NOTE TO ALL RIOT FANS: Our Facebook page is back up. You can access and add us back through the "Facebook etc." link above.

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge

By Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado

May 16, 2012

Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

"The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces' - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,'" Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. "The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope."

Enforcement Blocked

Forrest's order prevents enforcement of the provision of the statute pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by Congress.

Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan, declined to comment on the ruling.

The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hedges and two other plaintiffs testified in a hearing before Forrest in March, the judge said. A fourth plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration. The government put on no evidence, Forrest said.

Forrest, an Obama appointee who has served on the Manhattan federal court since October, rejected the government's arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue over the law and that it merely reaffirmed provisions in an earlier law, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Plaintiffs' Activities

In her opinion, Forrest said the government declined to say that the activities of Hedges and the other defendants don't fall under the provision. Forrest held a hearing in March at which government lawyers didn't call any witnesses or present evidence, according to the judge. The government did cross- examine the plaintiffs who testified and submitted legal arguments.

"The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs -- or others -- are not within Section 1021," Forrest said. "It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable -- and real."

Hedges, who testified he has been a foreign news correspondent for 20 years, said he has reported on 17 groups that are on a State Department list of terrorist groups. Hedges testified that after the law was passed, he changed his dealings with groups he had reported on, Forrest said.

"I think the ruling was not only correct, but courageous and important," Hedges said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The case is Hedges v. Obama, 12-cv-00331, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

FBI Wants Greater Surveillance Powers Following Latest False Flag Attack

Anthony Freda

Stephen Lendman, Contributor

Activist Post

FBI Director Robert Mueller wants Congress to enact greater surveillance powers following the false flag underwear bomb plot blamed on Al Qaeda.

In May 9 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, he said:

We've seen over the last several days, particularly with regard to the IED that was recently recovered, that terrorism is and should be and continues to be our No. 1 priority and the No. 1 priority of a number of our intelligence agencies.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance provisions expire at year-end. National Intelligence Director James Clapper and Attorney General Eric Holder call renewing them the intelligence community's top legislative priority.

So does Mueller. He also wants more. His May 9 testimony suggested it. He stopped short of specifics. He'll engage lawmakers privately.

False flags create opportunities. That's why they're staged. Mueller plans taking full advantage.

Former White House chief of staff/current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel explained, saying:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
After the December 2009 underwear bomber false flag, Washington's war on Yemen escalated and enhanced airport screening began.

Post-9/11, police state harshness followed. New measures compound earlier ones. America became a total surveillance society. Domestic spying became policy. Mueller plans intensifying it. He wants legal cover for lawless or dubious practices.

Throughout its 105 year history, the FBI operated within and outside the law. J. Edgar Hoover ran it from 1924 - 1972. He waged war on communists, anti-war, human and civil rights activists, the American Indian Movement, Black Panther Party, and other groups challenging rogue state policies.

He ordered agents to infiltrate, disrupt, sabotage, and destroy their activism for ethnic justice, racial emancipation, and real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines.

"War on terror" authority escalated FBI abuses. Intrusive surveillance tools used against alleged spies now target ordinary Americans. Independent and internal audits revealed widespread FBI mismanagement, unchecked authority, and abuse of power.

During Bush's tenure, Attorney General Guidelines underwent four separate changes. Each one increased FBI surveillance powers.

On September 4, 2001, Robert Mueller became FBI Director. In 2002, he told Congress that the FBI had no plans to infiltrate Muslim communities or mosques. He lied.

Post-9/11, America waged war on Islam. Agent provocateurs played a key part. They still do. In 2009, Mueller defended intrusive tactics. He said the FBI wouldn't "take (its) foot off the pedal of addressing counterterrorism."

In 2005, the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general (IG) audited the FBI's compliance with AG Guidelines. Major deficiencies were found. Most preliminary inquiries exceeded their legal limit. Required authorizations weren't sought.

The Agency failed to maintain proper records. As a result, many activities remain secret. In December 2008, AG Michael Mukasey instituted new guidelines. They authorized "assessment" investigations. They involve national security related suspect illegal activities.

Mukasey let FBI agents become more intrusive. Tactics include greater physical surveillance, commercial database data retrieval, using paid informants to infiltrate groups (or target individuals) on false pretenses, and letting covert unidentified agents conduct "pretext" interviews for information.

Mukasey's Guidelines left ordinary Americans increasingly vulnerable to abuse. Anyone may be investigated for any reason or none at all.

Explicit authorization permits surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and other social justice groups. OWS activists are targeted. Any organization or individual is vulnerable. A gloves off, no-holds barred approach is followed.

An internal FBI implementation guide contains disturbing information. Called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), it reveals how agents use race, ethnicity, national origin, and other discriminatory criteria in conducting assessments and investigations.

Doing so violates federal statutes. The DOJ's 2003 Guidance on the Use of Race in Federal Law Enforcement is ignored. It says race can't be used "to any degree" absent a specific subject description. Agents use it and other criteria as sole factors for targeting groups and individuals.

