Should 9/11 First Responders Bill be extended beyond 2016?

Just this past December, the “9/11 First Responders Bill” was finally pushed through in Congress. The bill will look to provide medical care and monitoring for those who worked on ground zero and those who were living and working nearby the attacks. President Obama claimed it to be a great day by claiming “I believe this is a critical step for those who continue to bear the physical scars of those attacks.” Certainly getting the bill through is a huge step for those affected in or around ground zero. Even with this first step being taken, there are still some qualifications that could possibly be improved to help the bill cover the needs for those affected for the future.

Sibel Edmonds Speaks Out on Whistleblower 'Protections'

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds joined The Corbett Report last Friday to discuss the deplorable state of whistleblower "protections" in the United States, including S.372, a bill making its way through the Senate that would allow the FBI and other "national security" agencies to dismiss whistleblowers' claims without any form of oversight.

Click here to download an mp3 of the conversation or watch the YouTube video in the player below:

Legislation Alert: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Below is the text of the so-called Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
(H.R. 1955) recently passed by an overwhelming majority in the House and soon to be voted on by the
Senate (the House vote may be viewed at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll993.xml ). Only six House members voted against the bill--which should give us some idea of the 'improvements' we can expect should the Democrats succeed in retaking the executive branch next November.

In particular, note the reference to the Internet in item 3 under 'Findings.'

Questions: Would it be appropriate to characterize this measure as a 'thought crime bill'? Or are people who are truly violent the only ones likely to be affected by it? Might it best be viewed in the context of other recent measures? Such as the Defense Authorization Act passed in October 2006,
granting the President the authority--upon his own declaration of a public emergency--to station troops

Terrorism windfall: Investigate thoroughly if defenses fail again

In a statement in the Tallahassee Democrat, Lance deHaven-Smith and Matthew Witt suggest that Congress be pressured to pass legislation requiring that -- in the event of another terrorist attack -- a real investigation be conducted. They argue that this will help to reduce the likelihood of another false flag attack.

Are they right? Is there any way that Congress would pass such legislation if we pressure them? Would this be asking the fox to guard the chicken coop? If another false flag occurs, will the Constitution and all normal laws be suspended, so that such legislation would be superseded anyway?

Terrorism windfall: Investigate thoroughly if defenses fail again

By Lance deHaven-Smith and Matthew Witt, Tallahassee Democrat

When it comes to their elected officials, Americans would be wise to remember an old saying about moral hazards: Never make your doctor the heir to your estate.

The president's popularity soared after 9/11. It also tends to rise when the terrorist threat level is raised from yellow to orange.

9/11 Security Bill Passed by Senate

The Senate just passed a security bill based on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. The Associated Press has the story.

This is a mere 5-plus years after 9/11. If it was broke, why didn't they fix it earlier?