Protecting State Secrets: Obama Builds on Bush Doctrine

While the average Joe Six-Pack is preoccupied with political cannon-fodder broadcast over and over again through our televisions, the real damage being done by the Obama administration is being largely ignored. The news is little more than media distraction over the falsehood that Obama is a Muslim from Africa, while the pundits babble on and on about his support of a construction project blocks away from Ground Zero in Manhattan, but no one seems to be at all concerned about the Obama administration's hypocritical support of government abuses begun under the Bush administration. Abuses that Obama himself appeared to have grave concerns about in his run for Presidential office. The sham of the two-party system persists, as does the myth that we have any choice at the voting booth any more. That much is clear to those who dig a little deeper than fifteen-second soundbites while Obama carries on the work of his predecessor to completely invalidate the basic tenets of Constitutional governance.

In the first weeks that Obama began to get settled in, his Justice Department sought to dismiss a lawsuit by the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, in which it was alleged that the charity's lawyers and board members rights to due-process and freedom of speech were violated by officials at the White House, the National Security Agency, the Treasury Department and the FBI. No evidence was put forth to substantiate the government's claim that the Oregon-based charity might be funding terrorism. Nevertheless, an eavesdropping operation against the philanthropic organization had been carried out without a warrant or the approval of any judge. In Obama's campaign to “change Washington” he had criticized the Bush administration of too-often invoking the privilege of state-secrets to resist lawsuits and to ignore public disclosure rules. In this case, the Justice Department did just that, once again invoking the privilege of state-secrets, claiming that the lawsuit could not be allowed to go forward on the grounds that the disclosure of information would be a threat to national security. When U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker resisted the claim by the Justice Department, they ratcheted up the pressure, and threatened to seize documents in the court's custody. Hardly a shining example of the open-government voters had demanded. Perhaps this was an isolated example though? After all, to be sure, there are some legitimate state-secrets that must be protected from time to time, and maybe this charity was not so squeaky clean themselves. We will probably never know.

What we do know though, is that this is not an isolated example at all actually. We can look to the dismissal of Jewel vs. NSA in January of this year, 2010. This case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was filed on behalf of AT&T customers opposed to the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of America's phone calls and emails. In this case, the fact that this practice was not at all isolated was the very basis of the dismissal! A page from the EFF website tells us...

...U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker held that the privacy harm to millions of Americans from the illegal spying dragnet was not a "particularized injury" but instead a "generalized grievance" because almost everyone in the United States has a phone and Internet service.

"The alarming upshot of the court's decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/21

Of all the values espoused in the founding documents of this nation, perhaps none could be said to be more central to our national identity than the system of check-and-balances which keeps any one branch of government, among the three, from usurping unjust power, and toppling our nation into a despotic totalitarian order. It is indeed a value which rests at the very core of our entire structure of government from which all other Constitutional liberty is prescribed and ensured. No one branch of government has the right to operate autonomously without the oversight from another. Alarmingly, under the Bush administration, and now reinforced by the Obama administration, that entire system from which all others are based, has been thoroughly undermined in the interest of secrecy and unfounded claims of national security implications. Not only are judges being left out of their role in issuing warrants, even secret warrants on the basis of some evidence, to allow the government to spy on it's citizens, but now the courts are washing their hands of any involvement when it comes to litigation over clear, aggressive, well-documented violations of Constitutional liberty as a result. These rulings have essentially rendered our court system impotent, and relegated judges to nothing more than glorified traffic-wardens collecting revenue for the state. A rubber-stamp court system suddenly all-too reminiscent of Nazi Germany's People's Court. A paper-shuffling administration, subordinate to that of the Executive, rather than a genuine order of justice honorably maintaining our most precious values as a nation of free and self-determined people.

Louis Fisher, a Constitutional law expert from the Library of Congress wrote in an email to the Washington Post:

"1. The administration defends the state secrets privilege on the ground that it would jeopardize national security if classified documents were made available to the public. No one argues for public disclosure of sensitive materials. The issue is whether federal judges should have access to those documents to be read in their chambers.

"2. If an administration is at liberty to invoke the state secrets privilege to prevent litigation from moving forward, thus eliminating independent judicial review, could not the administration use the privilege to conceal violations of statutes, treaties, and the Constitution? What check would exist for illegal actions by the executive branch?"

