Social Work and the Law
NOTE: THE ARTICLE APPEARING BELOW WAS COPIED ON 22 JUNE 2009 BY http://www.cityadministrator.org/?p=397 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CITING THIS AUTHOR. The blog is hosted by GoDaddy and registrant
Registrant Name:Joseph R Smith
Registrant Organization:FloridaView Media LLC
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight,
488 U.S. 1301 (1988)
A three month old infant was admitted for treatment in a hospital. It became apparent that the mother, Jackie Bouknight may have maltreated the infant. Consequently, the Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the Court to declare the child as a “child in need of assistance” and grant it the power to put the child under foster care (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). The Court granted relief and it was agreed upon by the parties that Bouknight shall have the custody of the child subject to the conditions of supervised parenting and an undertaking of non-infliction of bodily harm and punishment on the child. At first, Bouknight complied with the conditions but later on she became uncooperative and refused to produce her son to the DSS.
The DSS in fear for the safety and well being of the child filed a case before the Court to compel Bouknight to produce her son. She failed to appear before the Court but was later on arrested. On her refusal to disclose the whereabouts of her son, she was found guilty of contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated until compliance with the order [In re Maurice, No. 50 (Dec. 19, 1988). 314 Md. 391, 550 A.2d 1135].
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the incarceration of Bouknight was an infringement of her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. According to the Court, the production of the son is testimonial in nature because by doing so, it only proves Bouknight’s “continuing control” over her son which may be utilized in a criminal proceeding. It ruled that there are acts of production deemed to have testimonial value citing the case of U.S. vs. Doe (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay of DSS pending the filing of the requisite petition for certiorari. The grant of stay was based on the fact that even assuming that the act of production of the child is testimonial in character, many line of decisions of the Court are clear that as between the public need vis-à-vis a single claim of an individual on constitutional privilege, the former is upheld. In this particular case, the safety and interests of the abused child must be upheld over Bouknight’s assertion considering that, in the hierarchy of values, the safety and welfare of the child takes precedence over other concerns (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). Moreover, the information sought which is the whereabouts of the child is for the contempt charge and therefore civil in nature (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The Fifth Amendment: Right against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment originated from England and derived from the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare” meaning “no man is bound to accuse himself” (Levy, 1968). It was used in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial legal systems of England (Levy, 1968).
In the U.S., after the revolution the states ratified the Constitution with the inclusion of the privilege in the bill of rights. The original version of Madison was amended by the House to include “in any criminal case” (Schwartz, 1971). Thus, as it now stands, the Fifth Amendment provides, “. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights). The primary purpose of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is “to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth” [Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)]. However, in subsequent line of decisions, the Court ruled that other privileges stated in the bill of Rights are more in the nature of adjuncts to the determination of truth such as the right to counsel or the safeguards afforded by the Fourth Amendment while the privilege against self-incrimination is primarily for “the preservation of the accusatorial system of criminal justice” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system and protects the privacy of the individuals from government intrusion [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. The privilege is a guarantee against compulsion for testimonial evidence which consequently will result in the imposition of criminal penalty on such person making testimony.
The Court laid down the requirements necessary before a party can successfully invoke the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the cases of U.S. v. Doe, (465 U.S. 605) and Doe v. U.S. [487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988)], the Court enumerated the three (3) requisites that should be present for the Fifth Amendment to apply, namely: a) “that the statement be testimonial; b) incriminating; and, c) compelled.” According to the court, ‘testimonial’ refers to all communications whether express or implied which “relate to a factual assertion or disclose information” (Ashby, J., 2006 citing Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201). The statements or communications made whether verbally or in writing fall within the privilege (Ashby, J., 2006) and is not limited by the forum where it was elicited, i.e. before the court, administrative proceedings or before the law enforcement office [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]. The second requirement, ‘incriminating’ refers to statements that can be used as a basis for a finding of criminal liability under a penal law or “provides a link to the chain of evidence for prosecution under a criminal statute” [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]. The third requisite is the compulsion to give a statement. The Court explained that this requisite refers to “circumstances that deny the individual a free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer” (Ashby, J., 2006). Additionally, the Court ruled in the case of Fisher v. United States that these three requisites should all concur and be present so that the privilege can be successfully invoked [425 U.S. 391(1976)].
Legal and Ethical Issues and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The main legal issue in the case of Baltimore is whether the circumstances surrounding it would fall within the ambit of the privilege against self incrimination and consequently, Bouknight may successfully invoke it and prevent her from being compelled to produce or furnish the whereabouts of her son lest be incarcerated for contempt.
The Supreme Court allowed the stay of the decision of the appellate court for overturning the ruling of the juvenile court and in finding that the compulsion for Bouknight to produce her son squarely fell within the privilege and therefore ordered her release (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). The appellate court found that the act of production is testimonial and therefore its compulsion, is a violation of the privilege. Furthermore, the interest of the government in the safety of the son cannot outweigh the observance and respect for the privilege against self incrimination as provided in the Bill of Rights (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). In other words, the three requisites concurred, i.e. the act of production or of furnishing information as to the whereabouts of her son are incriminating and testimonial in character; and, there was also compulsion because if she failed to disclose information sought she would be incarcerated for contempt as what had happened.
