Morristown, Tenn. (AP) – Homeschooling is so important to Uwe Romeike that the classically trained pianist sold his beloved grand pianos to pay for moving his wife and five children from Germany to the Smoky Mountain foothills of Tennessee.
 
Romeike, his wife, Hannelore, and their children live in a modest duplex about 40 miles northeast of Knoxville while they seek political asylum here. They say they were persecuted for their evangelical Christian beliefs and homeschooling their children in Germany, where school attendance is compulsory.
 
When the Romeikes wouldn’t comply with repeated orders to send the children to school, police came to their home one October morning in 2006 and took the children, crying and upset, to school.
 
“We tried not to open the door, but they (police) kept ringing the doorbell for 15 or 20 minutes,” Romeike said. “They called us by phone and spoke on the answering machine and said they would knock open the door if we didn’t open it. So I opened it.”
 
Romeike, like many conservative parents in the U.S., said he wanted to teach his own children because his children’s German school textbooks contained language and ideas that conflicted with his family’s values.
 
He had to pay fines equivalent to hundreds of dollars for his decision, and he’s afraid that if he returns to Germany, police will arrest him and government authorities will take away his children, who range in age from 11 to 3.

Articale Continued at CNS NEWS

You think that stuff can only happen outside of the US think again:

Judge orders homeschoolers into public district classrooms
Decides children need more ‘focus’ despite testing above grade levels

A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be “challenged.”

The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years.

The decision is raising eyebrows among homeschooling families, and one friend of the mother has launched a website to publicize the issue.

The ruling was made by Judge Ned Mangum of Wake County, who was handling a divorce proceeding for Thomas and Venessa Mills.

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children now are 10, 11 and 12, said Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what is best for her children’s education.

The judge, when contacted by WND, explained his goal in ordering the children to register and attend a public school was to make sure they have a “more well-rounded education.”

“I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling],” he said. “It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement.”

The judge said the husband has not been supportive of his wife’s homeschooling, and “it accomplished its purposes. It now was appropriate to have them back in public school.”

“EXPELLED”: Get the hot new documentary that is blowing the lid off censorship of ideas in American universities – particularly anything to do with the fact that God might actually exist.

Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, “What’s in the best interest of the minor children,” and conceded it was putting his judgment in place of the mother’s.

And he said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.

However, the practice of a judge replacing a parent’s judgment with his own regarding homeschooling was argued recently when a court panel in California ruled that a family would no longer be allowed to homeschool their own children.

WND reported extensively when the ruling was released in February 2008, alarming homeschool advocates nationwide because of its potential ramifications.

Ultimately, the 2nd Appellate District Court in Los Angeles reversed its own order, affirming the rights of California parents to homeschool their children if they choose.

The court, which earlier had opined that only credentialed teachers could properly educate children, was faced with a flood of friend-of-the-court briefs representing individuals and groups, including Congress members.

The conclusion ultimately was that parents, not the state, would decide where children are educated.

The California opinion said state law permits homeschooling “as a species of private school education” but that statutory permission for parents to teach their own children could be “overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent.”

In the North Carolina case, Adam Cothes, a spokesman for the mother, said the children routinely had been testing at up to two years above their grade level, were involved in swim team and other activities and events outside their home and had taken leadership roles in history club events.

On her website, family friend Robyn Williams said Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated but that ordering the children into public schools would “challenge the ideas you’ve taught them.”

Williams, a homeschool mother of four herself, said, “I have never seen such injustice and such a direct attack against homeschool.”

“This judge clearly took personal issue with Venessa’s stance on education and faith, even though her children are doing great. If her right to homeschool can be taken away so easily, what will this mean for homeschoolers state wide, or even nationally?” Williams asked.

Williams said she’s trying to rally homeschoolers across the nation to defend their rights as Americans and parents to educate their own children.

Williams told WND the public school order was the worst possible outcome for Ms. Mills, who had made it clear she felt it was important to her children that she continue homeschooling.

Articale Continued At Worldnet Daily

As we sit back and do nothing Big Brother continues their plans to keep tabs on our lives because we all know Government knows best.

An influential government-appointed medical panel is urging doctors to routinely screen all American teens for depression _ a bold step that acknowledges that nearly 2 million teens are affected by this debilitating condition.

Most are undiagnosed and untreated, said the panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which sets guidelines for doctors on a host of health issues.

The task force recommendations appear in April’s issue of the journal Pediatrics. And they go farther than the American Academy of Pediatrics’ own guidance for teen depression screening.

An estimated 6 percent of U.S. teenagers are clinically depressed. Evidence shows that detailed but simple questionnaires can accurately diagnose depression in primary-care settings such as a pediatrician’s office.

The task force said that when followed by treatment, including psychotherapy, screening can help improve symptoms and help kids cope. Because depression can lead to persistent sadness, social isolation, school problems and even suicide, screening to treat it early is crucial, the panel said.

The task force is an independent panel of experts convened by the federal government to establish guidelines for treatment in primary-care. Its new guidance goes beyond the pediatrics academy, which advises pediatricians to ask teen patients questions about depression. Other doctor groups advise screening only high-risk youngsters.

Because depression is so common, “you will miss a lot if you only screen high-risk groups,” said Dr. Ned Calonge, task force chairman and chief medical officer for Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment.

The group recommends research-tested screening tests even for kids without symptoms. It cited two questionnaires that focus on depression tip-offs, such as mood, anxiety, appetite and substance abuse.

Calonge stressed that the panel does not want its advice to lead to drug treatment alone, particularly antidepressants that have been linked with increased risks for suicidal thoughts. Routine depression testing should only occur if psychotherapy is also readily available, the panel said. Calonge said screening once yearly likely would be enough.

The recommendations come at a pivotal time for treatment of depression and other mental health problems in children.

Recently passed federal mental health equity legislation mandates equal coverage for mental and physical ailments in insurance plans offering both. The law is expected to prompt many more adults and children to seek mental health care.

Yet at the same time psychiatrists specializing in treating children and teens are scarce. A separate report, also released Monday in the Pediatrics journal, says primary care doctors including pediatricians and family physicians will need to get more involved in mental health care.

That report is from the pediatrics academy and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The groups say pediatricians should routinely consult with child psychiatrists, including working in the same office when possible. And it says insurers should compensate pediatricians for any mental health services they provide.

Dr. Alan Axelson, a Pittsburgh psychiatrist who co-authored the second report, praised the task force recommendations and said pediatricians can play a key role.

Because children’s families often get to know their pediatricians, having those doctors offer mental health screening can help make it seem less stigmatizing, Axelson said.

Most pediatricians aren’t trained to do psychotherapy, but they can prescribe depression medication and monitor patients they’ve referred to others for therapy, he said.

Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group strongly supports both Pediatrics reports.

While primary care doctors have full plates just dealing with physical ailments, many recognize the importance of providing mental health services _ and many already do, Epperly said.

It isn’t always as time-consuming as it might seem; some screening questionnaires can be filled out by patients in the waiting room, Epperly said. Doctors can easily spot any red flags.

___

On the Net:

Preventive Services Task Force: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/USpstfix.htm

American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org/

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: http://www.aacap.org/

Tent City residents gather as the city of Ontario starts the process of sorting out who may stay and who must leave. The city issued wristbands – blue for Ontario residents, who may stay, orange for people who need to provide more documentation, and white for those who must leave. The aim is to reduce the number of people living there from over 400 to 170.

A US sergeant became on Monday the second non-commissioned officer to be convicted of murder for the summary executions of four bound and blindfolded prisoners in Iraq in 2007.

Sergeant First Class Joseph P. Mayo told a court martial in Germany that the men of Middle Eastern appearance were shot in the back of the head with nine-millimetre pistols and their bodies dumped in a Baghdad canal.

“I thought it (the executions) was in the best interests of my soldiers,” Mayo told the court in Vilseck, Germany after pleading guilty to murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

He said that the men had been arrested after a number of attacks on their unit, and that in the same building troops had found two sniper rifles, AK-47 assault rifles and a duffel bag full of ammunition.

According to documents quoted by the New York Times, the US soldiers were told by superiors to release the men for lack of evidence.

Mayo, 27, is one of seven soldiers implicated in the case, and one of three non-commissioned officers to be tried for murder.

Master Sergeant John E. Hatley, the most senior soldier present, is to stand trial charged with murder in Germany on April 13, an army statement said last week.

Co-defendant Sergeant Michael P. Leahy, an army medic, was sentenced in February to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Mayo faces the same minimum sentence.

Two other soldiers have pleaded guilty to lesser charges and been sentenced to prison terms of less than a year, US media reports said, while the army has dropped criminal charges against two other sergeants, an army spokeswoman said.

Mayo was expected to be sentenced later on Monday. Another charge of obstructing justice was dropped.

All the soldiers were with the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, then part of the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, and now in the 172nd Infantry Brigade based in Germany.

A character witness in the trial, First Lieutenant Benjamin Boyd, said that at the time of the incident the troops were at a combat outpost in southwest Baghdad that was on a “significant fault line” between Sunni and Shia areas.

“I hold fewer people in higher regard,” Boyd said of the defendant. “I couldn’t have asked for a better platoon sergeant.”

Another witness, a captain, said there was an atmosphere of “frustration and fear” among the soldiers because of a high frequency of attacks and the difficulty of keeping prisoners in custody.

The men were “not adequately trained”, and frustrated that prisoners were often released after two or three days in custody, only to carry out further attacks.

Several US troops have already faced trial in connection with alleged or proven killings in Iraq, at courts both there and in the United States.

In one case, eight marines were initially charged in connection with the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, west of Baghdad, in November 2005.

So far, at least seven of the accused have either been acquitted or had charges withdrawn before a court martial.

In another case involving the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her father, mother and younger sister, four soldiers were convicted by a court martial and handed sentences of up to 110 years in prison.

The last defendant, Steven D. Green, is to be tried next month in a civilian court in Paducah, Kentucky and could face the death penalty if convicted.

George Washington’s Blog
Monday, March 30, 20099

If Jon Stewart walked out of his studio with his camera crew, went to where establishment figures were speaking, and threw tough questions at them, you’d get something like We Are Change.

The We Are Change reporters have asked the tough questions – a la Stewart (well, minus the comedy) – to former presidents, secretaries of defense, leading Neocons and Iraq war architects, and many other establishment figures.

So their interviews are syndicated nationally and they’ve all received Pulitzer prizes, right?

Not exactly . . .

We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski was arrested for trying to ask New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg about his refusal to pay for the health care of 9/11 first responders.

The charges? “Impersonating a member of the press” and trespassing.

Professional Journalism

Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, created the concept of “professional journalism”. What is professional journalism, you may ask?

Renowned veteran journalist John Pilger summarizes it as follows:

Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media. That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalist talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called “professional journalism” was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment-objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, “entirely bogus”.For what the public did not know was that in order to be professional, journalists had to ensure that news and opinion were dominated by official sources, and that has not changed. Go through the New York Times on any day, and check the sources of the main political stories-domestic and foreign-you’ll find they’re dominated by government and other established interests. That is the essence of professional journalism. I am not suggesting that independent journalism was or is excluded, but it is more likely to be an honorable exception. Think of the role Judith Miller played in the New York Times in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, her work became a scandal, but only after it played a powerful role in promoting an invasion based on lies. Yet, Miller’s parroting of official sources and vested interests was not all that different from the work of many famous Times reporters, such as the celebrated W.H. Lawrence, who helped cover up the true effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945. “No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin,” was the headline on his report, and it was false.

Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising.

The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over.

So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.

And as Newseek’s Evan Thomas admits in a new article:

By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring….

“If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am). . . .”

Virtually all mainstream reporters are “establishment” journalists like Thomas. This is just another way of saying “professional” journalists in the sense Bernays used that term.

(This does not mean that everyone who makes their living through journalism is a sell-out. Some people do make some or all of their income as journalists and alternative news site operators, but aren’t afraid to question those in power.)

The Significance of Rudkowski’s Arrest

The media organization which sponsors Rudkowski is Infowars.com, a website which has many times the readership of small town “establishment” or “professional” newspapers. Indeed, given the popularity of Infowars and its sister sites, Prisonplanet.com and Jonesreport.com, the Infowars news network probably has more readers than all but the largest traditional newspapers.

So the issue cannot be one of size or audience.

The real question is whether real journalists will have access to those in power, and so be able to exercise the stereotypical role of the “Fourth Estate” in asking hard-hitting questions to our leaders in government.

Rudkowski’s arrest – like Amy Goodman’s arrest at the RNC convention for documenting violence against protestors – is an attempt to crack down on real attempts to question the powers-that-be and to document their actions.

If “professional” journalists with a “vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are” are the only ones allowed to speak with those holding the reigns of governmental power, then freedom of the press is dead in America. And if freedom of the press is dead, so is democracy.

One little side note: Supreme Court Defines the Press
In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”

Thanks INFOWARS

Parental rights: 67 in Congress pushing to amend Constitution
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.

According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra’s office, the amendment “would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit.”

“At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children,” Hoekstra writes on his website, “it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution.”

Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today’s system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with “The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool.”

Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest “of the highest order.” Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the “demonstrated government interest” clause.

Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.

According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year’s effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.

As WND reported, the president of the world’s premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:

“Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack,” wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.

“It’s possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children,” Smith wrote. “Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

He continued, “By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the ‘best interests of the child,’ outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision.”

As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.

“Children deserve basic human rights … and the convention protects children’s rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected,” Boxer said, according to Fox News.

Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” usurps the role of parents in directing their children’s upbringing.

Hoekstra used a 3-minute video clip, viewable below, to explain how, he believes, parental rights are being overlooked in the nation’s capitol and why a parental rights amendment is needed:

Rep. Hoekstra Video

Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990’s, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents’ ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.

Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.

Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment “states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child’s education would be enshrined in the Constitution.”

Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents’ Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.

DeMint’s bill, like Hoekstra’s in 2008, never made it out of committee.

To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Thanks WorldNet Daily

Tel Aviv hits back at a humanitarian report that suggests the Israeli army had ‘illegally’ shelled Gazans with white phosphorus shells.

The New York-headquartered Human Rights Watch said in a recent report that Israel’s indiscriminate and deliberate use of white phosphorus against Palestinian civilians amounts to war crimes.

“The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures,” read the report.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Israeli officialdom had violated the international laws of warfare by using the controversial weapon — which burns flesh to the bone.

Israeli military officials responded by calling the report “baseless” and said the White phosphorus shells — which is prohibited “in all circumstances” under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons — were used in accordance with international law.

“These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless,” the Washington Post quoted Israeli military officials as saying.

Tel Aviv attacked Gaza on December 27 with the declared goal of “self-defense” and toppling the Hamas government. More than 1,350 Palestinians, including a large number of women and children, were killed in the conflagration.

More than two months after Tel Aviv declared an alleged ceasefire, further revelations of the Israeli army’s massive violations of human rights has set the wheels turning on an international war crime case.

During the offensive, Israel reportedly shelled three clearly GPS-designated UN schools and opened fire on hospitals, ambulances, medical personnel and civilian homes.

After categorical denials that it used white phosphorus on the densely-populated Gaza Strip, Israeli soldiers finally admitted that they had pounded the Palestinian coast with at least twenty white phosphorus bombs.

The most shocking revelation, however, came on January 4 when Israeli troops evacuated some 110 Gazans — half of whom were children — into a single-residence house in the Zeitoun neighborhood and warned them to stay indoors.

Twenty-four hours later, the soldiers shelled the home incessantly, killing more than 30 of the people inside the house.

A UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, recently declared that most Israeli actions against the shell-shocked population of Gaza “appear to have all the elements of war crimes”.

Tel Aviv has not ratified the 1998 Rome Statute; therefore, Israeli leaders cannot be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Signatories to the Geneva Convention, however, can prosecute those involved in the three-week assault on Gaza as culpable for war crimes.

Thanks Rebel News

Andre Rayas committed murder with military precision, and it was caught on camera.

Using a high-powered rifle, Rayas gunned down police Sgt. Howard Stevenson, a married father and police veteran.

Rayas, who died in the shootout in Northern California, learned his tactics as a Marine at Camp Pendleton, an example of the dangers of gangs in the U.S. military.

Hunter Glass is an Army veteran, former detective and gang expert. He said a military gang member is a threat because, “He understands fire power, technology, he understands how to shoot.”

The 10News I-Team spent two years investigating military gang members, revealing their growing numbers among sailors, Marines and soldiers.

The I-Team captured illustrations of gang activity, including Bloods and Crips on the dance floor at Fort Bragg, who first flashed gang signs and then turned on each other.

The I-Team’s investigation showed the brutality of gang initiation with dramatic video of a young man being beaten harshly by six or seven gangsters.

There are actually 19 separate gangs with members in the military, according to the National Gang Intelligence Center. They include gangs from all races such as Mongols, MS 13, Vice Lords, Asian Boyz and the Mexican Mafia.

The Center’s threat assessment for 2009 said military gang members pose a “unique threat” because of their “distinctive military skills” and “willingness to teach … fellow gang members.”

Peggy Daly-Masternak of Ohio is a longtime educator who is also part of a group that monitors military recruitment.

“When you take a convicted felon, a street criminal, and train them to be a marksman, I think they’re a deadly danger once they get back,” she said.

She saw the I-Team’s first investigation of military gangs last October, which received national attention. Her group’s research echoes what others have told the I-Team — that the war in Iraq put a strain on military recruitment.

TJ Leydon, a reformed white supremacist who served as a Marine for 3 years, said, “After the war in Iraq was going on for two-and-a-half years, all of a sudden the cream of the crop wasn’t coming in anymore.”

Daly-Masternak said some recruiters took drastic steps to fill their quotas.

The I-Team leaned of one who went behind bars, literally walking into a jail to see if any of those locked up would consider joining the ranks. It seemed outrageous, but the I-Team found proof.

It’s a press release dated July 14, 2008. It announced, “A New Program at Your Lincoln County Jail.”

The jail is in Oregon, and the new program involves an Army recruiter visiting the jail “to convey information to incarcerated individuals about serving in our armed forces.”

I-Team reporter Lauren Reynolds posed the question to Lt. Colonel Miguel Howe.

“Do you go into jails to recruit?” Reynolds asked.

His response was, “Absolutely not, absolutely not.”

In fact, it is misconduct, said Lt. Col. Howe, commander of the Army Southern California Recruiting Battalion. He spoke to the I-Team on behalf of the Department of Defense.

“It is a direct violation of Army and Department of Defense policy and regulations to recruit out of prisons, out of jails, anyone on probation or on parole,” said Howe.

He described the Lincoln County program as a mistake and said it was shut down.

Last October, the Department of Defense told the I-Team it does not have a problem with criminal gangs among its ranks, despite the estimate of 14,000 military gang members. That same month, the Department standardized for all services the way they grant conduct waivers. Those waivers allow some applicants with criminal histories to enlist.

“There are actually 11 people who review that application,” said Howe.

He said to keep unsavory characters out of the armed forces, the vetting process has been strengthened.

“There are over 140 questions that we ask that young person,” said Howe.

The U.S. military grants roughly 30,000 conduct waivers each year. Gang members were never supposed to be eligible.

The Lincoln County Sheriff’s Deputy who invited the recruiter to jail defended the program last summer.

He is a veteran himself, and said it’s better to have petty criminals and first-time non-violent offenders in the military than locked up at a cost of $100 each per day.

Source News 10

Legislation to Establish Internment Camps on US Military Bases

The Economic and Social Crisis

The financial meltdown has unleashed a latent and emergent social crisis across the United States. 

What is at stake is the fraudulent confiscation of lifelong savings and pension funds, the appropriation of tax revenues to finance the trillion dollar “bank bailouts”, which ultimately serve to line the pockets of the richest people in America.   

This economic crisis is in large part the result of financial manipulation and outright fraud to the detriment of entire populations, leading to a renewed wave of corporate bankruptcies, mass unemployment and poverty. 

The criminalization of the global financial system, characterized by a “Shadow Banking” network has resulted in the centralization of bank power and an unprecedented concentration of private wealth. 

Obama’s “economic stimulus” package and budget proposals contribute to a further process of concentration and centralization of bank power, the cumulative effects of which will eventually resul in large scale corporate, bankruptcies, a new wave of foreclosures not to mention fiscal collapse and the downfall of State social programs. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Fiscal Collapse, Global Research, March 2, 2009). 

The cumulative decline of real economic activity backlashes on employment and wages, which in turn leads to a collapse in purchaisng power. The proposed “solution” under the Obama administration contributes to exacerbating rather than alleviating social inequalities and the process of wealth concentration. 

The Protest Movement

When people across America, whose lives have been shattered and destroyed, come to realize the true face of the global “free market” system, the legitimacy of  Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the US administration will be challenged. 

A latent protest movement directed against the seat of economic and political power is unfolding. 

How this process will occur is hard to predict. All sectors of American society are potentially affected: wage earners, small, medium and even large businesses, farmers, professionals, federal, State and municipal employees, students, teachers, health workers, and unemployed. Protests will initially emerge from these various sectors. There is, however, at this stage, no organized national resistance movement directed against the administration’s economic and financial agenda.   

Obama’s populist rhetoric conceals the true nature of macro-economic policy. Acting on behalf of Wall Street, the administration’s economic package, which includes close to a trillion dollar “aid” package for the financial services industry, coupled with massive austerity measures,  contributes to precipitating America into a bottomless crisis.

“Orwellian Solution” to the Great Depression: Curbing Civil Unrest

At this particular juncture, there is no economic recovery program in sight. The Washington-Wall Street consensus prevails. There are no policies, no alternatives formulated from within the political and economic system. . 

What is the way out? How will the US government face an impending social catastrophe?

The solution is to curb social unrest. The chosen avenue, inherited from the outgoing Bush administration is the reinforcement of  the Homeland Security apparatus and the militarization of civilian State institutions. 

The outgoing administration has laid the groundwork. Various pieces of “anti-terrorist” legislation (including the Patriot Acts) and presidential directives have been put in place since 2001, largely using the pretext of the “Global War on Terrorism.” 

Homeland Security’s Internment Camps 

Directly related to the issue of curbing social unrest, cohesive system of detention camps is also envisaged, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. 

A bill entitled the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in the US Congress in January. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645 

The stated purpose of  the “national emergency centers” is to provide “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.” In actuality, what we are dealing with are FEMA internment camps. HR 645 states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

There has been virtually no press coverage of HR 645. 

These “civilian facilities” on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modeled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities. 

Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply.  

HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act. 

In the words of  Rep. Ron Paul: 

“…the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough… Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, they now want to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency. With the phony debt-based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next.” (Daily Paul, September 2008, emphasis added)

The proposed internment camps should be seen in relation to the broader process of militarization of civilian institutions. The construction of internment camps predates the introduction of HR 645 (Establishment of Emergency Centers) in January 2009. There are, according to various (unconfirmed) reports, some 800 FEMA prison camps in different regions of the U.S. Moreover, since the 1980s, the US military has developed “tactics, techniques and procedures” to suppress civilian dissent, to be used in the eventuality of mass protests (United States Army Field Manual 19-15 under Operation Garden Plot, entitled “Civil Disturbances” was issued in 1985) 