What's a little illegal spying though? This is war right? A classic excuse used by tyrannical dictators the world over. Tell the people that it is in their own interest, in the name of their own safety, to have their own government spying on them, until the people one day wake up and realize from among the ruin, that it was their own government all along that was the enemy. Quite simply put, there is no excuse now, nor will there ever be any excuse, to crush Constitutional liberty. Those rights are our inalienable rights as human beings, they are not an arbitrary set of guidelines to apply and cancel whimsically on the tides of politics. These are things that an American President should know and know well, without being told. Especially one who just happens to be a Constitutional scholar. And anyone with common sense, scholar or no, should know that such abuses will not stop with violating our privacy. In fact, it has already turned to false and indefinite imprisonment, without any charges whatsoever, without any hearing or oversight by any courts. It has turned to torture of those innocents, at the hands of our own soldiers and agents, as well as our treacherous moves to hand over our prisoners to be tortured by foreigners in other countries.

In May of this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that three prisoners being held at Bagram airforce base in Afghanistan had no right to habeas corpus hearings, handing the Obama administration a resounding victory in being able to hold prisoners indefinitely without any judicial oversight. Two Yemenis and a Tunisian claimed that they were being held without cause, were not terrorists, and had in fact been captured outside of the U.S. War-zone in Afghanistan. One is reported to have been captured in the far side of Asia, in Thailand, the second in Pakistan. Details on where the third detainee was captured are not clear. Tina Foster, a lawyer for the prisoners was quoted in a New York Times article as saying that the ruling gave a free hand to the Executive to “kidnap people from other parts of the world and lock them away for the rest of their lives.” The decision means that there is no judicial oversight, no burden of proof whatsoever to substantiate claims that a person might be a terrorist. She then went on to say...

“The thing that is most disappointing for those of us who have been in the fight for this long is all of the people who used to be opposed to the idea of unlimited executive power during the Bush administration but now seem to have embraced it during this administration. We have to remember that Obama is not the last president of the United States.”

Just a few days before the tumultuous national remembrance day of 9/11 this year, a Federal appeals court ruled that former prisoners of the Central Intelligence Agency could not sue over alleged torture in overseas prisons, even if they had since been released and had done nothing wrong, because such lawsuits might expose state-secrets. Like the pages right out of some bizarre Communist, One World Order pulp novel, state-secrets are now more important than revealing the facts of false-imprisonment and years of systematic physical and mental torture. A dark hour for liberty indeed. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., by a 6-to-5 vote. Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of five former prisoners, the suit alleged that the company had arranged CIA flights to transport prisoners to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. This was not even a lawsuit against the government itself, or CIA, but a private company that was complicit in the allegations. So it can hardly be said that they were “just following orders” or that they should be afforded the same immunities afforded to the government. Where does that line of reasoning end? With Boeing dumping toxic waste in public schoolyard, immune from any legality or regulation because they contract with the government and the dumping is a matter of national security? As if the kidnapping, torture, and possibly even murder of people in some cases, weren't enough reason for concern.

The plaintiffs each make various claims regarding the details of their imprisonment and torture in places like a CIA “black-site” in Afghanistan, or after they were handed off in places like Egypt and Morocco. Lead plaintiff Binyan Mohamed is a citizen of Ethiopia and a legal resident of Britain. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 where he was then reportedly turned over to CIA and flown to Morocco where he was tortured by their security services over the course of 18-months there. The torture is said to have included techniques such as using a scalpel to wound his genitals and then pouring caustic liquid on the wounds. From there he was transferred back to CIA custody and delivered to a prison in Afghanistan where he was sparsely fed, and kept in perpetual darkness with a constant blaring recording of women and children screaming 24 hours a day. He was moved again later to Guantanamo Bay Prison where he was held for another five years, before finally being freed in Britain last year, 2009.

In other testimony at various times, murder has indeed been alleged, and it is hardly a stretch to discern that murder is indeed a strong possibility under these conditions. Who would ever really know? While some allegations have indeed leaked out, they are difficult to substantiate, and it is difficult to gauge how many prisoners, guilty of nothing, may have been murdered since 9/11. We do know however, that President Obama himself has endorsed state-sponsored killing of American citizens without any judicial oversight. Not enemy combatants mind you, but in fact has arbitrarily ordered the assassination of New Mexico native Anwar al-Awlaki. No arrest order, no trial, no judicial approval or oversight, no fact-finding mission by an impartial party, just an order to kill this American citizen on sight, wherever he is found. On the battlefield or off, sleeping at home with his children, or shopping at your local supermarket. Though the Bush administration reserved the right to order such a killing, it is not believed that they ever did actually order such an action, particularly against an American citizen.

Through his family, the target has vehemently denied that allegations of the Obama administration that he is guilty of terrorism or in any way connected to al-Qaeda. He is reported to have exchanged emails with the Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, in which he spoke negatively of his views on soldiers at the base who take up arms against Islam. But when did it become a capital offense to be against the war, or to speak your mind on politics or religion? Are such views really to be considered so radical that they do not fall under the purview of freedom of speech, much less subject to summary execution on the orders of the President of the United States? There is not even an allegation that this man has actually participated in any specific terrorist acts, nor that he provided material or financial support to any acts of terrorism. While Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) calls al-Awlaki “terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us,” the only allegation that is really being made against him is that he is a recruiter for al-Qaeda. Unsubstantiated claims that this man is a recruiter for an imaginary organization that was originally nothing more than a legal fiction created by American courts to be able to prosecute any Muslim accused of being a terrorist under the RICO act. Such prosecutions are apparently no longer even necessary with people being locked away tortured and murdered without so much as a lawyer or a judge to review the facts.

Now some folks who read this will no doubt have trouble putting aside certain xenophobic tendencies and judge the matter objectively. Certain powers that be rely on that fervor and anti-Muslim sentiment to achieve their ends in undermining the Constitution and installing their totalitarian order. It has always been the same throughout the ages. Vilify some group of people or another in order to seize upon all that is righteous and impose their despotic order. What will you do when you suddenly find that you are now the enemy of the state? Their work is nearly done now. The camps are built, the rail cars are sitting idly by waiting, certainly figuratively, even if not literally as some claim. Seeing the utter lack of change in policy from one President to the next, who appeared to be so fully opposed to the policies of one another a few years ago, coming from opposing political parties, it has never been clearer that the Master of the White House is only there to serve an insidious agenda that is contrary to the ideals put forth by the founding fathers of this nation. Obama swept into office on the promise of change, yet there is no substantive change whatsoever. What will it take so that we hold our leaders accountable for imperial invasions and false wars, for peeling away the fundamental rights of the citizenry, for torture and murder? For allowing themselves to be undermined, allowing this Republic to be usurped by some hidden cabal of internationalists? State secrets do not protect the people, they protect those who seek to enslave and kill the people, make no mistake about it. These are the darkest hours of American liberty.

“We recognized that it was not enough to overthrow the old state, but that the new state must previously have been built up and ready to one's hand....In 1933 it was no longer a question of overthrowing a state by an act of violence; meanwhile the new state had been built up and all that remained to do was destroy the last remnants of the old state – and that took but a few hours.” ~Adolf Hitler

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” ~Thomas Paine

If you have the time, MSMReview highly recommends the following video, Taxi to the Darkside. In yet another example of the relation corporate media has to more nefarious agendas, this movie had an extremely difficult time reaching the public eye, despite critical acclaim when it was first viewed. The clearest example is when the Discovery Channel bought the rights to the movie, only to announce that they would never air the film, due to the controversial nature of the piece. The following presentation found on Google Video is about 80 minutes long.

“Taxi to the Darkside” Wikipedia Entry

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

Al-Awlaki's father says son is 'not Osama bin Laden'

EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case

Jewel v. NSA

Handling Of 'State Secrets' At Issue

Expert Consensus: Obama Mimics Bush On State Secrets

Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas

Detainees Barred From Access to U.S. Courts

Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.

Obama wins the right to invoke "State Secrets" to protect Bush crimes

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

There is far too much to cover in one article regarding the modern feminist movement as it pertains to social engineering, the degeneration of the family unit, and many of the ills we see today in modern society. Suffice to say though, that the movement as a whole has been a great disservice to humanity, and even to women in particular. Fatherless children is only one aspect of a much, much larger agenda, and in this piece we will be narrowing the view even further to focus specifically on women who deliberately become pregnant by anonymous sperm donors. But just to be clear, when we speak here on “modern feminism” we are not speaking about all women, or against any women, but against the socio-political agenda of the feminist movement that has actually done a great disservice to women and society as a whole.

