Expanded Americorps has an authoritarian feel

(Compiler's note: A must read article. This program sounds a lot like Nazi Germany some years ago.)

By Examiner Editorial

With almost no public attention, both chambers of Congress in the past week advanced an alarming expansion of the Americorps national service plan, with the number of federally funded community service job increasing from 75,000 to 250,000 at a cost of $5.7 billion. Lurking behind the feel-good rhetoric spouted by the measure’s advocates is a bill that on closer inspection reveals multiple provisions that together create a strong odor of creepy authoritarianism. The House passed the measure overwhelmingly, while only 14 senators had the sense and courage to vote against it on a key procedural motion. Every legislator who either voted for this bill or didn’t vote at all has some serious explaining to do.

Last summer, then-candidate Barack Obama threw civil liberties to the wind when he proposed “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the regular military. The expanded Americorps is not quite so disturbing, but a number of provisions in the bill raise serious concerns.

To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps by calling for consideration of “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” It anticipates the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform such service – including elementary school students. The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And it calls for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps.”

But that’s not all. The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.” This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be “integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula” at all levels of schooling. Sounds like a government curriculum for government approved “service learning,” which is nothing less than indoctrination. Now, ask yourself if congressmen who voted for this monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they’re guilty of dereliction of duty. If yes, the implications are truly frightening.

UPDATE:

Between being first officially "reported" to the House and being voted on by the full House, bill managers stripped one whole section of the measure that created a Congressional Commission on Civil Service, thus removing the section that contained the language cited above concerning "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" and a possible requirement for "all individuals in the United States" to perform such service. The section could be restored during the Senate-House conference committee meeting. A new, separate bill containing that language has since been introduced in the House.

Missouri Highway Patrol rescinds controversial militia report

By Roseann Moring

A report about modern militia activity will no longer be distributed to Missouri law enforcement officers after receiving nationwide criticism that it contains political profiling.

The decision came Wednesday, hours after Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called for Department of Public Safety Director John Britt to be placed on leave because of the report, which said followers of third-party political candidates might be militia members.

But the superintendent of the Missouri Highway Patrol said Britt wasn't to blame. Instead, Col. James Keathley said, the issue is a flawed oversight system, which will be revamped. Keathley said the report was sent to highway patrol members without being reviewed by him or Britt.

Since the report was leaked to the public earlier this month, it has been criticized by conservatives and third-party candidates. ....

Study Says Pentagon’s Africa Command Needs to Refine Mission

By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s new Africa Command is still recovering from early missteps in explaining its missions and purpose, miscues that government investigators say have left lingering fears at the State Department, in Congress and on the continent that the Defense Department is militarizing the nation’s foreign policy in Africa.

Investigators also reported problems with the command’s goal of filling its ranks with many more diplomats and civilians from the Treasury, Commerce and other federal departments than traditional military commands. The Pentagon originally planned to draw 125 people — or one quarter of the command’s staff — from other agencies; the number is now hovering at 52.

A report issued Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office acknowledged that the command had taken steps recently to win the trust of American diplomats and development experts, as well as African leaders. But it said the command must do a better job explaining what it does to build credibility among its United States government partners and with the African nations it is seeking to help.

“The military’s large size brings the promise of increased resources,” the report said, but that size also stirs concerns among African nations “about potential encroachment into civilian responsibilities like development and diplomacy.”

In an interview here on Monday, before the G.A.O. issued its report, Gen. William E. Ward, the head of the command, said many of the misperceptions about the command had been dispelled. “We are, in fact, able to devote our attention to the programs that we want to put in place and that are being asked for by our African friends, programs that clearly support our foreign policy and that lead to increased prospects for stability on the continent,” General Ward said.

Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from New York.

Speaker Pelosi’s Latest Move to Regulate the News

by Roger Aronoff

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder announcing her intentions to hold a hearing on the issue of newspaper consolidation in the San Francisco Bay area, citing anti-trust laws as a potential avenue to do something about this. The hearing would be by the Courts & Competition Policy Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, according to Pelosi’s letter.

While clearly there are serious issues engulfing the newspaper industry, in San Francisco and elsewhere, the problem isn’t one of anti-trust violations. Pelosi has made her feelings known. She would like a return to the Fairness Doctrine. This is a nose under the tent.

Yes, the industry is changing. It has been for years. But other than perhaps some limits on one company owning too many TV, radio and newspapers in a single market, the government really should have no role in the business of news.

