The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

Assange Prosecution: A Brazen Effort To Silence Alternative Media

leave a comment »

December 9, 2010: Kurt Nimmo / Prison Planet.com - December 8, 2010

Now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is in custody, we can expect the U.S. government to request his extradition and prosecute the Australian for espionage. “Any such proceedings would set up a test of whether the First Amendment’s protection for a free press extends to a website with a worldwide audience,” notes McClatchy today.

In 1917 the United States enacted the Espionage Act, a law that has made it a crime to “willfully communicate” secret government information that could expose national secrets held by officialdom. Since the law was passed, however, the government has avoided prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information.

“The First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the press has protected journalists in the past, though it is not clear whether the courts would consider Assange a journalist,” writes McClatchy.

Assange’s “actions are not those of a responsible journalist that would enjoy the protection of the Constitution,” opines Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel at the CIA.

Government, of course, will decide what is responsible and irresponsible journalism and the high court will enshrine this in law. The establishment – including its highest court – may eventually restrict the First Amendment and have its protection apply only to selected corporate media journalists and other propaganda functionaries of the elite.

Any such ruling by the Supreme Court will send a message to investigative journalists and alternative news organizations and publications – you will be prosecuted for revealing “government secrets,” in short it may soon be illegal to report information the government wants to keep hidden from the American people.

According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, the Supreme Court has not resolved the question of “whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well.”

In 1971, the Supreme Court rejected a Nixon administration effort to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. Nixon’s effort to prosecute leakers Daniel Ellsberg and the late Anthony Russo – who were not journalists, but RAND corporation researchers – was dismissed due to “prosecutorial misconduct.” The Supremes indicated, however, that it would have been possible for the government to prosecute the newspapers involved.

“Freedom of speech is a basic US constitutional right,” notes the Christian Science Monitor. “What Assange and WikiLeaks may have done, however, is set up a lawyer’s dream of a case which would allow the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between two basic rights — the right to speak, and the right of the US to hold close its secrets.”

The Obama administrarion has declared the Wikileaks “disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government.” In fact, the disclosures put at risk the widespread government policy of withholding information from the American people.

In 2006, Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, said that every “administration wants to control information about its policies and practices, but the current [Bush] administration has restricted access to information about our government and its policies at unprecedented levels. The result has been the suppression of discussions about our country’s direction and its security. How can the public or even Congress make informed decisions under such circumstances? The movement away from public accountability must be reversed.”

A record number of Freedom of Information Act requests indicate government is becoming more secretive, not less. Declarations of transparency and open government notwithstanding, the Obama administration has continued the concerted effort to keep the American people in the dark about the operation of its government, especially in regard to foreign policy.

Never mind the idiocy of government officials and neocons such as William Kristol who have called for not only harassing, kidnapping, and “neutralizing” Julian Assange and the Wikileaks operation, the ultimate result will be to harass and neutralize the alternative media that continues to draw millions of people away from government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media.

In order to convert the United States into a third world slave gulag with a high-tech police state overlay, the ruling elite will target and attempt to liquidate alternative media. Eventually extraditing and prosecuting Julian Assange as an enemy of the state is an important element in the effort to kill the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

RT: Wikileaks Scandal & Censoring Internet Journalism

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The RT interview with Gerald Celente ends at 4:42 of the video- SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://www.prisonplanet.com/assange-prosecution-a-brazen-effort-to-kill-alternative-media.html

America’s Devolution Into Dictatorship: US Citizen Assassinations!

leave a comment »

November 12, 2010: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts / Infowars.com – November 11, 2010

The United States Department of Justice (sic) routinely charges and convicts innocents with bogus and concocted  crimes that are not even on the statutes book.

The distinguished defense attorney and civil libertarian, Harvey A. Silverglate, published a book last year, “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” which conclusively proves that today in “freedom and democracy” America we have punishment without crime.

This same Justice (sic) Department, which routinely frames and railroads the innocent, argued in Federal Court on November 8 that the US government, if approved by the president, could murder anyone it wishes, citizens or noncitizens, at will.  

All that is required is that the government declare, without evidence, charges, trial, jury conviction or any of the due process required by the US Constitution, that the government suspects the murdered person or persons to be a “threat.”

The US Justice (sic) Department even told US Federal District Court Judge John Bates that the US judiciary, formerly a co-equal branch of government, has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to stick its nose into President “Change” Obama’s decision to assassinate Americans. The unaccountability of the president’s decision to murder people is, the US Justice (sic) Department declared, one of “the very core powers of the president as commander in chief.”

The argument by the Justice (sic) Department that the executive branch has unreviewable authority to kill Americans, whom the executive branch has unilaterally, without presenting evidence, determined to pose a threat, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center For Constitutional Rights.