The Supreme Court through Chief Justice Rehnquist predicated his discussion on three major points, namely: a) The Court of Appeals passed upon a controversy concerning the federal Constitution which logically can be properly resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319); b) The act of production does not fall within the ambit of the privilege citing the cases of U.S. v. Doe, Fisher v. U.S. and Schmerber v. California. In these cases, the court ruled that the act of production of the documents is not ‘testimonial’ and therefore does not infringe upon the privilege considering that their existence and location are already known to the Government. In fact, responding to a subpoena have been considered legal and acceptable even if compulsion is present [Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)]. Moreover, when an accused is required to furnish his handwriting sample, this had been held not to violate the privilege because it is not ‘testimonial’ but merely evidentiary United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). The third point c) is by using the balancing of interests test or balancing the public need vis-à-vis ensuring the individual’s constitutional civil liberties, public need prevailed considering that the disclosure of information was non-criminal and not directed at a particular group as was held in the case of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) where the validity of a law requiring disclosure of the name and address at the scene of a vehicular accident. Similarly in the case of New York v. Quarles where the Fifth Amendment rights have to give way to a public safety exception and therefore in the case of Bouknight, “the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment was justified because its interest was in protecting children like Maurice, not in prosecuting” (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992).
In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. Albeit the civil liberties accorded under the Bill of Rights safeguards undue government intervention and restraint to its power, there are instances when these rights would have to give way to compelling interests of the society that would warrant Government intervention and intrusion such in the case of protecting and ensuring the safety of infants or children from physical abuse. Once it has been established that a child is abused, it becomes the duty of the State to take over and protect.
The judicial pronouncement in the case of Bouknight has a pervading and far reaching implication on social work practice. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Admittedly, there is an apparent lack of strict protocols in the present system of child welfare agencies (Parks, 2005). A set of guidelines must be crafted to govern exigencies of missing children from foster care like supervised visits and court orders in cases of abduction like what have occurred in Maryland with “Ariel” who had been abducted by his mother Teresa B (Parks, 2005). Guidelines should also be drawn to address the coordinated efforts both with the law enforcement and child welfare personnel.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,
17 Cal.3d 425
A graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar went to the University of California Berkeley to study naval architecture. It was there that he met Tatiana Tarasoff. A few kisses made him believe that they have a special relationship until Tarasoff bragged about her many relationships with other men. Poddar suffered depression until he sought professional help from Dr. Moore, a psychologist of the University Health Service. He confided to the doctor that he intended to secure a gun and to kill Tarasoff. On the strength of a letter request of Dr. Moore, Poddar was taken by the campus police, however upon assurance that Poddar was reasonable he was released. Upon the return of the University Health psychiatrist from his vacation, he ordered the destruction of Dr. Moore’s letter and did not recommend any further action on Poddar’s case.
When Tarasoff returned from her vacation, she was stabbed and killed by Poddar who at that time moved in with her brother already. The parents of Tarasoff sued the Regents of the University, its health personnel namely, Gold, Moore, Powelson, Yandell and the campus police namely, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel for “failing to warn their daughter of an impending danger” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425). At the lower court, the complaint was dismissed because there was no cause of action. According to the lower court, the defendants only had the duty to the patient and not to a third party.
The dismissal was appealed to the Appeals Court but which only sustained the dismissal. Thus, it was elevated to the Supreme Court of California. The appealed decision in so far as the university police officers, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel finding them not liable to the plaintiffs was affirmed. However, in so far as the therapists and the Regents of the university, the appealed decision was overturned for reception of evidence in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
In fine, the complainants averred four (4) causes of action, namely: a) “Failure to detain a dangerous patient; b) failure to warn on a dangerous patient; c) abandonment of a dangerous patient; and, d) breach of primary duty to patient and the public” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants cannot be held liable because of a specific provision of the Government Code or Section 856 thereof which grants immunity to public employees from any resultant damage or injury from deciding whether or not to confine a person with mental ailment. This provision is also applicable to the therapists because the law also refers to those who are capable of recommending confinement. As regards the third cause of action, the government immunity includes the “award of exemplary damages resulting from a wrongful death” and therefore, defendants cannot be held liable (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the second cause of action, the Supreme Court found defendants therapists and Regents of the University to have failed to comply with their duty to warn Tarasoff of the peril to her life. Albeit, the therapists had no direct relations with Tarasoff, they could have reasonably foreseen the danger and threat to her life as confided by their patient, Poddar. This is the point where the law establishes the duty of care on their part to warn Tarasoff. Their failure to warn her may reasonably concluded as a proximate cause of her death. The duty of confidentiality between patient and psychotherapist and the right to privacy of the patient cannot prevail over public interest or public safety. Moreover, there are clear provisions of laws, i.e. Section 1024 of the Evidence Code and Section 9 of the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association which allows the physician to divulge matters confided to him in confidence when it is necessary for public welfare (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Confidentiality
The effective therapeutic relationship between physician/psychiatrist and patient rests largely on trust that matters confided by the patient during the treatment are kept in strictest confidence by the physician/psychiatrist. It is the ethical duty of the physician to observe privacy and confidentiality of his patients (Corbin, 2007). While it is also of public interest to ensure that treatment of those who are mentally ill by maintaining an atmosphere whereby they can have an open dialogue with their therapist and of safeguarding its confidential character; the same public interest calls for an imperative recognition of instances whereby disclosure of the confidential communications be revealed and be made to safeguard public safety and avert the threatened peril. In the instances, where the public safety is at risk, the therapist must disclose confidential information discreetly with due regard to protecting the privacy of his patient (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
The parameters of confidentiality are defined by law and by the ethical code of conduct for practitioners in the territorial jurisdiction. In the case of Tarasoff, the Evidence Code and the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided specific and limited exceptions under which the confidentiality privilege can be breached, i.e. “if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger; unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
It would be wise for the practitioners to familiarize themselves of the limits of confidentiality as provided under the laws considering that it may differ from state to state. The Tarasoff case provided a basis to guide a practitioner in his professional dealings relative to the duty to warn others in cases of a specific threat of harm by his patient against others/another. Subsequent cases followed the consistent pattern of the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of David v. Lhim (1983), the plaintiff-administrator of the estate sued the psychiatrist who treated the son who killed his mother after he was released from the hospital. There was failure on the part of the psychiatrist who treated the son to warn the mother of the potential danger after her son confided his intentions of killing her (Corbin, 2007). In another case, Chrite v. U.S. (2003), the Veterans Administration was held liable for having failed to warn the intended victim of a patient of a threatened harm. Subsequent rulings of the court clarified and defined what constituted ‘threat’ as “imminent threat of serious danger to a readily identifiable victim” and “specific” (Corbin, 2007).
When there are no specific provisions of the law, Dickson (1998) proposes that the therapist/practitioner may be protected against lawsuits if he would consult and keenly document the case of the patient or comply with the “mandated reporting guidelines” required by some states. Reamer (2003) on the other hand, suggests that the therapist must have evidence that the patient is a threat to the safety of another; evidence of that the threat can be foreseen; threat is imminent and that the potential victim is identifiable.
Legal and Ethical Implications and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The duty of reasonable care to assist others in danger is a legal duty as well as a moral duty. However, American negligence law only recognizes it as a moral duty except when there exists a relationship between parties. In the case of Tarasoff, no special relationship existed between the therapist and Tarasoff; however the court has made an exception to this general rule (Bickel, 2001). It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. This also includes the duty to control the conduct of his patient, Poddar. In the same breath, a doctor has the duty to warn his patient if he has a contagious disease (Saltzman and Furman, 1999).
There is an affirmative duty for the therapist to advise and warn Tarasoff of the threat to her life although this meant breach of confidentiality with his patient Poddar. This finds basis both legally and ethically considering that the law and the code of ethics for doctors have recognized and provided specifically that doctors are bound to disclose relevant facts to others even if this violates confidentiality with their patients provided they are required by law or if it is required for public safety (Saltzman and Furman, 1999). This legal duty to warn applies when the threat is specific and imminent and where the victim is “readily identifiable” (Bickel, 2001). The courts also have recognized the difficulty in assessing and predicting circumstances that may lead to harm or violence and consequently, adhered to the ‘professional judgment rule’ whereby the therapist is not held liable for errors of judgments. Liability attaches only upon showing that the conduct of the therapist was not in accordance with the “accepted professional standards” (Bickel, 2001).
There is an ambivalence that was created by the Tarasoff protective disclosure ruling with the practitioners (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). Analogous cases and protective disclosure statutes in the different states were analyzed and it was discovered that there are no clear defined parameters of these duties. The therapist is required to a certain way betray his patient by disclosing matters which are protected by confidentiality. Considering the uncertainty brought about by the legal doctrine and court decisions, the undesirable consequence of which was deterrence for therapists to accept “treatment potentially violent patients” (Merton, 1982). Moreover, therapists are more inclined to have their patients committed in an institution so that threats to the safety of potential victims can be averted.
The Tarasoff protective disclosure was even extended recently to include even “communications made from a patient’s family member” as pronounced by the Court in the case of Ewing v. Goldstein (May and Ohlschlager, 2008). The dubious jurisprudential precedents by the courts in interpreting the protective disclosure statutes or its resort to common law instead of interpreting the statute left a vacuum in the definition of the duty to protect (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). As a result, “clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes” (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004).
References
Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (1992). In our defense: the bill of rights in action. First Avon
Books edition.
Ashby, J. (February 2006). Note declining to state a name in consideration of the fifth amendment’s self-incrimination clause and law enforcement databases after Hiibel. Michigan Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 104:779.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
Bickel, R. Revisiting Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California: the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to control dangerous students. Presented before the 22nd Annual Law and higher Education conference in Clearwater, Florida on 18-20 February 2001.
California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971).
Corbin, J. (Fall 2007). Confidentiality and the duty to warn: Ethical and legal implications for the therapeutic relationship. The New Social Worker, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. New York: The Free Press
Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988).
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
Kachigian, C. and Felthous, A. (September 2004). Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. Journal
of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, Vol. 23:263-273.
Levy, L. (1968). Origins of the fifth amendment: The right against self-incrimination.
May, S. and Ohlschlager, J. (2008). California alert! Tarasoff ruling expanded for clients who ‘go off.’ ECounseling. American Association of Christian Counselors.
Merton, V. (1982). Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 31:265.
New York v. Quarles, 476 U.S. 649 (1984).
Parks, A. (2008). Unless the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, MD children may not be. Daily Record The Baltimore.
Reamer, F. (2003). Social work malpractice and liability. New York: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed.
Saltzman, A. and Furman, D. (1999). Law in social work practice. Brooks Cole, 2nd edition.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Schwartz, B (December 1971). The bill of rights: A documentary history. Chelsea House Publishers with McGraw-Hill Education.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).
