Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

So much for freedom. Is it time to turn your children over to the UNITED NATIONS?



September 24, 2009 – Comments (10) | RELATED TICKERS: SLV , AUY , BX

White House Backs Controversial Domestic Surveillance Provisions

By VOA News
16 September 2009

The Obama administration is urging lawmakers to extend three provisions of the controversial domestic surveillance law known as the USA Patriot Act.

The U.S. Justice Department issued a letter Tuesday asking Congress to renew provisions of the law that allow authorities to conduct roving electronic eavesdropping, or wiretaps, access business records and track so-called "lone wolf" suspects with no known links to foreign powers or terrorist groups.

The roving wiretaps would let agents track the communications of suspects who change their cell phones or other devices.

The provisions are due to expire on December 31.

Some lawmakers and civil libertarians have criticized the provisions, saying they infringe on Americans' right to privacy. The Justice Department says the administration is willing to consider stronger privacy protections as long as they do not "undermine the effectiveness" of the provisions.

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from the northeastern state of Vermont, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, says it is important for the administration and Congress to work to protect both national security and civil liberties.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Bipartisan Panel Warns of Threat of Biological Attack

By Cindy Saine
Capitol Hill
22 September 2009

Two U.S. senators are citing a report by a bipartisan panel that warns of the threat of a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction. Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins say a biological attack is more likely than a nuclear or chemical attack, and are pushing new legislation to boost the country's readiness for such a strike.

Senator Joseph Lieberman is an Independent Democrat from Connecticut, and is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He commented on the sober conclusions of a congressionally-mandated commission created to study changes to national security policy in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

"A WMD attack is probable somewhere in the world in the next four years, and it is more likely to be biological than nuclear," he said.

Senator Lieberman and Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine have introduced legislation that would enact the commission's recommendations and establish what he called a "comprehensive framework" to protect the country from attacks using weapons of mass destruction.

Lieberman warned that the United State's margin of safety is shrinking and not growing, and said the bill, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009, is the best way to ensure that the lives lost in the 2001 attack were not in vain.

Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine pointed out that the threat of a biological attack definitely begins at home.

"Some of the world's most dangerous pathogens are not secure," she said. "And that includes pathogens housed in bio-labs right here in the United States."


I wonder why they came out with this now terror plot but neglect the drug cartels coming over the souther border? Could it be to keep as Hitler would say HOMELAND SECURITY? Just a thought. Oh and how are you about turning your children over to the  UNITED NATIONS?

So what stocks should I buy to combat this? I need some ideas. 


10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 24, 2009 at 4:46 PM, mawnck (< 20) wrote:

Strait jacket manufacturers? Seems like we'll be needing a lot of them. These wingnuts are craaaaaazy.

Report this comment
#2) On September 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, garyc27 (< 20) wrote:

The UNCRC treaty was signed by President Clinton in 1995 but never sent to the Senate for ratification.  Senator Boxer has been pushing for ratification of this treaty.  Long story short, if this is ratified the U.S. loses it's soveriegnty.  The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution states all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes.

I'm begining to think that we need to start boycotting everything from California, fruit, vegetables, wine, etc., until the citizens of that state begin to elect people with some common sense.

Report this comment
#3) On September 24, 2009 at 6:16 PM, devoish (64.77) wrote:

Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

‘Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

‘Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.’

How would HJ 42 interfere with a parents right to raise their child as a rape victim, sell them as slaves, punish them by withholding food or chaining them to a radiator?

How severely does HJ 42 allow me to beat my child? Can I hit him with a belt, a bat, or only the back of my hand?

As a parent does HJ 42 fully protect my right to punish my child by pouring boiling water on her?

These are some real world issues I have read about in the newspaper concerning excessive Gov't intervention into the rights of parents.

 Would HJ 42 prevent the Gov't from these intrusions?

It reads to me like it does.

Report this comment
#4) On September 24, 2009 at 6:46 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

good thoughts.oh and I felt bush was like Hilter with HOMELAND Security.

Report this comment
#5) On September 24, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Buckaneer (< 20) wrote:

"I'm begining to think that we need to start boycotting everything from California, fruit, vegetables, wine, etc., until the citizens of that state begin to elect people with some common sense."




Report this comment
#6) On September 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM, devoish (64.77) wrote:

This is almost silly.

The UNCRC as described on wikipedia offers children less protection than we already give them here.

Any changes to the treaty would have to be ratified by the United States to be in force within the United States.

I am ok with surrendering the right to conscript children into the armed forces, or punish them with death.

I am ok with guaranteeing children legal protection in courts.

I am ok with parents being allowed to excerise their parental responsibilities.

I am ok with being responsible for the health and well being of my children.

I am ok with children having there own identity and not being considered property.

I have lived my whole life with exactly those family values.

Report this comment
#7) On September 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

May they all vote the way Ron Paul votes.

Report this comment
#8) On September 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

May they all vote the way Ron Paul votes.

Report this comment
#9) On September 25, 2009 at 1:34 PM, garyc27 (< 20) wrote:


Well you have made a bad bet. 

I live in New Jersey where there are plenty of farms, fresh seafood and freshwater fish.  We even have dairy farms, hog farms, and poultry farms.  This place is 15 minutes from my home .

There are 4 farmers roadside stands within a 10 minute drive from my home, 1 river with abundant trout and 1 resevoir that takes a 20 minute drive to fish for walleye, northen pike, muskies and hybrid striped bass which top the list of big, hard-fighting fish. 

I have a 20'X20' home garden that gives me fresh cucumbers, carrots, string beans, peppers, eggplants, tomatos, squash, melons, onions, asparagus, and beets.

Report this comment
#10) On September 25, 2009 at 3:14 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

You are set well garyc27

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners