College students pepper-strayed for protesting high tuition in Santa Monica college...welcome to the police state, its just the beginning

Students pepper-sprayed for protesting at Santa Monica College (VIDEO)
RT News
Published: 04 April, 2012, 18:57


Santa Monica College student Pronilover calls to fellow protesters during the Occupy the Capitol protest at the state Capitol in Sacramento (Reuters / Kevin Bartram). Video from YouTube users TheDigitalfolklore and TheCorsairOnline

Student protesters demonstrating against the rising cost of classes at Santa Monica College in California were met with a barrage of pepper spray late Tuesday. Around 30 people were attacked, including a small child and a congressional candidate.

At least two people were hospitalized on Tuesday after a protest at Santa Monica College outside of Los Angeles ended in a fog of pepper spray.

Hundreds of protesters had gathered outside a trustees meeting on campus that evening to wage complaints against a plan to add high-priced classes to the available course load at the community college in Southern California. After several students were refused admission into the meeting room and calls to relocate the rendezvous were ignored, protesters attempted to enter the premises on their own behalf. As the crowd of concerned students and demonstrators demanded to be heard by shot-callers at the college, police officers on the scene responded by discharging nonlethal pepper spray on protesters, injuring several, including bystanders.

“People were gasping and choking,” David Steinman tells the Associated Press. Steinman, a local environmental activist, was protesting against the college’s attempt to raise the cost of select classes. He is currently running for California Congress in hopes of winning a seat in the state’s District 33. On his campaign’s official Facebook page, addressed his concerns over the college’s plans hours before the incident.

“We are excluding students, and taxing them without representation, I feel, to feed a bloated state budget,” wrote Steinman, who added that the school has exponentially increased student fees over the years. “We need to look at the state community college boards of trustees as well as at our state government which has absolutely no accountability to the people. We need education to move our state forward.

The tiered system being proposed does just the opposite,” said Steinman.

While Steinman was among the 30 or so victims that were sprayed down by police, he wasn’t the most unlikely one. A young girl reported to be only four years old was also injured in the assault.

Others attacked by police say that law enforcement acted without notice and perhaps proper foresight. Marioly Gomez, a 21-year-old student at the schools, tells AP that she was pepper-sprayed without warning. In addition to the two hospitalized persons, around five are reported to have received medical attention at the scene.

Students on the scene were protesting a plan that would quadruple the price of some select classes at the college to around $600 per unit. As class sizes have dwindled in recent years, community colleges across California have lost substantial state funding, in turn causing the cost of classes to rise. As an alternative to costlier private and public schools, community colleges offer an opportunity for the less financially fortunate to receive a proper education.
Up the state in Davis, California, several students were assaulted with pepper spray last November while protesting similar tuition hikes.

IRS Insider Joe Banister Exposes Federal Reserve Coup and IRS Fraud (Infowars)

Infowars.com
April 4, 2012

Joe Banister is the first and thus far only IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent ever to conduct, while serving as a special agent, an investigation into allegations that the IRS illegally administers and enforces the federal income tax. He respectfully reported the results of his investigation to his IRS superiors, up to and including the IRS Commissioner. Rather than address the legitimate concerns raised by one of their own distinguished investigators, his IRS superiors suspiciously refused to address the chilling evidence of IRS wrongdoing raised in his report and instead encouraged him to resign from his position. Observing that IRS management intended to cover up the deceit and illegal conduct alleged in his report, Banister chose to resign from his position so that he could report his findings to the American public. In effect, Banister had to resign from his position in order to abide by his oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Is it a surprise the media 'press-titutes' are ignoring to report Obama impeachment news?

Media Cover-up of Obama Impeachment Exposed
Alex Jones
Infowars.com
March 10, 2012

The impeachment of war criminal Barack Obama has begun but the globalist controlled traitor media is blacking this huge news out.


Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Mar 10, 201
http://youtu.be/pkRcfy4t6CM


Additional info (updated) 3/12/2012:

• Will A Sitting President Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Well its final, say good bye to our First Amendment right to protest

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill
RT News
Published: 10 March, 2012, 00:52

President Barak Obama, photo credit: RT News

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

• Outlawing protests? Just what is our Congress DOING in Washington?

• The Criminalization of Protest: Say Goodbye To Free Speech in America

• Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."
Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self.

Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.

Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming too close to the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

Articles of Impeachment drafted: H.CON.RES.107.IH (March 7, 2012)

Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.CON.RES.107.IH, Sponsored by Rep Walter Jones (NC)
[PDF version]


H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

   Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of 
   Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the 
   United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear 
   authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war 
   under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an 
   impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial (Infowars) updated

Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012 (Updated)

     BREAKING UPDATE: Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War     
     Authorization from Congress (3/8/2012)

     Read: Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony-
     The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats (3/8/2012; 
     3:30pm EST)

Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War Authorization from Congress

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.



During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.

The full text reads;
      Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President   
      without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high 
      crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

      Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to 
      declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
      Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of 
      Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of 
      the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear 
      authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war 
      under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an 
      impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Under the terms of Jones’ resolution, both Panetta and Obama would be subject to impeachment for abusing their power and violating the Constitution in disregarding the authority of Congress and placing a foreign power above its jurisdiction.

Despite the Pentagon’s efforts to claim that Panetta’s words were misinterpreted, the Obama administration itself has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations in relation to last year’s invasion of Libya, which was conducted without approval from Congress.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

In boldly asserting the authority of international powers over and above the legislative branch, Panetta and Obama are openly declaring that they no longer represent the American people and instead are water carriers for a global dictatorship that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

There you have it: Our country now answers to foreign globalists & interests and not the U.S. Constitution (Shocking news w/ video)

Hair raising comments made today by US Sec-Def Leon Panetta at a Armed Services Committee Senate hearing was not a normal hearing but a proclamation and declaration that put Congress on notice - basically telling them to stick it where the sun don`t shine that the U.S. gets it`s marching orders from the UN & NATO and not the U.S. Congress. He said their "goal would be to seek international permission" but keep Congress 'informed.' And of course

This is essentially codifying President Obama`s directive when he made clear last year when he proclaimed he did not need Congressional approval because he had'international permission' when engaging in Libyan hostilities. This is now the new Obama Doctrine, beholden to foreign interests and not the U.S. CONSTITUTION! What is happening to our country and values? There are eroding by the second and the masses seem to not care. The global war is coming and near, urge all to finally wake up and to accept the status quo and reality now, there is time for change as set forth in the principles in the founding of this glorious nation. Congress needs to grab their cajones and assert their constitutional powers against a ever looming foreign military dictatorship.


Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony
The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012

Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.”

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.

“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.

However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Related articles and readings
Official: Panetta misinterpreted on 'permission' for Syria intervention
Obama to Boehner on Libya : The U.N. gave us the ok
Obama on Libya: “I Don’t Even Have to Get to the Constitutional Question”