Today, political correctness dictates that we are supposed to accept fatherless children as a sort of “new normal,” in direct contradiction to the laws of nature. We fancy ourselves gods, who can re-write the laws of nature on a whim, whenever we feel like it, and then act as if there will be no consequences for turning the natural order of things upside down. Children are meant to have a mother and a father. One can argue that point all day long in the interests of their modernist socio-political agenda, but the fact remains that our species, like so many others, reproduces sexually with both a male and female contribution of chromosomes. Balanced children will grow from the guidance and nurturing of both a man and a woman. Of course, there is tragedy in the world. One parent or another may be lost in some tragic accident, a war perhaps. But how do we suddenly make the jump to accept as normal, even preferable, what was once only the result of tragedy? The answer is simple. Narcissism. Unbalanced narcissism. The “I want what I want, and you can’t tell me no” mentality of our modern society, which is just as much a product of modern feminism as women wearing blue jeans. (Not that women in blue jeans is a bad thing of course.) Putting aside now the high rate of children raised by divorced parents, or born of unwed and unprotected sexual liaisons, we will maintain our focus here on the microcosm of clinical sperm donation. Of course, what we see here can be applied to the larger social arena as well, but unclouded by the arguments that often derail debate on the genuine core issues as the “blame” is tossed back and forth ad nauseum. When a woman chooses to impregnate herself clinically with anonymously donated sperm, then clearly there is no ambiguity when it comes to the responsibility of the pregnancy.

Now, there are a number of reasons why a woman might want to employ the services of a fertilization clinic. This article is not meant to be taken as some sort of assault on science, only to call into question the moral basis, or lack thereof, for certain applications. As with any knowledge, just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should. So we will not question here in this piece when a clinic might assist a happy and stable heterosexual couple in joining their natural egg and seed. We will also put aside the debate as it pertains to deceased partners. The focus here is on when a woman solicits an anonymous sperm donor. In some cases, it might be that her mate is sterile, that the man in the couple does not have sufficient viable sperm to initiate a pregnancy. In other cases, the woman’s mate may be another woman, and therefore obviously, her sexual partner cannot provide the necessary component to initiate a pregnancy. In other cases still, the woman may be alone, for one reason or another, perhaps coming toward the end of her own natural viability as a mother and anxious to partake of the gift of life.

At first glance, these reasons seem, well, reasonable. It’s natural for women to want to be mothers after all. But wanting something does not necessarily mean it’s the right thing to do. One might really want to go out and buy a particular house, but it might not be such a good idea if you can’t actually afford it, or if the house happens to be in a very bad part of town. So let us look a little more closely at what is really at stake here. To see if the “wants” or perceived needs really outweigh the potential for negative consequences.

With a single woman who has not been able to secure a stable relationship with a man, we can chalk it up to a bad luck of the draw, perhaps. Random odds that sometimes go against emotional fulfillment. For one reason or another, every male suitor turned out to be not so suited. But we could also look at the woman herself. Perhaps the men she met were not so much the problem. It is just as likely that she herself was the problem. The product of this modern feminist agenda. It is little surprise that a woman who goes through life with an “I don’t need no man, I can do it all myself” sort of attitude, will in fact wind up by herself, without a man. A cold desert for a woman to be lost in no doubt. Caught between hating men for not meeting the undefined ideal of a perverted feminist agenda, and not fulfilling her own natural identity as a woman. Of course, some women don’t just wind up in that spot, but choose to, usually because of a career. But in either case, is such a woman really the ideal candidate for motherhood? A woman too busy with other obligations that she has no time to make a secure emotional investment in a man, yet somehow expects to have enough time to fill the role of both parents, with all the love, nurturing, and guidance that a child should receive? Or a woman so emotionally unstable, lacking in dedication, or of such abrasive personality that she has been unable to maintain a caring relationship with a man? This is not meant presume to dictate a woman’s choices or personality of course, only to examine whether or not they are really ideal candidates for voluntary and deliberate single-motherhood. It seems there is a high probability that a child is more of an object or a prize to fill a void created by their own selfishness and lack of fortitude. Just because a woman can bear a child, does not mean that she will make a good mother. A woman who, for whatever her reasons, cannot maintain an enduring stable relationship with a grown man is hardly an ideal candidate to maintain a balanced and stable home for a child over the course of eighteen years, much less a lifetime of devotion that a good parent will often commit to.

We also see lesbian couples who often seek out sperm donors so that they may become same-sex parents. This obviously flies in the face of any natural sense of parenthood, social constructs aside. Once again, this is not to denigrate a woman’s personal choices in any way, and we will leave the common debates regarding the morality of homosexuality at the door. Instead, we might conclude that homosexuality does indeed play into the natural order of things, just not natural parenthood. That homosexuality is a natural mechanism to prevent the overpopulation of our species. That folks like homosexuals and others who are unable to maintain a heterosexual relationship are the gatekeepers who are destined to cease the perpetuation of inherited natural traits that nature sees fit to extinguish as we evolve. If homosexuality is a choice by nature, and not the choice of the individual, then clearly it is also nature’s choice that a homosexual not bear children. If it were otherwise, we would all be androgynous beings reproducing asexually. So clearly here we have a natural inhibitor preventing lesbians from becoming mothers. (No inference should be made here that homosexuality itself is necessarily an inherited trait, nor that it is destined to become, or should be, eliminated through natural selection.) There are also strong social complications that will distress a child as it grows up in a household with same-sex parents. First, confusion no doubt as to the natural order of things on a biological level, and a need for explicit sexual education from a very young age. There is also the outside social influences that will complicate matters, right or wrong. Even if one sees homosexual parenthood as morally acceptable, a good parent would never bring a child into the world to be used a pawn to enforce their socio-political views and willingly subject a child to undue hardship. So in that respect, we again see the “I want what I want” attitude rear its head, at the expense of the child, regardless of what either nature or society have to say about it. As politically incorrect as it may sound, homosexual couples are not ideal candidates for parenthood any more than a one-armed man is an ideal candidate for the NY Yankees.

A third reason for a woman to seek out a clinical sperm donation is in a case where a woman’s male mate might not be able to produce his own viable seed. Again, it seems fairly reasonable at first glance. Of course, we have the natural selection argument here again though. That there are natural population inhibitors that we may be violating to allow this sort of procedure to go forward. But at least we see a greater potential for a stable home and upbringing in the traditional sense. Yet digging in a little deeper, we find not only the potential for serious problems, but the sort of problems that have actually occurred. A case outlined in a recent Associated Press article that you will find linked below, told of how a young woman of 20 years old suddenly found out that the father who had raised her had been infertile, and that her biological father was an anonymous sperm donor. The truth of the matter was revealed by her mother just as she was divorcing the man who raised the young woman as his own. So here we really get to see the ugly side of modern feminism, and surely this is happening more often than we will find in a news article. Here this woman used this man to be the father to a child that was not biologically his, and all of the financial support that went along with that no doubt. When she was done with the man, just as the child was grown, she divorced him and then she went ahead and severed the bond between him and the daughter whom he had raised. An act so narcissistic that her own need to be cruel toward the man she was now leaving outweighed the well-being of the daughter she had seen fit to lie to for 20 years. Was it really worth it?

Not according to Lindsay Greenawalt, the product of a donor conception, who wrote in her blog, “If I had to choose between being conceived with half of my identity and half of my kinship deliberately denied from me for eternity — or never being born — I'd choose never being born. We were created to carry a loss. A loss that no human being should have to endure.” Barked at by egotistical sorts, these children are often told to be grateful that they are alive, as if this heartache that their mothers cursed upon them was really some gift to be cherished. More twisted sense of reality brought to us by modern feminism and the notion that women can do whatever they want without consequences, and that the world should be grateful for their mere presence. Recent studies have shown that children conceived in such a manner are more troubled and depressed than their peers as they become young adults. But rather than questioning the practice, news articles and study groups instead point to the anonymity of the donors as the source of the problem, not the fact that these women chose this themselves!

The media is doing a bang-up job of ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room too, by deflecting, spinning, and emotionalizing the topic to suit the feminist agenda. We see articles like the one from the AP mentioned earlier, titled, “Sperm-donors’ kids seek more rights and respect.” Respect? Is there some sense of entitlement here, that they are somehow due more respect than any other child? That now society must make special allowances for the choices of a mother who also was filled with some self-centered sense of entitlement? Rights? What rights? This was the conscious and deliberate choice of their mothers. The child has no rights, or say in the matter, any more then if the mother was a Preying Mantis who slew the father post-copulation. And what of the rights of a donor who never had any intention of being anything more than an anonymous donor of chromosomes? Well, we have Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker to spin that angle saying, “The adult voices of donor offspring are a welcome counterbalance to an array of cultural forces aimed at further marginalizing fathers.” So somehow we are supposed to believe that reneging on or undermining anonymity contracts is not actually marginalizing the rights of these men? How about giving some rights to men paying hundreds, even thousands of dollars a month to kids they are never allowed to see? This society is so twisted and turned upside down that men who want to be fathers aren’t allowed to be, but those who don’t want to be, will be forced to, as if it were a favor to them, and that they should be grateful.

Here is a link to the AP article as it appeared on FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/08/16/sperm-donors-kids-seek-rights-respect/


Now clearly we see that the real problem here rests with the practice of actually becoming pregnant through this method, not the fact that the donors wish to remain anonymous. To say any different would be to apply the sort of logic where you might blame the electric company for the fact that you stuck a fork in the socket and got burned. So why then the assault on the rights of the men, the donors, rather than on the practice by women of using those services? Well, the “it’s for the children” excuse will pull at the heartstrings of many Liberals, so now we need something to offend the Conservatives. How about brother and sister accidentally marrying each other because anonymity prevented them from researching their background? Well there were a few cases like that in the news in the past few years.

Here’s a case reported by the BBC where twins who were adopted separately wound up finding any marrying each other after they were grown, not knowing that they were actually siblings, and then were forced to have their marriage annulled:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182817.stm

Now of course, the odds of such cases happening aren’t all that great, but that sort of thing is indeed possible, and even more possible when it comes to half-siblings or cousins as well. But even more pressing might be the need for medical information. The “right” of a child, or a child since grown to adulthood to have medical information of their biological paternal lineage. In fact, in some cases it could be seen as necessary to save a life, or to treat a debilitating disease.

These are all risks that the mother should consider before going ahead with this sort of pregnancy. There are so many risks, so many negative points to how it will affect the child, why would any reasonable woman actually go ahead with this sort of thing? The answer, a reasonable woman wouldn’t. Not generally speaking anyhow. There may be some exceptions of course, there always are, and many of these woman cannot be seen as downright bad mothers. But we are talking about the ideal here. What is really in the best interest of these children, and of society. Bringing a child into the world knowing full well that you are doing so deliberately putting them ad a disadvantage right from the start is not the sign of good responsible parent. That is the sign of a lonely, self-centered woman who puts her own needs before anyone else’s, including their own child. But rather than acknowledging that clear and simple premise, we have this convoluted campaign to shift responsibility back onto men and onto society for the deliberate choices made by these women.

Women who, by the way, are told that their choices are perfectly normal, so it’s not that we can really blame them either. Women are raised to believe that their actions have no consequences, that they can do as they please, while men and society pick up the tab and try to make the world a more comfortable place for them. This is where we see that the modern feminist movement is actually doing a great disservice to women, in the same way that a parent might spoil a child and let them run wild. One day, the child, or the women in this case, will have to pay the piper so to speak. For some women it may be the heartache of realizing just how much suffering they have actually condemned their child too by bringing them into the world without a father. For others, it will be an open assault against an inflated ego, when their child is not grateful at all to have been brought into this world. It’s no wonder women are more bitter and unhappy than ever before. They are trapped in a web of deceit. The modern feminist movement is no friend to them, it is an agenda put upon society, using women as pawns, for the shadowy figures who engineer the face of society to their own nefarious ends.

End like profiteering from misery. Think of all the dollars that could be had by stripping away donor anonymity. The lawyers could wind up having a field day with donors who might not have disclosed a family history of some affliction, or who hid certain facts about themselves which they refused to disclose. And now we have our “ah-ha!” moment. We start to get a glimmer of the real reasons why there is suddenly an assault on the anonymity of sperm donors. The lawyers are salivating at the chance to muck around in this sort of misery. The women and the offspring will be used as pawns as always, the face of irrational emotional appeal, but nevertheless quick to jump on that bandwagon when they are told that it is their “right” to demand compensation from the man. And the state? Will the state step in to stop such injustice? Absolutely not. They stand to profit from taxation, court fees, child-support processing, and will even be able to squeeze profits out of these matters that are found to be “criminal.” Already there have been cases in the news in the past few years where men were forced to pay support for children that were the product of in-vitro fertilization, for example.

Here’s an article from over three years ago that outlines some rather unjust rulings against sperm donors:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2883/can-a-sperm-donor-be-forced-to-pay-child-support

After having read this piece, perhaps some have been inspired to exercise more critical thinking rather than simply going along with what is easiest, or politically correct. Truth is the enemy of these spin-pages in the mainstream news and the agendas which they are well paid to support. Perhaps you found yourself offended at some points reading this piece. Good, that means you actually stopped to think rather then just listening to the drone of propaganda and everyone patting each other on the back while society is torn asunder. If we were to take the AP article mentioned up above at face value, me might have concluded that donor anonymity is a social scourge, and that men should be appreciative to have their rights undermined. The suffering of the children is very real, but that emotional appeal is misplaced in calling for an end to donor anonymity, rather than an end to the practice of donor pregnancies right from the start. This is all just setting the stage for precedents that will be set in the coming years, as nationalized healthcare and the legal system ramp-up the genetic mapping of society through DNA identification. Privacy is of no concern to the powers that be, and there is in fact a concerted effort to do away with the last few vestiges of it that we have.

For further reading on those concerns you may enjoy reading other articles posted here at the MSMReview:

Electronic Surveillance of Your Fat

L.A. Touts Serial Killer Arrest to Quash Civil Liberty Concerns

Technology and Police Hypocrisy

Border War: The Blind Eye of America

While the United States has spent almost a decade chasing down an invisible, some might even say imaginary enemy on the other side of the planet, a very real war at home has been completely ignored by our political leaders and largely left out of the mainstream media. No one seems to want to talk about the fact that the U.S. is being invaded by a very real, active, and potent enemy. Headlines like "Marijuana plants seized" downplay what is happening here at home, while headlines like "Al-Qaeda mastermind behind slaughter of U.S. troops" dominate the short attention span of the average American viewer. The truth of the matter is far more chilling than any politician or mainstream media source will ever admit.

Let us set aside many of the more common debates about illegal immigration, such as the damaging impact on the economy, on labor bargaining, the tax burden, infrastructure, etcetera. Instead let us focus on the mortal danger posed to Americans as a people, which stems from our ignore-the-border policy and the nefarious politics behind it. Advocates of illegal immigrants would have you believe that most people who cross the southern US border from Mexico are simple hard-working law-abiding folk, and that only the occasional bad apple floats across the Rio Grande or tumbles through desert tunnels. The truth is that millions of sworn gang members, gang affiliates, narco-terrorists, and bona-fide political insurgents here in the US are illegal immigrants, to say nothing of your average run-of-the-mill rapists and murderers. These gangs and criminal enterprises are far more lethal and organized than some family in Iraq or Afghanistan protecting their home from rampaging troops out gallivanting through the desert. The subversive political agenda of Aztlan is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the US and well funded by narco-dollars. While we are out chasing ghosts on the other side of the world, we have been invaded by a guerilla armies, millions strong, harboring ideology of racial supremacy known as La Raza, and bent on the destruction of America as we know it. They are not here to take part in the American dream, but to overrun it.

This is not to say that all illegals are narco-warriors and racists of course. If there weren’t genuine working class people just trying to get by and feed their kids, there would be little to pull at the heartstrings of gullible Americans or make an effective camouflage for the murderous infiltrators. But rather than become Americans, most illegals would rather send money “home” or insist that America adapt to them as if we were the uninvited guest. If someone has just broken into your house, eaten your ice cream and pissed in your couch, it is naive to suddenly expect they will observe the rules and customs of the household, regardless of whatever justification is put forth for their behavior. But rather than addressing the broken lock on the back door, our political leadership ignores it and panders to the sympathizers. There is no nobility in racist ideology, there is no noble cause to reclaim lost lands because Latinos are not in fact indigenous peoples, illegal immigrants are not persecuted refugess seeking freedom in the US, this is an invasion and wholesale looting of America by very powerful, organized and violent criminal empires.

In Mexico there is open warfare among these factions, that has claimed the lives of an estimated 28,000 people in the last four years. That is roughly double the amount of deaths in Afghanistan for the same time period. Is this the Aztlan dream? Is this the promise of La Raza? Mexicos’s intelligence agency director Guillermo Valdes stated in a meeting with his President Felipe Calderon that drug violence in Mexico “is still growing” despite the government crackdown that began in 2006. Yet the US does not see fit to intercede by aiding Mexico to better their circumstances effectively, or at the very least to protect our own population from the spillover of the narco wars through political pressure and serious border security. There is no such tidy estimate as the one above for the number of related deaths in America, but it is safe to assume that most drug and gang-related deaths in this country lead back to the cartels. Prison gangs like the Mexican Mafia, and the brutal Salvadoran street gang MS -13 who are some 70,000 strong, have been imported here but take their orders from places south of the border. Everyday more violent gangs of illegals take up residence in the US while at the same time new chapters or “sets” of more traditional street gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods spring up in newly established communities of illegal immigrants.