Abuse of power under Mueller intensified. Vast amounts of information are collected about ordinary Americans. Unchecked data mining continues. The Agency's National Security Branch Analysis Center (NSAC) amassed hundreds of millions of records from public and private sources. Much is obtained illicitly.

Virtually anything is fair game, including financial data, medical records, so-called "suspicious activity reports," and other personal information unrelated to alleged or possible criminal activity.

The USA PATRIOT Act authorized so-called National Security Letters (NSLs). They expanded the FBI's authority to obtain personal customer records from ISPs, financial institutions, credit companies, and other sources without prior court approval.

Innocent people are targeted. Virtually anything in public or private records can be obtained. "Gag" orders prevent targeted individuals or groups from revealing the information demanded. NSL use continues increasing exponentially.

Between 2003 and 2006 alone, the DOJ's IG reported nearly 200,000 NSLs issued. By now, they may exceed a million. Using them violates constitutional freedoms. They've eroded enormously en route to disappearing altogether.

Fusion Centers also target personal freedoms. They operate at state, local and regional levels. Originally created to share anti-terrorism intelligence, their mission expanded to include "all (alleged) crimes and all hazards."

Information sought way exceeds material related to criminal intelligence. It includes public and private sector data. Other government entities are involved. So aren't military ones. Dozens of fusion centers operate nationwide. Privacy is grievously breached.

America's war on terror threatens it at unprecedented levels. Innocent people are wrongly targeted. Anything or anyone called "suspicious" is fair game. The FBI has a virtual open field to commit abuses. Mueller took full advantage but wants more. Once Congress acts, we'll know specifics.

America now wages war on freedom. It's perilously close to vanishing. One more major domestic terror attack may end it. Mueller wants unrestricted power to act. He may get it.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Today, privacy is null and void. PATRIOT Act provisions destroyed it. "Exigent circumstances" exempt Fourth Amendment restrictions against warrantless searches.

"Sneak and peak" ones are conducted through "delayed notice" warrants. Roving wiretaps are used to track phone and online content. Private records are obtained. Mueller takes full advantage. He menaces personal freedom.

On May 4, cnet.com contributor Declan McCullagh headlined "FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites - now," saying:

Mueller wants 'backdoor' surveillance powers. At issue is 'the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone to the Internet....' It's thus harder for FBI and other federal agencies to obtain wiretap information.
The FBI drafted a proposal to require "social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly."

Doing so would amend the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). It currently applies to telecommunication companies, not Web ones. In 2004, the FCC extended CALEA to include broadband networks.

The FCC "is considering reinterpreting CALEA" to include "products that allow video or voice chat over the Internet - from Skype to Google Hangouts to Xbox Live" - to facilitate FBI backdoor surveillance.

The Agency fears without expanded power it risks its surveillance capability "going dark." Its proposal is part of DOJ's "National Electronic Surveillance Strategy."

In May 2011, the ACLU opposed extending Mueller's tenure another two years. It hadn't been done since Nixon retained JE Hoover. His abuse of power got Congress to raise issues of retaining FBI directors too long.

Hoover's power made presidents and congressional members fear crossing him. The ACLU raised serious post-9/11 constitutional breaches. Mueller bears his share of responsibility. Congress set a 10-year term limit for good reason.

On May 12, Obama asked Congress to extend Mueller another two years. His term expired last September 4. On July 27, the Senate approved it. He'll serve until September 4, 2013. He may be extended again. The longer he remains, the harder it is to replace him. Obama or Romney perhaps won't try.

A Final Comment

Former Congresswoman, Green Party Presidential candidate, and prominent human rights activist Cynthia McKinney knows about FBI targeting firsthand.

In November 2011, she recounted her concerns. She explained threats from "so-called radio 'shock jock,' Hal Turner." The FBI bankrolled him. In 2006, he announced on air "that I should be lynched on my way to vote."

In 2009, McKinney learned of his FBI connection. "Sadly," she said, "Capitol Hill Police did nothing" to protect her "even after a direct threat" on her life. Perhaps the FBI incited it.

My story is that I struggled in the Congress with mean-spirited threats all of the time.' She faced '(n)asty name calling, racial slurs, even stalking and bomb threats.'
She handled it courageously. Her activism remains undeterred. Her political activities continue. She opposes Obama's imperial wars.

She's outspoken against homeland injustice. She knows its potential firsthand. Federal agents sworn to serve and protect, in fact, are menacing. They stalk, target and terrorize.

Mueller now wants more power. He asked Congress for legislative authority to target America's vulnerable more effectively.

Everyone's at risk, especially activists challenging policies ravaging humanity at home and abroad. Political Washington, Mueller, and others around them support wealth and power.

