as numerous innocent Mexican civilians.
37. Suspected organized and widespread election fraud engineered by Agents of the Obama Regime at the November 6th Presidential Election.
38. Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers misappropriated over 300 million dollars in donations meant for the education of Chicago’s minority students. They routed the money to Obama’s community activist buddies who then tried to turn the students in radicals. The program was a total failure.
39. Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, redirected tens of millions in Illinois tax dollars to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko, to provide housing for low income families. They returned the favor with political donations. The housing units were built with cheap materials and labor and are uninhabitable after a mere 10 years of use.
40. Obama accepted millions in illegal campaign contributions from foreign credit cards after the credit card filters used to screen out foreign money, was switched off. This also allowed domestic donors, who were over the legal limit, to contribute more.
41. Obama and SecState Clinton’s efforts to bring the US under the UN’s Small Arms Treaty are direct violations of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
41. Obama attempted to move control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the White House, to be managed by then Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.
42. Obama had provided under the radar amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing ICE Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws.
43. Obama allowed USAG Holder to ignore the violation of US immigration laws in the sanctuary cities, i.e.,San Francisco, etc.
44. Obama illegally fired the IG Walpin for investigating Obama’s buddy, Mayor Kevin Johnson (Sacramento), for fraud (850K) with AmeriCorps.
45. Obama is in contempt of Federal court for his illegal oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf…
46. Obama spent a month as the UN Security Council Chair in 2009, which raises the question of his conflict of interest between the US and the UN. This is also likely a violation of his Oath of Office as the UN conflicts with our Constitution on many levels, i.e., LOST, UN Small Arms ban, etc.
47. Obama signed an EO in December 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in the US without oversight by Congress, courts, FBI, or local law enforcement.
48. Obama and SecState Clinton misappropriated, er, used $23 million in US taxpayer funds to help Obama’s homeland of Kenya move to a communist nation where the freedom of speech, private property rights, and other rights are subservient to “social justice”. This includes the fact that the Kenyan constitution adopted Sharia Law, which violates the basic human rights of women.
49. Obama was likely involved with then Governor Rod Blagojevich to try and sell his Illinois Senate seat, i.e., pay to play. Jesse Jackson Jr is under investigation for it and it appears that Valerie Jarrett might also have been involved.
50. Obama ran a website that asked Americans to report on other Americans, in the area of ObamaKare, using whitehouse.gov and taxpayer money to do so. He repeated this with AttackWatch.
51.   Obama got onto the Indiana ballot through voter fraud in 2008.
52. Obama sealed all of his records that would show that he is possibly an illegal president, that he is feloniously using a false SSN, that his draft registration number is false, that his Fulbright award was falsely awarded as Obama claimed foreign student status, and that his student aid was falsely obtained.
53. Obama violated the Constitution by firing the GM CEO.
54. Obama violated bankruptcy laws by forcing GM bondholders to accept millions of dollars in losses of money that they were legally entitled to.
55. Obama violated bankruptcy laws by awarding the UAW with a share of GM and Chrysler during their bankruptcy proceedings.
56. Obama bought votes for ObamaKare with acts like, “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and the DoI increasing water allocations toCalifornia’sCentral Valley. This brought in the votes of Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, both Democrat holdouts.
57. Obama lied about Americans being able to keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to. ObamaKare is already forcing them out of their current coverage.
58. Obama attempted to bribe Joe Sestak with a job offer in order to get him to drop out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter.
59. Obama bypassed Congress and told the EPA to set carbon emission standards.
60. Obama forced BP to pony up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the BP oil spill. It was administered by one of Obama’s political appointees and there is NO Congressional oversight.
61. Obama did nothing to Holder (abetted a felony) when Holder refused to prosecute two New Black Panther Party members for brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Filthadelphia. A direct violation of the voters Civil Rights.
62. Obama bypassed the Senate with a recess appointment of Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Violates policy.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766
63. Obama illegally fired Sherry Sherrod from the USDA over remarks she made at an NAACP meeting in March 2010. He violated her due process.
64. Obama violated contractual law when his regime cancelled 77 oil field development contracts previously approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, under Bush 43’s administration. This keeps us from extracting from 2-3 TRILLION barrels of oil.
65. Obama used the DHS to determine the political affiliation of Americans making FOIA requests about the Regime. This led to requests being stalled, lost, etc.
66. Obama acted in April 2009, at the G20 meeting, to expand the Special Drawing Rights, that now gives the IMF more control over the US economy.
67. Obama issued an EO on July 12, 2011, attempting to restrict the Second  Amendment rights of US citizens in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.
68. Obama’s allowed the FCC to assume authority over the internet, in direct violation of a federal appeals court that DENIED the commission that authority. In December, the FCC voted and passed the first federal regulations on internet traffic.
69. Obama allows the DHS/TSA to routinely violate the 4th/5th Amendment rights of Americans at airports, train stations, and VIPER checkpoints.
70. Obama allows the DOJ in 2009 to stop enforcing federal drug laws in regards to marijuana.
71. Obama attempted to bypass Congress and raise the Debt Ceiling by “reinterpreting” the 14th Amendment.
72. Obama just bypassed the Senate AGAIN by appointing Richard Cordray to a new unconstitutional agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Violates policy.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766
73. Obama deprived the due process of two U.S.citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, by assassinating them via a CIA drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011. This also raises the question of an act of war against Yemen for firing into a sovereign nation. Obama said in 2008: “No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution to detainU.S.citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”
74. Obama allowed Education Secretary Arne Duncan to grant waivers to No Child Left Behind however, this is a law enacted by Congress and neither Obama nor Duncan have the authority to authorize that.
75. Obama allowed the bailouts to grant money without the authority to do so. “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7U.S.Constitution
76. Obama allowed Operation Castaway to occur, which allowed firearms laws to be broken through coercion of legal gun dealers.
77. Obama bypassed the Senate to appoint three people to the National Labor Relations Board. (Naturally, they’ll all be Obomobots) Violates policy.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766
78. Obama twenty three illegal Executive Orders to impose a Gun Grab, which is a direct violation of the Second Amendment.
79.  Providing aid and comfort to the enemy by announcing the date for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thereby providing the impetus for the escalation of the green on blue attacks
80. Obama by announcing the date for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby triggered the disintegration of the green respect that had been a goal of the training mission.
81. Obama deliberately interfering in the elections of our chief ally in the Middle East, Israel to try and influence the result.
82. Obama supplying the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt with F16 Jets and 220 Abram Tanks, sworn enemies of the USA and our Chief Ally Israel.
83. Obama nominating a Muslim John Brennan to be Director of the CIA,when America is at War with Radical Islamic Terrorists.
84. Obama nominating Chuck Hagel, a sworn enemy of our Chief Ally Israel, to be Secretary of Defense
85. Obama and Holder breaking Constitutional Law, by introducing Drone attacks on Americans.
UNKNOWN: How many exact other violations of his Oath of Office.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Updates as needed.
Peter Paton is an International PR and Strategic Adviser.
Follow Peter on Twitter @pjpaton