The whole news paradigm is changing. We have public radio and TV, both on national and local levels. We have both print and online-only newspapers and magazines. Examples: Seattle Post-Intelligencer has just gone to strictly online; U.S. News & World Report has become online only except for once-a-month consumer oriented issues in print; The Christian Science Monitor became the first national newspaper to go exclusively online; and the nearly 200-year-old Ann Arbor (Michigan) News announced this week that it is going to become exclusively web based starting in July. Many other high profile newspapers have been struggling to stay afloat – in Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, and even the New York Times has lost much of its stock value and has had to borrow money against its headquarters in New York.

The problem is that few papers have been able to successfully monetize the news on the Internet. That’s partly because advertisers aren’t satisfied with the results, and subscribers are generally reluctant when they have access to so much free material on the Internet.

The change in the news business is everywhere. We now have Propublica.com, which is 28 investigative reporters paid by the Sandlers of San Francisco, philanthropists who felt the newspapers weren’t doing enough of it on their own. They have done some great work on covering the TARP funds. The Drudge Report is still the largest by far of the news aggregators, which is another type of news source that didn’t used to exist. The Wall Street Journal is one of the only publications making money via subscribers. It is a unique brand that businessmen and stockholders the world over turn to and trust for its reliability on financial and political matters.

It’s true, and unfortunate, that many news organizations are run with the bottom line being the biggest factor to the owners. And it means that there are fewer bureaus, fewer foreign bureaus, and fewer reporters in the remaining bureaus. On the other hand we can read blogs and news sites from all over the world. There are plenty of people willing to keep providing news reports for free. It is up to us as individuals to sort out what is reliable and what isn’t. That cannot be a role for government bureaucrats or politicians.

We are going through a period comparable to changing from horse and buggy to cars. A lot of shake-up that is better left to market forces. Especially with something as sacred as news and its protector, the First Amendment. The government has no business picking winners and losers. If a government entity bails out the last remaining newspaper in a city, is that newspaper’s coverage of that entity tainted? It’s certainly suspect.

In some cities, college and even high school journalism departments have flip-cams and other high quality, low-cost video equipment and send students out to cover school board and city hall meetings. It’s obviously not as desirable as having professional journalists who have covered the beat for years, but it is an industry in flux, and often these students will do a better job than hardened reporters who have lost their passion.

One of the worst things that has happened to the newspaper industry is Craig’s List, which is where people place classified ads for little or nothing, and people go to those classified ads looking for anything from a job, to a prostitute to a used car.

Jack Shafer of Slate.com did a story back in 2006, citing a story from a Harvard Business School publication that traced the history of newspaper consolidation, and found that between 1953 and 1980, the number of family-owned newspapers went from 1,300 to 700, and that the factors included technology, labor unions, and tax codes.

The bottom line is that consolidation is part of the natural evolution of news. It means different things in different markets. This story from 2008 details the consolidation of several San Francisco Bay area publications that more or less went in together to save costs, but have still had to let many people go.

But AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid, in the book that he co-authored, The Death of Talk Radio?, and I have been warning for years that what Speaker Pelosi – and Sens. John Kerry, Dick Durbin and others want is a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Our associate Bethany Stotts also wrote an excellent piece describing how the current plan by President Obama

is to use localism or diversity of ownership as a ruse to accomplish the same goal. Republican Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has gathered quotes on his website from a number of leading Democrats who have openly advocated for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

Speaker Pelosi is determined to try to regulate what news we can read, watch and listen to. It would make it much easier for the Democrats to get their agenda enacted. This latest attempt, using anti-trust laws, should certainly fail.

Bachmann bill would ban global currency

(Compiler's note: Must read and stay tuned for this one ....)

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has introduced legislation that would "bar the dollar from being replace by any foreign currency." A statement from Bachmann's website:

“Yesterday, during a Financial Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," said Bachmann. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know."

On Monday, Geithner and Bernanke both rejected the idea of a global currency in Congressional testimony. But in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Geithner indicated he was open to the idea.

Muslim "Reformist": Muslim countries must have nukes in order to "strike terror in the hearts of the enemies"

by Robert Spencer

Al-Qaradawi has been praised by establishment dhimmi Islamic scholar John Esposito as a champion of a "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights." He counts among his friends Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London. And he wants to kill Jews in the worst way.

Here he also reveals himself to be a Misunderstander of Islam, since he invokes Qur'an 8:60 as if it were relevant to the modern world, when any Islamic apologist in the West will tell you that only greasy Islamophobes think that that verse has anything to do with anything beyond the lifetime of Muhammad. I trust that Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR, as soon as he has completed his mission in Pakistan, will be winging his way to Qatar to explain to Qaradawi how to read the Qur'an in context.

"Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: The Arabs Should Obtain Nuclear Weapons for Deterrence," from MEMRITV, February 20 (just posted), with thanks to Rosanne:

Following are excerpts from a sermon by Sunni Islamic scholar Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, which aired on Qatar TV on February 20, 2009.

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: The Prophet Muhammad wanted peace that is based on strength. He does not want the peace of the weak, the peace of those who disappoint, the peace of those who surrender – like the peace Israel wants to impose on us and the Palestinians. That is not peace. That is what Allah meant when he said: "And do not falter and cry for peace when you have the upper hand, for Allah is with you, and will not refrain from [rewarding] you for your actions." Peace that is based on delusion and submission is not peace. The Prophet Muhammad wanted peace that is based on strength. Therefore, the Koran referred to this, saying: "Prepare against them what force and steeds of war you can, to strike terror in the hearts of the enemies of Allah and of your own enemies, and others besides them, whom you do not know, but Allah knows." "Prepare against them what force and steeds of war you can."

That's Qur'an 8:60.

A few days ago, a Muslim asked me if we were allowed to possess WMDs – nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. I said to him: "Yes, we must possess such weapons, but not use them." We must possess such weapons in order to strike terror in our enemies – "Strike terror in the hearts of the enemies," and frighten them. If we had nuclear weapons, they would be afraid to attack us, as was the case between the Soviet Union and the Americans, and between India and Pakistan. This is armed peace.

We must acquire [military] strength. "Prepare against them what force and steeds of war you can, to strike terror in the hearts of the enemies of Allah and of your own enemies." The "steeds of war" of our times are tanks, armored vehicles, and submarines. These are the steeds of our times. It is not enough to equip ourselves with horses in order to confront tanks. Horses can only be used for certain things. Each generation must prepare its own devices with which to strike terror in the enemies of Allah. We do not want to attack anybody, but to strike fear in our enemies, so that they will not attack us.

Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him

By Bob Unruh

A lawyer

spearheading the effort in Washington state to bring light to the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says he was shadowed all day today by officers with the federal Department of Homeland Security, the Snohomish County sheriff's office and the Everitt city police department.

"There's definitely observation," attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. "Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest."

Pidgeon has been the attorney

for Washington state plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for that office to be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen. Dozens of similar cases have been filed around the country since the election and many have been dismissed, often because judges rule the plaintiffs don't have "standing" to bring a complaint.

The Washington state case, however, cites state law that vests

in citizens the right to raise questions about an elected official's authority, effectively granting standing to those plaintiffs.

The case, although it has been filed, has not been brought to court for hearings yet.

Pidgeon told WND today he contacted his personal defense attorney, and also was in contact with the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization advocating for civil liberties and religious and personal freedoms.

Pidgeon is affiliated with the organization and told WND that there would be a letter sent inquiring about the surveillance.

He said he first became aware of the situation when his wife left their rural home early in the day and reported there were three law enforcement vehicles parked nearby, along with three black Suburban-style vehicles carrying camouflage-wearing agents, apparently from Homeland Security.

Pidgeon said he has been "outspoken" about the Obama administration and its validity due to the eligibility questions, but didn't realize he was "qualifying as an enemy of the state."

He immediately reached out to a number of individuals through e-mail.

"My only protection is to contact the people I know," he said.

Officials of the Department of Homeland Security did not return multiple WND messages seeking a comment on the situation. Officials with the Snohomish sheriff's office and the Everett city police department said they didn't know anything about it.

"Where Homeland Security is concerned, obviously there are people working for the Obama administration with little consideration for free speech," Pidgeon told WND.

He said when he left his home, he had a sheriff's vehicle "marking every turn that I made."

"There's definitely observation," he said.

"The fact of the matter is that we have taken the position and it is consistent with Orly Taitz' position that Barack Obama failed to establish his bona fides by the election on November 4," he said. "We alleged under Democratic National Committee rules he had a burden to establish to the DNC's satisfaction his eligibility. He never did.

"As a consequence the burden remains on him. He didn't meet the burden of proving his eligibility to hold the office."

He said voters cannot simply rewrite the Constitution's eligibility requirements in a presidential vote. For one thing, only 52 percent voted for Obama, and the Constitution requires approval from three-fourths of the states for an amendment.

He also cited U.S. senators and congressman who have credited the online "fact" organizations such as snopes or factcheck for authenticating Obama's eligibility.

"Any senator who would rely on snopes or factcheck to establish a judicial opinion whether or not this person has documented his eligibility is a fool," Pidgeon said. And citing a federal judge who said the issue of Obama's eligibility already had been "twittered," he said that is "tantamount to malpractice."

Several hours after Pidgeon returned WND's call, he called again.

"We are definitely under surveillance and it's coordinated with Homeland Security," he said.

He said one of his associates had been followed from his home to the law firm's downtown office, and the associate was stopped just outside the building.

"The police officer claimed he didn't have brake lights working," Pidgeon said. "But he does."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the legal challenges question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission, and they have not revealed the information it contains.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

Officials for the Obama campaign repeatedly have refused to comment on the questions, relenting only once to call the concerns "garbage."

Geithner: U.S. Open to China Reserve Currency Proposal

Reuters NEW YORK -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday said he is "quite open" to China's suggestion of moving toward a currency system linked to the International Monetary Fund's Strategic Drawing Rights.

Zhou Xiaochuan, China's central bank governor, earlier this month said the world should consider the SDR, a basket of dollars, euros, sterling and yen, as a super-sovereign reserve currency.

Geithner, responding to a question, said he hadn't read Zhou's proposal but added, "as I understand it, it's a proposal designed to increase the use of the IMF's Special Drawing Rights. I am actually quite open to that suggestion."

However, he said it should be viewed as an "evolutionary building on the current architecture rather than moving us to a global monetary union."

Gen. Richard Myers: U.S. Enemies Seek WMDs to End 'Our Way of Life'

(Compiler's note: This is a must read and consider interview)

By: Jim Meyers

Former top military commander Gen. Richard Myers tells Newsmax that America’s enemies in the war on terror are “ruthless” and “relentless” and will not hesitate to use nuclear or biological weapons if they obtain them.

“They want to do away with our way of life,” Myers tells Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella. “They could bring great harm to this country and our friends and allies.”

Myers, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 2001 until September 2005, tells Newsmax that the U.S. focused too narrowly on tactical battles and failed to develop a long-rang strategy to battle terrorism.

[Editor's Note: Watch Gen. Richard Myers discuss that threats facing America in the coming years - Go Here Now]

“After 9/11 we had some things we had to do right away,” said Myers, author of the new book, “Eyes on the Horizon: Serving on the Front Lines of National Security.”

“Afghanistan was one of them. Then we went into Iraq. But the development of a strategy to deal with the whole issue of violent extremism — we didn’t take the time to do that because we were so busy with the day to day.

Myers said the further America gets from the events of 9/11, the more complacent it gets, and the more danger the country is in.

“I’m not an alarmist but I did spend four years right after 9/11 looking at all this intelligence from violent extremists,” he says. “ They could [attack America] through biological weapons. God forbid if they get their hands on nuclear materials, they could do it that way as well. And they’re ruthless so we know they’d use them.”

Martella asked Myers about a new official British government report warning that the threat of a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction, such as a nuclear or biological weapon, on a major city is higher than ever.

“I don’t see the intelligence on a daily basis anymore, but I do think the threat is very high,” Myers responded.

“It wasn’t that long ago, just a little more than a year ago, when that plot to bring airliners down over the North Atlantic [was thwarted]. I think there were 10 or 20 airliners involved in that plot. If that hadn’t been thwarted we’d be talking about 2,000 dead potentially from that.

“So like I said, they’re relentless, they’re ruthless. If they can get their hands on dangerous material, nuclear material, biological weapons, they wouldn’t hesitate to use them. They want to bring down the United States in particular and the West in general.”

Martella asked Myers for his assessment of the current situation in Iraq.

“I think things in Iraq are going extremely well right now,” said Myers. “But I think, as all the leaders in Iraq and General Petraeus himself say, it’s reversible…

“I think there is real reason for optimism. I think we have to be very careful, though. There are people who would like it not to be a success. The al-Qaida are part of that. They are pretty much decimated in Iraq, but they never give up.

“And there are other factions inside Iraq, and of course Iran. You never know exactly how they’re going to want to influence events inside Iraq.”

On the Iranian threat, Myers declared: “Any country that sponsors terrorism, which Iran does, that doesn’t believe in the existence of the state of Israel, that is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons — this is not a good thing.”

Martella asked if it would be a mistake for the Barack Obama administration to abandon plans for a U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

“One thing is for certain: The only country in the world that can build an effective missile defense system is the United States of America,” said Myers, a former fighter pilot who also served as Commander in Chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

“Implicit in that is the obligation to at least offer our allies and our friends our ability to protect them from the rogue nations that can develop missiles now and could possibly threaten them.”

Martella asked: “With the every-escalating drug violence along the Mexican border, how do you feel about sending U.S. troops there?”

Myers responded: “Active-duty U.S. troops? I think it would have to get a heck of a lot worse before you’d want to send U.S. troops under congressional or presidential decree to go down there. U.S. troops are not trained for law enforcement action. That would be an extreme action.

“The other option is that you could send the National Guard. I know the Texas and Arizona governors have talked about that potential. They can go and act in a law enforcement capacity … If they need more manpower on the border the National Guard is an option. but active duty troops I think would be a big mistake.”