U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
E.Writers
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/social-work-and-the-law-756045.html
New World Order On Trial
PLEASE RATE AND COMMENT. SPREAD THIS VID FAR AND WIDE! – WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT! 
New World Order On Trial
Is the new world order real? You can bet your bottom dollar it is! We are literally just a few short years away from the completion of the plan to centralize global power to control the affairs of the whole planet, all from under one roof that is filled with unelected, totalitarian bureaucrats. What is wrong with that, you may rightfully ask? Well, on the face of it, a global government sounds like a reasonable idea. But it can ONLY work in the favor of the people of this planet if…and ONLY if… the people who control the new world order are nothing less than angels. If the person at the very top of new world order is God himself, and the government is comprised of God’s chosen angels, then I would be somewhat comfortable with that idea. But if the people who set up and run the new world order are comprised of liars and war profiteers then I don’t want to know. In fact I would go one step further and suggest that any global government that is run by human beings can only spell disaster for everyone else on the planet. Regardless of how well-meaning they are. When the world is controlled by one small group of people, all of your options are gone. If you don’t like what the New World Order is doing, you can’t vote them out. And emigrating to another country will be useless because the New World Order will control every country. You will therefore be trapped in a prison planet with no freedoms other than the liberties granted to you by the fascist elite. The fact that politicians can be voted out, and the fact that US presidents can only serve two terms, must really them off. They have tried rigging elections, but they usually get found out. Their ideal solution is to create a system where they can never be voted out and never be held accountable for their dirty deeds. The New World Order IS that solution and their mouths drool at the very thought of it. They want it so bad, they don’t even bother to deny it any longer. George H. W. Bush proudly proclaimed “It is a big idea, a new world order”, as if there is some benefit in it for us. If it wasn’t for people like Alex Jones, David Icke and many others that are too numerous to mention, the New World Order would have already been established a decade ago. It is up to us to stop their evil agenda. If we just stand by and let them continue what they’re doing, we are effectively signing the future of humanity over to the devil himself. The period of time we are in right now is a very important time. We are in the middle of a small window of opportunity, where the truth is being revealed to the masses while we are still in control of our destiny. This period of time will not last for very long. If we fail to take action now, our children and grandchildren will be the real victims.
Duration : 0:7:53
Alex Jones Websites Under Massive And Sustained Attack!!
Alex Jones Websites Under Massive And Sustained Attack
http://www.infowars.com/
Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Alex Jones websites were assaulted by a massive, organized and sustained attack today which is still ongoing as zombie computers around the world were used to launch a denial of service attack which is undoubtedly related to our ongoing efforts to expose the governments Cybersecurity agenda as the gargantuan threat to Internet freedom it represents.
It appears to be a Distributed Denial of Service attack, utilizing zombied (or hacked) computers all over the world to overwhelm our servers, disabling them from serving normal traffic, states our Infowars systems administrator.
As Wikipedia explains, a DoS attack consists of Saturating the target (victim) machine with external communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer(s) to reset, or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.
This is precisely what happened to Prison Planet.tv and Infowars.net today, while flagship websites Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com have also come under attack but are still holding up at time of press.
The last such attack occurred around the time that we were exposing the swine flu scandal last year, but todays attack even dwarfs that in terms of scope and sustained assault.
The most likely source for the attack is obviously the inner sanctum of the military-industrial complex that we have been exposing for months as they rush through their Cybersecurity initiative which represents a massive threat to Internet freedom.
Over the last few years, the Pentagon has developed an offensive cyber capability against adversaries, including DoS attacks. In the Pentagons Information Operation Roadmap document, it is stated that the military must fight the Net. The Pentagon believes the internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy weapons system.
We are now witnessing intensified efforts to attack and remove from the world wide web sites like Cryptome.org and others which pose a fundamental threat to the anti-free speech agenda of the elite.
It is at times like these that we really need your support to bolster our servers in order to fend off these kind of attacks, either by getting the DVDs or becoming a Prison Planet.tv member.
As is our habitual response, every time we are attacked we only grow stronger by beefing our servers and launching another website which is exactly what will happen tomorrow with the birth of the Real Coffee Party initiative.
The enemies of freedom will be defeated in their continual attempt to silence free speech and their attacks will only make us close ranks and become stronger in the fight against the new world order.
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-websites-under-massive-and-sustained-attack/
Duration : 0:10:30
FRONTLINE/World | Bangladesh: The Blowback of Corruption
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/08/bangladesh-a-
dirty-deal-back-fires.html Correspondent David Montero reports on a Canadian company that has left a scarred environmental legacy.
Duration : 0:7:25
New World Order Monetary System
This is a very interesting and revealing video I got from http://www.youtube.com/purdysw, and was originally posted by http://www.youtube.com/aodscarecrow
I’m sorry about the sudden unexpected ending, the video was obviously cut short. But the info is so real and powerful that it needs to be heard by as many people as possible. Only then can we hope to make the world a better place.
————————————–
Lost in all the Obama furor, the world’s leading economic powers — the so-called G-20 nations — are quietly laying plans for a November 15th summit in Washington, D.C., that may effect a revolution in world finance and global governance, a revolution with potentially much greater long-term impact on America than anything on President-elect Obama’s agenda.
