RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny
RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny
WHAT IS RIOT?
RIOT stands for Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny
WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE?
RIOT is here to wake America up to the evil traitors who have infiltrated our government as well as most of Europe. A hardcore global crime syndicate known as the Illuminati is setting up a global tyrannical dictatorship(AKA The New World Order). This has been in the works for over one hundred years and is close to becoming a reality. The Illuminati regulates who is eligible to come into power in all of the G8 Nations including the United States. The American chapter of the Illuminati is headed by former U.S. President and dark lord of the CIA, George Herbert Walker Bush and Democratic Party puppeteer, David Rockefeller. The Illuminati is made up of many elite families and secret societies. The Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale, Bohemian Grove, The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergs, and the newest, most dangerous group Project for a New American Century, AKA Neo-Cons,are American Illuminati groups.The Neo-Cons are led by former Reagan Secretary of State, George Schutlz. In order to put their plans into effect, they have to fool and scare the people into getting behind it. To do that, they have to use what is called Problem, Reaction, Solution. Meaning they create a crisis, get a reaction from the people and then offer a solution which is to get them to give up their rights and their constitution in order to be "protected" by their government. On this site, we will document such events throughout history and ones that have happened recently especially the horrible attacks on September 11 2001.We will explain who was behind them and why.We will also explain the agenda of these creatures and the history behind their organization. We will discuss the criminal history of the Bush family as well as their Nazi connections. We will discuss documents such as the USAPatriot Act that have seriously eroded the constitution. We will talk about who stood to gain from these horrible events. We will discuss the up comming police state in America and explain the Orwellian nightmare surveilance program and cashless society control grid that is already being set up as well as their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population. Most Importantly we will tell you how YOU can help fight these evil traitors and help restore the American republic and constitution. The skeleton of the New World Order is already in place in the form of the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization. Continental superstates are the next step. The European Union, Asian Union, and African Union are already in place, as are plans for a North American Union. The globalists get their power from the central banks that they use to control nations. The central bank of the United States is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private cabal, not a government agency. The government borrows money from the Federal Reserve and pays it back with interest, using the money it recieves from the equally illegal and unconstitutional IRS which steals that money from you and me.
There is still time to stop these creatures from destroying America and enslaving humanity. The only way that they can pull this off is if we unwittingly allow them to. The global elite know that the American people are their greatest threat. We are the only thing that can stop them now.. We the people outnumber them by 500 to 1 but they think that they can sell us on our own enslavement. Unfortunately, so far it is working and time is running out. They do not have the manpower to enslave us if we resist. If you cut off the head, the body dies. The New World Order cannot survive if we abolish the Federal Reserve, which our congress has the constitutional right to do. If we do not wake up and take action now, we are headed for one of the greatest sadnesses that we could ever imagine. TOTAL TYRANNY, TOTAL ENSLAVEMENT, TOTAL DEHUMANIZATION!!!! Read this site and inform yourself. Get involved now!
-Col. South: RIOT Commander in Chief.
Contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.org
OBAMA'S CORPORATE AGENDA DELAYED AS TPP MISSES DEADLINE
December 10, 2013
SOURCE: COMMON DREAMS
NEGOTIATORS FAIL TO CLOSE DEAL AMID REVELATIONS OF INTERNAL DISCORD OVER US CORPORATE BULLYING
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators meet at the Hale Koa Hotel during the APEC Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 12, 2011. (Reuters / Larry Downing)The Obama administration's pro-corporate Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agenda appears to have missed a deadline.
Ministers and delegates representing 12 nations announced Tuesday they have failed to meet the end-of-year goal of clinching the TPP trade deal after four days of negotiations in Singapore ended without an agreement.
The statement immediately follows a Wikileaks release, previously reported by Common Dreams, exposing near zero support for a drastic pro-corporate agenda pushed in the TPP by the Obama administration, including demands for NAFTA-style secret corporate tribunals, limits to bank regulation, and conditions that would increase the cost of life-saving medicines.
"At this meeting, the negotiators' political imperative to ‘make a deal' - any deal - resulted in a raft of dangerous decisions that would severely threaten consumers' access to affordable medicines, undermine Internet freedom and empower corporations to attack our domestic laws," said Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "[A]s more details emerge weekly about the damage TPP could do to workers, consumers and the environment, grassroots and lawmaker opposition in many countries is growing."
No new timeline has been drafted for what is poised to be the largest U.S. trade deal in history, establishing a "free trade" zone between Australia, the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore-countries that comprise nearly 40 percent of the world's GDP.
Despite the breadth of this potential deal, the contents of its negotiations have been hidden from the public and U.S. lawmakers, with much of what is known publicly about them exposed by leaks.
"We identified potential landing zones for the majority of key outstanding issues in the text," stated U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, reading a joint statement from negotiators on Tuesday. "We intend to meet again next month," he said, indicating that market access issues remain unresolved.
Wikileaks released an internal memo (pdf) and spreadsheet (pdf) from an unidentified government official on Monday that reveal resistance to U.S. demands for inclusion of corporate giveaways, including conditions that would allow corporations to bypass national law and sue governments in secret courts-boosting their power to steamroll environmental, labor, and public health protections. This also includes a push for intellectual property conditions that would reduce access to more affordable generic medicines and reduce the power of governments to negotiate lower medicine prices. The U.S., in addition, is demanding a limit to the ability of governments to regulate banks in times of crisis, according to Zach Carter at the Huffington Post.
The leaked memo reads, "Inadequate progress. The positions are still paralyzed. United States shows zero flexibility," regarding financial services negotiations.
In a statement emailed to Common Dreams, Public Citizen warned, "However, many countries have caved to relentless U.S. demands that they alter their domestic patent and medicine pricing laws to meet the desires of large pharmaceutical firms."
This latest leak follows the November 13 Wikileaks exposure of the Obama administration's TPP push to erode internet freedoms and cut access to medicines in what analysts say are the most damaging and dangerous proposals in the history of U.S. "free trade" deals
ROCKEFELLER ATTACHES CYBERSECURITY BILL TO NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (NDAA) 2014
December 10, 2013
SOURCE: A SHEEP NO MORE
Call your senator and tell them to vote no to the Cyber Security Amendment attached to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill. COPY AND PASTE THIS INFORMATION below into BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS EMAILS! They must know we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE UP TO AND ARE EXPOSING THEM!!! SENATOR MAIN NUMBER IS 202 224 3121 and their email can be found here...http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment (I attached it below) to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America's cyber infrastructure and private entities. Those of us who represent private entities, will soon find our free access to the internet eliminated. The fact that this internet control bill is attached to the NDAA is no accident because this means that dissidents, posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet, can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely for their "terrorist" views. There is a second and equally disturbing development in that the government has declared that the people of this country do not have the right to challenge the government on its unconstitutional actions. This is a position which fully exposes the fact that America is no longer a democratic republic, but rather a dictatorship which serves the elite. At issue is the ACLU's right to sue the NSA for the unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by spying on their every communication and their web-surfing habits. This position, taken by the government, validates that we have no rights and are living under a dictatorship. BILLS-113s1353is
Rockefeller's proposal, S.1353, was unanimously approved by the Commerce Committee in July but has stayed relatively dormant ever since. On Thursday he submitted that bill as an amendment to be considered as part of an annual Pentagon spending plan that could fast track his attempts to land his proposal on President Barack Obama's desk after attempts in Congress to adopt cybersecurity legislation have largely proven to be futile.
- See more at: http://asheepnomore.net/2013/12/08/rockefeller-attaches-cybersecurity-bill-ndaa-2014/#sthash.wOKXkmMb.dpuf
Hawaiian Mayor Signs GMO Ban into Law
This bill prohibits biotech companies from operating on the island, and it bans farmers from growing any new genetically altered crops.
Food Revolution Network: By Ocean Robbins
December 9, 2013
It's official. The mayor of the island of Hawaii, Billy Kenoi, has signed bill 113 into law. This bill prohibits biotech companies from operating on the island, and it bans farmers from growing any new genetically altered crops. (The papaya industry, which has more than 200 farms on the island, is exempt from the bill.)
Hawaii is joining Mexico, which last month banned (on an interim basis) the planting of all genetically engineered corn, and Italy, which in July became the 9th European country to ban planting of Monsanto's GMO corn.
Monsanto and its allies are trying to convince you and I and the rest of the American public that the case is settled and GMOs have been proven safe. But counties and nations around the world are banning them. And a group of 230 scientists from around the world, including Dr. Belinda Martineau, who helped commercialize the world's first GM food (the Flavor Savor tomato), recently joined together to sign a declaration that they: "deplore the disinformation over the safety of GMOs." They add: "Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods, are false." ( Read the scientist's statement in full here.)
Do you think GMOs should be labeled? If you do, you are far from alone. The vast majority of people in the United States would like to see the country join 64 other nations, including all of Europe, in labeling GMOs. It's a cause supported, according to polls, by 93% of the American public.
But last month the Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), funded by secret donations from the junk food industry, led a campaign to block labeling in the state of Washington. And now recently uncovered documents have revealed that the GMA is plotting a campaign for federal preemption that would permanently block any state from requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Monsanto and the GMA want to keep you eating in the dark. That's why the Food Revolution Network, for which I serve as CEO, has launched a campaign that seeks to peel away the GMA's funding base, and expose the "natural" brands whose corporate owners are funding the GMA's anti-labeling agenda. We've started with a petition and boycott campaign that targets Coca-Cola's "healthy" brands.
Most people don't realize that Coca-Cola owns Honest Tea, Odwalla, Zico Coconut Water, Simply Orange, and Vitamin Water. And that this corporation, which sweetens most of its beverages with genetically engineered high fructose corn syrup, recently contributed more than $1 million in an illegal money laundering scheme to the cause of GMO secrecy. But now, hundreds of thousands of people like you are finding out and joining the campaign.
The people of Hawaii, and their mayor, have spoken. Now it's your turn. Together, we can force Coca-Cola to honor the wishes of the vast majority of Americans who want to see GMOs labeled.NELSON MANDELA WAS A COMMUNIST TERRORIST BACKED BY ZIONISTS
December 6, 2013
BY LEE ROGERS, BLACKLISTED NEWS
Nelson Mandela the former President of South Africa has passed away at the age of 95. The big American media outlets are currently spending hours upon hours of air time praising Mandela as some sort of angelic icon of peace. This is a total fabrication of reality. Mandela originally aligned himself with the African National Congress a Communist revolutionary group heavily influenced and financed by Zionist Jews. This organization would be responsible for all sorts of atrocities in South Africa which eventually led to Mandela's time in jail. Mandela co-founded the militant wing of the ANC with various South African Communists including an Israeli Jew by the name of Arthur Goldreich. The group was called Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation. It is important to note that the ANC not only attacked official government buildings but even non-government targets like movie theatres as well. It was this activity that made it easy for several countries including the United States to label the ANC as a terrorist organization. Mandela himself was even on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008. Fun facts about Mandela such as these are completely ignored by all of the big media outlets because it runs contrary to the portrait they are trying to paint.
In order to understand who Mandela really was it is necessary to understand the real history of apartheid South Africa. The policies of apartheid or racial segregation were largely implemented starting in the late 1940s to early 1950s. These policies were originally intended to give the different races within South Africa an independent area of their own. It was argued by South African leaders at the time that South Africa wasn't a single nation but was made up of several different racial groups which should be split apart. Although the merits of these policies or lack thereof could be argued, the policies were not as nefarious as we have been led to believe.
The so-called apartheid South African government which was dominated by White Europeans had made South Africa a successful independent first world nation. This was the real reason why Jewish Communists sought to use the ANC as a way to demonize the White European leaders in power. South Africa represented an independent economic and military power that needed to be brought under their influence.
Much like the phony civil rights movement in America, the ANC was dominated by Jewish Communists even up until the 1990s when Mandela took power. A recent article from Haaretz notes the following.
The African National Congress, the liberation movement that became the governing party in 1994, also had a full complement of Jews, including Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils and Denis Goldberg.
The ANC would not only engage in acts of terror against Whites but they would also do the same against Blacks who they suspected of collaborating with Whites. Specifically they would execute and torture people by igniting a rubber tire filled with petrol that they forced over their chests and arms. The practice referred to as necklacing would typically take the victim over 15 minutes to die in certain cases. Hundreds of executions using this method were carried out by the ANC. Even Mandela's one-time wife Winnie would implicitly endorse this method of torture and execution.
Early in his life Mandela was surrounded by Jews and was given his first job as a clerk by a Jewish lawyer named Lazar Sidelsky. He would associate himself with a large number of Jewish Communists including some of the ones mentioned previously. In fact during a sweep of the ANC in the early 1960s which resulted in his arrest and lengthy prison sentence, a significant number of Jews were also arrested. Enormous caches of weapons and explosives held by the ANC were also uncovered. A recently published article from Tablet Magazine goes into great detail about how Mandela was aligned strongly with a significant number of Zionist and Communist Jews before and up until the time of his arrest.
In 1985, the President of South Africa Pieter W. Botha offered to release Mandela from prison if he would unconditionally reject violence as a political instrument. Mandela refused the offer. This fact completely destroys the notion that Mandela was a man of peace.
Mandela's release from prison in 1990 was greeted with widespread media coverage from all of the major Jewish controlled press outlets including American mainstream media. Instead of focusing on his past, he was portrayed as a man of peace and an iconic freedom fighter. The biased media spin was used to make people forget about who he really was. Amazingly the ridiculous media extravaganza helped Mandela become President of South Africa allowing his Jewish backers to change South Africa into a nation run by Communist principles.
Since Mandela's ascent to the Presidency, the South African economy has actually worsened compared to when it was led by the apartheid government. A BBC article goes into great detail about how many things were better before the ANC and Mandela took power. In fact economic inequality is far worse now than before. Unemployment and poverty is rampant with many South Africans living in shacks. Dissent against the ANC is largely stifled as one would expect in a nation run by Communist principles. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of White South Africans murdered by Blacks since this transformation. Specifically White South African farmers have been primary targets during this reign of murder and terror.
