National Council For A New America: "New" Face Of The Republican Party?

In a recent edition of the liberal Washington Times there was an article devoted to the activities of a new group of Republican leaders traversing the country now in order to offer their message of "hope and change" in an effort to gain support for the fractured Republican Party.

What was interesting were the members of this new Republican Party outreach group, all liberals: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. Neocon and globalists all. In other words, "New World Order" Republicans.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney acted as the spokesmen on a whistle stop at a pizza parlor. Their focus, they indicated, was not to recast the Republican Party - but to bring it and its former conservative members into the 21st Century. It was time, they said, to put the Reagan era to rest.

Interesting in that in this writer's opinion, there hasn't really been a true Conservative in federal office since Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. And while the Republican Party has been in the past a proponent of fiscal conservatism - these new spokesmen are certainly not in that mold, but Big Business CEO types that also view the American people and their wallets as a means to enlarging the riches of USA, Inc. and their own in the process. Nor are they small federal government believers.

It appears they have forgotten that the only reason Mr. Obama won the election was that many in this country were voting against the very platform this National Council For A New America represented - more years of war, and a bigger federal government.

Although Mr. Obama has betrayed at this point his campaign positions and rhetoric with respect to significantly drawing down our involvement in the Middle East war and instead merely focusing on bin Laden, and cutting federal spending, it was clear in their rejection of Mr. McCain, a member of this outreach program, that their message clearly was not that which Americans wanted any part of. NeoConservatism, or the "New World Order."

I think the "change" Americans were seeking was a "change" back to fundamental Constitutional principles once again, and faces which were not a part of the problems. Mr. Obama held himself out to be a Constitutional lawyer and packaged himself in Lincoln.

In four more years, as demonstrated by the recent Tea Parties throughout the nation, I don't think near as many Americans are going to be so readily fooled by either the Democrats or Republicans once again.

Or the National Council for A New America.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/

The DHS Memo: Are You On The List?

World Net Daily has published an article which includes the March 26, 2009 interdepartmental memorandum prepared by DHS for local law enforcement regarding the "extremist" groups of potential domestic terrorists. The list is so lengthy it took over 10 pages in order to outline them all.

You most likely are on the list, since it doesn't appear they left anyone out, unless you are a government employee drone or work in the mainstream media.

There was an interesting paragraph regarding who it was that actually identified these potential terrorists groups:

"Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials and
unclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops with
DHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism in
the United States."

I wonder if these "intelligence analysts" got their degrees online? There is now an online university that is cashing in on this booming surveillance industry offering courses that can be completed in the comfort of your own home for less than it costs for two years at the average technical college.

The memo, Ms. Napoliano claims, was immediately yanked. But, of course, it does appear that many local and state authorities mustn't have gotten that message prior to the Missouri memo surfacing, nor was it addressed in any fundamental way after the tea parties, other than apologies made to the American Legion, a Congressionally created veterans organization.

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

Fighting For Your DNA: Citizens' Council On Health

In addition to the many fronts that are now being waged against American citizens' privacy rights against unlawful search and seizure, chalk one more up that is now being fought on the state level with respect to the most private information, in addition to your medical records, that any American citizen has. His very own DNA.

Right now there is a battle going on in the State of Minnesota with respect to ownership rights of American citizens DNA which is being fought by the Citizens' Council on Health Care.

Twila Brase, the spokesperson for this organization, recently was on the Glenn Beck show attempting to enlighten and educate the public on the assaults which are now going on at both the state and federal levels with respect to Americans; medical information such as the provisions contained within the stimulus package on the establishment of a National Health Care Database, and the even more violative one now being waged in Minnesota over ownership rights of private citizens DNA, and that of their children.

This small, privately funded groups is and has been facing a David and Goliath battle against several medical research facilities, and the huge civic organization, the March of Dimes, who would like to be able to harvest DNA samples from patients in hospitals, including infants, for medical research purposes WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, and accessible through a "state" warehousing facility.

It appears that these groups and research facilities are attempting to form a public/private partnership with the states in order to house this DNA for what is being represented as "for the good of humanity," in fighting birth defects and genetic diseases, but which also potentially could be used in the future for morally repugnant purposes also, such as selective genetic screenings and abortions, or genetic altering or engineering.

The bill also is rather ambiguous and silent on whether or not these DNA samples then could also be used for other reasons, such as evidence then in criminal proceedings without the issuance of warrants or probable cause thus convicting individuals without affording them the Constitutional protections of due process and meeting evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings.

The state would have custody of these records and samples in a DNA "warehouse."

It also appears that the expenses in maintaining such a warehouse have not also been give even cursory consideration.

CCHC has been fighting in order to place simply minimal "informed consent" requirements within the bill.

But I, as a citizen, believe this fight needs to be expanded in order to provide not merely the "safeguard" of implied consent, but should be mandated to require full disclosure, and "express" consent, a higher legal standard.

Simple implied consent would afford hospital administrators and corporate attorneys to hide such provisions within hospital admittance forms in all the legalese that is already included in such forms.

How many Americans, especially women in the midst of labor, have the presence of mind to truly digest the many pages included within hospital admittance forms now as it is. Express consent forms would require a separate and specific signature form and disclosure, and the risks involved to both patient and in the instance of children, their newborn, and require disclosure of the specific purpose for which the DNA will be used.

My basic question also is why is the state getting involved in this at all, at the taxpayer's expense with respect to warehousing these samples?

If the March of Dimes or Mayo Clinic (one of the research facilities involved) would like access to individual citizens DNA, should this not also be between doctor and patient or guardian, with the March of Dimes and these research facilities then also able to request volunteers for specific, legally sanctioned and regulated research purposes, with laws also strictly formulated and enforced on the storage methods and destruction of those samples and records after the specific research has been concluded?

These researchers must know at this point due to the push now for access to Americans DNA what exactly they hope to achieve with such research.

Limiting through legislation the purposes for which these samples can be used to purely "research" and not in any way "engineering," or as "selective abortion" diagnostic instruments appears to be absent in even minimally addressing this potential can of worms in the legislation as it is now written in its current form.

Below is the link to the CCHC's website, and they could use all the support they can get in fighting this open ended legislation at this point, which is now also spreading to other states throughout the nation:

http://www.cchconline.org/