The outcome of the case will determine whether the neoconservative and Israeli stooge, president George W. Bush, was correct when he said that the US Constitution was nothing but a “scrap of paper.”

It is my opinion that the American people and the US Constitution haven’t much chance of winning this case. The Republican Federalist Society has succeeded in appointing  many federal district, appeals and supreme court judges, who believe that the powers of the executive branch are superior to the powers of the legislature and judiciary.

The Founding Fathers of our country declared unequivocally that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were co-equal. However,  the Republican brownshirts who comprise the Federalist Society have implanted the society’s demonic ideology in the federal bench and Justice (sic) Department.

Today the erroneous belief is widespread that the executive branch is supreme and that the other branches of government are less than equal. If Americans have a greater enemy than neoconservatives, that enemy is the Federalist Society, a collection of incipient Nazis.

Disagree with me as you will, but now let’s look at this development from another perspective. I am old enough to remember the Nixon years, and I was a presidential appointee, confirmed by the US senate, in the Reagan administration. For those of you too young to know and those who are to old to remember, President Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment simply because Nixon lied about when he learned about the burglary of the Watergate office of the Democratic party.

Nixon lied about when he learned of the burglary, because he knew that the Washington Post would make an issue of the burglary, if he launched an investigation, to defeat  his re-election.  The military/security complex and the black ops groups in the US government were angry at Nixon for smoothing US-China relations.

The Washington Post, long regarded as a CIA asset, hid behind its “liberal” image to bring Nixon down. Woodward and Bernstein wrote thriller-type reports of midnight meetings with “deep throat” in dangerous parking garages to get the scoop on the date of Nixon’s knowledge of the meaningless burglary.

Let’s assume that I have it all wrong. The fact remains that Nixon was driven from office because of the Watergate burglary.  No one was harmed. Nixon did not kill anyone or claim the right to kill, without proof or accountability, American citizens.  If the dastardly President Nixon had a Justice (sic) Department like the present one, he simply would have declared Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post to be a threat and murdered them by merely exercising the power that the Obama administration is claiming.

Nixon might be too far in the past for most Americans, so let’s look at Ronald Reagan. The neoconservatives’ Iran/Contra scandal almost brought down President Reagan. It is unclear whether President Reagan knew about the neocon operation and, if he did, whether he was kept in the loop. But all of this aside, what do you think would have been President Reagan’s fate if he, or his Justice (sic) Department, had declared that Reagan had the power as commander in chief to murder anyone he considered to be a threat?

Instantly, the media would have been in an uproar, law schools and university faculties would have been in an uproar, the Democrats would have been demanding Reagan’s impeachment, and his impeachment would have occurred with the speed of light.

Today in Amerika, approximately 25 years later, the ACLU has to go to federal court in order to attempt to affirm that “if the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.”

In reply, the Justice (sic) Department told the court that murdering American citizens is a “political question” that is not subject to judicial review. The “freedom and democracy” government then invoked the “state secrets privilege” and declared that the case against the government’s power to commit murder must be dismissed in order to avoid “the disclosure of sensitive information.”

If the Obama Regime wins this case, the US will have become a dictatorship. As far as I can tell, the “liberal media” and most Americans do not care. Indeed, conservative Republicans are cheering it on.

Ron Paul – Assassinations Of American Citizens

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: “We, the people,” have now succumbed to the most powerful and corrupt Banana Republic dictatorship the world has ever seen through unprecedented apathy and ignorance… Pathetic! - SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.infowars.com/americas-devolution-into-dictatorship/

Engineered Economic Collapse In America Leading To Martial Law

with 2 comments

October 15, 2010: Phil Brennan / Phil Brennan via Infowars.com – October 15, 2010

Now with the US Government preparing to seize private and public pensions in order to bankrupt the American people and bring them down into poverty as part of their Full Spectrum Dominance plans, the risk of American society collapsing into anarchy and rioting is extremely high over the next few months.

Plans have already been in place for the past twenty-six years with Rex 84 to bring the USA under Martial Law in such an eventuality. The Military have been training extensively over this time period specifically to take on the American people with the National Level Program of army exercises. National Level Exercises 2010 (NLE10) have had exercises in Chicago, Illinois, entitled “Operation Vigilant Guard”, where foreign troops were training with the US Military to take out Patriots and confiscate legally held guns from the American people. [see videos below]

In a PrisonPlanet.tv special video report with Rob Dew and Jason Douglass, Operation Vigilant Guard is well documented:

“…The National Guard told the media that foreign soldiers would be “observers,” but as this Prison Planet.tv exclusive video reveals Polish soldiers participated in the activities, including a raid on what appeared to be a meth lab but is described as a weapons of mass destruction facility.

“Operation Vigilant Guard reveals the on-going effort to not only destroy Posse Comitatus — once upon a time designed to prevent the military from working with state and local law enforcement — but the globalist effort to incorporate foreign “partners” into any future effort to impose martial law and gun confiscation in response not only to hurricanes but a contrived terrorist event…”

This is the final phase in the DDCN Doctrine of Demoralisation, Destabilisation, Crisis and Normalisation, ready for the Bancor to be brought in as the One World Currency, with a totalitarian One World Government regime.

In order for this hostile takeover to be successful, they have to first destabilise any potential resistance before the Crisis phase is fully enacted. This is why the Southern Property Law Center, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, are doing everything in their power to demonise Patriots and Constitutionalists, the Tea Parties and Veterans, Gun Owners and Libertarians – These people will be the first into the breach to resist tyranny. Meanwhile, the MIAC Reports and the Department of Justice are also trying to character assassinate large swathes of American society, as well as the Feds targeting disgruntled veterans.

As the Crisis phase swings into full economic melt down, the US Military will take over more and more of the infrastructure as cities can no longer afford to employ staff. The ability to do this has already been listed in several Presidential Executive Orders:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 – allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 – allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 – allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 – allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 – allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 – allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 – allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 – designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 – allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 – allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 – allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 – specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA’s Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA’s role as a “new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.” FEMA’s powers were consolidated by President Carter…

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 – grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 – assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 – created the Federal Emergency Management Agency to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies. The bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 – appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12919 – Collects EOs 10995, 10997, 10998, 10999, 11000, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005 and 11051 together into one new Executive Order.

National Security Act of 1947 – allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.

1950 Defense Production Act – gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

Act of August 29, 1916 – authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act – enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

As more and more Patriots become leaders in their communities, some will become targets for assassination through either Predator Drone strikes or Kill / Capture Teams, especially those who are fully aware of all that is going on geopolitically and are standing up against it. Do not be deceived – this is not for Islamic militants hiding out in caves, it is for the American People.

With State Nullification and State Succession being openly discussed by many people who are either standing for office this November, or are supporting independent candidates, many of us are watching warily for signs of an October Surprise in the form of either another illegal War of Trade, a False Flag Terrorism Event, or even the fall of the Republic before the November elections even take place and the declaration of Martial Law.

As the Alternative Intelligence Community chatter gets louder concerning impending Martial Law, and sources are noting the mobilisation of the 82nd Airborne Division, Marshals being called for inter-state training exercises under suspicious circumstances, and various other signs that suggest the imminent declaration of Martial Law, we have decided to put the Martial Law risk to Severe.

By exposing these Martial Law plans, we Patriots hope to stay their hand long enough for the danger to pass. Things brought out into the light can be dealt with, while things hidden cannot be. Meanwhile, it is incumbent upon all Americans to vote in Constitutionalist candidates no matter what their political affiliations are. There are many independent Constitutionalist candidates standing for office against those currently in office who are trying to bring in the New World Order, candidates who once in office will hold the feet of Congress and the President to the fire on these issues.

Infowars Exclusive: Operation Vigilant Guard – Chicago 2010 1/3

Infowars Exclusive: Operation Vigilant Guard – Chicago 2010 2/3

Infowars Exclusive: Operation Vigilant Guard – Chicago 2010 3/3

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Is there any doubt at this point who the real enemy is? It’s not Osama bin Dead, Al-Qaeda, Taleban, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Russia

RT: Gerald Celente – “The Sell-Off Of America”

Are you pissed off yet? - SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/10/15/deliberately-engineered-economic-collapse-in-usa-leading-to-martial-law/

US Supreme Court Case Could Change Process In Vaccine Lawsuits

leave a comment »

October 12, 2010: Lauren Cox / LiveScience.com via Yahoo News – October 12, 2010

The Supreme Court is set to hear the first arguments Tuesday in a vaccine injury case that pediatricians and medical malpractice lawyers worry will drastically change how patients sue vaccine manufacturers in this country. By law, families who want to sue for vaccine injuries must first go through a special “vaccine court” created by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The Supreme Court must now decide whether a family can sue without going through vaccine court, on the grounds there was a defect in the design of the vaccine.

Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, the plaintiffs in Tuesday’s case, are not the first to try to sue outside of vaccine court, but their case may decide how the cases of hundreds of other families suing vaccine manufacturers proceed. Their daughter, Hannah Bruesewitz, was 6 months old in 1992 when she received her third scheduled dose of the whooping cough-tetanus-diphtheria (DTP) childhood vaccine. Soon after, doctors diagnosed her with a seizure disorder, developmental problems and encephalopathy, a condition that can lead to permanent brain damage according to a bulletin hosted by Cornell University Law School.

When the vaccine court ruled DTP vaccine did not cause Hannah’s medical conditions, the Bruesewitz family brought a civil case against vaccine-maker Wyeth on the grounds that their vaccine was defective by design. The vaccine court is officially known as the Office of Special Masters, and was established within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Wyeth countered that the family had no right to sue outside vaccine court on grounds of a defect in vaccine design, and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says if the Supreme Court reverses the decision, it will flood civil courts with expensive lawsuits that may put the nation’s supply of childhood vaccines at risk. “We very much wanted to make sure vaccine manufacturers are out of the line of lawsuits,” said Dr. O. Marion Burton, president of the AAP. “Otherwise, we end up with nobody producing vaccines, and nobody making new vaccines.”

However, vaccine injury lawyers say if the court finds in favor of Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer, Inc.), the decision will block crucial lawsuits that could reveal unknown risks of vaccines. “It would be a pretty narrow exception – it really narrows the scope of what you can bring out of the vaccine court,” said Jennifer Maglio, an attorney with Maglio Christopher Toale & Pitts, a Sarasota, FL firm that specializes in vaccine injury cases. Maglio said a ruling in favor of Wyeth would limit civil lawsuits to rare situations where the design of a vaccine was not in question. For example, cases in which the manufacturer allegedly mislabeled the vaccine, or contaminated it.

The Creation Of Vaccine Court

In the early 1980s, a high volume of vaccine injury cases with large settlements had pushed vaccine makers out of business. Only one manufacturer of DTP remained, and it threatened to stop production, according to a letter published in 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In response, Congress created NCVIA and the new “vaccine court,” which had no jury, no-fault decisions and fewer requirements to prove injury than in civil court. Instead of relying on juries – and the wide range of rulings inherently possible with juries – the vaccine court turns to the official Vaccine Injury Table of known side effects from medical literature to decide if the vaccine caused the injury. The court may add or remove complications from the Vaccine Injury Table if emerging research reveals a condition is or is not connected to vaccines.

By the time Hannah Bruesewitz appeared before the vaccine court, her complications had been removed from the Vaccine Injury Table. “When it [DTP] went out in 1982, there was a one-hour documentary that made that [the Bruesewitz'] claim,” said Dr. Paul Offit, who is chief of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “It scared a lot of people, including doctors.” Offit said 10 years of research showed no link between DTP and conditions like the ones Hannah Bruesewitz experienced.

What A Change Would Mean

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Brueswitz’, families bringing lawsuits could sidestep the vaccine court. This means the cases would be decided by a jury, and would not be held to the standards set by the Vaccine Injury Table. “But you can imagine how sympathetic a jury would be, even if the medical literature said the opposite,” said Offit.

Offit pointed to the example of Bendectin, a morning sickness pill that was taken off the U.S. market after high-cost civil lawsuits alleged the drug caused birth defects. The drug is still used in Canada, and medical literature has not shown it to cause birth defects.

However, Maglio points to Vioxx as a counter example. Merck removed its popular pain reliever Vioxx from the market in 2004, because it was found to the increase risk of heart attacks. Maglio said civil lawsuits were crucial to uncovering the side effects. “It really wasn’t until people sued that all those studies were released,” Maglio said.

Maglio worries the same opportunity for the “discovery” of complications from new vaccines – such as Gardasil – will disappear if the court finds in favor of Wyeth. “Because of the way the vaccine court is set up, there is no time for ‘discovery,'” Maglio said.

The Dangers of Vaccines – Part 1

The Dangers of Vaccines – Part 2

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The “vaccine court” was set up to release vaccine makers from any and all liability, as well as provide “legal” cover to suppress damning, and/or release fraudulent, data concerning their vaccines at the expense of public health for profit and their eugenics depopulation agenda.

If the US Supreme Court rules in favor of Wyeth (Pfizer), it will be a clear indication that the law of this land is no longer in the hands of we the people and should send out a resounding message that vaccinations are not meant for anything other than profit and genocide and thus should be avoided at all costs! - SJH

Related:  Vaccine Damages Are No One’s Illusion – The Intel Hub.com

http://theintelhub.com/2010/10/12/vaccine-damages-are-no-one%E2%80%99s-illusion/

Link to original article below…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101012/sc_livescience/supremecourtcasecouldchangevaccinelawsuits

Christian America? Not One Protestant On The U.S. Supreme Court

with 2 comments

October 5, 2010: Laura E. Davis / Ask America (Yahoo News) – October 5, 2010

The start of the U.S. Supreme Court’s term this week with a new justice marks a couple of firsts for the highest court in the land: The first time three women sit on the bench at the same time, and the first time there are no Protestant justices.

President Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan in May to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, who at the time was the court’s only Protestant (and the only one who didn’t attend Harvard or Yale law schools). Kagan was confirmed in August and heard her first oral argument as a justice yesterday.

With the replacement of Stevens, there are now six Catholics — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. The rest, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Kagan, are Jewish. Most of the American population is Protestant. Since its start in 1790, the court has never been without a Protestant justice.

In the lead-up to Kagan’s first day, Ask America polled people on whether they think religious affiliations on the high court should represent the make-up of the American population. As of Tuesday morning, more than 21,000 responses had come in, and 76 percent said “No.”

Ask America is a non-scientific poll, but the results reflect other official polls conducted in the spring when Obama was choosing his nominee for the court. A Gallup poll from May found that 66 percent of people thought it didn’t matter if the next justice was Protestant. In April, 70 percent of people polled by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics said it doesn’t matter if there is no Protestant on the court, and 83 percent of respondents to an ABC News/Washington Post poll said the nominee’s being a Protestant should not be a factor in Obama’s decision.

Yahoo! user Jeffrey C voted “No” on Ask America and commented, “Religion should play no factor in the court at all. [R]egardless of what some try to state, this had never been a Christian nation but a nation of mixture which is why there is a separation for law.”

User Nancy Smothers was one of the 24 percent of responses that favored a more religiously representative court. She said, “Yes, this country was based on freedom of religion. Because there are so many issues involving religion, I agree that the Supreme Court and other courts should reflect all religions in America today.” What do you think?

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: If perhaps you are a member of the Church of Satan, does it reflect upon your beliefs and ultimate agenda? How about if you’re gay, jewish or catholic? No bias? No ulterior motives? No other allegiances? No prejudice to preserve and protect your own chosen spiritual debauchery? What if you’re a child molester? Would that not influence your decisions in the course of deciding a landmark case concerning child pornography, exploitation or child rape and slavery? Stating the obvious, you’re a fool to think not! 

It is also quite obvious that all of the aforementioned and unquestionably non-Christian sects of the current U.S. Supreme Court which controls and dictates the laws of our land, reflects or represents absolutely nothing even remotely resembling those of the majority of Americans, true Christians or the founding fathers as we’re witness to the ongoing coup of America. This once great Republic is in grave danger of an absolute, total and utter moral collapse ala Roma-style! If there was ever a time for Divine intervention, this is it… - SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_askamerica/20101005/pl_yblog_askamerica/ask-america-voters-say-religion-doesnt-matter-on-high-court

Growing Number Of US States Allow Guns In Bars And Restaurants

leave a comment »

October 4, 2010: Malcolm Gay / The New York Times – October 3, 2010

NASHVILLE — Happy-hour beers were going for $5 at Past Perfect, a cavernous bar just off this city’s strip of honky-tonks and tourist shops when Adam Ringenberg walked in with a loaded 9-millimeter pistol in the front pocket of his gray slacks.

Mr. Ringenberg, a technology consultant, is one of the state’s nearly 300,000 handgun permit holders who have recently seen their rights greatly expanded by a new law — one of the nation’s first — that allows them to carry loaded firearms into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

“If someone’s sticking a gun in my face, I’m not relying on their charity to keep me alive,” said Mr. Ringenberg, 30, who said he carries the gun for personal protection when he is not at work.

Gun rights advocates like Mr. Ringenberg may applaud the new law, but many customers, waiters and restaurateurs here are dismayed by the decision. “That’s not cool in my book,” Art Andersen, 44, said as he nursed a Coors Light at Sam’s Sports Bar and Grill near Vanderbilt University. “It opens the door to trouble. It’s giving you the right to be Wyatt Earp.”

Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.) The new measures in Tennessee and the three other states come after two landmark Supreme Court rulings that citizens have an individual right — not just in connection with a well-regulated militia — to keep a loaded handgun for home defense.

Experts say these laws represent the latest wave in the country’s gun debate, as the gun lobby seeks, state by state, to expand the realm of guns in everyday life.

The rulings, which overturned handgun bans in Washington and Chicago, have strengthened the stance of gun rights advocates nationwide. More than 250 lawsuits now challenge various gun laws, and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a Republican, called for guns to be made legal on campuses after a shooting last week at the University of Texas, Austin, arguing that armed bystanders might have stopped the gunman.

The new laws have also brought to light the status of 20 other states — New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts among them — that do not address the question, appearing by default to allow those with permits to carry guns into establishments that serve alcohol, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a nonprofit group that promotes gun control and tracks state gun laws.

“A lot of states for a long time have not felt the need to say you could or couldn’t do it,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “There weren’t as many conceal-carry permits out there, so it wasn’t really an issue.” Now, he said, “the attitude from the gun lobby is that they should be able to take their guns wherever they want. In the last year, they’re starting to move toward needing no permit at all.”

State Representative Curry Todd, a Republican who first introduced the guns-in-bars bill here, said that carrying a gun inside a tavern was never the law’s primary intention. Rather, he said, the law lets people defend themselves while walking to and from restaurants.

“Folks were being robbed, assaulted — it was becoming an issue of personal safety,” said Mr. Todd, who added that the National Rifle Association had aided his legislative efforts. “The police aren’t going to be able to protect you. They’re going to be checking out the crime scene after you and your family’s been shot or injured or assaulted or raped.”

Under Tennessee’s new law, gun permit holders are not supposed to drink alcohol while carrying their weapons. Mr. Ringenberg washed down his steak sandwich with a Coke.

But critics of the law say the provision is no guarantee of safety, pointing to a recent shooting in Virginia where a customer who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon shot himself in the leg while drinking beer at a restaurant. “Guns and alcohol don’t mix; that’s the bottom line,” said Michael Drescher, a spokesman for Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, who vetoed the bill but was overridden by the legislature.

The law allows restaurant and bar owners to prohibit people from carrying weapons inside their establishments by posting signs out front. But many restaurateurs are reluctant to discourage the patronage of gun owners, often saying privately that they do not allow guns but hold off on posting a sign.

“I’ve talked to a lot of restaurants, and probably 50 to 60 percent of them have no clue what’s going on,” said Ray Friedman, 51, who has created a Web site listing the firearms policies of area restaurants.

Previously, states like Tennessee did not allow its residents to carry concealed weapons unless they had a special permit from the local authorities. That began to shift in the mid-1990s, as the gun lobby pushed states to adopt policies that made permits for concealed weapons more accessible.

The new law passed with broad legislative support, despite opposition from the Nashville Chamber of Commerce and the Tennessee Hospitality Association.

So far, the law has been challenged only once. Filed by an anonymous waiter, the complaint contended that allowing guns into a tavern creates an unsafe work environment for servers. His complaint was denied by the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

“A loaded concealed weapon in a bar is a recognized hazard,” said David Randolph Smith, a lawyer who represents the waiter and is preparing to appeal the decision. “I have a right to go into a restaurant or bar and not have people armed. And of course, the waiter has a right to a safe workplace.”

Down at Bobby’s Idle Hour, however, Mike Gideon said he did not believe that guns in bars were unsafe. As he sipped a beer in the fading afternoon light, Mr. Gideon, who characterized his 19-gun collection as “serious,” said that having a few permit holders around made any public space safer and that he boycotts any business that does not allow him to carry a weapon.

“People who have gun permits have the cleanest records around,” said Mr. Gideon, 54. “The guy that’s going to do the bad thing? He’s not worried about the law at all. The ‘No Guns’ sign just says to him, ‘Hey, buddy, smooth sailing.’”

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The crime rates would plummet if everybody was legally armed… - SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Written by Steven John Hibbs

October 4, 2010 at 10:26 am

Chemtrails In The Sky: Atmospheric And Oceanic Geo-Engineering

with one comment

September 30, 2010: Rosalind Peterson / Agriculture Defense Coalition – September 30, 2010

The Congressional Research Service released its new report on Geoengineering for members of the U.S. Congress on August 16, 2010.  The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee will release their interim and final reports on their Geoengineering Hearings in September 2010.  The U.S. House Science and Technology Committee on Geoengineering is working with the UK Parliament on Global Geoengineering Governance and has released its 5th Report (printed by the House of Commons) on March 10, 2010.  All of these published reports are located below in the pdf file section.

SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT: ATMOSPHERIC & OCEAN GEOENGINEERING

Geoengineering is defined as planetary-scale environmental engineering of our atmosphere, our weather, the oceans, and the Earth itself.  The methods, or schemes, that may be used now without public oversight or debate, prior public notification, U.S. Congress or State oversight, are staggering in number and scope. 

(Update:  We should all remember that volcanoes erupt each year negating the need for any geoengineering schemes to be deployed.  In March 2010, a volcano in Iceland erupted and sent an ash cloud spreading over Europe which may last for months and may create global cooling along with acid rains which will have negative impacts on trees, water supplies, oceans, and soils.  Earth’s natural systems are still working…and we can’t afford for man to add to these problems or exacerbate them by deploying more toxic chemicals and particles into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth.  Each unpredictable volcanic eruption on Earth has the same effect.

A few geoengineers have been on the news in recent days stating that the Iceland volcano will not cause any cooling…in order to keep promoting geoengineering as an option.  It should be noted that other scientists have been stating for the news media that these volcanic plumes will change the weather and also that there are acid rains and human health problems which could be associated with this and other periodic eruptions.