According to an AP report, “EU leaders are set to call on the Nov. 15 summit to agree immediately on five principles: submit ratings agencies to more surveillance; align accounting standards; close loopholes; set banking codes of conduct to reduce excessive risk-taking; and ask the International Monetary Fund to suggest ways of calming the turmoil.”
Even discounting the deliberate vagueness of the phrase “closing loopholes,” such an agenda obviously contemplates a significant increase in the level of international regulation, presumably to be implemented and enforced by an international regulatory body or bodies. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), created at the Bretton Woods economic summit near the end of World War II, is being touted as the obvious candidate for a global financial regulatory organization. Historically, the IMF’s mandate has been far more limited than many of its creators, including British economist John Maynard Keynes (one of the organizers of the Bretton Woods conference), originally envisioned. Keynes and the rest of the British and American delegations to Bretton Woods wanted the agreement to create a global reserve currency (which Keynes wanted to call the bancor), but ended up establishing the dollar as the world’s fallback currency instead. They also created the SDR (Special Drawing Right), a quasi-currency in which all acounts at the IMF were and are reckoned.
Now, it appears, the IMF is being primed for a much larger role, to be remade into a bona fide instrument of global governance — just as the original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), also created at Bretton Woods, was later transformed into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter is a de facto global trade ministry with supranational authority, and it has already wielded over the United States and many other nations.
The IMF, in other words, is apparently being prepared to become for global finance what the WTO has become for international trade. At a recent planning session for the upcoming summit, “[EU leaders] discussed making the International Monetary Fund the world’s financial watchdog, suggesting it be given more power to curb financial crises and give more money to aid countries in trouble,” the AP reported.
EU leaders like France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy and Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown have seized the initiative in setting the agenda for the November 15 summit, which some are informally referring to as “Bretton Woods II.” The EU will be calling for an agreement to overhaul the global financial system within 100 days, with a second international summit to be held in March.
Additional proposals that may be implied by the aformentioned five agenda items might include: creating a world central bank; creating an international reserve currency to replace the ailing U.S. dollar; and levying fees or taxes on international financial transactions. Any of these would be potentially devastating blows to American sovereignty, and would immeasurably strengthen the UN-centered embryonic world government.
A global central bank with the power to create a truly international currency would give the international system the same power globally that the Federal Reserve enjoys domestically — the power to create money at will. In other words, the UN system would acquire at a stroke the power to fund itself by printing money, emancipating it from reliance on the contributions of member states. An international tax or fee assessed on financial activity would be the realization of another long-cherished but still-unfulfilled dream of globalists: a truly global tax.
Make no mistake about it: the upcoming series of global summits will be about creating and empowering new organs of world government. It will be about curtailing international economic and financial freedom, not enhancing it.
http://www.youtube.com/aodscarecrow
Duration : 0:10:43
Dixie Chicks: Reluctant Warriors in the Battle for America’s Soul
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man”. – Thomas Jefferson
“I don’t mind saying it’s a sad, sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a complete stranger. How in the world could the words that I said send somebody so over the edge that they’d write me a letter saying that I better shut and sing or my life will be over?” – from “Not Ready to Make Nice”; Dixie Chicks
WACKO in the name of Patriotism is still WACKO!
Whether it’s Donald Rumsfeld likening critics of the Iraq war to the appeasers of the Nazi movement, or Rush Limbaugh declaring that we absolutely should question the patriotism of anyone who is against the war, or Dick Cheney accusing those who oppose the war as hoping that America loses, punishing free-speech in the name of patriotism is simply WACKO. A corrosive mind-set has sprung forth in the national identity, a mind set that openly condemns and ridicules differing thoughts and unashamedly feeds on anyone who dares challenge presidential actions, especially actions related to war. The cloak under which this new bigotry shields itself is “patriotism”. Wacko in the name of patriotism – Wacko-Patriotism.
Theodore Roosevelt hated such behavior. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
George Washington said “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”
Mark Twain observed that “The government is merely a servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”
All of this historic wisdom is falling on deaf ears. Government is indeed determining what is wrong or right, who is and isn’t a patriot. Disagreement with the President has become a crime, though for the time being at least, only in the court of public opinion and rhetoric. The jury prosecuting the commission of the crime wraps itself in the red, white and blue of Wacko-Patriotism. This movement has taken to the streets, the media, the PACs and even the halls of Congress. It has become the accusation d’jour. You can hijack any conversation, deflect any criticism, excuse any behavior and attack any opponent simply by injecting patriotism, or a lack of it, into the mix.
No one is immune to the voracious appetite of the beast, and thus it was that, undeterred by the sage warnings of our founding fathers, the Wacko-Pat movement unleashed its hysterical anti-patriotic obsession on the Dixie Chicks. And for what? Because lead singer Natalie Maines had the audacity to criticize President Bush for invading Iraq. Huh?
Never mind that 70% of the American people agree with Maines’ criticism. Never mind that an army of conservative Bush supporters have leveled much harsher criticism at Bush than the Chicks ever did. Never mind that the ENTIRE COUNTRY spoke loud and clear in November that they are sick and tired of the nasty rhetoric and misguided foreign policy. The Chicks are still paying the price for their outspokenness.
There is so much wrong with this picture that it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, that red white and blue piece of cloth you Wacko-Pats so fondly wave is called An American Flag. It represents the highest standard of freedom and democracy in the entire freaking world. It represents “The land of the free and the home of the brave”. Based on your logic, every revolutionary that stood up to King George in 1776, was a traitor who should just shut up. I guess it’s a darn good thing that the Revolution didn’t start in the country music bread basket of America. Someone might have burned the Declaration of Independence in protest!
Next, as you feverishly sharpen your fangs and your rhetoric on the Dixie Chicks, you should pay attention to this very limited Who’s Who of Bush critics, all of them Conservative, and all of them more critical of the President than the Chicks ever were:
Newt Gingrich – “The US went off a cliff in Iraq”
Kenneth Adelman, former Rumsfeld assistant, called Bush’s Iraq strategy “mind-bending incompetence” and “shameful”; described Bush’s national security team as “…they were deadly, dysfunctional.”
Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and a staunch Bush advocate before the Iraq war – “the dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy in Iraq a disaster… you have to hold the President responsible.”
Pat Buchanan – “Iraq was an unnecessary war that may become one of the great blunders in U.S. history… He (Bush) should never have gone in!”
Shameful, dysfunctional, off-the-cliff, deadly, he never should have gone in to Iraq, greatest blunder in U.S. history. Yep, sure sounds like criticism of the President to me. Maybe the Wacko-Pats should write letters to Barnes … Noble threatening to never buy another thing if they don’t rid their shelves of the anti-American propaganda of these traitors? Maybe libraries and coffee houses could set up trash cans outside so the Wacko-Pats can show their unified disgust as they discard this un-American trash. Yeah! That will teach them. Any of you courageous middle-American country music fans want to send a death threat? That will definitely get them to shut up and … whatever, huh?
Now, what was the horrible disrespectful, insulting the troops, hate-America, unpatriotic slander that the Chicks said? Oh yeah. “We’re embarrassed that the President is from Texas.” That was it. Cutting satire, isn’t it? Yeah, easy to see why you’re all so outraged.
The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. While the Wacko-Pats earnestly call the Dixie Chicks sluts for speaking their minds, they tolerate the vulgar behaviors of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan – a trio of chicks that give all chicks a bad name – flashing their panty-less genitals and breasts in public, getting publicly drunk and acting like their value as human beings is limited to their bodies and their level of indecent behavior. Meanwhile, I don’t see any of you self-righteous, family values, macho patriot flag-wavers objecting to their slutty behavior. Is that all it takes to get your vote? Flash a tit or your crotch, show you can shotgun a Budweiser while smoking a cigarette, release a sex video, and BAM! You’re cool. Those bastions of American values seem to have no problem with certain slut-like antics. But, be a good wife and mother, take care of your family and dare to speak out about something you believe in, and they’ll fry your ass in the media, ridicule your lifestyle, try to destroy your livelihood and threaten to kill you. Ooooh. Makes one so proud, doesn’t it?
Come on cowboys, who would you rather have raising your kids? And all you country moms, which role model do you want your daughters following? What kind of woman do you want junior bringing home to Thanksgiving dinner?
Even now, three years after the initial frenzy, the mugging continues. In October 2006, NBC publicly refused to air the TV advertisements for The Dixie Chicks’ indy film “Shut Up And Sing”, stating that they were following a “policy of not broadcasting ads that deal with issues of public controversy… [and] cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush”. Hmm, could NBC be kissing some White House ass to compensate for their decision to refer to Iraq as a Civil War, contrary to the wishes of the President? Hey, can’t have those Wacko-Pats boycotting “ER”, can we? CBS, so far, has been the only major television network which has agreed to air the ads for the film.
Check out this heavily edited excerpt from an Ann Coulter column appearing on pugbus.net on October 30, 2006:
“NBC was right in refusing to air an ad for “Shut Up … Sing or We’ll Kill You, B****-a** Whore”, the fluffumentary “movie” about Blue-State-America’s favorite singing treasonistas, the Dixie Chicks. I have seen this piece of s***, people, and let me tell you, it was enough to make any god-fearing, barbeque-loving, towel-head-pussy-hating, truck-driving, ball-scratching man or woman want to commit road rage on those b****-ass whores, the Dixie Chicks.” Oh my, Ann. You’re so … eloquent. And I thought Annie was just a harmless, vitriolic, conservative humorist. Whew! Can you spell misogynist?
The demonizing of the Chicks isn’t the first time in history that a self-righteous minority sought to silence those who disagreed with its agenda. 2500 years ago, the corrupt Greek senate set out to silence Socrates. Given the opportunity to “shut up and… whatever”, Socrates refused to make nice with his critics and was forced to drink poison. Well, that’s one way.
Christopher Columbus was almost arrested by the powerful Spanish Inquisition because he suggested that (gasp!) the earth wasn’t flat in direct opposition to the established position of the Catholic Church. “Just Shut Up and draw your stupid maps, Chris!”
Alice Paul valiantly protested for Women’s Suffrage in 1920, which angered the male chauvinistic society of the times. During an attempted hunger strike while she was imprisoned in a mental hospital (for refusing to shut up), her “patriotic” captors forced metal tubes into her mouth while she was strapped helpless in an electro-shock chair which resulted in having to swallow her own vomit and endure a fractured jaw. I guess all you patriotic women (especially Coulter) would gladly give up your right to vote and would be much happier today if Alice had just followed the sincere pleas of her husband as he signed the legal papers which had her committed to the mental institution, “Why can’t you just stop this nonsense and be a good mother to our children?” (In other words, “Shut Up and … whatever”)
More recently, Joe Darby refused to shut up. He was with the MP unit guarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and accidentally came across the much publicized pictures showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Responding to his moral sense of right and wrong, Darby blew the whistle on what became an international scandal. He was labeled as “a traitor to his country” and “a coward who knows nothing about loyalty”. When his life was threatened and he had to move his family from his home town, critics continued the public onslaught. “Darby should be scared. What he did was wrong. He should have thought of the ramifications before he decided to open his big trap!!”, “He should have just turned a blind eye”. Oh yeah, Wacko-Pats do not like it when someone speaks out against authority. (Does it all make you proud, Annie? These are your god-fearing, barbeque-loving, ball-scratching men and women at work here.)
I can almost understand some men being angered or intimidated by The Dixie Chicks, especially if your view of women is that they should, well “shut up and… cook your dinner/take care of the kids/clean up the house/etc.”. These aren’t that kind of women which just might seem disrespectful to some macho dudes. But, no matter how testosterone-driven you are, if you admire such “guy “ traits as integrity, guts and persevering in the face of adversity, you ought to admire the Chicks. When faced with the choice between protecting their careers and livelihood , or standing up for what they believed in, they chose honor. How many of you macho patriotic guys out there could pass the test they’ve passed? When I was growing up we were taught to respect and defend that kind courage, not threaten to stomp it out. Of course, I never had the privilege of being a country music fan. Maybe that’s why I just don’t understand.
And I REALLY don’t understand what you women are so pissed about. These are decent, self-respecting ladies here. They’ve done more to demonstrate real dignity and equality than any politician in DC has in the last decade. Why aren’t you outraged at the Spears/Hilton/Lohan slut parade instead, which celebrates the lowest, most exploitable female traits? Maybe you’re pissed off because the Chicks have raised the bar on what it is to be a self-expressed woman and mother. Maybe they represent a level of freedom and independence that you wish you had but don’t because you happen to be living with one of those traditional guys that think you should “shut up and … whatever”. Sucks being you.
The most frightening thing about the Wacko-Pat mentality is that it seems to spring from the most tyrannical thinking of the 20th Century. Herman Goering, Hitler’s 2nd in command, at the Nuremberg trials said:
“Of course, the people don’t want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy … All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Whatdya think, Annie? Is this your kind of guy or what?
In closing, I have two things to say to The Dixie Chicks. First, I apologize for sitting on my ass and not writing this article sooner. I was lazy and you three, who have put your collective asses on the line, deserve better from your supporters. I won’t shut up now, though. You can count on that.
Second, you will get back to that place, Martie. And you’ll get there because you ladies are indeed warriors in the most traditional and honored sense of the word. Your iron will, indomitable spirit and love of truth cannot be squashed forever. It’s in your blood to write poetry and put it to music and that gift is more durable than Wacko-Pat rhetoric or corporate greed. I’m sorry you’ve had to endure all that’s happened, but thank you for doing it.
And oh yeah. F U T K!! (See the documentary if you don’t know what I mean!)
Fred Tutwiler
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/dixie-chicks-reluctant-warriors-in-the-battle-for-americas-soul-81143.html
Aliens UFOs Latest Proof Evidence UFO Sightings
##################
PROJECT MOTHERSHIP
http://UFOs-Aliens-Proof-Evidence.50webs.com
Or Here…
http://AliensUFOsPhotosPictures.yolasite.com
Or Here…
http://UFOs-Aliens-Proof-Evidence.totalh.com
Best UFO YouTube Channel…
http://YouTube.com/LisaLovesLove
__________________
##################
Aliens UFOs Latest Proof Evidence UFO Sightings.
Aliens UFOs Facts Proof Evidence Documentary Alien UFO Documentaries Videos Latest News UFO Sightings Reports.
The world class top 10 and top 100 top UFO sites and best resource for the best UFO videos, best images and top secret documents, best UFO files available. Our UFO and alien videos are the very best we have found from all over the world and the Internet. We have UFO videos and pictures from the USA, UK, China, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Amsterdam, Russia, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Africa, India, and other countries.
We have the latest UFO sightings, UFO footage, and the best UFO videos right here at Lisa Loves UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence.
Our videos are some of the very best UFO evidence and proof available and we normally add the lastest UFO news, best UFO links, new UFO sightings, and new UFO footage daily.
If you have any new UFO videos or UFO photos, please feel free to share them with us in our UFO Guestbook or our UFO Forums for
Videos, UFOs, Photos, Aliens, Pictures, 2012, Disclosure, Extraterrestrials, Chat Rooms, Paranormal, Evidence, Message Boards, Ghosts, Conspiracy, Proof, Mystery, Top Secrets, 911 Truth, Cryptozoology, Future, Enlightenment, Honesty, Prophecy, Mafia, Terror, Love, Spirituality, Ancient, Black Budget, Podcasts, Alternative News, Area 51, Pictures, NSA, Images, Scary, 200,000+ UFO Videos, Top Secret, CIA, Mystery, 2012, KGB, Prophecy, Ghosts, Paranormal Videos, Podcasts, Conspiracy Forums, Norad, Real UFO Video, Pine Gap, New UFO Videos, Latest UFO Sightings, and the best ET message ever called… “Decide Whether We Should Show Up”.
Duration : 0:4:6
9/11 New World Order plan: Europe, America vs Russia, China
From: teabowbraine. From: nibirushock. READ THIS! Lyndon LaRouche ‘Tragedy & Hope’ address in Washington D.C. on May 7, 2008. LaRouche talked about Obama getting the nomination and the evil mindset behind the “Lisbon Treaty” to create a British-European totalitarian superstate.
The brilliant, but wicked and evil spirited occult New World Order masterplan is unfolding. The ultimate goal of globalization (or globalisation) through propaganda and rhetoric (War on Terror) and initiating chaos that will lead to depopulation (genocide).
Under the energy of Venus and the Sun, the occult NWO masterplan must be realized by 2013. (that is, by Gregorian calendar date December 22, 2013 following another ritual circle around the Sun (starting in Solar Maximum year =2012) counting from December 22, 2012. (= end date of Mayan Long Count Calendar 13.00.00 Baktun).
It takes 243 years for Venus to return to the exact point where it started. It’s called a Venus Round. And they (Illuminati), determined the creation of the NWO in 1770, with Rothschild and Adam Weishaupt as the real “founding fathers.”
1770 was the year in which a new cycle of 242 years started, sectioned in 99,11,121,11 = 242 years! (=11×9, 99:9, 11×11, 121:11) (sequence= x9,:9,x11,:11 = ratio 9/11)
Right now we are living in the ‘:11 stage’, meaning the LAST 11 years from SolarMax to SolarMax, starting from 2001 (WTC attack) to 2012.
11:11 as deceptive symbolism, means nothing more than the completion of their NWO in the last solar maximum cycle to 2012 with the start of their NWO in the new year 2013.
In 2013 there will have been a complete Venus Round of 243 years counting from 1770, and in THEIR (Illuminati/Elite) minds, the celebration of a new “spiritual era” but not in the sense as you think it will be, but with a “New Rome” represented by the United Nations (UN)/NATO in the spirit of ancient Babylon. The true meaning of the City and Tower of Babel.
We are still living under the Anglo-American World Empire. The key London oligarchs, bankers, the House of Windsor and those in alliance with them (who brought the Nazi system into power, starting in the 1920s) are still dominating the political-occult ruling Elite, of which the Bilderberg group.
Is it any coincidence the NEXT official summer Olympic Games will be held in 2012 and in the City of London? No.
In their arrogance, convinced that by 2012 Europe will have become that socialist/fascist superstate and the global NWO (European Union/North American Union (SPP)(EU/NAU) will be a fact, they will celebrate the historical Venus rising and transit on Solar Maximum 2012 with a Nazi-Germany style Olympic Games (Berlin -1936) in order to demonstrate the power and reality of this New World Order and their supporters to the entire world.
And this
It’s ALL symbolism!
The political-occult NWO endgame masterplan was executed in the year 2000, or the year zero (00) when George W. Bush became president-elect on December 13, 2000 which is the Julian calendar date for our Gregorian winter solstice calendar date December 22.
(Remember that Al Gore conceded to Bush on this exact date December 13, 2000 and remember that Hillary conceded to Obama on the exact Venus rising date as evening star on June 9, 2008.)
The capture of Saddam Hussein on that exact date, December 13, 2003, was well planned ahead and NO coincidence either.
The political-occult ruling European Elite arranged the deceptive “Lisbon Treaty” -which should make Europe a totalitarian superstate- to be signed on that exact date, December 13, 2007, which is NO coincidence either.
As was foreseen, after Ireland rejected this treaty in the one and only referendum on June 12, 2008, the political-occult ruling European Elite are NOW simply going to ignore Ireland and force their “Lisbon Treaty” through.
Their arrogance knows no bounds. And it has everything to do with their political-occult 2012-2013 NWO agenda.
All Americans should read this. What You Need to Know About the British-Israel World Federation Movement:
http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/british-israel/index.html
http://www.larouchepac.com
The biofuel scam of Prince Philip that is reducing the worlds population. It is now been exposed biofuel has caused the present food crisis. Leaked report – Biofuels the source of world food crisis:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
LaRouche also talked about World War 3 and the British Empire’s past and present successful plans to take control of the whole planet. Download or watch all of the “Tragedy & Hope” productions (May 7, 2008) from LaRouche Webcast:
http://www.larouchepac.com/media/2008/05/07/tragedy-hope-may-7th-larouche-webcast.html
LaRouche has a brilliant website and lots of informative videos to watch/download for free:
http://www.larouchepac.com
Duration : 0:10:1
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the New World Order
Please subscribe to http://www.youtube.com/aenfroy87
Google:
The Council on Foreign Relations
The Bilderberg Group
Trilateral Commission
New World Order
World Government
North American Union
Military Industrial Complex
Federal Reserve fraud
Security and Prosperity Partnership
Martial Law
Freedom to Fascism
Big Brother Society
Police State
Cashless Society
Scientific Dictatorships
FAIR USE NOTICE: We are making this material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Duration : 0:10:0
What is a new world order I remember Pres Bush 41 gave a speech on sept 11 1991 about the new world order?
What is a new world order I remember Pres Bush 41 gave a speech on sept 11 1991 about the new world order? What does it means?
You have got to go to Infowars.com!
Go to Google Video and watch Alex Jones’ documentary called ENDGAME!
Alex has a lot of documentaries, but you should start with this one, and also watch "Loose Change" the 2nd edition…