A shocking caveat to the Obama worship video now doing the rounds on the TV news talk shows, first reported by Prison Planet nearly a month ago, is the fact that the lyrics to the song that children of a New Jersey school are forced to sing are clearly adapted from a religious hymn called “Jesus Loves The Little Children,” which is one of the first songs that small children learn in church.
The idea of kids being forced to worship Obama in schools across America is no longer just a chilling example of Maoist style political brainwashing – children are literally being trained to religiously worship Obama via adapted versions of Christian hymns!
Jesus Loves The Little Children Lyrics
“Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…”
Obama Worship Song Lyrics
“Barack Hussein Obama. He said Red, yellow, black or white all are equal in his sight…”
As one of our readers comments, “For me it sounded VERY familiar in tune…Sick how they are twisting the words. Soon there will be the Ten Commandments of Obama up in schools, and something new on our currency dealing with Trust. Total waste of Tax payer dollars. No wonder the kids don’t know who the first president of the US is. This is child abuse.”
In another video we showcased how the 21st century Obama Youth movement now being practiced in American schools has chilling parallels to the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany.
For numerous other video examples of kids singing songs of praise to Obama in school, visit our previous articles.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The Marines are landing in our backyard.
2,300 Marines are converging on this region for two weeks of intensive training in preparation for an upcoming deployment.
Part of the training involves exercises in small cities in Kentucky and southern Indiana. Simulated missions will take place in Frankfort late next week.
Beginning today, you may see Marine aircraft in the skies. They include the Cobra and Chinook helicopters and Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.
The Marines, from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, will base their training at Camp Atterbury in southern Indiana.
President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges.
The move, which was controversial when the idea was first floated in The Washington Post in May, has sparked serious concern among civil liberties advocates. Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold “combatants” without habeas corpus — a legal term literally meaning “you shall have the body” — which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect’s detention.
Obama’s decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times’ New York edition on Thursday. It didn’t appear on that page in the national edition. (Meanwhile, the front page was graced with the story, “Richest Russian’s Newest Toy: An N.B.A. Team.”)
Rather than seek approval from Congress to hold some 50 Guantanamo detainees indefinitely, the administration has decided that it has the authority to hold the prisoners under broad-ranging legislation passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Former President George W. Bush frequently invoked this legislation as the justification for controversial legal actions — including the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.
“The administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” the Times‘ Peter Baker writes. “In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies.”
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Constitutional scholar and Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald discussed the policy in a column in May. He warned that the ability for a president to “preventively” detain suspects could mushroom into broader, potentially abusive activity.
“It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding,” Greenwald wrote. “That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, ‘preventive detention’ allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally ‘dangerous’ by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they ‘expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden’ or ‘otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans’). That’s what ‘preventive’ means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be ‘combatants.’”
“Once known, the details of the proposal could — and likely will — make this even more extreme by extending the ‘preventive detention’ power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a ‘combatant,’” Greenwald continues. “After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly ‘dangerous’ combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.”
The Obama Administration appears to have embraced “preventive detention” in part because of problems with how Guantanamo prisoners’ cases — and incarceration — were handled under President Bush. Military prosecutors have said that numerous cases could not be brought successfully in civilian courts because evidence was obtained in ways that wouldn’t be admissible on US soil. The Bush Administration originally sought to try numerous detainees in military tribunals, but the Supreme Court ruled that at least some have the rights to challenge their detention in US courts.
Baker notes that Obama’s decision to hold suspects without charges doesn’t propose as broad an executive authority claimed by President Bush.
“Obama’s advisers are not embracing the more disputed Bush contention that the president has inherent power under the Constitution to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely regardless of Congress,” Baker writes.
In a statement to Baker, the Justice Department said, “The administration would rely on authority already provided by Congress [and] is not currently seeking additional authorization.”
“The position conveyed by the Justice Department in the meeting last week broke no new ground and was entirely consistent with information previously provided by the Justice Department to the Senate Armed Services Committee,” the statement added.
Roughly 50 detainees of the more than 200 still held at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are thought to be affected by the decision.
The bill allows the Governor of the state to assume “emergency powers… in the event of a pandemic influenza emergency.” From the bill’s text:
To amend Article 2 of Chapter 34 of Title 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to physicians, so as to authorize the use of influenza vaccine orders for a group of patients; to provide for influenza vaccine protocol agreements between physicians and pharmacists or nurses; to provide for definitions; to provide requirements for the content of influenza vaccine protocol agreements; to provide that a party to an influenza vaccine protocol agreement shall not delegate his or her authority; to provide for statutory construction; to provide for policies for handling used equipment; to limit the number of influenza vaccine protocol agreements in which a physician may enter at any one time; to prohibit certain entities from entering into influenza vaccine protocol agreements; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for limited liability; to provide for applicability; to amend Article 1 of Chapter 7 of Title 31 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to regulation of hospitals and related institutions, so as to provide for vaccinations or other measures for health care workers in hospitals; to provide for statutory construction; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 38 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to emergency management, so as to provide for emergency powers of the Governor in the event of a pandemic influenza emergency; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. (Emphasis added.)
Two more sets of UK regional influenza pandemic contingency documents have revealed details regarding the government’s plans to set up mass vaccination centres in conjunction with local authorities and other departmentalized agencies.
One of the documents highlights a need to keep the location of mass vaccination centres secret from the public, while the other lists a sports stadium as one of the locations for mass public inoculation.
The plans outline the need to identify suitable locations for mass vaccination centres and the need to determine how many people can be vaccinated per day and for how long.
Now more documents from different regions have come to light, revealing the same overall strategy.
“When the general population is threatened or affected by a medical epidemic, mass vaccination of the public may be necessary.”
The “public version” of the plan states that the locations of the vaccine centers have been omitted.
“THE LOCATION OF VACCINATION AND TREATMENT CENTRES IS SENSITIVE INFORMATION, AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH. THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM FoIA REQUESTS UNDER SECTION 38 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000.” an excerpt reads.
The document advises that the mass vaccination centres should be ready to operate 24 hours a day and estimates that they will “process approximately 1,000 – 3,000 people per day”.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The paper notes that the public should be informed “what to expect when they get there i.e. adverse reactions and where to get advice”.
It also gives an insight into the running of the centres, which is completely departmentalized under a “Tactical co-ordinating Group”. Under a section titled “Communications”, however, it is stated that “The Strategic co-ordinating Group will decide who will be the primary spokesperson in the interim set-up period; once command and control structure is in place, this may transfer to a specific agency.”
Like the earlier uncovered documents, the need for “triage” of patients is highlighted.
The paper also states that “Police Services will advise on the security/safety aspects of each considered site and respond to public order situations.”
In a key passage, the document notes “There is no specific legislation relating to this plan however, special powers granted to HM Government under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 may apply.”
The second freshly discovered document is a sample vaccination order (PDF) originating from the NHS health authority in Bolton, Lancashire.
The order states that people in the UK will be summoned for a vaccination at an “allocated” date and time at pre-planned mass vaccination centres, and that refusal to attend is not an option.
“It is important that you attend this session. If you are unable to attend, you will need to go to one of the later sessions listed overleaf,” says the letter in Appendix F page 29 of the contingency document.
The letter lists Bolton Arena as the mass vaccination site, which is a large indoor sports arena.
“This is a new vaccine, which protects against the pandemic strain of influenza, which circulated last year.” the letter, which was drawn up in September 2006, states.
The document also highlights the need for crowd control and says that contract security should be considered in addition to the local police forces.
Firefighters could be added to the list of those mandated to take the dangerous and untested H1N1 vaccine if Parkersburg Fire Department Chief Eric Chichester gets his way, while health workers in Ontario Canada have been told they will not be forced to take the shot.
Firefighters do not work in hospitals, but because they are trained EMT’s, Chichester believes they should get both the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines.
“I plan on getting vaccinated as soon as it’s available,” Chichester said. “Our guys have the choice of getting the regular flu shot, but I’m looking into ways I can make it mandatory for them to receive the H1N1 vaccine,” he told the News and Sentinel.
Capt. Rick Woodyard with the Wood County Sheriff’s Department is quoted in the same article as saying that police will follow the orders of FEMA if there is a widespread H1N1 outbreak.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
According to Woodyard, this would involve “guarding injection sites and helping out the medical community.” Whether “helping” the medical community means helping them to carry out forced injections remains to be seen, but it seems there would be little else for law enforcement to do in such a situation other than compel people to follow orders they wouldn’t normally be inclined to.
While health workers across the U.S., notably in Atlanta and New York, are being forced to take the swine flu vaccine as well as the seasonal flu shot or be fired, officials in Ontario Canada have stated that neither health professionals or the general public will be forced to take the vaccine.
Premier Dalton McGuinty told CBC News that the government cannot, “hold anybody down and inject them with a vaccine when they don’t want it.”
Similarly, schools in the U.S. and Canada are making noises indicating that the swine flu shot will not be forced upon children without parental consent. Asotin County Health District Administrator Joe Lillard signaled that kids in Idaho would not be forced to take the vaccine when he told local news channel KLEW-TV 3, “This is not mandatory, it is a voluntary program,” said Lillard. “I strongly encourage parents to get their children immunized, but that’s a personal choice and if they decide they don’t want to do it, it’s there decision.”
However, all this could change if H1N1 returns as a deadlier strain and begins to claim more fatalities, which is exactly what authorities seem to be preparing for as reports of military roadblocks and martial law training drills continue to pour in from all over the country.
President Obama delivered his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, employing impassioned rhetoric reminiscent of his presidential campaign’s theme of “change”:
The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history. The time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect and our work must begin now.
While — unlike former President George H.W. Bush’s Sept. 11, 1990, address before a joint session of Congress — Obama did not employ the term “new world order” to describe his vision for global governance, he did come close, saying:
In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.
Defending the United States against foreign critics who have charged that the nation either has done too little or has acted unilaterally to solve the world’s problems, Obama stated: “Make no mistake: this cannot solely be America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.”
“America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.”
At the same time, the U.S. president took an apologetic tone for not accomplishing what he apparently views as a U.S. responsibility to act beyond the mandate for American government established by the U.S. Constitution, saying:
Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility…. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.
One point in the president’s address could be seen as indirect criticism of his predecessor, George W. Bush: “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months. America will live its values, and we will lead by example.”
In one of his few references in the speech that actually defended the Constitution, specifically its Bill or Rights, Obama said:
On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. [The remark was met with applause.] I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.
However, Obama gave a boost to the concept of international law, presumably enforced by a world government such as the UN, when he charged that Iran and North Korea “must be held accountable” if they continue to ignore international nuclear weapons treaties.
If the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East — then they must be held accountable,” said the president. He continued: “The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.
Playing to a home crowd, Obama emphasized support for the UN, stating:
We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. [This was also met with applause.] We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution — for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.
Continuing on this one-world theme, he said:
This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way — and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations — or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.
Obama also harkened back to the fear of nuclear annihilation that was strong in the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — fear that served as a strong initial impetus for founding the UN — and exploited that fear to promote ratification of the nuclear Test Ban Treaty:
This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next 12 months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.
America intends to keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.
I will also host a summit next April that reaffirms each nation’s responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can’t — because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.
All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations — it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Among the topics Obama covered was the elusive effort to reach a peace agreement between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.
“The time has come to re-launch negotiations — without preconditions — that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem,” he said. “The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”
The U.S. president received applause after the above statement and as he continued speaking on the theme of Middle East peace, using skillfully crafted parallel statements: “The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.”
“And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.”
And, referring to a topic of concern ceaselessly addressed by international forums in recent years, “global warming,” Obama painted a picture of ominous doom:
The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on — why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.
And that is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency, and share new technologies with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the entire world.
Near the conclusion of his speech, Obama again referenced Franklin Roosevelt as a father of the UN, stating:
“Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering, the enormous sacrifice that had taken place. ‘We have learned,’ he said, ‘to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.’ ”
By a statement intended to be one of praise, President Obama has revealed a fundamental truth about the UN and about every U.S. president from Roosevelt to himself — Democrat or Republican — who have without exception worked to strengthen the United Nations.
Internationalism — the philosophy that we are all citizens of the world — supplants patriotism (literally: love of one’s native land) and implores citizens to shift their loyalty from their own sovereign state to an ambiguous “parliament of man.” World citizenship, moreover, is meaningless without the existence of a world government — the ultimate goal of internationalists.
Sharon Kirkey
Canwest News Service
September 23, 2009
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Canadians are bullish on giving government officials permission to restrict personal freedoms in a flu pandemic, with half of those surveyed agreeing that violation of a quarantine order would be tantamount to manslaughter.
As well, 90% of Canadians surveyed for a research report in pandemic ethics believe doctors and nurses have an obligation to report to work during a pandemic, provided safety precautions are in place. Almost half (48%) say that health care workers who do not show up for work without a legitimate excuse should be fired or lose their professional licenses.
The survey, conducted by the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, is based on a random sample of 500 Canadians surveyed by phone, and nearly 100 more via a series of town hall meetings. It was taken between August 2008 to February 2009 — just before the H1N1 outbreak began in April — and was designed to inject the public’s voice into debates usually left to the experts, and comes as officials brace for an anticipated second wave of H1N1 flu.
The US dollar still retains a disproportionately large representation in international trade transactions, official reserves and exchange rate regimes.
This is largely due to the many institutional arrangements and incumbencies which remain from the Bretton Woods era of 1944 to 1971 when the gold-linked dollar provided the formal anchor for the world monetary system.
Now, though, this privileged, inherited status of the paper dollar is under threat from the falling relative economic size of the US and its cyclical influence and the scale of the excesses that very privilege has allowed.