In early 2006, tax revenues were allocated to building modern internment camp facilities. In January 2006,  Kellogg Brown and Roots, which at the time was a subsidiary of  Halliburton, received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security’s  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 

“The contract, which is effective immediately [January 2006], provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs… 

The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. (KBR, 24 January 2006, emphasis added)

The stated objectives of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are to:

“protect national security and uphold public safety by targeting criminal networks and terrorist organizations that seek to exploit vulnerabilities in our immigration system, in our financial networks, along our border, at federal facilities and elsewhere in order to do harm to the United States. The end result is a safer, more secure America” (ICE homepage)

The US media is mum on the issue of the internment camps on US soil. While casually acknowledging the multimillion dollar contract granted to Halliburton’s subsidiary, the news reports largely focused their attention on possible “cost overruns” (similar to those which occurred with KBR in Iraq). 

What is the political intent and purpose of these camps? The potential use of these internment facilities to detain American citizens under a martial law situation are not an object of media debate or discussion. 

Combat Units Assigned to the Homeland

In the last months of the Bush administration, prior to the November 2008 presidential elections, the Department of Defense ordered the recall of the 3rd Infantry’s 1st Brigade Combat Team from Iraq. The relocation of a combat unit from the war theater to domestic front is an integral part of the Homeland Security agenda. The BCT was assigned to assist in law enforcement activities within the US. 

The BCT combat unit was attached to US Army North, the Army’s component of US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). The 1st BCT and other combat units would be called upon to perform specific military functions in the case of civil unrest: 

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.(

(See Gina Cavallaro,  Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, Army Times, September 8, 2008). 

Under the proposed withdrawal of US forces from Iraq under the Obama administration, one expects that other combat units will be brought home from the war theater and reassigned in the United States. 

The evolving national security scenario is characterized by a mesh of civilian and military institutions: 

-Army combat units working with civilian law enforcement, with the stated mission to curb “social unrest”. 

- the establishment of new internment camps under civilian jurisdiction located on US military facilities.  

The FEMA internment camps are part of the Continuity of Government (COG), which would be put in place in the case of martial law. 

The internment camps are intended to “protect the government” against its citizens, by locking up protesters as well as political activists who might challenge the legitimacy of the Administration’s national security, economic or military agenda.  

Spying on Americans: The Big Brother Data Bank

Related to the issue of internment and mass protests, how will data on American citizens be collected? 

How will individuals across America be categorized? 

What are the criteria of the Department of Homeland Security? 

In  a 2004 report of the Homeland Security Council…

Atricale Continued At Global Research

It seemed like a victory, of sorts. Last week the Senate approved a bill to radically expand the AmeriCorps program. The bill initially contained language that proposed a study for mandatory service for all young people in the United States, but this language was removed as the bill moved through the Senate and did not appear in the final version.

Well, it’s baaaaaaack. The language was stripped from one bill, but it suddenly appeared in another. It is now contained in HR 1444, due to crawl across the House floor this week. HR 1444 is sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington state Democrat, and is assigned to the House Committee on Labor and Education.

The bill, under Section 4 (b)6, states:

Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

How “mandatory service,” i.e. servitude, strengthens the “social fabric of the Nation” is not explained.

HR 1444, like its earlier parent 1388, includes the prospect of a “public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders” and reaches all the way down to primary school, requiring a review of “the means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding and promoting service options for primary and secondary school students and by raising awareness of existing incentives.”That is, “existing incentives” as determined by the government.

In addition to Obama’s election campaign pledge to create a 250,000 strong national security force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has authored a book (The Plan: Big Ideas for America) that calls for three months of compulsory civil service for all Americans aged 18 to 25.

So it looks like the goblin of compulsory national service has not gone away, it has simply morphed into another bill, soon to be considered by the House.

One thing is for certain: the federal government considers you and your children little more than ciphers to be press ganged into mandatory “service” to a government addicted to wars waged in the name of international bankers.

Thanks INFOWARS