Geoengineers had no advance notice of this eruption nor will they know when future eruptions will take place.  Thus, we have to consider these natural events and measure their synergistic and cumulative effects before considering artificial geoengineering schemes. In addition, the synergistic and cumulative effects of their proposed geoengineering schemes, when natural volcanoes serve the same function, is unknown.  It is now time to shelve man-made geoengineering schemes… – RP) 

Many private corporations, universities, government agencies, private individuals, states, counties, and cities, have deployed, or will participate in deploying, a vast array of geoengineering experiments in the near future without public oversight or consent.  Currently no government agency, or the U.S. Congress at this time, will have any idea what the cumulative or synergistic effects may be when these experiments are deployed.  In addition, no one, not even the U.S. Congress or the public, will have any oversight of these programs, the chemicals or particles that will be used or how they will be implemented.  Thus, action is needed today to prevent these questionable experiments.

The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee held their first Geoengineering Hearing on November 5, 2009.  Two more were held in February and March 2010.  The public, the Environmental Protection Agency, at either Federal or State levels, state agencies, agriculture representation, medical doctors, and ocean scientists were not asked to testify at this hearing or in the two subsequent hearings held in 2010.  (C-SPAN did not tape or broadcast these hearings and the major media ignored them.)

The U.S. House Science & Technology Committee and the UK Parliament have engaged in an agreement to participate in geoengineering discussions and the possible implementation of global geoengineering governance proposed by the Royal Society and several climate scientists.  Private and public meetings of climate scientists, with little media coverage, were initiated in February and March 2010, in California, in order to elaborate on possible geoengineering schemes and to discuss global geoengineering governance guidelines. 

The purpose of one set of schemes are to initiate “Solar Radiation Management (SRM)” experiments.  SRM is designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth.  The consequences of these SRM schemes are unknown since planetary-scale engineering involves so many different geoengineering schemes with unknown cumulative and synergistic effects.

A key AAAS February 2010, geoengineering write-up states: “…Studies show, however, that people make judgments based primarily on their values, belief systems, world views, and emotions.  Facts play a much more minor role.  This gap cannot be bridged by loading the public with facts, or trying to make the public more science literate…”  Thus, a whole series of presentations were made to advise geoengineers and others on how to manipulate the public so that they would support these schemes.

In a Press Release dated December of 2002 titled:  “GEOENGINEERING TOO RISKY” A Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Press release warns, “…There are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization…”  These prescriptions include risks of global “system failure” and the “unpredictable responses” of Earth’s climate system to large-scale human intervention…” 

On March 22-26, 2010, the Climate Respond Fund (note the partners listing in the document section below),  sponsored the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies in Monterey, California. The conference was designed to develop (global geoengineering governance) guidelines for  “…research and testing of proposed climate intervention and geoengineering technologies…”  

What are the consequences of deploying Solar Radiation Management geoengineering experiments?

1)  Some of these experiments are designed to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth thus reducing the power output and the effectiveness of solar panels and solar cars.

2)  Many proposed chemicals or particles used in these geoengineering schemes (i.e., U.S. Navy/NASA/C.A.R.E. experiments deployed September 19, 2009), are likely to be toxic to humans, marine mammals, oceans, fish, wildlife, food pollinators, and birds.  Many of these toxic chemicals, like sulfur, have the potential to contaminate drinking water, soil, cause acid rain or air pollution, and may impair human health from lack of Vitamin D, by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.

3)  NASA research studies show that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into “man-made clouds” (or white haze), and are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate…” No current U.S. legislation addresses water vapor and aviation impacts on the global atmosphere.  In addition, our scientists do not appear to be funding or working toward reducing or eliminating this problem. What happens when additional programs are put in place to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth when we already have man-made clouds dimming the sun and exacerbating global warming?

4)  SRM may limit Honey Bee food pollination because the bee navigates and communicates through the use of ultraviolet light.  And we have no idea what the cumulative impacts of toxic chemicals, particles, and reduced sunlight will have on all of our pollinators, endangering food production.

5)  Photosynthesis is required for the majority of life on Earth to exist, along with healthy trees, and food crop production.  When cloud cover and reduced sunlight is present, crop production drops.  When direct sunlight and normal rainfall is present, crop production increases.  What happens when geoengineers deliberately reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the Earth?  What are the consequences of multiple uncontrolled experiments? 

The climate scientists and geoengineers all have one repeated mantra:  “…Geoengineering is not a solution to climate change and global warming…”  They are instead enlisting support to spend enormous sums to buy time to do something later.  Just what research, project funding, and development are they now engaging in to fix our current pollution problems now?  Nothing!  They are not promoting research into benefits that will be long-lasting or make a difference now. 

The “temporary fix” theory with “unknown consequences” seems to be their only contribution to the disaster they predict.  Should the public be willing to accept this temporary fix with unknown consequences? This attitude is unacceptable because those conducting the geoengineering experiments will be unaccountable if their experiments go awry or create profound negative consequences. 

Professor Benford wrote the following regarding the public in a Reason.com article in 1997:  “…But perhaps the greatest unknown is social:  How will the politically aware public react–those who vote, anyway?  If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail.  Properly portrayed as allies of science–and true environmentalism–they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite. Draconian policing of fuel burning will certainly look that way, a frowning Aunt Bessie elbowing into daily details…In contrast, mitigation does not have to push a new camel’s nose into our tents… Technical solutions can play out far from people’s lives, on the sea or high in the air…Once we become caretakers, we cannot stop…(they) must be carried forward in the shadow of our stewardship…”

Instead of questionable geoengineering experiments, all reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, at their source, should be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and all funding should go to the EPA for developing alternative energy and transportation.  Scientists and researchers should be funded to invent ways to use waste energy from currently operating energy plants to produce clean, green power, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is where funding should be directed…not to those programs and experiments that will not reduce our impact on Earth from various types of pollution sources.  The energy of the geoengineers should be redirected to solve pollution problems, not add to them.

On June 10, 2010 the U.S. Senate voted to uphold a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court Decision, that allows the EPA to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is the ideal solution because they can start today and the U.S. can lead the world in taking immediate action instead of waiting until 2017, under U.S. Senate Bill 1733, or 2020 under the United Nations Copenhagen Accord.  The hitch in both U.S. Senate Bill 1733 (or the new one to be introduced by Senators Kerry & Lieberman), and the U.N. Accord on Climate Change is that no reductions are planned until either 2017 or 2020, and then only a 10-20% reduction in greenhouse gas emission is on the table at this time – nothing that starts today…which means, due to the long delay and limited reductions, that there must be no greenhouse crisis?

Our local, county, state and federal representatives should take immediate action to stop these geoengineering scheme deployments until scientists from every field, agriculture interests, ocean scientists, marine biologists, and the public have had time to thoroughly investigate these schemes and their effects on the Earth’s environment. No one has the right to use the Earth, or Earth’s atmosphere, as a giant experimental physics laboratory due to the unknown consequences of such actions. 

State and U.S. Congressional Hearings should be immediately held in order to completely investigate the consequences of proposed and ongoing geoengineering experiments by any individual, state, county, private corporation, the U.S. military, university or U.S. government agencies on agriculture, crop production, human health, and our oceans.  There is a lot at stake and all of us should make our voices heard in this debate.  End 

Note: Professor Gregory Benford of U.C. Irving stated in his article on Arctic Geoengineering on November 20, 2006: “…This idea is only the first step in making climate science…into an active science… This is not a new transition in scientific style…We will live inside the experiment …The main thrust of all this is to carefully use our ability to attack warming at its roots – incoming sunlight now, carbon dioxide later… Costs seem readily attainable – perhaps a few hundred of millions of dollars for an Arctic experiment. High altitude trials over the open ocean are little constrained by law or treaty, so show-stopper politics may be avoided…”

Funding:  January 28, 2010 Wired Science:  Bill Gates has sunk at least $4.5 million of his personal wealth into geoengineering research.  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/bill-gates-paying-for-climate-hacking-resear

“…While it’s a small chunk of Gates’ vast personal fortune, it’s a sign that the founder of Microsoft thinks we should at least be looking into the controversial practice of intentionally altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale. “[Gates] views geoengineering as a way to buy time, but it’s not a solution to the problem” of climate change, Gates’ spokesperson John Pinette told Science Insider. “Bill views this as an important avenue for research — among many others, including new forms of clean energy.”

The money will be directed by two high-level scientists at the forefront of geoengineering research: climate scientist Ken Caldeira, of Stanford’s Carnegie Department of Global Ecology, and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary. They will decide which technologies should receive the cash in order to alter the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and brighten ocean clouds…”

“…In a related development Keith, one of the scientists directing Gates’ money, co-authored a Nature editorial this week calling for an international fund for “solar-radiation management” in addition to traditional carbon emissions cuts. “Solar-radiation management may be the only human response that can fend off rapid and high-consequence climate change impacts,” Keith said in a press release Wednesday… He and his co-authors, Edward Parson at the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan at Carnegie Mellon University, propose a budget for solar-radiation management (aka geoengineering), beginning with $10 million a year now and growing to $1 billion annually by the end of 2020. The organization that manages the funds would also develop the governance structures to provide transparent risk analysis and manage feedback from the world’s countries…”  Thus, there would be no Congressional or public oversight…complete freedom to use the oceans and the atmosphere as a private physics laboratory… [read more below]

How Do You Like Your Skies…Natural or Man-Made?

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: This article contains a veritable motherload of information concerning Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering, aka Chemtrails. Continue reading and researching below- SJH

Link to entire article below with PDF archives…

http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/?q=geoengineering

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers