While releasing terrorists and investigating the CIA for their treatment of terrorists, Obama is also trying to erase our "harsh" memories of September 11, 2001. This administration has signed into law, a new view of September 11th. It is now a National Day of Service. Their motivation is to "take September 11th away from Republicans," because in Obama's view, it's a Republican day. The plan is to push activism, the environment, ethanol, service in the sense of ACORN activity and forgetting all about those "detainees" and the devastation they inflicted upon New York, Pennsylvania and the whole country.

Who's behind this? http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/24/obamas-plan-to-desecrate-911

"The administration's plans were outlined in an Aug. 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, usually for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress, the rowdy activist was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007 when Gen. David Petraeus was to testify. Yearwood told the "Democracy Now" radio program that he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report. "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die," he said. "

A coalition including the unsavory left-wing pressure group Color of Change and about 60 far-left, environmentalist, labor, and corporate shakedown groups participated in the call. Groups on the call included: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of Negro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Color of Change is the extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy that TV's Glenn Beck did several news packages on Van Jones, the self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became the president's green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. The White House may be behind a push to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show. Jones was also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now running large chunks of the Obama administration. The group has acknowledged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.

With the help of the Obama administration, the coalition is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which remains almost uniformly terrified of criticizing the nation's first black president -- to try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, and community gardens. "

Please read the entire article for more disturbing details.

Did you hear about this on television? Was there any debate about this? Did anyone ask "We the People" if we wanted to change it's meaning?

Start planning your own observance of September 11 and boycott everything Obama and his Communist organizations do. Boycott the television stations and networks that cover the Obamanation of September 11th. Don't let the true memory of that terrible day be painted over with Obama's agenda. This day belongs to all of us. We will continue to call them terrorists, not detainees, and continue to observe September 11th as the day that radical Islamic terrorists killed over 3,000 people on American soil. We will not call them freedom fighters or detainees. We will not refer to the war on terror as an "overseas contingency plan". Of course, it now looks as if that accurately sums up Obama's orchestration of the war on terror.

Put flags on your houses, your cars and everything that you can place a flag on. Wear flag pins on red, white and blue clothing. Put black ribbons on your yard trees and front doors. Hang them from your porch lights. Set up candles and crosses in your yards, offices and churches. Hold church services in remembrance. Hold prayer services for the families and pray for America. Refuse to be led by Obama down a path of neutralizing September 11th and turning it into a Democrat's dream of left-wing activism, environmentalism and enrolling citizens in Obama's civil army. No one asked you if you wanted to "fundamentally change" the way we observe September 11th.

Don't let them get away with it.

Fourth Amendment Rights/Cash for Clunkers

A reader commented on the previous post about the Cash for Clunkers a Gov’t Worm Hole. The point was worth researching and discussing, so here it is.

The comment stated that Beck was off base with his conclusions about the agreement that must be provided before a “Cash for Clunkers” participant could continue with the transaction online at the cars.gov web site.

Comment:

“These disclaimers on gov’t computers are necessary due to the Wiretapping Act. It is illegal to monitor the activities of a user without their consent. To do the necessary monitoring (if your site is defaced you want to try to figure out who did it, y’know?) you must allow everyone an opportunity to leave without entering. That’s all. We’ve had a similar disclaimer here for 15 years.”

Everyone can agree that any computer must be protected from hostile activity and employ a program to identify the perpetrator. Disclaimers must make consumers aware and give them the opportunity to leave the web site without giving up their Fourth Amendment Rights. No problem here.

The cars.gov web site goes far beyond what is necessary in the following paragraph, which consumers are obliged to agree to if they participate in the Cash for Clunkers program:

“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. ”

This agreement usurps your Fourth Amendment Right and waives your rights under the Wiretap Act, Privacy Act, etc.

See

http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Privacy:_Statutory_Protections

(portions)

Privacy: Statutory Protections
From Internet Law Treatise

With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act and other laws focused on national security, Congress has been active in changing the legal landscape for access to real-time and stored communications. Despite these amendments, detailed below, the legal regime for obtaining wiretaps and stored communications remains ambiguous.



Privacy: Searching and Seizing Computers
From Internet Law Treatise

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Accessing information stored in a computer ordinarily will implicate the owner’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. See United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 936-37 (W.D. Tex. 1998) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored on hard drive of personal computer); United States v. Reyes, 922 F. Supp. 818, 832-33 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in data stored in a pager); United States v. Lynch, 908 F. Supp. 284, 287 (D.V.I. 1995) (same); United States v. Chan, 830 F. Supp. 531, 535 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (same); United States v. Blas, 1990 WL 265179, at *21 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 1990) (”[A]n individual has the same expectation of privacy in a pager, computer, or other electronic data storage and retrieval device as in a closed container.”). See also United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (CAAF 2006) (finding REOP in emails defendant sent from her office computer and in emails stored on government server); Quon v. Arch Wireless, 445 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (gov’t employee had REOP in text messages sent through his city-owned pagers).

The Tenth Circuit has cautioned that “[b]ecause computers can hold so much information touching on many different areas of a person’s life, there is greater potential for the ‘intermingling’ of documents and a consequent invasion of privacy when police execute a search for evidence on a computer.” United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 986 (10th Cir. 2001). But see United States v. Gorshkov, 2001 WL 1024026, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2001) (holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in use of a private computer network when undercover federal agents looked over his shoulder, when he did not own the computer he used, and when he knew that the system administrator could monitor his activities).

In the offline world, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized legitimate privacy interest in confidential letters. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 114, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1657 (1984) (“Letters and other sealed packages are in the general class of effects in which the public at large has a legitimate expectation of privacy.”). See also Ortega v. O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1163 (9th Cir. 1998) (under circumstances, employee had legitimate expectation of privacy from employer).

Federal Constitution

The contents of telephone communications are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353-354 (1967). The Government must satisfy stringent procedural requirements, discussed below, before it can acquire the contents of communications. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 63-64 (1967) (“[I]t is not asking too much that officers be required to comply with the basic command of the Fourth Amendment before the innermost secrets of one’s home or office are invaded. Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices.”).

The Privacy Act

The Privacy Act regulates the “‘collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information’” about individuals by federal agencies. Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 618 (2004) (quoting Privacy Act of 1974 § 2(a)(5), 88 Stat. 1896). It “authorizes civil suits by individuals . . . whose Privacy Act rights are infringed,” Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and provides for criminal penalties against federal officials who willfully disclose a record in violation of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1).

State Statutes

Title III does not preempt state statutes that are more protective of privacy. “Congress intended that the states be allowed to enact more restrictive laws designed to protect the right of privacy.” People v. Conklin. 12 Cal.3d 259, 271 (1974); see also Roberts v. Americable Intern. Inc., 883 F.Supp. 499, 503, fn. 6 (E.D.Cal. 1995); United States v. Curreri, 388 F.Supp. 607, 613 (D.Md. 1974); Bishop v. State, 526 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ga.Ct.App. 1999) ; People v. Pascarella, 415 N.E.2d 1285, 1287 (Ill.App.Ct. 1981).

The Wiretap Act, the U.S. Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, were all dealing with wiretapping and eavesdropping needed to combat terrorism and to facilitate criminal investigations. They required reasonable suspicion and warrants from judges.

Trading a clunker in for a new car hardly designates citizens as criminals or terrorists and does not generate reasonable suspicion of crime or terrorism. Our Fourth Amendment Rights should not be compromised or stolen.

I don’t believe Beck was off-base in his assumptions. Citizens should refuse to accept this disclaimer and realize that buying a car on the taxpayers’ dime isn’t worth forfeiting Fourth Amendment Rights. Our founding fathers fought to gain our freedoms and we should never throw them away, especially for a car that will only last a few years. Freedoms last forever, unless you throw them out with the clunkers.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights

Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

HILLARY DEMANDS INDIA DO MORE THAN U.S.

Hillary Clinton, as Sec. of State representing the U.S., went to India last week and said the following:

“Yesterday’s bombings in Jakarta, Indonesia, provide a painful reminder that the threat of such violent extremism is still very real. It is global. It is ruthless. It is nihilistic and it must be stopped,” she said.

“We have a great sense of solidarity and sympathy, having gone through what we did on 9/11,” she added.

Her voice rising, Clinton insisted that the U.S. demand for international action against terrorist should not be taken lightly.

“We know how important (it is). We are fighting wars to end the threat of terrorism against us, our friends and allies around the world.”

She said India can choose its own way of contributing but must be part of a broader effort to defeat the threat.

“We expect everyone” who shares the U.S. goal of a more stable world “to take strong action to prevent terrorism from taking root on their soil and making sure that terrorists are not trained and deployed” from their territory to carry out attacks elsewhere, she added.”

Just exactly what is the current Obama administration doing to prevent terrorism from taking root here on American soil? Exactly what strong action is Obama taking to make sure that terrorists are not trained and deployed to carry out their attacks right here in the U.S.?

All I can find is that Obama is releasing them, ordering that they be read the Miranda rights of American citizens (which they are not entitled to because they are not U.S. citizens and have not paid taxes for any privileges here), is closing Gitmo as soon as he finds a place to release the terrorists to, is giving some of them trials in U.S. courts which requires their lawyers be given secret information and they can’t be convicted because the crime scene was not processed at the time of their arrest (battle field in war), apologizing around the world for America’s wrong-doing, giving fuel to terrorist recruitment groups, releasing photos and documents of U.S. military torturing terrorists (true or not), cozying up to dictators and America-hating leaders, reducing the military budget while giving trillions to everything else, befriending Muslim activists and supporters of Islam – the very religion that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, doing nothing about Khalifah Conferences in American cities (which recruit activists/terrorists), doing nothing about Muslim schools brainwashing generations of children to hate America and Israel.

The Obama administration is allowing – even making easy, terrorist recruiting, training and funding in this country.

What has Hillary Clinton said to Obama regarding this hypocrosy? What is she doing in America to comply with her demands of India? Nothing that I can find!

And let’s not forget that while Hillary is in India saying, We are fighting wars to end the threat of terrorism…” , Obama changed the name “War on Terrorism” to “Overseas Contingency Operation!!!!!!!!!” How absurd!!!!!

It’s “do as I say, not as I do.” It’s talk for the cameras and sound-bytes, not for U.S. policy and actions. Remember these things when it’s time to vote again. Throw out the double-talkers and deceivers. Put America on the right track.