Simply put, Mandela was nothing more than a cult of personality fraud who has brought ruin to South Africa. Many Black South Africans are actually worse off now than under the alleged evils of the apartheid government. He was always a puppet for powerful Jewish interests who were the ones that really helped him gain power in South Africa. It is no wonder why Barack Obama had so many kind things to say about Mandela because Obama is literally doing the same thing to America that Mandela did to South Africa. Mandela should be remembered with disdain and not with reverence
BIG BROTHER WANTS YOUR KIDS PALMS & VEINS SCANNED
December 6, 2013
SOURCE: MASS PRIVATE I
Washington - Puyallup School District says by the end of the year, every lunchroom will have palm scanning devices that will allow students to pay for their lunch with a wave of a hand.
Parents from Washington state's Puyallup School District successfully ended the implementation of palm-scanners this week after attempts to push the system without parental approval backfired.
"Efficiency is another reason for implementing this. The accuracy of the scanner reduces human error, reduces fraud, the ability for students to share numbers allows parents to know the money that they're spending is being spent on their child's lunch," said Brian Fox, spokesperson for Puyallup School District.
The district says the devices will be in all 32 schools by the end of the school year.
So far, Wildwood Elementary and Stahl Junior High have the scanners in their lunchrooms.
Christina Allen has a daughter in middle school and said she was blindsided by a letter that her daughter came home with that said the scanners would be used at Kalles Junior High in a few weeks.
"I have issue with privacy with that. If the school district needs my signature in order to obtain my daughter's photograph and use that photograph in publication because of a privacy issue, then I believe I should have to sign an authorization to use my child's identity and for them to do that," said Allen.
The scanners work by using infrared technology to look for vein patterns in palms.
"To hear those words 'vein recognition program' huge it's very invasive to me. What is it in my daughter's veins do they need to photograph or have that information?" said Allen.
But Fox says the school district cannot access the biometric scans.
"It doesn't take a picture of a finger print or a handprint, it simply connects the activity of the vein to the number system where the account where the parents have already given us their Visa number or MasterCard number and paid for lunches. It's the same information we already keep like Social Security numbers and phone numbers and addresses, we are charged with keeping confidential," said Fox.
A group of New York engineers announced the development of a "biometric classroom." According to developers at SensorStar Labs, cameras that track students' eye movements, conversations and smiles will help teachers improve classroom learning.
TSA NOW OVERSEEING WARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHES FOR CARS PARKED AT AIRPORTS
December 3, 2013
SOURCE: POLICE STATE USA
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has now expanded its intrusive searching protocol to include the interior of parked cars left at the airport. Reports of vehicle searches have been reported at multiple airports since this summer.
Since roughly June, airports have been performing vehicle searches of cars parked in front of terminals. According to their signs, this is being done in accordance with TSA mandates and local authorities.
Over the Thanksgiving holiday, a traveler photographed the sign pictured above at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport in Birmingham, Alabama. It reads:
"ALL CARS WILL BE SEARCHED BY UNIFORMED SECURITY AS MANDATED BY BAA AND TSA"
The sign is being displayed by AmeriPark, a valet company. It cites the Birmingham Airport Authority and TSA as the government agencies responsible for the warrantless vehicle searches.
This report is similar to what was reported in Rochester, NY, this July. A woman discovered a note left in her car that her vehicle had been searched without her permission or notice. Laurie Iacuzza said she was "furious" that airport personnel had used her keys to gain access to the vehicle which she had entrusted to a valet parking attendant.
The notice, found on her dashboard read: "Thank you for your patronage. Your vehicle has been inspected under TSA regulations."
When asked which parking lots were being searched, John McCaffery, TSA, said that the searches include vehicles that were parked close enough to present a "vulnerability" to the airport, which did not necessarily include distant garage parking.
WHEC 10 News's Berkeley Brean reported that "The TSA says that this is part of its overall security plan, in that its a proactive move to keep you and your family safe at the airport. "
"The attendants told me that its kind of a three-phase thing, they're ordered to search the trunk, the engine, and scan the inside of the car," Brean continued. "They say it takes about 30 seconds to do it. They say that they don't go through your console or your glove boxes. The TSA says that they're instructing these valet attendants to look for large amounts of explosive material."
The TSA responded to outrage in July over the program, claiming that the searches were not technically mandated - despite staff at multiple airports apparently believing the opposite. "While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA, it is up to each airport authority and its state and local law enforcement partners to follow the plan that has been implemented," wrote Bob Burns of the TSA Blog.
The warrantless searches of vehicles at the behest of the TSA and local airport officials should not be tolerated. While outrageous, given the wholesale infringement of travelers' rights, it cannot be surprising to anyone paying attention. As the 4th amendment fades into distant memory, we are left to wonder where the mission-creep of the homeland security complex will lead us next.
Earnest thanks goes to all those who have contributed to the operation of this website. We are committed to covering stories that remain conspicuously ignored by the national mainstream media, and your generous support is essential to effectively distributing this message. Many victims of government-sanctioned violence offer their gratitudeTHE OTHER POLICE STATE; THE PRIVATE INTEL INDUSTRY GROWS
December 1, 2013
Together, the public-state and private-corporate security system is gaining ever-greater control over the lives of ordinary Americans.
On November 20th, the Center for Corporate Policy, a Washington, DC, good-government group, issued a revealing study, "Spooky Business: A New Report on Corporate Espionage Against Non-profits." Written by Gary Ruskin, it confirms one's worst suspicions about the ever-expanding two-headed U.S. security state.
One "head" of this apparatus consists of the formal law-enforcement, security juggernaut. It includes the vast network of federal, state and local entities that are duly, "legally," constituted to maintain law and order. It maintains state power.
The second "head" consists of a parallel "police" force, local and national corporate entities that use legal - and often questionable - practices to undermine democracy, most notably a citizen's right to object to what s/he perceives as an unjust business practice. It maintains corporate power.
Together, the public-state and private-corporate security system is gaining ever-greater control over the lives of ordinary Americans. They constitute the postmodern, 21st century policing apparatus.
The revolving-door thesis acknowledges the link between government employees and private corporations. Pres. Eisenhower warned against it in his legendary 1961 Farewell Address in which he publically identified the military-industrial complex. In the last half-century, the revolving door has become an unquestioned, acceptable career path for upwardly mobile bureaucrats. So, few were surprised when Timothy Geithner, former Sec. of the Treasury and head of the New York Fed, and one of those who orchestrated the banking plunder known as the Great Recession, took a job as president and managing director of Warburg Pincus, a leading private equity firm.
"Spooky Business" shows that many leading U.S. corporations are retaining the services of former federal security personnel to wage campaigns to subvert Constitutionally protected citizen rights. It details the practices of Bank of America, BP, Brown & Williamson, Burger King, the Chamber of Commerce, Chevron Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Kraft, McDonald's, Monsanto, Shell and Wal-Mart. Going further, it argues that to pull this off, these companies hire former employees of the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service, the military and local law-enforcement. As Ruskin shows, these "security officials" are linked to infiltration, espionage, surveillance and other tactics that are intended to undermine ostensible threats posed by nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.
The two-headed security apparatus is nothing new in America. It traces its roots to the post-Civil War era, a period of industrialization, immigration and urbanization. Then, especially in both big cities and the recently settled West, the formal state was weak, law enforcement still being development. Thus, many private companies turned to private security efforts to resolve differences.
The tension - and increasing integration - of the state and the corporation has shaped the U.S. since the Civil War. The interlinking of public and private policing is the gravest threat to American democracy. The security state flourished during the anti-Communist, McCarthy '50 and again against anti-war and black activists during the ‘60s. It is now being implemented as the war against "terrorism."
Israeli Data Spies Have Eyes Focused on U.S. Citizens
November 26, 2013
By Keith Johnson
While the National Security Agency (NSA) spying scandal continues to grab national headlines, the equally egregious intelligence gathering on United States citizens by Israeli security firms has virtually flown under the radar.
A recent article in Rolling Stone magazine, entitled "Meet the Private Companies Helping Cops Spy on Protesters," comes close to scratching the surface by identifying the four major security contractors that have been aggressively hawking their invasive surveillance products at various trade shows and police conferences throughout the nation. However, they fail to mention that at least two of those companies are owned and operated by members of a foreign nation with a long and notorious history of spying on the U.S. government and its citizens.
Among them is NICE Systems, Ltd., an Israel-based company founded in 1986 by seven "Israeli ex-army colleagues." NICE's current CEO is Zeevi Bregman, who formerly helmed Comverse Technology, Inc., an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm that provides wiretapping equipment to U.S. law enforcement.
In 2001, Comverse was the subject of a Fox News investigation into Israeli spying, where it was alleged "that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties. Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50% of its research and development costs."
More recently, Comverse subsidiary Verint Systems, Inc. has been linked to the current NSA spy scandal. AMERICAN FREE PRESS has previously reported on how the company was hired by the feds to wiretap U.S. telecommunications networks and even offered back-door access to major U.S. technology companies like Facebook, Microsoft and Google.
Bregman now oversees NICE Systems projects that are just as intrusive. One product marketed to law enforcement is "NiceTrack Target 360°," an intelligence gathering tool that collects and monitors the activities of persons targeted in surveillance operations. According to their brochure, "The solutions retrieve target location, relations and conversation content from any type of communication including telephony, IP and satellite, resulting in a multi-dimensional intelligence picture."
Nice Systems also provides a suite of video surveillance products that monitors street activity 24/7 and alerts law enforcement of potential disruptions. In a promotional video for the "NICE Security Portfolio," a group of protestors are depicted as posing a "security risk" by demonstrating in a city center. The fictitious activists are shown chanting slogans and hoisting signs that read "No More" and "Stop It Now" as the narrator explains how a variety of NICE Systems products can be used to help mitigate the "situation." The narrator concludes by saying, "The entire event is then reconstructed on a chronological timeline, based on all multimedia sources," to help "managers evaluate and understand trends and prepare for, predict and even prevent the next event."
According to foreign trade portal Israel Gateway, NICE Systems products are already being used at the Statue of Liberty and the New Jersey Transit System.
A spokeswoman for NICE declined to provide Rolling Stone with specific clients, but said "Thousands of customers worldwide" use their products, including "law enforcement and other government agencies."
A quick review of NICE's website however, reveals some high-profile "leading customers" the Jewish firm has accumulated, including:
• Air France
• Beijing Metro
• Bank of Tokyo
• American Airlines
• Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'l Airport
• Mitsubishi UFJ
• American Express
• Eiffel Tower
• India Parliament House
• Miami-Dade Police Department
• NJ Transit
• New York Police Department
• Port of Miami
• Belgian Railways
• Shanghai Pudong Int'l Airport
• Washington Mutual
• Statue of Liberty
The other Israeli-owned security firm referenced in Rolling Stone is 3i-MIND, which is profiled in the below article. 3i-MIND's founder and CEO is Israeli-born billionaire Mati Kochavi, who also owns AGT International, a security firm managed by a team of retired Israeli generals and Mossad agents, according to an article in Le Figaro.
Though AGT has only been in business since 2007, it has already secured $8B in contracts and has become a leading supplier of surveillance technologies to the governments of India, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and others.
In 2010, AGT entered into a strategic partnership with Microsoft as an initial foray into the U.S. security market. According to a press release, the two companies plan to "provide government homeland security and corporate customers with complete solutions" in a shared "belief that the benefits of globalization for the world economy need to be accompanied by in-built sophisticated security technology."
More recently, AGT's Kochavi has ventured into the realm of journalism by launching a digital news website called Vocativ, which produces pro-Israel news content targeted at the young adult demographic. According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, Kochavi "has organized his newsroom along the lines of an intelligence agency in the belief that journalism needs to undergo the same transformation that's already swept the field of spycraft."
Although Kochavi wants his staff and clients to enjoy full-spectrum intelligence gathering capabilities, he doesn't believe the general public should be afforded the same. In 2011, Kochavi and former President Bill Clinton appeared together in a CNBC interview to push for the creation of a regulatory agency that would prevent "misinformation and rumors" from being spread over the Internet.
"Why can't we have a credibility bar near every resultive search," Kochavi asked. "When we buy food we have ingredients on the food. When we go to see a movie we have ratings."
It's certain that if Kochavi had his way, real news organizations like AMERICAN FREE PRESS would be given a "zero" credibility rating.
Israeli security companies like AGT and NICE Systems can only survive if their sordid pasts are concealed from public scrutiny. And that's precisely why AFP will continue to expose them at every opportunity.
Israeli Firm Peddling Technology to U.S. Cops to Spy on Dissenters
• Former members of Israeli intelligence work to help crush free speech
A multinational security firm with ties to Israeli intelligence is providing U.S. law enforcement with intrusive surveillance tools to spy on American citizens and track the movements of political activists.
According to the above-mentioned Rolling Stone article, for-hire intelligence group 3i-MIND has been found peddling their highly advanced data-mining system at various security trade shows and police conferences throughout the nation.
The product, marketed to law enforcement as "OpenMIND," scours the so-called "deep web"-that 80% of the Internet inaccessible to other search engines-for insights about upcoming demonstrations, identifies and collects information on political activists and monitors their activities in real-time.
"Your insight is distributed to the local police force warning them that the political rally may turn violent and potentially thwarting the violence before it occurs," says promotional material for the product on the 3i-MIND website.
Very little is revealed about 3i-MIND in the Rolling Stone article. They don't mention that its founder and CEO is Israeli-born billionaire Mati Kochavi, who made his fortune in real estate after serving as an intelligence operative for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
"Several years ago he became involved in the homeland security field, and this involvement increased after the September 11 attacks in 2001," reads a 2008 article from Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "He forged contacts within Israel's military establishment and began hiring high-ranking former officials in the field."
Kochavi's companies reportedly employ dozens of former IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet security service officials, including Major General Amos Malka, who headed Israel's Military Intelligence from 1998-2001.
This isn't the first time an Israeli-linked company has been implicated in spying on American activists exercising their First Amendment rights. In 2010, public outcry forced the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to end a contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response after it was discovered that the Jerusalem-based intelligence group used the Internet to spy on peaceful protestors and then generated misleading "terror bulletins" on their activities, which were in turn distributed to Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies.
If American citizens are upset that the federal government is eavesdropping on their communications, they should be more than outraged that proxies of an oppressive and untrustworthy foreign nation like Israel are helping their local police departments do the exact same thing
UN Academic Impact Joins CFR to Infiltrate U.S. Classrooms
November 23, 2013
Source: The New American
The United Nations is proud of the impact it is having on all levels of public and private education in the United States. On November 22, the UN News Centre [sic] issued the following announcement:
Created three years ago to actively support universally accepted principles in human rights, literacy, sustainability and conflict resolution, the United Nations initiative working with higher education institutions has marked its third anniversary by spotlighting efforts of students in the New York tri-state area making a difference locally and internationally.
According to the press release promoting its achievements, the UN's influence extends from high school to higher education, providing curriculum "to make students representing religious minorities feel more comfortable and connected with peers, to balance of power and gender equality."
The project is known as the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI).
What is the ultimate goal of the globalists' infiltration of the American classroom? The UN describes this initiative's agenda to be the aligning of "institutions of higher education with the UN to actively support universally accepted principles in human rights, literacy, sustainability and conflict resolution, among others."
Put another way - and judging from the list of speakers who addressed a recent conference hosted by the UNAI in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations - the goal of the "global classroom" is the spreading of the UN doctrines of population control, Agenda 21 sustainability, and the abandonment of traditional religious morals. The November 1 event began a series of quarterly "talks" known as CFR@UNAI where CFR and UN dignitaries will address students, teachers, and others on topics of "current interest." The first of these educational chats dealt with global health issues. One need only imagine that, given the identity of the speakers, the subject matter would include convincing impressionable schoolchildren of the need for greater population control, sustainability, and the reduction of human destruction of the planet.
One of the most potent weapon in the UN's war on education is a popular program known as the Global Classrooms.
In concert with its overall educational agenda, the UN Global Classrooms is being marketed as a way to inculcate students with the "valuable insight into the growing influence of globalization."
One prong of this pernicious attack on our sovereignty is known as the Model United Nations. As many parents will know, the Model United Nations is a program created by the UN to engage "middle school and high school students in an exploration of current world issues through interactive simulations and curricular materials. Global Classrooms cultivates literacy, life skills and the attitudes necessary for active citizenship."
Global citizenship, not American citizenship. If the two collide, there is little doubt which allegiance the UN would prefer our young people to declare. In 2008, the Model U.N. project was promoted in a statement made by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Los Angeles:
You are here to step into the shoes of UN Ambassadors - to draft resolutions, to plot strategy, to negotiate with your allies as well as your adversaries. Your goal may be to resolve a conflict, to cope with a natural disaster or to bring nations together on an issue like climate change. You may be playing a role, but you are also preparing for life. You are acting as global citizens.
Again, the emphasis is not on being good citizens of their home countries; instead, it is to diminish that concept in favor of the creation of global citizens who will see participation in worldwide government as their primary responsibility, regardless of national sovereignty or principles of national law.
The United Nations is proud of the proliferation of the Global Classroom program. On its website, it crows about the growth it is enjoying around the world:
Over the past decade, Global Classrooms has worked in 24 major cities around the world, helping bridge the gap in the Model UN community between experienced programs and traditionally underserved public schools or schools new to Model UN. Global Classrooms is distinguished by its teacher and student resources that develop critical thinking, conflict resolution and communication skills for middle and high school students.
A detached observer of this plan could see in it the potential for harm to the United Nations itself. Should students truly be trained to think critically, resolve conflicts, and communicate effectively, would they not be liable to see through the United Nations' propaganda and perhaps recognize the wisdom and virtue of our own Constitution and the writings of those who created our own government?
Naturally, the United Nations apparatchiks overseeing the Global Classroom/UN Academic Impact would be savvy to that possibility, as well, hence the emphasis placed on "global citizenship" and the prompting to use these skills to solve international crises.
Is it too farfetched to believe that these crises could include the resistance of the United States to the implementation of United Nations climate change resolutions? Or to the Arms Trade Treaty? Or to the Law of the Sea Treaty? Or to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Would the thousands of American students taught at the knee of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his corps of classroom czars be willing to use their academic tools to dismantle the Constitution in favor of a more global-minded government? Will they come to share their overseers' opinion that the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate impediment to a peaceful, sustainable, equitable planet?
With those thoughts in mind, the number of American educators and students participating in the UN Global Classroom project is worrisome. Currently, students in school districts in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, Minneapolis, Miami, Boston, and Atlanta have active chapters of the United Nations Global Classroom operating in their schools. The participation of the school districts in Detroit and New Orleans was announced at a recent UN conference. The list of international partners is just as lengthy.
Of course, the resources needed to maintain these academic outposts of the United Nations don't come cheap. The list of global corporate partners that support this project is impressive and not at all surprising to those familiar with the close connection between big business and the push toward one world government.
Among others, the following enterprises have "generously supported" the spread of United Nations doctrine and devotion in the classrooms of the United States:
Merrill Lynch/Bank of America Corporate Philanthropy;
Goldman Sachs Foundation;
The New York Times Company Foundation;
The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation;
United Parcel Service (UPS); and
The United States State Department.
Last year at the annual United Nations Association Leadership Conference, Esther Brimmer, the Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, praised the UN Global Classroom team for its "terrific work" in helping American children learn about the "positive story of the UN's vital work worldwide."
Don't think for a minute that the powers that be at the United Nations don't appreciate the ability of these young people to push the plan along.
Speaking at the Model UN/Global Classroom conference in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took the opportunity to educate students about "sustainability" and the other tenets of Agenda 21 that were presented at the Rio+20. He told the students: "Time is tight. In about four weeks, five days, 14 hours and 50 minutes, we will open the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The truth is: I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough."
Finally, Ban Ki-moon gave the students his list of three things he would like to see accomplished at the Rio+20 meetings and how they could help:
1. Inspire new thinking: "the old economic model is breaking down" said Ban. He called for businesses to put an emphasis on a "triple bottom line" that includes social environment and economic instead of just profit.
2. Make Rio about people. Teach people that sustainable development "offers concrete hope for real improvements in daily lives." He also called for a greater voice for women and young people saying that "women should be empowered as engines of economic dynamism and social development."
3. Issue a "waste not" call to action: "Mother Earth has been kind to us. Let humanity reciprocate by respecting her natural boundaries," said Ban as he called for better protection of our air, water and forests and the improvement of the quality of life in our cities.
The United Nations will not be deterred in its quest to convince our children of their responsibility to protect their "Mother Earth" from the evils of humanity. The priority now is to sound this anti-American screed in the ears of every American child while they sit captive in our country's classrooms. As the website explains:
The popularity of U.N. classroom projects in U.S. has grown steadily at both the high school and middle schools levels. With the expansion of the Global Classrooms program over the last decade, and the UNAI, the UNA-USA brings the experience to an increasing number of public schools and their students.
The United Nations' drive to train our children to be better "global citizens" - to bring Common Core to every classroom in the world - is accelerating and may soon come to a school district near you.The TSA Precheck Program Is Another Government Sanctioned Fraud
November 21, 2013
Source: Lee Rogers, Blacklisted News
The TSA precheck system which has been sold to the public as a way for people to bypass body scanners and government sanctioned molestations is another fraud. Even if you go through the process of signing up to be eligible to go through TSA precheck security lines there is nothing to stop the TSA from randomly taking you out of a precheck line and forcing you through a body scanner. Here's the fine print located on the TSA's own web site.
What it fails to mention is that the only terrorists in U.S. airports these days are the ones wearing blue uniforms with the letters TSA on them. The TSA has yet to stop any so-called terrorist attacks throughout its entire existence. In fact they are the one's doing all of the terrorizing considering the countless horror stories that travellers have reported in dealing with them over the years. Not only that but nearly every so-called domestic terrorist attack has either been staged or has been a manufactured operation by the FBI.
I was already aware of the TSA precheck caveat but since I have to fly for work semi-frequently I decided to sign up anyway to see if it was actually worthwhile. I signed up for the Global Entry program which automatically makes you eligible to go through TSA precheck security lines. I figured that by doing this I'd be able to avoid the body scanners most of the times I fly and my chances of being randomly selected for additional screening would probably be low.
The European Union has forbid the use of the body scanners currently in use around U.S. airports because they could potentially subject the public to health and safety problems. There are also many other questions surrounding the safety of these devices which is why when I fly I choose not to go through them. As disgusting as the grope downs are, it is a preferable alternative to being radiated by the body scanner machines. Nobody really knows how much radiation these machines are pumping into our bodies and I sure as hell am not going to trust the companies which make these body scanners to provide accurate answers. After all, the criminal Zionist Jew and dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff was involved with Rapiscan one of the manufacturers of these devices. With that said, you'll have to forgive me if I don't place a whole lot of trust in the companies that make these products.
I also figured that since I've been incredibly vocal about my hatred of the federal government and their insane policies for the past seven years, that these clowns probably already knew most everything about me any way. So giving them my information at this point is inconsequential. Besides, it is now a widely accepted fact that the NSA has illegally collected an untold amount of data and information on us. There's little doubt that they already have extensive dossiers on the most outspoken critics of the federal government.
After paying a $100 processing fee and providing a bunch of personal information I scheduled the required interview at Boston's Logan International Airport. The interviewing agent was skeptical about a previous arrest I didn't report on the form based on a misunderstanding of what they were asking for on the application. Apparently it is OK for the government to lie endlessly about everything they do but god forbid if they think you aren't being 100% truthful when filling out a government form. The hypocritical double standard is beyond belief but that's par for course when dealing with the federal government. Besides this small snafu the process went smoothly and they accepted me into the program as I met all of the qualifying standards.
The first time I went through a TSA precheck line was when I was flying back from Denver after a week of hiking in the Rocky Mountains. Things actually went smoothly and it was basically like airport security before the 9/11 attacks. You didn't have to take your laptop out of your bag, you didn't have to take your shoes off and you could just go through a metal detector. At least these procedures are reasonable unlike the current farce that is in place with the regular security lines in which every air traveller is treated like a prisoner.
Things didn't go quite as smoothly when I flew out of Boston overseas to London a few weeks ago. I was waiting in the TSA precheck line and one of the TSA goons randomly selected me to go through a second line which only had a body scanner. Needless to say this really pissed me off. The only reason I signed up to be eligible for the TSA precheck lines was so I could avoid the radiation machines and not have to get my groin groped just to board an aircraft. Of course only the second time I go through a precheck line they want to put me through a body scanner. I don't necessarily believe that this was a conspiracy of some kind but I still thought it was a bunch of bull shit. After objecting to this angrily they still would not allow me back in the regular precheck line. Of course if I didn't go through the body scanner line than they told me that they would view that as me refusing security.
Once I got to the body scanner I refused to go through it and was subjected to the standard government mandated molestation. I told them that their policies were for the purpose of enslaving the general population and that the war on terror was bull shit. My rantings were loud enough where I had nearly every person in the security area staring at me like I was some sort of mad man for protesting what is obviously a completely bull shit policy. It just goes to show you what a bunch of god damn zombies everybody is. If everybody protested this shit than the TSA would be forced to modify these policies. Instead, everybody just accepts all of this like it is normal which is why the policies continue. Even the TSA thugs seemed surprised that somebody was questioning them. It is obvious that none of these people have any concept of what the Fourth Amendment is because what they are doing does not constitute a reasonable search of any kind.
During my rant they threatened to have me removed from precheck eligibility which didn't matter to me all that much because the purpose of having it was already defeated. Finally after they were confident enough that I didn't have a bomb jammed up my asshole they let me through the checkpoint. They told me I could file a complaint which is a joke since complaints directed towards any federal government agency always fall on deaf ears. After all, look at the criminal scum we have occupying positions of powers in Washington DC. It is nothing more than a gaggle of traitors who should be charged and convicted of high crimes and treason. A lot of them are lucky that they aren't being strung up on traffic lights by their necks.
I think my experience proves that the TSA precheck program is just another fraud courtesy of the federal government. If you pay the $100 processing fee, go in person for an interview and voluntarily submit information about yourself there is no reason why you should be randomly subjected to this type of shit. The fact that I was subjected to additional screening only the second time I went through a precheck line is ridiculous. These policies are counterproductive and will only create a larger amount of people who will seek retribution against the government. It is literally designed to create enemies who can than later be demonized as terrorists.
It should be interesting to see if these clowns randomly select me for additional screening the next time I fly and go through a precheck line. If they do than I will assume that they have done this intentionally. After opting out of the body scanner perhaps I'll just have an accidental bladder discharge in my pants. We'll see how eager they are to inspect my crotch for an explosive device after that.
In closing, there is no doubt that the TSA is one of the biggest jokes in America and you should feel far less safe with these government goon squads manning security checkpoints. The federal government has put terrorists in charge of airport security and it doesn't look as if the status quo will change anytime soon.
Judge Orders Homeland Security to Release Details for Shutting Down Wireless Networks
November 21, 2013
Source: All Gov.
The federal government must release documents explaining how, when and why it might decide to shut down the nation's wireless networks because of a "national crisis," U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled last week. His ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) against the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) in February 2013.
EPIC filed its FOIA request with DHS in July 2012, asking for the full text of Standard Operating Procedure 303, a document approved in March 2006 by the National Communications System (now the Office of Emergency Communications) that codifies "a shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crises", but was never released to the public. EPIC also requested the text of the pre-determined "series of questions" that determines if a shutdown is necessary and other supporting documents.
Dissatisfied with DHS's claim in August 2012 that the agency was "unable to locate or identify any responsive records," EPIC filed its suit in February, only to learn that an administrative law judge had ruled that DHS had not made an adequate search and ordered them to do so. That search turned up the text of SOP 303, which DHS released in heavily redacted form. DHS claimed the redactions were made under FOIA Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), which permit withholding of law-enforcement information if it would "disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" or "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."
EPIC challenged the applicability of those exemptions and won. Judge Boasberg ruled that Exemption 7(E) did not apply because SOP 303 is not an investigatory or prosecution technique, and that 7(F) was not appropriate because DHS could not identify which individuals' life or safety was supposedly being endangered.
Boasberg added that the Government's only recourse-aside from an appeal to the D.C. Circuit-is to get Congress to change the FOIA. The judge ordered DHS to release SOP 303 within 30 days.
Secret TPP Negotiations Resume in Salt Lake City
November 20, 2013
The newest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations begin today in Salt Lake City, Utah, where trade representatives will work towards finalizing the text of this sprawling secret agreement. Last week's publication of thecontroversial "Intellectual Property" chapter by Wikileaks confirmed our worst fears: the TPP carries draconian copyright enforcement provisions that threaten users' rights and could stifle innovation well into the 21st Century. Public opposition to the TPP continues to grow as a result of the leaked document; an opaque policymaking process that seems geared towards appeasing Big Content does not provide much in the way of legitimacy.
In the past week, 23 Republicans and 151 Democrats in the House of Representatives wrote letters to the Obama administration indicating their unwillingness to comply with the Executive's request for power to fast-track trade agreements through Congress. Fast-track authority, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, limits congressional approval over trade agreements to a yes or no, up or down vote. If a bill granting fast-track were to pass, hearings would become extremely limited, and lawmakers would have no ability to make amendments. It would give the Obama administration unchecked power to shape TPP and other agreements like the EU-U.S. trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).
There are some Congress members who are actively pushing for fast-track and are vowing to introduce legislation to enact it by 2014. Thankfully, these letters from the House show the White House is going to have difficulty in finding support in Congress to pass such a bill. Still, the Obama administration is going to push hard for the passage of fast-track. The U.S. trade office is negotiating TPP as if it already has fast-track authority, by deciding for itself which countries to negotiate with and what issues are on the table.
Without fast-track, it's inconceivable that the TPP would survive congressional debate. And that's the point of all of this secrecy: the TPP's myriad harmful provisions for users wouldn't survive the sunlight of transparency, so it's being negotiated in the dark. And since negotiators only get to hear corporations' concerns while drafting these policies, it only makes sense that its agenda would exclude users' interests.
So we need to demand that our lawmakers oppose fast-track. Let's ask them to call for a hearing and exercise their authority to oversee the U.S. trade office's secret copyright agenda.
TPP: NAFTA on Steroids
November 19, 2013
Source: Stephen Lendman
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat.
It's a giveaway to banksters. It's a global neoliberal ripoff. It's a business empowering Trojan horse. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls it "a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement."
More on TPP below. New York Times editors support it. Two decades ago, they endorsed NAFTA.
On January 1, 1994, its destructive life began. It's anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-consumer and anti-democratic.
Corporate giants love it. Why not? They wrote it. Hundreds of pages of one-size-fits-all rules benefit them.
They override domestic laws. A race to the bottom followed. NAFTA was a disastrous experiment. In November 1993, New York editors headlined "The 'Great Debate' Over NAFTA," saying:
"The laboriously constructed agreement to phase out trade barriers among the US, Mexico and Canada, which this page has strongly supported, is likely to have a positive, though small, impact on US living standards and provide a modest boost to the Mexican economy."
"Some American jobs would be lost to cheaper Mexican labor, other jobs would be gained because American exports would increase as Mexico's high tariffs gradually disappeared."
"Economics aside, Nafta's defeat would suggest that the US had abandoned its historical commitment to free trade and would thus discourage other Latin and South American countries thathave moved toward more market-oriented economies in the expectation of freer world trade."
So-called "free trade" is one-sided. It isn't fair. NAFTA proponents promised tens of thousands of newly created US jobs.
Ordinary famers would export their way to wealth. Mexican living standards would rise. Economic opportunities would reduce regional immigration to America.
NAFTA's promises never materialized. Reality proved polar opposite hype. A decade later, about a million US jobs were lost.
America's Mexican trade deficit alone cost around 700,000 jobs by 2010.
Official government data show nearly five million US manufacturing disappeared since 1994.
NAFTA alone wasn't responsible. It reflected broken promises, lost futures, and other trade deals from hell to follow. TPP stands out. It's NAFTA on steroids.
Since 2008, multiple negotiating rounds were held. They continue secretly. Twelve nations are involved.
They include America, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Others are invited to join.
At issue is agreeing on unrestricted trade in goods, services, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers, government procurement and competition policies, and intellectual property (IP).
It's about eliminating fundamental freedoms. It's circumventing sovereign independent rights. Corporate power brokers want unchallenged control.
They want global rules and standards rewritten. They want supranational powers. They want them overriding national sovereignty. They want investor rights prioritized over public ones.
They already rule the world. Imagine giving them more power. Imagine no way to stop them.
Imagine a duplicitous president. Obama's in lockstep with their wish list. He intends giving them everything they want.
Public Citizen is independent. It's our voice. Its work entails "ensur(ing) that all citizens are represented in the halls of power."
Its Global Trade Watch (GTW) monitors TPP developments. It calls it "a stealthy policy being pressed by corporate America. (It's) a dream of the 1%." It'll:
• "offshore millions of American jobs,
• free the banksters from oversight,
• ban Buy America policies needed to create green (and many other) jobs (as well as) rebuild out economy,
• decrease access to medicine,
• flood the US with unsafe food and products,
• and empower corporations to attack our environment and health safeguards."
Hyped benefits are fake. Reality is polar opposite what corporate shysters claim. Everything accruing from TPP benefits them. It does so by undermining what matters most to ordinary people.
Lori Wallach heads GTW. Ben Beachy is research director. Last June, they headlined their New York Times op-ed"Obama's Covert Trade Deal."
He's committed to open government, he claims. His policies reflect otherwise. He's negotiating TPP secretly.
It's "the most significant international commercial agreement since the" World Trade Organization's 1995 creation, said Wallach and Beachy.
Congress has exclusive "terms of trade" authority. Obama systematically refuses repeated congressional requests to release the entire draft agreement being negotiated.
He "denied requests from members to attend (sessions) as observers." He "revers(ed) past practice" snubbing them.
He "rejected demands by outside groups" to release the draft text. George Bush never went that far.
Obama's "wall of secrecy" had one exception. About "600 trade 'advisors,' dominated by representatives of big business," got access to what Congress was denied.
TPP overrides American laws. It requires changing them. Otherwise trade sanctions on US exports can be imposed.
Wall Street loves TPP. It prohibits banning risky financial products. It lets banksters operate any way they want without oversight.
Congress has final say. Both houses will vote on TPP. Ahead of doing so, they'll have access to its full text.
Why later? Why not now? Why not earlier? Why not without enough time for discussion and public debate?
Members won't get enough time to examine TPP carefully. Maintaining secrecy as long as possible prevents public debate.
Obama wants TPP fast-tracked. He wants it approved by yearend. Until March, Ron Kirk was Obama's trade representative.
He was remarkably candid. He said revealing TPP's text would raise enormous opposition. Doing so might make adopting it impossible.
According to Wallach and Beachy:
"Whatever one thinks about 'free trade,' (TPP secrecy) represents a huge assault on the principles and practice of democratic governance."
"That is untenable in the age of transparency, especially coming from an administration that is otherwise so quick to trumpet its commitment to open government."
On October 30, a newly formed Friends of TPP caucus was formed. Four House co-chairman head it. They include Reps. David Reichert (R. WA), Charles Boustany (R. LA), Ron Kind (D. WI) and Gregory Meeks (D. NY).
They sound like earlier NAFTA supporters. They claim TPP is important for US jobs, exports and economic growth. They lied saying so.
Wallach commented separately. TPP is hugely hugely destructive, she said. It's more than about trade. It's a "corporate Trojan horse." It has 29 chapters. Only five relate to trade.
The others "either handcuff our domestic governments, limit food safety, environmental standards, financial regulation, energy and climate policy, or establish new powers for corporations."
They promote offshoring jobs to low-wage countries. They ban Buy America. Corporations can do whatever they please. Instead of investing domestically, they can use "our tax dollars" to operate abroad.
They can exploit national resources freely. They'll have "rights for min(ed) (commodities), oil, gas" and others "without approval."
TPP includes all sorts of "worrisome issues relating to Internet freedom."
It provides a back door to earlier failed legislation. It resurrects SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA provisions. It tramples on fundamental freedoms and national sovereignty.
"Think about all the things that would be really hard to get into effect as a corporation in public, a lot of them rejected here and in the other 11 countries, and that is what's bundled in to the TPP," said Wallach.
"And every country would be required to change its laws domestically to meet these rules."
"The binding provision is each country shall ensure the conformity of domestic laws, regulations and procedures."
Negotiations are secret. Nothing is discussed publicly. Details leaked out. TPP includes hugely unpopular policies. It forces them on member countries.
It overrides domestic laws protecting people and ecosystems. It's predatory capitalism at its worst writ large. Obama fully supports it. Lawmakers hadn't seen it until last year.
They got access to a single chapter. Examining it is severely restricted. Their office is denied a copy. They alone can read it. Their staff is denied permission.
They can't take detailed notes. They can't publicly discuss what's in it. Technical language makes it hard to understand what they read.
Congressional approval is likely. Lobby pressure is intense. "Everything is bought and sold," said Wallach. "Honor is no exception."
The reason there's no deal so far "is because a lot of other countries are standing up to the worst of US corporate demands," Wallach explained.
For how long remains to be seen. If TPP is adopted, public interest no longer will matter. The worst of all possible worlds will replace it. Corporate rights will supersede human ones. A global race to the bottom will intensify.
Signatory countries will be legally bound to support loss of personal freedoms. Sovereign laws won't protect against poisoned food, water and air.
Ecosystems will be destroyed. Millions more jobs will shift from developed to under or less developed nations.
Corporate power will grow more exponentially. Fundamental human and civil rights may erode altogether. Not according to Times editors.
On November 5, they headlined "A Pacific Trade Deal."
A dozen nations want a deal by yearend, they said. They want it to "help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies."
It bears repeating. TPP is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare. Times editors didn't explain.
They lied to readers. They betrayed them. They repeated their 1993 duplicity. Millions affected understand best.
An October 8 White House press release lied. It called TPP "a comprehensive, next-generation model for addressing both new and traditional trade and investment issues, supporting the creation and retention of jobs and promoting economic development in our countries."
"The deepest and broadest possible liberalization of trade and investment will ensure the greatest benefits for countries' large and small manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers, as well as workers, innovators, investors, and consumers."
Times editors endorsed what they haven't read. TPP provisions remain secret. Leaked information alone is known.
Times editors willingly accept Obama misinformation as fact. Twenty years ago, they got NAFTA wrong. Here they go again.
They're mindless about secret negotiations. Public concerns don't matter. Corporate interests alone count.
Subverting national sovereignty is OK. So is empowering transnational giants without oversight. They'll be able sue countries for potentially undermining future profits.
Times editors support the worst of corporate excess. Doing so shows which side they're on.
Fundamental freedoms aren't important. Corporate rights drive The Times' agenda. Its editors explained nothing about fast-track authority.
Max Baucus (D. MT) chairs the Senate Finance Committee. He supports fast-tracking. Doing so hands congressional authority to Obama.
Proper hearings are restricted. Debate is limited. Amendments can't be introduced. The Senate can't filibuster. Congress can only vote up or down.
It can happen virtually out of sight and mind. It can happen with scant media coverage. It can happen with none at all. It can become law with practically no public awareness.
Imagine corporate America getting coup d'etat authority with hardly anyone knowing what happened. Imagine the consequences if it does. Imagine today's America becoming worse than ever.
Times editors stressed how Obama wants TPP to be "an example for the rest of the world to follow."
Imagine one more than ever unfit to live in. Imagine a president promising change to believe in promoting it.
Imagine Times editors endorsing what demands condemnation. Imagine not explaining what readers most need to know.
Imagine substituting misinformation for truth and full disclosure. Imagine all the news they call fit to print not fit to read.
A Final Comment
On November 13, Public Citizen headlined "Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks."
"US Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad."
TPP's leaked text reveals Obama demands limiting Internet freedom. He wants restricted access to lifesaving medicines.
He wants all TPP signatory countries bound the the same deplorable rules.
He lied claiming TPP reduces health care costs. It has nothing to do with advancing online freedom as he promised. It's polar opposite on both counts.
According to Public Citizen:
"It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the US government is isolated and has lost this debate."
"Our partners don't want to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures either."
Obama's in the pocket of Big Pharma. He's a Wall Street tool. He represents other corporate interests. He spurns popular ones. He lies claiming otherwise. He repeatedly avoids truth and full disclosure.
He lied about Obamacare. It's an abomination. It's a scam. It's a scheme to enrich insurers and other healthcare giants.
TPP is a global scam. It's an assault on fundamental freedoms.
Reports indicate around half the House members strongly oppose it. Others lean that way. According to Lori Wallach:
"This could be the end of TPP."
"All these other countries are like, 'Wait, you have no trade authority and nothing you've promised us means anything. Why would we give you our best deal?' Why would you be making concessions to the emperor who has no clothes?"
It bears repeating. TPP is a trade bill from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d' etat. Killing it is essential.
The alternative is losing fundamental freedoms. It's destroying national sovereignty. It's making healthcare less affordable. It's undermining what ordinary people value most.
TSA Rolls Out ‘Detention Pods' at Airport Terminal Exits
Making you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave
Paul Joseph Watson
November 18, 2013
The TSA is funding the rollout of exit pods at major airport terminals across the country that temporarily detain passengers before they are allowed to leave, another example critics say of how the federal agency's policies treat travelers as prisoners.
Travelers are forced to be bottlenecked through the pods as they leave the airport terminal. A robotic voice gives instructions to wait inside the pod until a green light is shown and the door opens.
The pods have already been installed at Syracuse International Airport as part of a $60 million dollar renovation and are likely to make their way into other major airports soon. Once travelers exit the pods, they are unable to re-enter the terminal.
Some of the passengers exiting through the pods at Syracuse thought the machines were performing x-ray body scans, according to CNY Central.
"It was odd, I was like - where did they come up with this?" asked Patricia Goodrich.
"We need to be vigilant and maintain high security protocol at all times. These portals were designed and approved by TSA which is important," said Syracuse Airport Commissioner Christina Callahan.
The justification for installing the pods is that they replace police or security guards who would normally stand at the exit, therefore saving money, something which the TSA isn't normally concerned about given how it is now selling abandoned naked body scanners to prisons for 10 per cent of their value.
According to Karen De Coster, the pods are a way "to remind you that you are a captive" and are "meant to make you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave."
The prison inmate feel of the devices compliments numerous other TSA policies which critics have charged serve little other purpose than making travelers feel like they are under constant suspicion.
Last week, a Government Accountability Office investigation revealed that the TSA's $1 billion dollar "chat down" program has been a complete failure in that it is "no better than chance" at identifying genuine security threats.
While threatening to arrest passengers who make jokes about airport security, the federal agency has also instituted a ludicrous "freeze" policy whereby travelers are ordered to stand in place like statues while TSA agents resolve some unexplained security threat.
Another policy that has provoked questions is the TSA's random testing of passengers' drinks for explosives after they have already passed through security and purchased beverages inside the secure area of the airport.DHS Creates New Fusion Centers, Taking Control of Local Police
November 14, 2013
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D.
The New American
As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) doles out billions of dollars to convince local police departments to surrender control to the federal agency, a recent report indicates that intelligence gathered at precincts-cum-surveillance-centers will be shared among all levels of law enforcement.
An article published by Fierce Homeland Security on November 4 reports:
The phenomenon of fusion centers sharing intelligence and skills with each other - not just with the federal government - is a new and underappreciated aspect of the centers, panelists at a Homeland Security Policy Institute event said.
Fusion centers mainly apply national intelligence to local contexts and gather information locally that they can share with federal agencies. But in recent years, a great deal of "horizontal sharing" has occurred, where fusion centers work closely with each other, said Ross Ashley, the executive director of National Fusion Center Association.
"We'll find an expert in Washington state on international human trafficking over international ferry systems. Well, I don't need that expert everywhere. What I need is the ability to reach out to that expert if I'm in West Virginia," he said at the event, held Oct. 23 in Washington, D.C.
That meeting, entitled "State and Local Fusion Centers: Key Challenges for the Next Decade," featured three panelists: John Cohen, principal deputy under secretary for intelligence and analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Thomas Kirk, director, West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center; and Ross Ashley, executive director, National Fusion Center Association. The keynote address was delivered by Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
In July, McCaul co-authored with Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) a report on the progress of the establishment of the nationwide spread of the fusion centers. The press release announcing the report reveals the pair's support for a program that dismantles federalism and accelerates the militarization of local police and the consolidation of control of those departments to the federal government.
The McCaul-King report states:
Fusion centers serve as hubs of strategic analysis and information sharing where Federal, State, and local agencies are all represented in one location. State and local crime data is coordinated, gathered and reviewed to determine if there is any potential connection to terrorist activity. In addition, Federal terrorism-related information is shared with State and local law enforcement.
Seems the congressmen should be reminded of the fact that there is not a single syllable of the Constitution authorizing any such federal participation in law enforcement. If the power isn't granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then authority over that area remains with the states and the people as described in the Tenth Amendment.
Remarkably, McCaul and King lament the fact that the chain of fusion centers isn't growing quickly enough and the DHS isn't getting adequate access to all that information.
The report adds:
The Committee's review concludes that the Network is not functioning as cohesively as it should be and fusion centers are facing numerous challenges that prevent the Network from realizing its full potential to help secure the homeland.
Of course, there couldn't be a piece of federal police and surveillance program propaganda without reminding citizens that all this deprivation of their rights is for their safety. As if to say, if the federal government doesn't take control of your local police department and keep all citizens under surveillance, the terrorists will strike again.
The representatives' zeal for constructing local outposts of the central surveillance headquarters is not surprising. Self-serving bureaucrats inside the U.S. government are tirelessly trying to obliterate local police forces answerable to local citizens and promote the consolidation movement as a step toward federalization of law enforcement. These proponents of regional and national police forces desire nothing less than the eradication of all local police departments and sheriffs' offices, the surrender of state and municipal sovereignty, and the conversion of police into federal security agents sworn not to protect and to serve their neighbors, but to protect the prerogatives of politicians.
Take for example the information contained in a White Paper presented in 2012 to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In that report, the DHS is encouraged to embark on an "evolving mission" away from its ostensible purpose of fighting terrorism, toward becoming the administrator of an enormous domestic intelligence agency resulting from an integration of the country's local and state law-enforcement agencies.
This report was written by the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group, co-chaired by former DHS chief Michael Chertoff. The blueprint promoted in the White Paper pushes Congress toward green-lighting the growth of DHS and the dissolution of local police and sheriffs.
The organization described in the paper, entitled "Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission," is reminiscent of more draconian governments. For example, one section of the report calls for a transition in the mission of DHS away from protecting the country from the "terrorism" of foreign militants and toward "more specific homeward focused areas." Additional sections of the report lay out the plans for building a DHS/police hybrid agency that can monitor Americans in any town and prevent threats from fellow citizens.
In order to achieve their ultimate aim, the globalists demand that DHS or some other federal agency take control of the personnel decisions currently made by local police chiefs and county sheriffs. "As the threat grows more localized," the report claims, "the federal government's need to train, and even staff, local agencies, such as major city police departments, will grow." Put another way: The federal government will run your local police department and sheriff's office.
The establishment of fusion centers is a key component of this plan. The following information is taken from a fact sheet on fusion centers posted on the DHS website:
A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.
A description of the functioning of these incubators for the forthcoming federal police force is also provided on the DHS site:
State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as primary focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners.... Fusion centers conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing, assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism.
The literature promoting the acceptance of fusion centers lists several ways the new federal agency will impose its will on the formerly autonomous and accountable police chief or county sheriff.
Last year, The New American described the likely procedure:
First, the feds will decide where and when to deploy local police department personnel. The chief, if he still exists, will be no more than a functionary required to make sure that the orders of the federal government are carried out. More likely than not, these new missions, in addition to preventing crime in the city or county, will engage in the collection of information about and apprehension of those local citizens identified by a committee in Washington as posing a threat to national security. Consider the revelation in 2009 that Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a document entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalism and Recruitment," which listed war veterans, anti-abortion activists, small-government advocates, and those concerned about immigration as terrorist risks.
Second, DHS (or whichever one of the federal agencies eventually takes over law-enforcement duties) will train new recruits. Policies, procedures, and purposes will not reflect traditional (and constitutional) goals of law enforcement, but will be tailored to training officers to perform those duties associated with the new, national emphasis of the force, with a slant toward federalism.
Finally, funds for this conversion from local police department to outpost of the federal law-enforcement agency will be provided by the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. This carrot will be tied to the stick of federal control.
The speed and success of the Department of Homeland Security's plan to string together a powerful net of surveillance-focused fusion centers in all the country's police departments is evident in the following statement at the Homeland Security Policy Institute's meeting made by Thomas Kirk, director of the West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center:
"In all law enforcement, I've never seen anything like that," he said. "Most of the time when I call another fusion center director, they know my voice."
Federal Reserve Whistleblower Tells America The REAL Reason For Quantitative Easing
November 13, 2013
Source: Economic Collapse
A banker named Andrew Huszar that helped manage the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing program during 2009 and 2010 is publicly apologizing for what he has done. He says that quantitative easing has accomplished next to nothing for the average person on the street. Instead, he says that it has been "the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time." And of course the cold, hard economic numbers support what Huszar is saying. The percentage of working age Americans with a job has not improved at all during the quantitative easing era, and median household income has actually steadily declined during that time frame. Meanwhile, U.S. stock prices have doubled overall, and the stock prices of the big Wall Street banks have tripled. So who benefits from quantitative easing? It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, and now Andrew Huszar is blowing the whistle on the whole thing.
From 2009 to 2010, Huszar was responsible for managing the Fed's purchase of approximately $1.25 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities. At the time, he thought that it was a dream job, but now he is apologizing to the rest of the country for what happened...
I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.
When the first round of quantitative easing ended, Huszar says that it was incredibly obvious that QE had done very little to benefit average Americans but that it had been "an absolute coup for Wall Street"...
Trading for the first round of QE ended on March 31, 2010. The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank's bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn't just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They'd also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed's QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009, and 2010 was starting off in much the same way.
You'd think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE. Think again. Only a few months later-after a 14% drop in the U.S. stock market and renewed weakening in the banking sector-the Fed announced a new round of bond buying: QE2. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, immediately called the decision "clueless."
That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street.
Of course the fact that the Fed cannot think independently from Wall Street should not be a surprise to any of my regular readers. As I have written about repeatedly, the Federal Reserve was created by the Wall Street bankers for the benefit of the Wall Street bankers. When the Federal Reserve serves the interests of Wall Street, it is simply doing what it was designed to do. And according to Huszar, quantitative easing has been one giant "subsidy" for Wall Street banks...
Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.
But Huszar is certainly not the only one on Wall Street that acknowledges these things. For example, just check out what billionaire hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller told CNBC about quantitative easing...
"This is fantastic for every rich person," he said Thursday, a day after the Fed's stunning decision to delay tightening its monetary policy. "This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever."
"Who owns assets-the rich, the billionaires. You think Warren Buffett hates this stuff? You think I hate this stuff? I had a very good day yesterday."
Druckenmiller, whose net worth is estimated at more than $2 billion, said that the implication of the Fed's policy is that the rich will spend their wealth and create jobs-essentially betting on "trickle-down economics."
"I mean, maybe this trickle-down monetary policy that gives money to billionaires and hopefully we go spend it is going to work," he said. "But it hasn't worked for five years."
And Donald Trump said essentially the same thing when he made the following statement on CNBC about quantitative easing...
"People like me will benefit from this."
The American people are still being told that quantitative easing is "economic stimulus" which will make the lives of average Americans better.
That is a flat out lie and the folks over at the Federal Reserve know this.
In fact, a very interesting study conducted for the Bank of England shows that quantitative easing actually increases the gap between the wealthy and the poor...
It said that the Bank of England's policies of quantitative easing - similar to the Fed's - had benefited mainly the wealthy.
Specifically, it said that its QE program had boosted the value of stocks and bonds by 26 percent, or about $970 billion. It said that about 40 percent of those gains went to the richest 5 percent of British households.
Many said the BOE's easing added to social anger and unrest. Dhaval Joshi, of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it."
And this is exactly what has happened in the United States as well.
U.S. stocks have risen 108% while Barack Obama has been in the White House.
And who owns stocks?
The wealthy do. In fact, 82 percent of all individually held stocks are owned by the wealthiest 5 percent of all Americans.
Meanwhile, things have continued to get even tougher for ordinary Americans.
While Obama has been in the White House, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has declined from 60.6% to 58.3%, median household income has declined for five years in a row, and poverty has been absolutely exploding.
But the fact that it has been very good for Wall Street while doing essentially nothing for ordinary Americans is not the biggest problem with quantitative easing.
The biggest problem with quantitative easing is that it is destroying worldwide faith in the U.S. dollar and in the U.S. financial system.
The rest of the world is watching the Fed go crazy, and they are beginning to openly wonder why they should continue to use the U.S. dollar as the de facto reserve currency of the planet.
Right now, most global trade involves the use of U.S. dollars. In fact, far more U.S. dollars are actually used outside of the United States than are used inside the country. This creates a tremendous demand for U.S. dollars around the planet, and it keeps the value of the U.S. dollar at a level that is far higher than it otherwise would be.
If the rest of the world decides to start moving away from the U.S. dollar (and this is already starting to happen), then the demand for the U.S. dollar will fall and we will not be able to import oil from the Middle East and cheap plastic trinkets from China so inexpensively anymore.
In addition, major exporting nations such as China and Saudi Arabia end up with giant piles of U.S. dollars due to their trading activities. Instead of just sitting on all of that cash, they tend to reinvest much of it back into U.S. Treasury securities. This increases demand for U.S. debt and drives down interest rates.
If the Federal Reserve continues to wildly create money out of thin air with no end in sight, the rest of the world may decide to stop lending us trillions of dollars at ultra-low interest rates.
When we get to that point, it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the U.S. economy and the U.S. financial system. If you doubt this, just read this article.
The only way that the game can continue is for the rest of the world to continue to be irrational and to continue to ignore the reckless behavior of the Federal Reserve.
We desperately need the rest of the planet "to ignore the man behind the curtain". We desperately need them to keep using our dollars that are rapidly being devalued and to keep loaning us money at rates that are far below the real rate of inflation.
If the rest of the globe starts behaving rationally at some point, and they eventually will, then the game will be over.
Let us hope and pray that we still have a bit more time until that happens.US Airspace To Crawl With 7,500 Drones In 5 Years
November 10, 2013
The chief of the Federal Aviation Administration predicted Thursday that U.S. airspace could be crowded with as many as 7,500 commercial drones within the next five years. As The Washington Times reports, Michael Huerta said his agency would set up six sites across the country to test drone operators and, in an effort to balance privacy/safety with anarchic airspace drone pollution, he added, "we must fulfill those obligations in a thoughtful, careful manner that ensures safety and promotes economic growth, " as dangerous incidents involving drones have already taken place...
Although they are expected to be used for peaceful purposes such as firefighting and weather tracking - it's causing a lot of concern, as Huerta warns "we need to be responsive to public concerns about privacy."
You'll never notice it from the ground, but the skies above the US are crowded with roughly five thousand planes at any given moment. The daily total of movements, is up to a whopping 90,000. And dangerous incidents involving drones have already taken place there
Within the next five years, after appropriate regulations are introduced, whole 7,500 small UAVs will be operating in US airspace, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said at an aerospace news conference in Washington on Thursday.
Huerta outlined the ultimate goal of the American drone industry: global leadership that could enable the US to set standards for the industry worldwide.
"We recognize that the expanding use of unmanned aircraft presents great opportunities, but it's also true that integrating these aircraft presents significant challenges,"
Huerta shared some interesting statistics on who is using drones in the US the most. He mentioned that apart from synoptics, environmental specialists and educational institutions, there are about 80 law enforcement agencies that operate small size surveillance drones, with the FAA granting each of them public use waivers on a case-by-case basis.
"If we're going to take full advantage of the benefits that we're talking about from these technologies, we need to be responsive to public concerns about privacy," Huerta said.
Reportedly, not only the FAA, but also Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of justice are taking part in a multi-agency group that has also released a comprehensive plan accelerating integration of UAVs into US national airspace. All data gathered by the six test sites will go straight to that interagency group, Huerta said.
And focused on privacy...
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems, the leading trade group for the nation's private-sector drone operators, estimated this year that the commercial drone industry will create more than 100,000 jobs and generate more than $82 billion in economic impact over the next 10 years - if the government moves quickly to establish workable operating regulations and safeguards.
The impending boom has raised concerns among privacy advocates about how and where drones might be used to collect data. The FAA is requiring future test sites to develop privacy plans and make them available to the public. The policy also requires test site operators to disclose how data will be obtained and used.
"Make no mistake about it, privacy is an extremely important issue and it is something that the public has a significant interest and concern over and we need to recognize as an industry that if we are going to take full advantage of the benefits that we are talking about for these technologies we need to be responsive to the public's concerns about privacy," Mr. Huerta said.Is America Being Deliberately Pushed Toward Civil War?
November 8, 2013
Source: Brandon Smith of Alt-Market
In 2009, Jim Rickards, a lawyer, investment banker and adviser on capital markets to the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, participated in a secret war game sponsored by the Pentagon at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). The game's objective was to simulate and explore the potential outcomes and effects of a global financial war. At the end of the war game, the Pentagon concluded that the U.S. dollar was at extreme risk of devaluation and collapse in the near term, triggered either by a default of the U.S. Treasury and the dumping of bonds by foreign investors or by hyperinflation by the private Federal Reserve.
These revelations, later exposed by Rickards, were interesting not because they were "new" or "shocking." Rather, they were interesting because many of us in the field of alternative economics had ALREADY predicted the same outcome for the American financial system years before the APL decided to entertain the notion. At least, that is what the public record indicates.
The idea that our government has indeed run economic collapse scenarios, found the United States in mortal danger, and done absolutely nothing to fix the problem is bad enough. I have my doubts, however, that the Pentagon or partnered private think tanks like the RAND Corporation did not run scenarios on dollar collapse long before 2009. In fact, I believe there is much evidence to suggest that the military industrial complex has not only been aware of the fiscal weaknesses of the U.S. system for decades, but they have also been actively engaged in exploiting those weaknesses in order to manipulate the American public with fears of cultural catastrophe.
History teaches us that most economic crisis events are followed or preceded immediately by international or domestic conflict. War is the looming shadow behind nearly all fiscal disasters. I suspect that numerous corporate think tanks and the Department Of Defense are perfectly aware of this relationship and have war gamed such events as well. Internal strife and civil war are often natural side effects of economic despair within any population.
Has a second civil war been "gamed" by our government? And are Americans being swindled into fighting and killing each other while the banksters who created the mess observe at their leisure, waiting until the dust settles to return to the scene and collect their prize? Here are some examples of how both sides of the false left/right paradigm are being goaded into turning on each other.
Conservatives: Taunting The Resting Lion
Conservatives, especially Constitutional conservatives, are the warrior class of American society. The average conservative is far more likely to own a firearm, have extensive tactical training with that firearm, have military experience and have less psychological fear of conflict; and he is more apt to take independent physical action in the face of an immediate threat. Constitutional conservatives are also more likely to fight based on principal and heritage, rather than personal gain, and less likely to get wrapped up in the madness of mob activity.
What's the greatest weakness of conservatives? It's their tendency to entertain leadership by men who claim exceptional warrior status, even if those men are not necessarily honorable.
Constitutional conservatives are the most substantial existing threat to the establishment hierarchy because, unlike dissenting groups of the past, we know exactly who the guiding hand is behind economic and social calamity. In response, the overall conservative culture has come under relentless attack by the establishment using the Administration of Barack Obama as a middleman. The goal, I believe, is to misdirect conservative rage toward the Democratic left and away from the elites. The actions of the White House have become so absurd and so openly hostile as of late that I can only surmise that this is a deliberate strategy to lure conservatives into ill-conceived retaliation against a puppet government, rather than the men behind the curtain.
Department of Defense propaganda briefings with military personnel have been exposed. These briefings train current serving soldiers to view Tea Party conservatives and even Christian organizations as "dangerous extremists." Reports from sources within Fort Hood and Fort Shelby confirm this trend.
The DOD has denied some of the allegations or claimed that it has "corrected" the problem; however, Judicial Watch has obtained official training documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that affirm that extremist profiling is an integral part of these military briefings. The documents also cite none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a primary resource for the training classes. The SPLC is nothing more than an outsourced propaganda wing for the DHS that attacks Constitutional organizations and associates them with terrorist and racist groups on a regular basis. (Check pages 32-33.)
This indoctrination program has accelerated since January 2013, after Professor Arie Perliger, a member of a West Point think tank called Combating Terrorism Center (and according to the sparse biographical information available, a man with NO previous U.S. military experience), published and circulated a report called "Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far Right" at West Point. The report classified "far right extremists" as "domestic enemies" who commonly "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government , believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional right." The profile goes on to list supporting belief in "civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government" as the dastardly traits of evil extremists.
Soldiers have been told that associating with "far right extremist groups" could be used as grounds for court-martial. A general purge of associated symbolism has ensued, including new orders handed down to Navy SEALs that demand that operators remove the "Don't Tread On Me" Navy Jack patch from their uniforms.
The indoctrination of the military also follows on the heels of a massive media campaign to demonize Constitutional conservatives who fought against Obamacare in the latest debt ceiling debate as "domestic enemies" and "terrorists." I documented this in my recent article "Are Constitutional Conservatives Really the Boogeyman?"
Obama and his ilk have been caught red-handed in numerous conspiracies, including Fast and Furious, which shipped American arms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And how about the exposure of the IRS using its bureaucracy as a weapon to harass Tea Party organizations and activists? And what about Benghazi, Libya, the terrorist attack that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to happen, if they didn't directly order it to happen? And let's not forget about the Edward Snowden revelations, which finally made Americans understand that mass surveillance of our population is a constant reality.
To add icing to the cake, a new book called Double Down, which chronicles the Obama campaign of 2012, quotes personal aides to the President who relate that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when discussing his use of drone strikes, bragged that he was "really good at killing people."
Now, my question is, why would the Obama Administration make so many "mistakes," attack conservatives with such a lack of subtlety, and attempt to openly propagandize rank-and-file soldiers, many of whom identify with conservative values? Is it all just insane hubris, or is he serving his handlers by trying to purposely create a volatile response?
Liberals: Taking Away The Cookie Jar
Many on the so-called "left" are socially oriented and find solace in the functions of the group, rather than individualism. They seek safety in administration, centralization and government welfare. Wealth is frowned upon, while "redistribution" of wealth is cheered. They see government as necessary to the daily survival of the nation, and they work to expand Federal influence into all facets of life. Some liberals do this out of a desire to elevate the poverty-stricken and ensure certain educational standards. However, they tend to ignore the homogenizing effect this strategy has on society, making everyone equally destitute and equally stupid. Their faith in government subsidies also makes them vulnerable to funding cuts and reductions in entitlements. The left normally fights only when their standard of living and comfort to which they have grown accustomed plummets below a certain threshold, and mob methods are usually their fallback form of retaliation.
Austerity cuts, which the mainstream media calls the "sequester," are beginning to take effect. But, they are being applied in areas that are clearly meant to create the most public anger. Reductions in welfare programs are also being implemented in a way that will certainly agitate average left-leaning citizens. The debt debate itself revolved around those who want the government to spend within its means versus those who want the government to spend even more on welfare programs no matter the consequence. The loss of subsidies is at bottom the greatest fear of the left.
A sudden and inexplicable shutdown of electronic benefit transfer cards (EBT cards or food stamps) occurred in more than 17 States while the debt debate just happened to be climaxing. This month, cuts to existing food stamp funds have taken effect, and food pantries across the country are scrambling against a sharp spike in demand.
Remember, about 50 million Americans are currently dependent on EBT welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. The response to the relatively short EBT shutdown last month was outright fury. Imagine the response in the event of a long-term shutdown, or if extraneous cuts were to occur? And where would that anger be directed? Since the entire debt debacle has been blamed on the Tea Party, I suspect conservatives will be the main target of welfare mobs.
The left, once just as opposed to government stimulus and banker bailouts as the right, is now unwittingly throwing its support behind infinite stimulus in order to cement the continued existence of precious Federal handouts. The issue of Obamacare has utterly blinded liberals to fiscal responsibility. Universal healthcare, perhaps the ultimate Federal handout, is a prize too titillating for them to ignore. Democrats will now go to incredible lengths to defend the Obama White House regardless of past crimes.
They are willing to ignore his offenses against the 4th Amendment and personal privacy. They are willing to look past his offenses against the 1st Amendment, including the Constitutional right to trial by jury for all Americans, and Obama's secret war against the free speech of whistle-blowers. They are willing to shrug off his endless warmongering in the Mideast, his attempts to foment new war in Syria and Iran, and his support for predator drone strikes in sovereign nations causing severe civilian collateral damage. They are willing to forget Snowden, mass surveillance and executive assassination lists - all for Obamacare.
And the saddest thing of all? It is likely that Obamacare was never meant to be successful in the first place.
Does anyone really believe that the White House, with billions of dollars at its disposal, could not get a website off the ground if it really wanted to? Does anyone really believe that Obama would launch the crowning jewel of his Presidency without making certain that it was fully operational, unless this was part of a greater scheme? And how about his promise that pre-existing health care plans would not be destroyed by Obamacare mandates? Over 900,000 people in the state of California alone are about to lose their health care insurance due to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Why would Obama go back on such a vital pledge unless he WANTED to piss off constituents?
Already, liberal websites and forums across the blogosphere are abuzz with talk of sabotage of the Obamacare website by "the radical right" and the diabolical Koch Brothers (liberals had no idea who they were a year ago, but now, they the go to scapegoat for everything). Once again, conservatives are presented as the culprits behind all the left's troubles.
As I have stated in the past, Obamacare is designed to fail. The government has no capacity to fund it, and never will. Its only conceivable purpose is to further divide the country and excite both sides of the false paradigm into attacking each other as the reason the system is failing, when both sides should be questioning whether the current system should exist at all.
As the situation stands today, at least 50 million welfare recipients and who knows how many others exist as a resource pool for the establishment to be used to wreak havoc on the rest of us. All they have to do is take away the cookie jar.
Who Would Win?
Who would prevail in a second American civil war? Tactically speaking, conservatives have the upper hand and are far better prepared. Food rioters wouldn't last beyond three to six weeks as starvation takes its toll, and mindless mobs would not last long against seasoned riflemen. The military, though suffering purges by the White House, still contains numerous conservatives within its ranks. Outside influences, including NATO or the United Nations, are a possibility. There are numerous factors to consider. But I would point out that the most dangerous adversary Constitutional conservatives face is not the left, Obama, or a Federal government gone rogue. Rather, our greatest adversary is ourselves.
If lured into a left/right civil war, would most conservatives be able to see beyond the veil and recognize that the fight is not about Obama, or the Left, or tyrannical government alone? Could we be co-opted by devious influences disguised as friends and compatriots? Will we end up following neocon salesmen and military elites who materialize out of the woodwork at the last minute to "lead us to victory" while actually leading us towards globalization with a slightly different face?
If a civil conflict has been war gamed by the establishment, you can bet they have contingency plans regardless of which side attains the upper hand. In the end, if we do not make the fight about the bankers and globalists, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the Council On Foreign Relations, etc., then everyone loses. Who wins in a new American civil war? If we become blinded by the trespasses of a certain White House jester, only the globalists will win.
11 Signs of a False Flag
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking. At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.
Indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms - domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.
For instance, the chemical weapons attack which took place inside Syria in August, 2013 serve as an example of a foreign false flag designed to whip up American fervor for war, on the platform of Responsibility to Protect similar to the Gulf of Tonkin.
Domestically speaking, a large-scale false flag such as 9/11, can be used to whip up both a massive public support for war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional procedure, and constitutional/human rights. Economic false flags may take the form of manufactured "government shutdowns" or "government defaults" designed to create a demand for austerity or other pro-Wall Street solutions. Lastly, smaller-scale domestic false flags such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, often involve the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state.
There are, of course, many different versions of false flag attacks and none fit into a tightly crafted classification beyond the generalized term "false flag." As stated above, some false flags may indeed embrace an element of each of the different versions listed previously both in terms of methodology and purpose.
With that in mind, it is also true that, while massive false flag attacks are always a possibility, it has been the small-scale false flags coming in the form of "shooters" (most often of the "lone gunmen" variety), that have been used most effectively by the ruling class and its mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. While the scale of the attacks have diminished, their frequency has rapidly increased.
However, due to a growing competent alternative media and researching community, as fast as the false flag attacks are launched, a volley of deconstructions of the official narratives are being provided. While many criticisms of the official version of events are wildly incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are capable outlets and researchers who are able to expose the false flag for what it is. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness as of late and why it continues to do so.
Because the false flag attack is designed to instill fear, panic, and a guided response from the general public, it is important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented. However, we cannot simply be consumed by attempting to expose and deconstruct every false flag attack that comes our way. We cannot ignore the greater issues, the winnable battles, and the demands we must be making simply to expose each and every false flag. We cannot ignore the forest fire to extinguish the occasional burning bush. The false flag, after all, is only the symptom of the disease.
For that reason, it is important to enable the general public to recognize the false flag itself, not simply the questionable elements of a particular false flag which will soon be overtaken by a new one. We must train both ourselves and the public to recognize the signs of the false flag when it happens and thus render the attack neutral.
The following is a list of some of the most common elements of the false flag attack which should immediately be looked at in the event of some other incident that pulls at the heartstrings and emotions of the general public.
1. High Profile Event: The first question to ask would be "Is this a high profile incident?" The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the major factor such as the case in Sandy Hook Elementary School, a nationally unimportant location but a horrific act that made national news nonetheless. The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of location or the act, if the media picks up the story and runs it simultaneously on all major mainstream channels, the incident can be considered a "high profile event."
2. Changing Stories: In informed researching circles, it is well-known that the information that comes out shortly after the event is usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence of confusion related to panicked reports coming from eyewitnesses and the like. However, the information coming out early on has not yet been subjected to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story becomes molded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either directed the attack at the higher levels or at least have connections with those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets report the event.
For instance, in times of false flag attacks, the initial reports may point to 5 gunmen. Very shortly after, reports may only mention two. Only a few hours after the attack, however, all references to more than one gunmen are removed entirely, with only the "lone gunman" story remaining. Any other mention of additional gunmen after this point is ridiculed as "conspiracy theory."
3. Simultaneous Drills: One hallmark of the false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the actual attack. Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of events that takes place during the real life attack . These drills have been present on large scale false flags such as 9/11 as well as smaller scale attacks like the Aurora shooting.
For instance, as Webster Tarpley documents in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA, at least 46 drills were underway in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These 46 drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11 in some way or other. Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same times and locations.
Although one reason may take precedence over the other depending on the nature and purpose of the operation drills are used by false flag operators for at least two reasons. One such purpose is the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill as a cloak to plan the attack or even "go live" when it comes time to launch the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the military/intelligence agency's tight chain of command structure and need-to-know basis. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training exercise. This deniability continues all the way through to the actual "going live" of the drill. After the completion of the false flag attack, Coincidence Theory is used to explain away the tragic results.
4. Cui Bono? The most important question to ask immediately after any high profile incident is "cui bono?" or "Who benefits?" If one is able to see a clear benefit to any government, corporation, or bank, then the observer becomes capable of seeing through the false flag attack immediately. Many of these questions can be answered by taking a closer look at the behavior of these organizations prior to the attack and shortly thereafter.
For instance, the presence of legislation which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which is quickly passed (or at least heavily pushed) afterwards is one clue that the conveniently timed attack was actually a false flag. Patriot Act style legislation was actually written before 9/11 but stood little chance of passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the blessing of the American people.
Returning to 9/11, it is a fact that a number of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle Eastern countries. After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling class of the United States and the American public followed right along.
After the Underwear Bombing, we saw the rollout of the TSA full-body scanners, a technology which would not have been readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign. However, the scanners had been purchased one year earlier by a firm owned by Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security.
Likewise, in terms of the LAX shooting, TSA purchased 3.5 million dollars worth of ammunition in August. Yet, in August, TSA was not an armed agency. After the LAX shooting, however, talk has turned to arming the agency, thus indicating possible foreknowledge on the part of someone higher up in the governmental structure.
Of course, the same can be said for the explosion of crazed lone-gunman shooting sprees that took place all across the United States amid propaganda pushes for increased gun control measures.
5. Unanswered Questions: Another hallmark of the false flag operation is relatively obvious - the presence of unanswered questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, the motive and so on. Although the media narrative that takes shape soon after the attack will ignore these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers are able to think for themselves and focus only on the information. An example of such questions would be Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of additional shooters at Aurora and Sandy Hook.
6. Case is quickly closed: Once an acceptable patsy and cover story is chosen by the media, all other opinions and questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy, if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted in a largely secret or shadowy proceeding. In most cases, the suspect is killed in the process or shortly after the fact thus negating any first hand contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very soon after the event.
7. Suspects' Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other Intelligence Agencies: One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad). Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.
In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.
8. Convenient Scapegoat: One clue leading an informed observer to suspect a false flag attack is the existence of the convenient scapegoat. Any false flag operation will have a carefully crafted narrative complete with a group of individuals set up for demonization. The OKC bombing had McVeigh and thus, "right-wing extremists" and "militias." On 9/11, the group was Muslims. In many of the domestic shooting sprees, the demonization was set for gun owners. With the recent LAX shooting, the "perpetrator" was an "anti-government conspiracy theorist." In the instance of the false flag, a readily identified pasty will exhibit all or most of the aspects of the group and social demographic set to be demonized.
9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties: One clue suggesting a false flag is that, immediately after the attack and after the perpetrators have been "identified" by "officials" and the media, corporate media outlets begin not only demonizing the demographic group to which the "perpetrator" belongs, but begins promoting "solutions" in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening again. This narrative will always involve the erosion of liberties, the greater implementation of a police state, a specific economic policy, or a march to war.
Simply put, the media promotes the PROBLEM, allows for and guides the REACTION, and then provides the pre-determined SOLUTION.
10. Government Begins to "Take Action" Against the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative: After a healthy dose of propaganda from mainstream media outlets regurgitating the terror of the attack, the perpetrator, and the police state solutions, the Government then begins to take action. Political speeches are given in order to capitalize on the fear and anger felt by the public and in order to reinforce the idea that government is there to act as protector. Political solutions are then offered as bills, executive orders, or political mandates whether it is the curtailment of the 4th Amendment, gun control, or military strikes on a foreign country.
11. Clues in pop media: Pop media clues, more accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.
Although it is extremely important to educate the general public as to the nature and purpose of false flags, education cannot be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time.
Creating a culture in which the general public is able to recognize the false flag attack as it is happening, without the need for a massive push by alternative media sources, researchers, or activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in corralling the force of the people toward true action or, at the very least, creating a culture in which that force cannot be corralled by the ruling class.
While false flag attacks must be addressed, we must not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted off a path of political action, mass mobilization, and the making of real attainable demandsGMO labeling initiative 522 has failed, proving once again that corporate money can buy food secrecy
November 6, 2013
As of this writing, Washington state I-522 looks to have narrowly failed at the ballot box..
At 11:00pm last night, the "no" votes were winning by approximately 55% to 44%. Mail-in votes reportedly have not been counted yet, but unless a radical change appears in the final votes, I-522 will go down in history as yet another example of corporate money buying out the voters through a campaign of lies and deception.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America and most of the big-name food companies proved in this campaign that they are willing to operate a criminal conspiracy to cheat, lie and intentionally misinform voters. At stake is their continued way of doing business: SECRECY coupled with consumer ignorance.
In an honest election, I-522 would have easily passed
The last thing these companies want is for consumers to realize they're buying poison. That's why they plowed tens of millions of dollars into their disinfo campaign, hoping they could trick enough voters into not understanding what they were voting for. In an honest election that wasn't primarily determined by money, I-522 would pass in a landslide, but in this election, much like Prop 37, corporate money allowed these companies to essentially buy their way to a ballot box victory that keeps consumers ignorant.
The Yes on 522 campaign ran a valiant campaign, and had voters not been deceived by the corporate-funded opposition, the ballot measure would have unquestionably passed. No person in their right mind would want LESS transparency on what's in the foods we buy and consume. Every intelligent person, if allowed due consideration on the subject, will naturally conclude that the right to know what's in our food is a fundamental human right.
The failure of 522 also shows that democracy itself doesn't work when a tidal wave of corporate money is allowed to influence election outcomes. And that's the way nearly all elections work, isn't it? So even though we can all talk about the idealistic goal of "the People" being in charge of legislation, in reality the corporations have now seized so much power in America that even when the informed masses want to codify fundamental human rights into law, it cannot be readily achieved.
GMO labeling will never be won with money
After back-to-back failures of Prop 37 and I-522, I think it's time we all realized we will never win this issue with money. As much as we all gave money to this campaign (and Dr. Bronner's gave the most, I believe), the junk food manufacturers of this nation were able to spend almost twenty times more.
Selling the public toxic beverages and junk foods made with cheap "junk" ingredients is highly profitable, of course, so these companies have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around like caged gorillas flinging excrement.
If we hope to ever see GMO labeling mandated in any state in America, victory is going to have to be achieved through "guerilla activism" methods that go far outside the box of "spending money on ads."
I'm not criticizing the 522 campaign directors, by the way. They did a fantastic job. But the playbook they are working from is based on rules of conventional campaigning, not guerilla campaigning.
It's much like the American colonists in the War of Independence who realized they would be slaughtered if they did battle with the occupying British by adhering to rigid formations. Man for man (and dollar for dollar), you can't beat the establishment. What you need to invoke is asymmetrical warfare tactics such as guerilla warfare where colonists would hide in the bushes and ambush high-ranking British officers, thereby cutting off the leadership and causing disarray among the enemy ranks.
Don't misunderstand my metaphor here: I am not suggesting anyone actually ambush and kill CEOs of junk food companies. This is merely an illustration of the fact that going head to head (dollar for dollar) with Pepsico, Coca-Cola and Monsanto is never going to result in victory for GMO labeling activists.
There are far more clever ways to multiply your efforts and make the actions of one person more impactful than millions of dollars in expenditures by the opposition.
Take off the kid gloves and go for the throat
We also have to realize that the GMO labeling opposition will never play by the rules. They routinely engage in dirty tricks and even criminal behavior in order to achieve their goals at any cost. I am not suggesting that we stoop to their level and start breaking the law to achieve victory, but we do have to take a far more aggressive stance that directly accuses the opposition of mass deception, mass poisoning and causing a potential ecological disaster.
See, the problem with the campaigns for GMO labeling so far is that they are too polite. They are run by nice people who play by nice rules. Those are great people to have as friends and neighbors, but they are not the kind of scrapping, no-holds-barred warriors that are needed to defeat such as slithering, slippery enemy.
The opposition to GMO labeling is a cabal of mafia-style criminal rogues who continue to achieve their dark victories by breaking all the rules and playing dirty. To beat them at that game, you have to take off the kid gloves and go for their throats.
If anybody in the GMO labeling activism world wants to know how to do that, contact me so we can set up a face-to-face meeting. In the mean time, know that I am already working on an asymmetrical P.R. warfare strategy that will be unleashed next year right here on Natural News.
Because the real story here - and I'm not going to fully explain this until later - is that the very weapons needed to defeat these evil corporations are sitting right there on the shelves of every grocery store across America. They have handed us the tools of their own defeat.
November 3, 2013
Source: Testosterone Pit
2013 is proving to be a hectic year for corporate lobbyists and free trade advocates, as they frantically flit, like busy bees pollinating succulent orchids, from one global free trade conference to another. And at long last, it seems that their hard work appears to be paying off.
In the last month alone world leaders from 12 countries, including the U.S., Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Mexico, pledged to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by the end of the year. On the other side of the globe, meanwhile, Europe has signed a sweeping free trade agreement with Canada. And what's more, despite all the furore over allegations of NSA and GCHQ spying on European national leaders, most EU member states are determined to ensure that the fallout from the scandal does not derail ongoing talks for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a treaty that would effectively knit together countries with nearly half the world's GDP into a massive free-trade zone.
Indeed, the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already suggested that it may be necessary to temporarily suspend negotiations - not out of concern for joining in partnership with a nation whose recent actions have betrayed every possible notion of mutual trust, but rather out of fear that continued negotiations in the current climate could feed anti-free trade sentiment:
"If such events continue, and more news comes out, I fear that those who are against the free trade agreement in principle will become the majority," said Schulz during last week's EU summit. "My advice is to stop for a moment and discuss how we can avoid such a development."
All of which begs the question: why all the sudden newfound enthusiasm for more free trade? Even more important, why all the secrecy? Why are our leaders desperately reconfiguring the legal super structures of global trade without either consulting their respective voting constituencies or even divulging what is actually up for grabs in the negotiations?
After all, even by official estimates (which, let's face it, tend to have a strong upward bias) the economic benefits of the trade treaties will be negligible, at best. In the case of the TPIP, the EU and the U.S. can expect to eventually (perhaps after as long as ten years) receive a 100 billion euro boost to their respective GDPs. It's the sort of money that, once upon a time, may have sounded impressive or even meant something. But not any more, not since the Fed and the Bank of England led the world's central banking community on the biggest money printing binge in recorded history.
Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific region the TPP is forecast to open up massive new opportunities for businesses both large and small, as new trade networks are forged between some of the world's fastest growing economies.
However, while the potential benefits of the new trade agreement are supposed to be huge, they cannot as yet be divulged to the public. As U.S. trade representative Ron Kirk recently told Reuters, it's just too early in negotiations to release a draft text to allow more public input. But that's not to say "there will [not] be a time, once we have agreed on the text, that we may - as we have with other agreements - be able to release that."
The message could not be clearer: to paraphrase the late, great Bill Hicks, go back to bed America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Your governments are in control.
The Real Agenda
As for the few insomniacs who remain fully awake, the real end game in this new age of "free" trade (or otherwise put, corporate protectionism) is becoming clearer and clearer. According to Andrew Gavin Marshall, these new agreements have little to do with actual "trade," and everything to do with expanding the rights and powers of large corporations:
Corporations have become powerful economic and political entities - competing in size and wealth with the world's largest national economies - and thus have taken on a distinctly ‘cosmopolitical' nature.
According to a ranking published by Global Trends, 58 percent of the world's biggest 150 economic entities in 2012 were corporations. They include oil, natural gas and mining majors, banks and insurance firms, telecommunications giants, supermarket behemoths, car manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
The highest ranked company on the list, Royal Dutch Shell, recorded 2012 revenues that exceeded the GDPs of 171 countries, making it the 26th largest economic entity in the world. It ranks ahead of Argentina and Taiwan, despite employing only 90,000 people. Indeed, the combined revenues of the five biggest oil companies (Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Sinopec and China National Petroleum) were the equivalent of 2.9 percent of global GDP in 2012.
Should we be at all surprised that these massively bloated private corporations still want more for themselves and, by extension, less for us? After all, perpetual profit and revenues growth are their raison d'être; it's what makes their sociopathic hearts tick.
"Acting through industry associations, lobby groups, think tanks and foundations, cosmopolitical corporations are engineering large projects aimed at transnational economic and political consolidation of power... into their hands," writes Marshall. "With the construction of ‘a European-American free-trade zone' as ‘an ambitious project,' we are witnessing the advancement of a new and unprecedented global project of transatlantic corporate colonization."
At the root of this model is the basic notion that corporate profits and investor returns must at all times supercede all concerns about public interest. As such, as Open Democracy has pointed out, investor-state dispute settlements under TTIP would empower EU and US-based corporations to engage in litigious wars of attrition to limit the power of governments on both sides of the Atlantic:
Thousands of EU and US companies have affiliates across the Atlantic; under TTIP they could make investor-state claims via these affiliates in order to compel their own governments to refrain from regulations they dislike.
In the sickest of ironies, as a growing number of countries are questioning and even abandoning global investor-state arbitration precisely because of negative impacts against the public interest, powerful corporate lobby groups in both the EU and the US - including the European employers' federation BusinessEurope, the US Chamber of Commerce, AmCham EU, and the Transatlantic Business Council - are pressuring for the inclusion of investor-state arbitration in TTIP.
And as you and I know, they'll get what they want!
The Final Push
Just as with the signing of NAFTA and the creation of the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, to later become the World Trade Organisation (WTO), there will be no public consultation whatsoever on the potential ramifications of the treaties.
And for good reason. For just as the late Sir James Goldsmith warned about GATT, NAFTA and the merging of sovereign European nations into the EU in this eerily prophetic interview with Charlie Rose in 1994, their enforcement will lead to the destruction of millions of middle class jobs and the obliteration of traditional agriculture (as happened in Mexico) and local businesses. And who in their right mind - apart from, of course, our corporate masters and their political servants - would ever vote for that?
However, the new generation of trade treaties goes far beyond what was envisaged for NAFTA and GATT. What they ultimately seek is to transfer what little remains of our national sovereignty to the headquarters of the world's largest multinational conglomerates. In short, it is the ultimate coup de grâce of the ultimate coup d'état. Not a single shot will be fired, yet almost all power will be seized and transferred into private hands - and all of it facilitated by our elected representatives who, by signing these treaties, will be permanently abdicating their responsibilities to represent and protect the interests of their voting constituencies.
For example, as a recent leak of part of the TPP document has shown, the new rules would limit how governments regulate such public services as utilities, transportation, healthcare and education, including restricting policies meant to ensure broad or universal access to those essential needs.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. As Alternet reports, the new treaty would also:
• Grant copyright protection for corporate-created content for a stunning 120 years! It would also transform internet service providers into a private, Big Brother police force, empowered to monitor our "user activity," arbitrarily take down our content, and cut off our access to the internet.
• Give Big Pharma more years of monopoly pricing on each of their patents empower them to block distribution of cheaper generic drugs.
• Strip governments of their authority to regulate exports of oil or natural gas to any TPP nation. This would create an explosion of the destructive fracking process across the globe, for energy giants could export fracked gas from and to any member nation without any governmental review of the environmental and economic impacts on local communities - or on our respective national interests.
• Prohibit transaction taxes (such as the proposed Robin Hood Tax) that would tax speculators who have repeatedly triggered financial crises and economic crashes around the world. It would also restrict "firewall" reforms that separate consumer banking from risky investment banking, as well as provide an escape from national rules that would limit the size of "too-big-to-fail" behemoths.
These are merely a sample of the proposals that have made it into the public eye - thanks purely to the actions of a brave (or as the Obama administration would have it, terrorist) whistle-blower. Who's to say what else is being planned behind our backs and in the conference rooms of some of the world's most luxurious hotels?
What is clear, though, is that the global corporatocracy is almost fully operational. The clock is ticking down and unless the people of nations across the East and the West, the North and the South, begin to wise up to the acts of their elected governments, it will soon be too late. The new regime will be enshrined into law and a new kind of dystopia, bearing a disturbing likeness to the inverted totalitarianism foreseen by Sheldon Wolin, will be all around us, in every direction as far as Big Brother's omniscient eye can see. By Don Quijones.
Whatever you might read in the news these days, it's not all doom and gloom in Spain. For a certain segment of the population, albeit quite a small one, life has never been better. They include Rodrigo Rato, the man who many blame for the biggest bankruptcy in Spanish history
Obama stops NSA spying on IMF and World Bank
October 31, 2013
International Monetary Fund Headquarters in Washington, DC.
US President Barack Obama has called on the National Security Agency to halt spying on the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in conjunction with a review of surveillance activities, Reuters reported.
A US official told the news agency that President Obama curbed the spying within the last few weeks, around the same time he told the NSA to stop eavesdropping on the United Nations headquarters.
The NSA's surveillance of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington was previously unknown based on the classified nature of such programs.
Responding to Reuters, a top Obama administration official said, "the United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the headquarters of the World Bank or IMF in Washington." However, the official would not say whether the NSA had spied on the entities in the past.
The IMF and World Bank would not comment, nor would spokespersons from the NSA or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Top officials with US intelligence agencies have admitted economic espionage in the past, but a former senior US intelligence official said the Obama administration has put more effort than previous administrations into gathering economic data.
Upon entering the White House, Obama began receiving a new "Economic Intelligence Brief" from the Central Intelligence Agency, in addition to regular updates of international security assessments via the President's Daily Brief.
The supposed reason for the change at the time - according to Leon Panetta, Obama's first CIA director - was to understand activity surrounding the global economic crisis.
The move to curtail spying on the economic organizations followed steady revelations that began in June - supplied by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden - of NSA surveillance programs targeting foreign governments and institutions, as well as international and domestic citizens.
Obama also in the past few weeks ordered the NSA to stop tapping the UN headquarters in New York amid the review of electronic surveillance programs, Reuters reported Wednesday, again citing official sources.
"The United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the United Nations headquarters in New York," a senior Obama administration official told Reuters.
Sources would not say whether Washington is continuing to monitor UN diplomats elsewhere in the world.
72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered "Potential Terrorists" In Official Government Documents
October 28, 2013
Source: Michael Snyder, Guest Post
Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner? Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order? Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the "end times" or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a "potential terrorist" according to official U.S. government documents. At one time, the term "terrorist" was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term "terrorist" is being applied to large groups of American citizens. And if you are a "terrorist", that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as "potential terrorists", please don't take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be "extremists" and "potential terrorists" in official U.S. government documents.
1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
2. Those that advocate for states' rights
3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"
4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"
5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"
6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"
7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable"
8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"
9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"
13. "The Patriot Movement"
14. "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'"
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"
23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"
30. Anyone that "complains about bias"
31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"
32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"
33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"
34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"
35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"
36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"
37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"
38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"
39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"
40. "Militia or unorganized militia"
41. "General right-wing extremist"
42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"
44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"
45. Those that are "anti-global"
46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"
47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"
48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"
49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national ‘way of life' is under attack"
50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"
51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"
52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"
53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"
54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"
55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"
56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"
57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"
58. "Rightwing extremists"
59. "Returning veterans"
60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"
61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"
62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"
63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"
64. "Anti-abortion activists"
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")
71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
The groups of people in the list above are considered "problems" that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.
We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history. You can now be considered a "potential terrorist" just because of your religious or political beliefs. Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.
Please pray for the United States of America. We definitely need it.
Obama's Homeland Security pick defended surveillance at summer conference in Aspen
by Andrew Travers, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Monday, October 28, 2013.
At this past summer's Aspen Security Forum, Jeh Johnson - President Obama's choice for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security - defended the government's controversial surveillance and data-mining programs, while taking a hard line on whistleblowers who leak information to the press.
The July forum brings present and former government officials to the Aspen Institute campus, including leaders from the White House and intelligence community, along with journalists and members of Congress.
Johnson, former top attorney for the Department of Defense, sat on a panel that included National Security Agency (NSA) general counsel Raj De and American Civil Liberties Union director Anthony Romero. Titled "Counterterrorism, National Security, and the Rule of Law," the discussion focused largely on then-recent revelations of the government's classified PRISM surveillance program, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Romero and Johnson butted heads over Snowden's leaks and the legality of PRISM. When Romero praised Snowden for bringing the program to light, saying "I think he did this country a service," Johnson countered, "I think it is a bad public message for us to send to people who decide to take the law into their own hands that they're doing a public service."
Romero argued that Snowden's revelations of the program sparked a public debate that was not possible while the government kept programs, like its widespread collection of Americans' phone records, secret.
"Our democracy, regardless of whether you think he broke the law, and our country is better as a result of the revelations," Romero said.
"That's anarchy," Johnson responded.
He also advocated criminal prosecutions of leakers.
"We don't necessarily need to think about changing national security policy in reaction to one criminal act, I think we need to deal with that person in the criminal justice system," he said.
Johnson argued that the program is legal and constitutional, noting it was cleared by the executive and legislative branches, and is regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. He said collecting phone data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because there is no expectation of privacy in the data itself - tapping the calls, he said, would be unconstitutional without probable cause.
"The reality is that the NSA surveillance program is probably the most regulated national security program we have," he said.
The panel's moderator, NBC News' Mike Isikoff, asked Johnson about the U.S. drone program, which expanded while Johnson was general counsel for the Department of Defense. Johnson was quoted in a book last year, saying, "If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession," after watching video of a drone strike killing citizens in Yemen. On the panel, he said drones are less likely to kill civilians than other tactics.
"The good news, to the extent there is any in our conflict, is that with our modern technology, collateral damage is minimized," he said.
President Obama earlier last week announced his intention to nominate Johnson as Homeland Security secretary, succeeding Janet Napolitano.
Liberal verses Conservative?
There is no such thing. The left and Right paradigm is BOGUS. The Democrats are just as controlled by the New World Order as the Repubilcans are. John Kerry, a distant cousin of George W. Bush is a member of the secret society of Skull and Bones(AKA The Order of Death) along with the last three generations of Bush males (Prescott, George, and George W.) Bill Clinton, architect of the first WTC attack in 1993 as well as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, is a member of the CFR and Bohemian Grove and is a close personal friend of George H.W. Bush. All Gore is a CFR member. Even the revered Jimmy Carter is a member of the evil Trilateral Commission and was David Rockefeller's golden boy. It was the Carter Administration that first began funding and training terrorist organizations around the world. Both parties are controlled at the top by globalist traitors dedicated to establishing a world dictatorship and enslaving humanity. They tell you that it is your duty as an American to vote. That is only a tactic to ensure your enslavement. FYI, David Rockefeller and his right hand man Zbigniew Brzezinski have a new golden boy puppet. His name is Barack Obama.
As Commander in Chief of RIOT, it is my duty to inform my readers that we do not advocate or condone violence against the government. We are peace loving people, looking for peaceful solutions in the fight to restore the Republic of the United States. These following passeges can easily be taken to mean the opposite. However, we realize that violent resistance is what the globalists want us to engage in. They expect it. They are ready for us. A trap has been set. Don't fall into it. Do, however, be ready when they come for you. The following passages have been added to document the anger felt and expressed by awake and concerned citizens on the former United States.
- Col. South
The New World Order Resistance Manifesto
We, the people of the world denounce your claim of ownership of the world for it is through fraud, deception and usury that you have made yourself the rulers of humankind. You have committed every evil in your goal for world hegemony and have become drunk with the blood of the innocents.
No longer shall we sit idly by allowing your agenda to stay hidden behind the veil. We shall unite with a common purpose and with a common goal to spread the knowledge of your tyranny across the globe and to demand justice until the world is free from the slavery and perdition you have created on this earth.
The Patriot's Code of Conduct
I am an American, fighting for the freedoms which guard MY country and way of life. I am prepared to give my life in defense of the fundamental principles that are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
I will fight without regard to rule or regulation. My enemy does not fight fair, so it is fair that I fight just the same. I will never surrender of my own free will. I will never surrender to tyranny or oppression. If I do not have the means to resist, I will never stop acquiring the means to which I may resist. In this end, I will be the best example that I can for other patriots. I will honor myself with these actions until I am free or dead.
If I am captured or oppressed, I will resist by all means, my imagination will be my only limitation. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from my enemy.
If I become a prisoner of tyranny, I will keep faith with my fellow patriots. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to other patriots. I will take command of myself and will independently back up other patriots in any way I see fit, even through temporary groupings with other patriots. At all times I will remain a free-thinking individual.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of tyranny, I will give my name and state of citizenship. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to America's Bill of Rights or harmful to other Patriots or OUR DUTY to protect OUR republic.
I will never forget that I am an American dedicated to the principles which make my country free. I will trust in myself and hope other Patriots will return our republic with or without me.
OATH OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER
By James Stewart Kelley
Upon my sacred honor I shall fight to the death to remain free. No one shall govern me. I shall submit to no authority. There is no question in this matter. I shall always refuse to obey. I shall face my enemy squarely when he attacks. I shall counter attack when he rests.I shall press the battle and when the time comes that I face my final departure, I shall take my enemy with me, for he is a creature without mercy and he deserves none.
A Blunt warning to our Government and our Military:
In our nation of 300 million people, there are at least 95 million lawful gun owners. Those 95 million guns owners lawfully possess 212 million firearms.
Even if the government recalled ALL military members from around the entire world, they would have a force of only about two million.
95 million gun owners versus 2 million troops. I think we all know how this would turn out: the government would be slaughtered.
In fact, if only ten percent of the 95 million gun owners had guts enough to fight, we would still outnumber the military almost 3:1.
We The People of the United States aren't the least bit worried about government tanks and planes, those tools are useless in guerilla warfare. Want proof? Iraq! The U.S. government is getting its ass kicked over there. Government wouldn't last a week.
Found on a bathroom wall somewhere in the U.S.A.
You've taken over my mind. You've raped my thoughts with your image viruses then sold me fake cures for your own disease. Your words and pictures scream orders at me like angry prison wardens. When I cover my ears, your voices echo in my head. I hate you. When I see your billboards, your talk shows, your rock concerts and your factories, when I see the work of your twisted libidos, I want to kill you. I want to set fires, plant bombs, derail trains. I want to smash your buildings and tear at your bodies until the skin of my hands is worn to the bone. I am filled with a rage that burns my eyes.
I don't want to feel this way. You have done this to me. These feelings are the fruits of your multi-billion dollar sowing. And I am not alone. There are others like me out here. Every suicide, every madman, every man and woman who gets a gun and just starts shooting -- these are your illegitimate children. They don't all know what they are doing. All they know is hate for the invisible walls which you have raised around them, hate for the narrow path you have tried to make them walk. And the innocent pay in blood for your negligence.
Remember this: My mind is big. The more you try to push me down and make me small, the greater the pressure inside me becomes. The greater the pressure, the greater the chance of an explosion. There was once a time when I felt love, but now I feel only hate and anger, and fear at what I might do. And you can tell me to "BE HAPPY," but I know that you really mean "BE QUIET".
Believe me, I want to be happy. You stand in my way.
A police state exixts when federal and state political and police mechanisms:
1. Shut down media coverage after they steal an election
2.Serve the central government instead of serving the citizens.
3. Enforce the policies of the central government instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds
4. Spy on and intimidate citizens
ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS NOW EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES!
In a free society, police agencies respond to evidence of planned and actual criminal activity.
Police officers in a free society keep the peace: they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate.
In a free society, police do not investigate citizen's attitudes toward the central goverrnment, only their actions.
Citizen dissent is lawful in a free society and police agencies do not investigate citizen's attitudes toward the criminal justice apparatus.
THOSE CONDITIONS NO LONGER EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES!