Globalist All Out Assault on Your 1st Amendment and The Tea Party – Alex Jones Tv

TheAlexJonesChannel | September 16, 2010

Alex covers the latest news on the 1st amendment, Tea party being attacked and takes your calls.

http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/

Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro

Infowars.com
June 4, 2010

Don’t be fooled by the slick charismatic puppet that can charm the back legs off a donkey, Obama is not who he claims to be, watch this video and the picture will become more clear. For those of you who voted for the pimp, do not blame yourself, you can make real change from here on out.

Bilderberg: The Open Conspiracy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, May 28, 2010

Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group’s annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion’s share of Bilderberg’s 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before – it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.

Trilateral Commission members, who routinely also attend Bilderberg’s annual confab, have let slip that a war on Iran is being seriously debated, while the elite continue to exploit the fallout from the economic crisis to push for centralized financial regulation.

The consequences of a military strike on Iran will cause a split between Bilderberg luminaries, just as it did before the invasion of Iraq at the 2002 meeting.

During the recent Trilateral Commission meeting in Dublin Ireland, which routinely discusses an almost identical roster of topics to subsequent Bilderberg gatherings, chief advisor to the Russian leadership Mikhail Slobodovsici unwittingly told a We Are Change member he mistook for a colleague, “We are deciding the future of the world….We need a world government,” he said, but, referring to Iran, said “we need to get rid of them.”

The continued push to pose as the saviors while offering global governance as the solution to the economic crisis was also re-affirmed in a recent speech by IMF chief and BIlderberg member Dominique Strauss-Kahn, when he told an audience of elitists in Zurich that the globalists need to see the ‘crisis as an opportunity’ to push for “a new global currency issued by a global central bank”.

Our sources close to Bilderberg emphasize the fissure that exists within globalist circles. Younger elitists and the nouveau riche are concerned that the global economy is being sunk too quickly and too soon, and that the consequences will be so drastic in the long term that even the wealth and influence of insiders will be threatened.

These divisions in the context of geopolitics was also addressed recently by Trilateral Commission co-founder and prominent Bilderberger Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in addition revealed that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

The fact that globalists are also debating the timeline as to if and when the euro single currency will collapse, and whether it will be followed by the U.S. dollar has also been publicly discussed in recent weeks.

Former Bank of England policy maker David Blanchflower recently told Bloomberg News that the euro region could break up as a result of the debt crisis in Greece which threatens to spread to other countries on the continent.

As veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker points out in his latest article, the corporate media has already been preconditioning the public to accept Bilderberg’s agenda for weeks.

“Bilderberg-controlled news outlets in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are conditioning the public to accept two of the super-secret elite’s major goals in advance of its meeting June 4-7 in Sitges, Spain: a U.S. attack on Iran and a financial bailout of Greece and other European Union (EU) countries,” writes Tucker.

With the agenda for global government now past the point of secrecy and out in the open, the Bilderberg group’s primary role is to groom political candidates for future high-power positions within the new world order hierarchy.

The most interesting aspect to come out of this year’s conference in Sitges Spain is the question of who will be attending. While David Cameron’s new coalition government in the United Kingdom has opposed the expansion of Bilderberg’s European project in rhetoric, they have been busy appointing pro-Euro politicians to influential posts. The possible attendance of Cameron and his new sidekick Nick Clegg will be interesting to watch, as will the question of whether any members of the ousted UK Labour Party are invited. With leadership elections imminent after the resignation of dutiful Bilderberg servant Gordon Brown, Bilderberg will be keen to vet potential future Prime Ministers such as David Milliband.

Elena Kagan’s Opposition to Gun Rights

Ken Klukowski
Lux Libertas
May 13, 2010

A third instance of Elena Kagan opposing Americans’ Second Amendment right to own a gun has now become public, and is sure to become a major issue in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And it confirms that President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will “reinterpret” the Second Amendment until that amendment means nothing at all.

This year, no case on the Supreme Court docket is more important than McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court is deciding whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only a right you have against the federal government, or instead if the Second Amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago’s law banning all guns—even in your own home—is constitutional.

When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, then-U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, and then requested and received time to argue the federal government’s position in that case as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2 of this year, current Solicitor General Kagan argued… Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn’t even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases—and the McDonald case is monumentally important).

If someone asserts that the solicitor general shouldn’t file a brief because it’s a state matter as to whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (which is the issue in McDonald) the record speaks to the contrary. The last time the Supreme Court “incorporated” a right from the Bill of Rights to the states, in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland, the solicitor general filed a brief, and then (just like Heller in 2008) got divided argument time to express the government’s views in front of the Court.

Why wouldn’t Kagan file a brief expressing the view of over 75% of Americans that the Second Amendment is an individual right, one that every American citizen has against all levels of government?

Aside from her shocking decision not to file a brief in McDonald, we’ve learned that Elena Kagan was part of the Clinton White House’s gun-control efforts, where a Clinton staffer said, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

Then it became public that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional (the same law that the Court eventually struck down in Heller), Kagan wrote to Justice Marshall on the Court that she was “not sympathetic” toward the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow D.C. to completely ban all guns.

Three anti-gun decisions. Three strikes, and you’re out.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama supports the Chicago gun ban, a position he publicly repeated as recently as June 26, 2008 (the day the Heller decision was released). President Obama believes that there’s nothing unconstitutional about the city—or even the whole state—where you live completely banning you from having any firearms for hunting or self-defense, even in your own home.

As my coauthor Ken Blackwell and I discuss in our new bestselling book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, President Obama’s gun-control agenda is to create a Supreme Court that will repeatedly rule that whatever gun-control laws come before it are okay. No matter how severe the anti-gun measure is, the Court will say, “This is constitutional.”

President Obama—the most anti-gun president is American history—has nominated for our highest court a close personal friend of his. And now we see that Obama has every reason to believe that his close personal friend shares his radical view on the Second Amendment, one that will work against the constitutional rights of 90 million American gun owners.

Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings this summer could get very interesting. America’s gun owners have a way of making their voices heard.

Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA

Order The DVD at: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net…POLICE STATE 4 chronicles the sickening depths to which our republic has fallen. Veteran documentary filmmaker Alex Jones conclusively proves the existence of a secret network of FEMA camps, now being expanded nationwide. The military industrial complex is transforming our once free nation into a giant prison camp. A cashless society control grid, constructed in the name of fighting terrorism, was actually built to enslave the American people. Body scanners, sound cannons, citizen spies, staged terror and cameras on every street corner — it’s only the beginning of the New World Order’s hellish plan.

This film exposes how the “Continuity of Government” program has established an all powerful shadow state. Prepare to enter the secretive world of emergency dictatorship, FEMA camps, and a shredded Constitution. Witness police and military savagely attacking innocent citizens as our own government unleashes false flag operations to justify its oppression. Then watch as Alex Jones takes on corrupt mercenary police and exposes mainstream media brainwashing.

Sacramento Car Wash Gets IRS Visit Over 4 Cents

SACRAMENTO (CBS) ―

 

The bill for the four cents in back taxes ballooned to more than $200 after interest and fees.

CBS

Close

numSlides of totalImages

A Sacramento business owner was surprised to find representatives from the Internal Revenue Service on his doorstep to collect unpaid taxes. But he was stunned to discover they were billing him for less than a nickel of back taxes.

When two federal agents hand-delivered the bill to Harv’s Metro Car Wash, owner Aaron Zeff didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

“[They] came into the car wash, handed my manager a bill, and it was from the IRS,” Zeff said. “The amount was four cents, four pennies.”

The IRS agents did not stop to get a car wash, Zeff added.

The bill sparked laughter until Zeff took a closer look at the final cost. After three years of penalties and fees, the four-cent tax skyrocketed to more than $200.

“This is more like a parking ticket,” he said.

Ashley West, the attorney representing the car wash, said the IRS sent a letter in October saying the business had filed all required taxes and did not have a balance.

“It was a surprise to us that they came on site and surprise to us we didn’t receive and correspondence related to it,” West said.

Harv’s said they are working with the IRS to find a resolution.

The car wash is also planning a special promotion: Pay your taxes on time and get a car wash for just four cents.

A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon

Dana Gabriel Infowars.com January 11, 2010 NAFTA has extended from economic integration into a political and regional security pact which has been achieved through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, Plan Mexico, as well as other initiatives. Various pieces of legislation and reports, along with influential individuals have called for closer trilateral cooperation regarding common rules for immigration and security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent. A major part of the U.S. security agenda already includes the defense of North America, but a full blown security zone would bring Canada and Mexico further under its control. A Fortress North America poses a serious threat to our sovereignty and would mean the loss of more civil liberties What many Canadians think of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.   Plans for a North America security perimeter might have seemed like a pipe dream just a short time ago, but it could become a reality sooner than one thinks. Some believe that a perimeter approach to security would be a more effective way of providing safety while ensuring the free flow of trade and investment. For those pushing for deep continental integration, this move is seen as the next logical step. A recent article from the Toronto Star, Canada warms to idea of a tougher ‘perimeter’ suggests that Canadians might now be ready to debate the concept of perimeter security. David Biette who specializes in U.S.-Canada relations and is a member of the Woodrow Wilson Center stated that a, “Perimeter is no longer a dirty word. It’s beginning to come up again, at least in academic circles.” He went on to say, “Canada held back when it first came up and I can certainly understand why. There was still such bad feeling left over on free trade and what that might mean for Canadian sovereignty that perimeter security was just not palatable to Canadians.” Biette also added, “You ask yourself, ‘What would a mutually improved relationship look like?’ and really, there is nothing else. Perimeter is the one big thing – the last truly huge step on the horizon.” A North American security perimeter would be one of the final steps needed in the creation of a North American Union. A d v e r t i s e m e n t Some of the recommendations from the 2005 report, Building a North American Community co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, included a unified border, a North American border pass, a single economic space, as well as a common security perimeter by 2010. Many of the task force recommendations in areas of trade, transportation, energy, immigration and security became part of the SPP agenda. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key objectives continue to move forward under the North American Leaders Summit, as well as through other initiatives. In February of 2009, it was reported that former Canadian international trade and foreign affairs minister, David Emerson, “called on the government to aggressively seek stronger Canada-U.S. ties, up to and including a customs union. He said at minimum, Canada should advocate a North American security perimeter arrangement, a labour mobility agreement that modernizes NAFTA provisions, and greater integration on regulatory matters.” U.S. officials remain concerned on how risk assessments of people entering Canada are conducted as well as the differences in its immigration and visa policies. A common perimeter approach to border management and security would require harmonization of Canadian-U.S. immigration and customs standards.  It was clear before Obama became president that he wished to relax immigration restrictions with Mexico and supported some sort of amnesty program. In mid-December of last year, H.R. 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Obama administration has been criticized for its lack of immigration enforcement. Many have warned that the new legislation would not only grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, but also increase legal immigration and create more loopholes in the system. In Sec. 143. Reports on Improving the Exchange of Information on North American Security, there is wording which could further promote deep continental integration. This includes yearly status reports, “in developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter.” Previous failed security and immigration bills also contained similar language referring to a shared security perimeter around the continent. The Merida Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico is an extension of NAFTA and has its roots in the SPP. It is based on America’s failed war on drugs, which has been costly and ineffective. The Merida Initiative relies primarily on military and law enforcement solutions and is advancing police state measures. In a recent interview, Laura Carlsen director of the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City described how Plan Mexico, “was designed in Washington as a way to ‘push out the borders’ of the US security perimeter, that is, that Mexico would take on US security priorities including policing its southern border and allowing US companies and agents into Mexico’s intelligence and security operations.” She also commented that, “The Obama administration has supported the plan and even requested, and received from Congress, additional funds beyond what the Bush administration requested.” The Plan Mexico strategy is working towards the development of a common security perimeter and is further encouraging the militarization of Mexico. Continued drug violence in the country could be used as a pretext to set up a North American security perimeter The recent foiled terrorist attack on Christmas day is accelerating the implementation of a high-tech control grid which could restrict, track and trace our movements. With the war on terrorism back in the forefront, the continued merging of North America might include Canada and Mexico playing a bigger role in regards to perimeter security. Canadian officials have announced that within the next several months, body scanners will be installed in 11 airports across the country. Some proponents of a continental security zone believe that it is the best way to secure North America, but at the same time falsely claim that this could be done with respect to each nation’s sovereignty. We are well on the way towards a North American security perimeter where trade and investment will be able to roam freely, while we are all forced to endure new security practices dominated by U.S. interests.

Latest from Prison Planet Thu, Feb 25 2010 – 4:18 PM Goldman: Treasury Yields Will Crash Because Inflation Is Dead And … Believe it or not, Goldman Sachs is calling a top for U.S. Treasuries in their latest global daily. Thu, Feb 25 2010 – 4:16 PM Farage Attacks Bilderberg EU President As “Quiet Assassin” Of Nati… Courageous British MEP Nigel Farage savaged Bilderberg member and global governance proponent Herman van Rompuy during a speech in front of the EU parliament, labeling the EU President “the quiet assa… — sponsor — IT Manager Institute: Boost your career by attaining your IT Business Manager Certification! Thu, Feb 25 2010 – 12:48 PM Citibank Controversy Puts Dubious FDIC Guarantee Back In The Spotl… The recent controversy surrounding Citibank’s advisory to its customers reserving the right to impose a 7 day restriction on withdrawals from their accounts is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of… Thu, Feb 25 2010 – 12:47 PM Economist With Financial Services Committee For Eleven Years, Assi… Today, Ron Paul accused the Federal Reserve of having a hand in nefarious plots such as Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein. House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank said that the Committ…

Lawsuit Accuses Pa. School District of Spying

Kara Reeder
ITBusinessEdge
February 19, 2010

The Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa. is facing a lawsuit that alleges spying on students and families by activating webcams on school-provided laptops, according to Computerworld.

Michael and Holly Robbins claim they first found out about the alleged spying at the end of last year after their son was accused of “improper behavior in his home” and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.

For its part, the school district denies spying on students, but does admit the cameras could be turned on without the user’s knowledge as part of a security feature.

Read entire article

Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason

Gordon Duff
Veterans Today
January 23, 2010

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an  meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law.

 

Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear.  The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American.  Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks.  They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school.  Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane.  Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law.  There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that.  We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law.   Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company.  Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels?  Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative.   How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”

For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics.  Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way.  This was an American problem.  Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.

Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that  shoot first and ask questions later.  They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers.  They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think.  The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.

When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail.  When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash.  When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine.  However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it.  It  has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years.  Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won.  Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check.  Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.

Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides.  We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government.  There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.

This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word.  Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period.  Americans are now destined for serfdom.  Their political and economic theories, what are they?  Is it conservatism or feudalism?

We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns.  People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena.  Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns.  In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet.  We thought we had changed since that time.  We were wrong.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government.  This was the 1780s.  The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves.    27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency.  Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780.  Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?

Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence.  Feelings are high.  How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists.  We know that few really mean it.  When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans.  When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans.  This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves.  We never agree on anything.  We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.

Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are.  Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time.  We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself.  We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average.  Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.

Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”

What is their power?  What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution.  Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives.  Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.

What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency?  Corporations have no religion.  They care nothing for the unborn.  They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic.  They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”

The control of the American electoral process has been given to them.  No serving politican can survive now standing against them.  Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks.  Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe.  “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear.  That wasn’t enough.  They wanted it all.  As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity.  Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?

The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy.  The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy.  This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry.  It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen.  It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them.  This was how America was created.  We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.

The time is now.  Party politics have failed.  Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform.  State has become church and church has become state.  State is less just and church less godly.  All we have left is “we, the People.”  This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward.  It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.

If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it.  The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide.  We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties”  and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.

Research related links

1. Supreme Court rejects domestic wiretap appeal
2. The Supreme Court Scare
3. Supreme Court Rules Against Fourth Amendment
4. Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections
5. Supreme Court to Rule on Second Amendment
6. NRA Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Chicago’s Gun Ban
7. Berg to U.S. Supreme Court this Afternoon
8. Alex Jones Triumphs as Supreme Court Rules in Favor of First Amendment
9. Supreme Court rules on 9/11 case
10. Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection
11. US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked
12. Will Supreme Court take case on Obama’s citizenship?

Anti-Chavez channel removed from cable

CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER

Published: Yesterday

Employees of the Radio Caracas Television, RCTV channel, sit beside a poster that reads in Spanish “journalists targets” outside of the channel offices in Caracas, Sunday, Jan. 24, 2010. Venezuelan cable television providers have dropped a TV channel “Radio Caracas Television” which is critical of President Hugo Chavez from their programming, after a government official said the network violated broadcast laws.(AP Photo/Fernando Llano)

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) – A cable-television channel critical of President Hugo Chavez was yanked from the air early Sunday for defying new government regulations requiring it to televise some of the socialist leader’s speeches.

Venezuelan cable and satellite TV providers stopped transmitting Radio Caracas Television Internacional, an anti-Chavez channel known as RCTV, after it did not show the president’s speech Saturday to a rally of supporters.

While five other channels were also dropped from cable, some say the government took broader action to disguise its mission to shut down a popular, critical media outlet ahead of congressional elections and amid rising discontent over inflation, crime and electricity shortages.

Venezuelan pollster and analyst Luis Vicente Leon said the message is clear: “The government is willing to do everything to destroy its adversaries.”

“The government is willing to do everything to destroy its adversaries,” said Luis Vicente Leon, a Venezuelan pollster and analyst.

RCTV already was forced to switch to cable in 2007 after the government refused to renew its license for regular airwaves. Chavez accused the station then of plotting against him and supporting a failed 2002 coup.

Chavez said Sunday the latest action is about following the law.

“Whoever refuses to comply with the law, that’s what must be done,” he said on his weekly broadcast, calling for a round of applause for the telecommunications agency.

If channels don’t comply, he said, they won’t be allowed back on the air: “It’s their decision, not ours.”

Under the new rules, two dozen local cable channels, including RCTV, must carry government programming when officials deem it necessary, just as channels on the open airwaves already do. Chavez regularly uses that legal power to order broadcast TV and radio stations to carry his marathon speeches, which can last up to seven hours.

Though Chavez remains Venezuela’s most popular politician, he has slipped in the polls and is campaigning against an emboldened opposition to keep control of the National Assembly in September elections.

RCTV has asked the Supreme Court to block the new regulations. RCTV called the government’s actions illegal in a statement, saying the channel has done nothing wrong and has a right to defend itself.

In Caracas neighborhoods, Chavez opponents leaned out apartment windows early Sunday to bang on pots and pans. Others shouted epithets and drivers joined in, honking car horns.

The national journalists’ association called it a violation of human rights and freedom of speech. Its president, William Echeverria, condemned it as an “increase in censorship.”

The U.S. Embassy also saw cause for concern.

“Access to information is a cornerstone of democracy,” U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Robin Holzhauer said. “By restricting yet again the Venezuelan people’s access to RCTV broadcasts, the Venezuelan government continues to erode this cornerstone.”

Five international channels – Ritmo Son, Momentum, America TV, American Network and TV Chile – also were suspended after not providing authorities with required information about their programs and ownership, said Mario Seijas, president of Venezuela’s subscription television chamber. He said other cable channels are in similar situations and could be taken off the air if they don’t turn in required documents in the coming days.

Government figures say about 37 percent of Venezuelan homes received cable television in 2008. But some private companies say their research shows about six out of every 10 households have subscription TV service.

RCTV has a smaller audience than it did in 2007 but has remained popular. The channel claims that 90 percent of cable viewers say they watch RCTV.

“A hard-line current within the Chavez movement would have the government permanently take Radio Caracas off the air,” said Steve Ellner, a political science professor at Venezuela’s University of the East. “There are some Chavez movement leaders, however, who believe that the measure is ill-timed given the government’s current woes such as the rationing of electricity.”

Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington said Chavez’s aim is censorship. “He is nervous about mounting problems and slipping popular support, so he is moving aggressively to tighten his grip on all fronts,” Shifter said.

In August, Chavez’s government forced 32 radio stations and two small TV stations off the air, saying some owners had failed to renew their broadcast licenses, while other licenses were no longer valid because they had been granted to owners who are now dead.

Globovision – the last opposition-aligned TV channel on the open airwaves – is also the target of multiple government investigations that authorities say could lead to the revocation of its broadcast license