While the director of Mexican intelligence reports that they have seized $411 million in American currency, and 84,000 weapons since their crackdown began years ago, here in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California one drug bust alone wiped out a pot farm worth $1.7 billion. Four times the value of Mexico’s four year war on drugs. After a similar bust in the Sequoia National Park two years ago, John Walters, director of the National Drug Control Policy, had this to say…

"These aren't Cheech and Chong plants. People who farm now are not doing this for laughs, despite the fact Hollywood still thinks that. “

These plots are not a few scraggly plants scattered around some hippie commune, but mega farms set up in huge swaths of commandeered soil in America’s national parks by Latin-American gangs using dangerous chemicals, fully armed para-military grade security forces and explosive booby-traps, while destroying the natural habitat. Investigations have concluded that a number of major forest fires have been caused by these invaders as well, in places where firefighters had to work with armed escorts and the people of surrounding communities were forced to flee. The profits from these crops are used to finance all sorts of other criminal activity and violence in communities throughout North America. Park rangers are desperately outgunned, and the innocent family on a hiking trip is in very real danger of never being seen again if they stumble across one of these farms.

So what is the Federal government’s answer to this danger? Well in an Arizona national park the answer appears to be making it illegal for an American to be on American land, rather than securing 3500 acres that includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, where drug smuggling is so prevalent that the area was closed to civilians by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is, quite literally, a hostile takeover of sovereign American land and an open surrender by the US government, while we chase an imaginary terrorist organization half a world away. When you look at a map of the United States now, realize that the border you see is not accurate. The Federal government, willingly and without a fight has ceded territory to Mexican drug cartels. The border has been moved, and American soil has been conquered, without so much as a peep from the White House, or a fighting stand by American troops to defend against the invaders. If we shared a border with the Taliban would we tolerate such an assault? Are these invaders not every bit, nay, even more of a threat to the safety of Americans than radical Muslim fundamentalism? Between 2001 and 2007 there were 100,000 murders in America. Now let’s make a blatantly over-conservative guess that only 25% of those murders were drug or gang related. That would still mean that drug gangs have claimed better than ten times as many lives as the attack on September 11.

These well- armed insurgents here at home are better funded than Muslim extremists, are at least twice as active in Mexico as “terrorists” are in Afghanistan, support a doctrine of racial supremacy and are openly calling for the destruction of America. Yet both our political leadership and a huge cross-section of American society turn a blind eye, or openly give sympathy to the invaders as if it were some moral obligation to humanity that we allow them to shoot us, to burn us out of our homes, to rob us of our earnings, to destroy what we have built. The terrorists are right here, not off in some far away land. Their influence reaches all the way to the top echelons of power in the United States. How else can one explain the fact that neither former President Bush, nor our current President Obama has lifted a finger to fight these invaders and to regulate legitimate immigration? Meanwhile they execute a bogus war that was built on false pretense right from the very start. Conservative politicians did nothing to protect us from these insurgents, and I certainly don’t expect liberal politicians to do any better by openly supporting the invasion while actively blocking state and local authority from protecting their sovereignty and even the physical safety of their constituents. There is no exaggeration, we are in fact being invaded by terrorist insurgents who are better armed, more organized, and have greater numbers than the so called “al-Qaeda network.” Our own national political leadership has been subverted and is in league with these foreign invaders from the south. The government of the United States of America no longer represents the American people, but instead does the bidding of hidden powers with dark agendas.

While major media outltes are quick to support the sham called "the war on terror" reporting falsehoods and drawing all sorts of erroneous conclusions about conflict in the middle east, mainstream media sources have scant reporting on the subject matter of domestic insurgents, would certainly never call them what they are, and would not dare put the pieces together to make a factual conclusive report as we have done here. Nevertheless, here are some supporting links of information from both mainstream and alternate sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10811870

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/17/lawmaker-warns-drug-cartel-danger-public-parks-intensifying/

http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner~y2010m6d17-Our-national-parks-have-been-surrendered-to-the-Mexican-drug-cartels-wshocking-video

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/03/01/20100301pot-farms-on-public-lands.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/03/world/main6740078.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CbsNewsTheEarlyShowPetPlanet+%28CBS+News%3A+The+Early+Show%3A+Pet+Planet%29

http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNvqm_qgM5U