Ordinary people are trampled so they benefit. Changing what's intolerable is top priority. Imagine what's possible if attained. Imagine the protracted nightmare otherwise. Sustained activism for change can prevent it

American Representative to the UN Calls for Worldwide Depopulation

Susanne Posel, Contributor

Activist Post

Roger Dittman, an emeritus professor of physics at California State University, believes that Agenda 21 policies should be implemented in the United States. Dittman is the American representative to the UN.

In his 2004 talk entitled "Sustainable Development, the New International Scientific Order, and UN Reform", Dittman defines sustainable development in a unique way. He states:

Economic (and other) development that leads to reduction in population toward an optimum level for maximization of the quality of life, i.e. environmentally benign development that reduces the birth rate.
Dittman's professional history includes, among other notations, his affiliation with UNESCO.

UNESCO, in 1974, was integral in using clever mind-control and brainwashing techniques in all facets of societal controls; including mass media, public and private school programs to steer the public perception about depopulation.

By the hand of the then Director General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, popularized the scientific dictatorship with a speech at a dinner for the International Coordinating Council of Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsberg.

The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.
Maheu asserts that the planet will be destroyed unless "a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert."

This "international community" he references is the UN. He goes on to say, "I wish to reiterate my firm conviction - together with my hope - that a new world order - political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established."

Dittman believes that in order to bring about the events necessary for depopulation, there must be a global governance to oversee all directives and make sure they are carried out. "Since this is a global effort, it requires global organization, both governmental and popular."

Under the rule of an "international scientific order" Dittman asserts that "not only do people require organization about their (multiple) identities (including professional, scholarly, and scientific), they need international, even supranational affiliation, facing a common adversary

Occupy Bilderberg 2012

J.G. Vibes

Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance

Well, it looks like the most cunning and deceptive people on the planet may not be so bright after all. The infamous and elusive Bilderberg club has decided to bring their annual meeting back to the United States after setting last year's event at a hotel buried deep in the mountains of Switzerland. This year, May 31st through June 3rd they are returning to Chantilly, Virginia where they had their conference back in 2008. Even then a record number of people traveled from all over the world to protest this secretive meeting of aristocrats. Even members of the EU parliament were there to protest the meeting, one of which was actually assaulted by security. Now with the conference back in the states and occupy wall street charging up for springtime action the elite have given those of us that are paying attention a grand opportunity to show the world who is really calling the shots.

The oil cartels, banking interests, heads of state and even a majority of the major corporations who are on board with CISPA will be represented at this meeting. If there was ever a chance to point out every head on the hydra in one protest, this is it. It doesn't matter if you think that wall street is to blame for our current crisis, or if you think that the government is to blame, either way this organization is in control of both of those institutions so this should be a mission that we can all agree on.

Better yet, this mission is a guaranteed win for the people, because no demands are necessary and no political goals are relevant to this situation. Our only mission is to expose this group to the world and show people the reality of what is taking place around them, so then we can move forward with workable solutions where no middle man is needed. If we show up peacefully in very large numbers we can turn the political dialogue in this country away from the meaningless politicians and towards the true puppet masters.

I may have not been on board with all of the political goals to rise from the diverse Occupy Wall Street group, because I see politics as a tool which is used against the people regardless of what the legislation is called or what the politicians tell us about it. As I discussed in the past, even the horrible "corporate personhood" clause that we are still fighting against today, was once intended to give rights to freed slaves, but was instead used as a loophole for the further consolidation of corporate control in America.

With that being the case I am very weary of any tax plans or political measures that can eventually be turned against the common people, as I have also discussed in the past. However, occupy has made many accomplishments since this past September, and has radically changed the political dialogue in the country, to the point where no one can deny that something is wrong. They have exposed the American police state, the corrupt media and they have pushed social activism back into the mainstream.

There is no doubt that this movement was a threat, because over the winter while OWS was regrouping, the establishment silently put even more tyrannical measures into place in an attempt to scare people away from social activism. This season it may be more difficult to camp out in city squares for weeks on end, but that only means that efforts can be strategically set up, such as the May 1stgeneral strike, or the Bilderberg occupation that I am suggesting today.

This is it, the political and corporate elite of the planet are meeting in of the most heavily populated areas in the country, where multiple protests have been taking place for months just hours away from the planned Bilderberg meeting site. I'm sure that I'm not the first person to consider this, since the resistance to this meeting has grown exponentially every year, but I feel that it is absolutely essential that OWS get behind this, beings that this is the very essence of what most of the people involved are fighting against.

Coincidentally, I am sharing a small snippet from my book relating to the Bilderberg group and their influence on politics, which you can check out here. If you are unfamiliar with the Bilderberg group, a simple Google search will bring up plenty of information that will show you just how necessary this protest is.

Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America

Political activists would be pacified to sympathize with the government

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com May 3, 2012

A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans for "political activists" to be pacified by "PSYOP officers" into developing an "appreciation of U.S. policies" while detained in prison camps inside the United States.

The document, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF) was originally released on a restricted basis to the DoD in February 2010, but has now been leaked online.

The manual outlines policies for processing detainees into internment camps both globally and inside the United States. International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

The document makes it clear that the policies apply "within U.S. territory" and involve, "DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities," including "man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories."

Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of "civilian internees," in other words citizens who are detained for, "security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power."

Once the detainees have been processed into the internment camp, the manual explains how they will be re-educated, with a particular focus on targeting political dissidents, into expressing support for U.S. policies.

The re-education process is the responsibility of the "Psychological Operations Officer," whose job it is to design "PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations," according to the document.

The manual lists the following roles that are designated to the "PSYOP team".

- Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.

- Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.

- Identifies political activists.

- Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).

- Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.

- Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.

Remember, this is not restricted to insurgents in Iraq who are detained in prison camps - the manual makes it clear that the policies also apply "within U.S. territory" under the auspices of the DHS and FEMA.

The historical significance of states using internment camps to re-educate detainees is the fact that it is almost exclusively practiced by repressive and dictatorial regimes like the former Soviet Union and Stalinist regimes like modern day North Korea.

We have exhaustively documented preparations for the mass internment of citizens inside America, but this is the first time that language concerning the re-education of detainees, in particular political activists, has cropped up in our research.

In 2009, the National Guard posted a number of job opportunities looking for "Internment/Resettlement Specialists" to work in "civilian internee camps" within the United States.

In December last year it was also revealed that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit "emergency environment" camps located in five regions of the United States.

In 2006, KBR was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S," or the rapid development of unspecified "new programs" that would require large numbers of people to be interned.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive "scenario and drill" developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be "national security threats."

Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, American citizens can be kidnapped and detained indefinitely without trial.

Tech Giant Warns CISPA Is "Alarming" Threat to Privacy

Mozilla is first Silicon Valley entity to denounce bill

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com May 2, 2012

Tech giant Mozilla has publicly slammed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which passed the House last week, labeling the legislation an "alarming" threat to privacy.

"While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security. The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse. We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation," Mozilla, which is best known for its Firefox browser, said in a statement.

The statement is important because it marks the first time any Silicon Valley entity has denounced CISPA, with an array of powerful companies lining up in support of the legislation which passed the US House of Representatives 248 to 168 and now heads to the Senate.

Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon have all backed the bill, with Microsoft re-affirming its support yesterday after rumors the company was getting cold feet, while Google has refused to take either side.

CISPA has been identified by many as a greater threat to privacy than SOPA, which was opposed by a deluge of major tech firms after a viral online opposition campaign, but because CISPA has received less attention, corporate giants have found it easier to stay mute.

Not only would CISPA mandate ISPs to share Internet data of users with government "notwithstanding any other provision of law," it also empowers the Department of Homeland Security to monitor the communications of the federal courts and Congress, and intercept tax returns sent to the IRS.

The bill "gives companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications and share that data with the government and other companies, so long as they do so for ‘cybersecurity purposes,'" the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has noted. "Just invoking ‘cybersecurity threats' is enough to grant companies immunity from nearly all civil and criminal liability, effectively creating an exemption from all existing law."

"The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened-again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power," writes TechDirt's Leigh Beadon.

As we have documented, the Obama administration's threat to veto the bill is little more than a crude stunt and carries no more weight than Obama's promise to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which he signed on New Year's Eve after the White House itself lobbied for the NDAA's most egregious provisions to be included.

Indeed, the White House's primary beef with the legislation appears to be the fact that it doesn't hand enough power to the Department of Homeland Security.

CISPA now moves to the Senate where it will be amalgamated with one of two other bills before heading to Obama's desk. Don't hold your breath on that veto.

CISPA Passes with Fourth Amendment Busting Provisions

Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

April 26, 2012

Sudden action on CISPA today signals that the House was instructed to pass the legislation despite overwhelming opposition. It was rushed to the floor a day early and quickly brought to a vote with additional amendments.

Alex Jones reports on the passage of CISPA. As of this writing, the corporate media has not bothered to post a video.

"Pushing the bill through is bad enough, but what's worse are the amendments that Rep. Ben Quayle (R - AZ) managed to get added. These amendments make CISPA infinitely worse than it already was," writes Game Politics.

The amendments converted the supposed "cybersecurity" bill into an outright Big Brother surveillance tool that completely nullifies Fourth Amendment protection online.

From Techdirt:

Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened-again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power.

Dirty tricks were used to pass CISPA. The legislation allows the national security state to circumvent the Constitution and allow carte blanche surveillance of the internet - from computer networks to private computers and devices to the emerging "internet of things." Passage of CISPA is a milestone for the high-tech surveillance police state now going in place.

The traitors in Congress threw up a wilted fig leaf to cover their posteriors. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said the bill was "needed to prepare for countries like Iran and North Korea so that they don't do something catastrophic to our networks here in America," Politico reports, while Speaker of the House John Boehner said the legislation will protect the economy and create jobs.

Rogers' transparent excuse was is little more than a sick joke considering the fact the U.S. and Israel unleashed the Stuxnet virus on Iran's computer network. North Korea is a convenient culprit and its ability to attack the United States is seriously in question, especially after another failure to put a satellite in orbit, something the former Soviet Union and the United States did over half a century ago.

Following the defeat of SOPA and PIPA earlier this year, Congress was told to sell CISPA as a bulwark against terrorism. Obama has promised to veto the bill but this remains to be seen and is likely yet another trick.

In December at the last moment Obama signed the NDAA after he said he would veto it. No doubt he will perform the same parlor trick with CISPA.

Call your representatives now and strongly voice your condemnation. Also call your senator and warn him or her that there will be serious repercussions if they vote this monstrosity into law.

Open Letter From Security Experts to Congress: Stop Bad Cybersecurity Bills

Electronic Frontier Foundation

April 24, 2012

Today, a group of prominent academics, experienced engineers, and professionals published an open letter to members of the United States Congress, stating their opposition to CISPA and other overly broad cybersecurity bills.

Dear Lawmakers,

We are writing you today as professionals, academics, and policy experts who have researched, analyzed, and defended against security threats to the Internet and its infrastructure. We have devoted our careers to building security technologies, and to protecting networks, computers, and critical infrastructure against attacks of many stripes.

We take security very seriously, but we fervently believe that strong computer and network security does not require Internet users to sacrifice their privacy and civil liberties.

The bills currently under consideration, including Rep. Rogers' Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523) and Sen. McCain's SECURE IT Act (S. 2151), are drafted to allow entities who participate in relaying or receiving Internet traffic to freely monitor and redistribute those network communications. The bills nullify current legal protections against wiretapping and similar civil liberties violations for that kind of broad data sharing. By encouraging the transfer of users' private communications to US Federal agencies, and lacking good public accountability or transparency, these "cybersecurity" bills unnecessarily trade our civil liberties for the promise of improved network security. As experts in the field, we reject this false trade-off and urge you to oppose any cybersecurity initiative that does not explicitly include appropriate methods to ensure the protection of users' civil liberties.

In summary, we urge you to reject legislation that:

Uses vague language to describe network security attacks, threat indicators, and countermeasures, allowing for the possibility that innocuous online activities could be construed as "cybersecurity" threats.

Exempts "cybersecurity" activities from existing laws that protect individuals' privacy and devices, such as the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Gives sweeping immunity from liability to companies even if they violate individuals' privacy, and without evidence of wrongdoing.
Allows data originally collected through "cybersecurity" programs to be used to prosecute unrelated crimes.

We appreciate your interest in making our networks more secure, but passing legislation that suffers from the problems above would be a grave mistake for privacy and civil liberties, and will not be a step forward in making us safer.

Sincerely,

Bruce Schneier. Prominent security researcher and cryptographer, published seminal works on applied cryptography. Active in public policy regarding security issues; runs a weblog and writes a regular column for Wired magazine.

David J. Farber. Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University. Designer of the first electronic switching system. Was a major contributor to early programming languages and computer networking. EFF board member.
Donald Eastlake. Original architect of DNS Security, network security expert. Chair of IETF TRILL and IETF PPPEXT working groups.

Peter Swire. C. William O'Neill Professor of Law, Ohio State University. Former Assistant to President Obama for Economic Policy, and former Chief Counselor for Privacy in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

Eric Burger. Research Professor of Computer Science and Director, Georgetown Center for Secure Communications, Georgetown University. Chair of multiple IETF Working Groups.
Tobin Maginnis. Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Mississippi. Operating system researcher, GNU/Linux expert, Web architecture researcher and networking expert.

Sharon Goldberg. Professor of Computer Science, Boston University. Network security researcher, member of FCC CSRIC working group on BGP security.

Peter G. Neumann. Principal Engineer, SRI International Computer Science Laboratory; moderator, ACM Risks Forum. Affiliation listed for purposes of identification only.
Stephen H. Unger. Professor Emeritus, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. Board of Governors of IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (SSTI).
Geoff Kuenning. Professor of Computer Science and CS Clinic Director. Harvey Mudd College. File system researcher, built the SEER predictive hoarding system to predict what files mobile users will need while disconnected from a network.

Benjamin C. Pierce. Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania. Research on differential privacy, which allows formal reasoning about real-world privacy.
Richard F. Forno. Professor of Computer Science focused on cybersecurity, signing as a private citizen.

Jonathan Weinberg. Professor of Law, Wayne State University. Chair of ICANN working group, and expert on communications policy.

Joseph "Jay" Moran. Distinguished engineer, AOL technical operations. Experienced executive working in technical operations and engineering for 20+ years.
Dan Gillmor. Technology writer and columnist. Director of Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University, Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University. EFF pioneed award winner.

Armando P. Stettner. Technologist and senior member of IEEE, spearheaded native VAX version of Unix.

Gordon Cook. Technologist, writer, editor and publisher of "COOK report on Internet Protocol" since 1992.

Alexander McMillen. Entrepreneur and CEO, Sliqua Enterprise Hosting.

Sid Karin. Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego. Former founding Director of the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) and National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI).

Eric Brunner-Williams. CTO, Wampumpeag. Signing as an individual.
Lawence C. Stewart. CTO, Cerissa research. Built the Etherphone at Xerox, the first telephone system working over a local area network; designed early e-commerce systems for the Internet at Open Market.

Ben Huh. Entrepreneur, CEO Cheezburger Inc.
Dave Burstein. Editor, DSL Prime.
Mikki Barry. Managing partner, Making Sense of Compliance.
Blake Pfankuch. Network engineer.
John Peach. Systems Administrator with 20+ years of experience.
Valdis Kletnieks. IT Professional, Virginia Tech University.
Darrell Hyde. Director of Architecture, Hosting.com.
Ryan Rawdon. Network and Security Engineer, was on the technical operations team for one of our country's largest residential ISPs.
Ken Anderson. VP of Engineering, Pacific Internet.
Andrew McConachie. Network engineer working on Internet infrastructure.
Richard Kulawiec. Senior network security architect with over 30 years experience.
Aaron Wendel. CTO, Whalesale Internet, Inc.
David Richardson. Center for High Performance Computing, University of Utah.
David M. Miller. CTO / Executive VP for DNS Made Easy.
Marshall Eubanks. Entrepreneur and CEO, America Free TV.
Edward Arthurs. Manager of Network Installations, Legacy Inmate Communications, Legacy Contact Center, Legacy Long Distance Intl. Inc.
Christopher Liljenstolpe. Chair of the IETF Operations and Management Area Working Group. Chief architect for AS3561 (at the time about 30% of the Internet backbone by traffic) and AS1221 (Australia's main Internet infrastructure).
Christopher McDonald. Vice President, PCCW Global.
Joseph Lorenzo Hall. Research Fellow focused on health information technology and electoral transparency, New York University.
Ronald D. Edge. IT expert.
David Henkel-Wallace. Vice President of Engineering. Terrajoule Corporation.
John Pettitt. Internet commerce pioneer, online since 1983, CEO Free Range Content Inc.; founder/CTO CyberSource & Beyond.com; created online fraud protection software that processes over 2 billion transaction a year
Ben Kamen. I.T./EE Professional.
Christopher Soghoian. Graduate Fellow, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University.
Jo Young. IT professional.
Mark Hull-Richter. Senior software engineer.
Joop Cousteau. VP, Global Network Technology. KLM Airlines USA Ltd.
Jonathan Mayer. Graduate researcher, Security Lab and the Center for Internet and Society, Stanford University
Jeremy Sliwinski. Network engineer with 10+ years of experience.
Nathan Syfrig. Software Engineer and IT Consultant.

CISPA is going to the floor this week, but it is just the first among many cybersecurity bills that will be considered. If you are an academic, technologist, or professional in this space and would like to add your name to this letter for CISPA or future bills that suffer from similar problems, please email dan at eff dot org.

Red Alert: Draconian CISPA Bill Picking Up Sponsors Ahead of Vote Next Week

Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

April 19, 2012

CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, is picking up sponsors and it looks like the legislation will make it to the House floor for a vote next week. CISPA emerged from the House Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17-1.

The bill, authored by Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, is supported by Google, the technology company in bed with the CIA and responsible for building the Great Firewall of China. Google is not alone in supporting CISPA. Corporate sponsors include Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, according to the House's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long a champion of rights online, has signed on to two coalition letters urging legislators to drop their support for HR 3523. The coalition behind the privacy letter includes dozens of groups, including the ACLU, the American Library Association, the American Policy Center, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and many others, according to the EFF website.

The letter warns:

CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity.... CISPA's ‘information sharing' regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any non-regulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security.

CISPA was pushed through following public outrage over SOPA and PIPA, two sneaky attempts to undermine internet freedom earlier this year under the guise of protecting the copyrights of Hollywood and its transnational "entertainment" corporations.

CISPA is far worse than its forerunners. It would amend the the National Security Act of 1947 - legislation that created the national security state and the CIA - and centralize "information sharing" between government agencies, intelligence agencies, and the Pentagon.

Time Techland admits that, according to the Center for Democracy & Technology, CISPA threatens privacy because it "has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies and it supersedes all other privacy laws," "is likely to lead to expansion of the government's role in the monitoring of private communications" and "is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military."

In short, it is a dream bill designed specifically for the national security surveillance state. CISPA will put a legal facade on behavior the CIA and NSA have engaged in for decades. It is the culmination of years of cyber psyops and attendant propaganda designed convince the public that they must surrender their privacy.

The transfer of "cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military" is especially alarming considering the Pentagon's aggressive response to supposed cyber attacks. In early 2011, the Pentagon said that cyber attacks constitute acts of war and will be responded to with military action.

It is imperative that you contact your representatives immediately and tell them that you strongly oppose this dangerous legislation and demand they vote against it. If CISPA is allowed to pass next week, it will be a victory for the global elite and their ongoing effort to turn the internet into the largest and most comprehensive surveillance and control mechanism in human history.

PREPARING FOR MARTIAL LAW IN AMERICA?

What's the government buying these days? Hollow point bullets, hardened checkpoint booths and radiation pills

by Mike Adams

Global Research, April 18, 2012

You can tell a lot about a person by assessing what they purchase. It's called "consumer profiling," and corporations do it all the time. That's how those grocery store loyalty discount programs work, by the way -- they profile your psychology by analyzing what you're buying. From that information, they can target you for coupons, mailers and other marketing campaigns that "magically" speak to your particular interests. It's not magic, of course; it's just behavioral profiling.

So what happens if we profile the purchasing behavior of the U.S. government? What do we find?

Bullets, bullet-proof roadside checkpoint booths, and anti-radiation pills.

450 million rounds of hollow points to be used against the American people

Just a few weeks ago, the federal government initiated a contract for acquiring 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. "The special hollow point effectively passes through a variety of barriers and holds its jacket in the toughest conditions," says a press release from the award winner, ammunition manufacturer ATK. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/atk-secures-40-caliber-ammunition-co... ). This ammo is for the Department of Homeland Security as well as ICE.

Question: What does DHS intend to do with 450 million rounds of barrier-piercing hollow point ammunition?

The really important answer is that no one buys hollow point bullets for target practice. They're too expensive. Practice ammo is always FMJ ammo (Full Metal Jacket), meaning it has a solid tip. But the far more expensive hollow point ammo is ballistically designed to shred internal organs upon impact. It's the kind of ammo used by police officers who want to shatter the bad guy's sternum as quickly as possible and thereby bring him to the ground where he bleeds out from internal tissue trauma.

The DHS is a domestic agency. It does not fight wars overseas. It almost exclusively concerns itself with the American people on American soil. That the DHS is contracting to buy 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo can only mean DHS plans to need this ammo to be used against the American people.

Do the math: That's almost two bullets for every man, woman and child in America -- all in the hands of a government agency that says you should spy on your fellow citizens because they might be terrorists. The message is clear: Government is good, citizens are bad. And DHS feels it needs 450 million rounds of hollow point ammo to keep the American people in line, apparently. For what other purpose would so much hollow point ammo be purchased?

Bullet-proof roadside checkpoint booths If you're still not convinced that the USA is rapidly devolving into a fascist police state with TSA and DHS goons feeling your genitals at the airport and randomly searching your bags on city busses, DHS has now bought tens of millions of dollars worth of bullet-proof roadway checkpoint booths featuring level-3 bulletproof glass (http://www.prisonplanet.com/after-huge-ammo-buy-dhs-purchases-bullet-... ).

It forces us to ask the obvious question: For what purpose does the DHS need thousands of bulletproof checkpoint booths?

Once again, the answer is obvious: To quickly erect "show us your papers" checkpoints on roadways, highways and key traffic points nationwide.

Oh, by the way, DHS is also acquiring monstrous assault vehicles which you can see pictured here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/homeland-security-unveils-monstrous-swat-...

And in Houston, the TSA has unleashed a network of bus-riding secret agents to spy on citizens and search their bags on city busses. What's next, are they going to feel your genitals on the bus, too? You might be hiding a bomb in your anus, you know...

Do you think it is a coincidence that DHS is sourcing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets at the same time it is buying thousands of bulletproof checkpoint booths and hardened armored assault vehicles?

You may have also noticed cable barriers being installed along the medians of roadways across the country, by the way. Where there used to be just open grass, they are now pouring concrete, setting metal posts, and connecting them with multiple strands of high-strength steel cables. Have you figured out the purpose of these yet?

Isn't it obvious? They're designed to make it impossible for people to pull a U-turn and avoid the checkpoint booths that will soon be appearing! (And staffed by DHS and TSA agents wielding .40 hollow point bullets, no less.)

Are you starting to see the bigger picture here?

$400,000 in radiation fallout pills In addition to the hollow point ammo and the bulletproof checkpoint booths, the U.S. government has also purchased $400,000 worth of potassium iodide pills -- the kind of pills you take to avoid damage to your thyroid in the wake of radioactive fallout.

This is being done, of course, in anticipation of yet more problems at Fukushima, where just one more explosion or earthquake could unleash a hellstorm of radioactive pollution affecting virtually the entire planet. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/army-stockpiles-anti-radiation-pills-to-p...)

Isn't it interesting that the U.S. government is purchasing massive quantities of radiation protection pills, but when the Fukushima disaster struck in 2011, President Obama urged the American people to "do nothing" and assured them that they did not need to buy potassium iodide pills?

So here we have yet another case where the U.S. government is getting prepared while urging American citizens to AVOID getting prepared!

Isn't it time YOU got prepared? By the way, I'm hosting a LIVE, streaming home defense how-to event on May 8th. Learn more at: www.HealthRangerLIVE.com

Why would DHS need so many bullets and booths? It's obvious that DHS is buying all this gear to be used against the American people. But why?

Here, I reveal a rational list of possible explanations for this behavior. These are what I see as possible situations that would result in DHS activating their plans to take over America's roadways and set up armed checkpoints across the nation:

• Fukushima disaster followed by radiation wave. This would result in a mass of refugees fleeing the West Coast.

• Grid down. This is a worst-case scenario, actually, which would result in mass death across U.S. cities. Huge outflows of refugees would be met by DHS checkpoints. Admittedly, some of these checkpoint booths might actually be handy for small cities and towns to protect themselves from fleeing desperate refugees from the larger cities.

• Financial collapse followed by social unrest. In this scenario, the checkpoints would be used to limit travel and control a very unhappy population.

• False flag terror attack followed by declaration of Martial Law. The checkpoints would be used like they were in East Germany. "Show us your papers!" Anyone who doesn't have the right papers gets arrested, beaten, raped, tasered and thrown in one of Obama's secret prisons authorized by the NDAA.

• Pandemic outbreak and quarantine of cities. In this scenario, the checkpoints would be used to keep people IN the cities, preventing their escape. (Escape from New York, eh?)

• No emergency at all: DHS could decide to just implement all the checkpoints even without any event happening. It could all be put in place merely as part of their prisoner training agenda, which the TSA has been carrying out for years in the airports. Sort of a "get used to living in a police state" psychological tactic. I have no doubt that even if thousands of these checkpoints were put in place right now, all the government-worshipping, boot-licking Americans would bow down and praise the DHS for "keeping them safe" by borrowing a page right out of Nazi Germany.

Some people just love oppression, it turns out. I'm pretty sure they're vaccine damaged.

Record gun sales across America... what does it mean? DHS is without a doubt gearing up for something big. Yeah, BIG. At the same time, Americans are buying firearms in record numbers -- as in millions of guns a month.

My friend, a deputy Sheriff who runs a gun store, says he has to "pull 20 strings" just to keep rifles in stock. They are flying off the shelves like nothing he's ever seen before in over two decades of business. Multiple firearms companies in the USA have publicly announced they are REJECTING all new orders from retailers because they are so backlogged in manufacturing guns that they can't even keep up.

By my estimates, Americans have already purchased over 10 million firearms in just the first four months of 2012. And the numbers just keep growing.

What's going on with all this?

Regardless of what you think about firearms, the honest answer is that Americans are legally and lawfully arming to the teeth. They are stockpiling ammo like never before. They're buying emergency medical supplies and stored food. One home builder I know told me he's working on a luxury subdivision in a major U.S. city where every single homeowner opted to build a "bunker room" inside the house as an add-on. (I had no idea...)

If you don't run in these circles, you may not be aware of all this. But I've got friends in law enforcement, in the military, former intelligence officers, people in the food industry, and so on. They feed me info on a regular basis, and what they're telling me is that both the government and the (informed) public are all stockpiling like never before, and a lot of people are getting nervous about the possibility of Martial Law or government confiscation of food, farms, guns, gold and more.

If this is all news to you because you've never heard this before, you should be even more concerned because it means you're probably behind the curve on all this. If you don't own a firearm, rest assured that most of your neighbors probably do by now (depending on where you live, of course). And huge numbers of them are also taking classes and seminars on how to use those firearms in self defense. Just call any of the major instructional schools (Gunsight, Thunder Ranch, etc.) and ask them yourself. You'll find out that their classes are all sold out, or that they're added new classes like mad in order to keep up with the demand.

How can we avoid conflict? You've probably already figured out that all this purchasing of guns and ammo could be a disastrous recipe if the government begins to see the American people as the enemy. There are signs this is already under way, with even the Boy Scouts now being trained to target U.S. veterans as if they were enemy terrorists.

In a recent interview on the Alex Jones Show, survival author James Wesley Rawles (www.SurvivalBlog.com) warned that any government attempt to disarm the U.S. public would be disastrous and end in total failure. The American people are already armed to the teeth, and they're getting even MORE armed by the day. Yet Attorney General Eric Holder has been conspiring with Janet Napolitano to try to outlaw the Second Amendment by running guns into Mexico and blaming the resulting gun violence on lawful gun owners. This is the whole "Fast & Furious" fiasco (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50807).

There is also talk that if Obama is reelected, he may seek to ban all semi-auto firearms, which means most ranch rifles, handguns and even many shotguns. This is also driving large numbers of people into the gun shops to buy up the available inventory like never before. In the gun shop I visit in Austin, there's a poster on the wall of President Obama, labeled, "Salesman of the Year." Truth be told, no President has resulted in more guns getting into the hands of private citizens than Obama!

Even the parts backlog is getting bad. I've run into this myself: Just ordering gun parts has turned into a nightmare, with 2-3 month wait times on many parts. I recently tried to purchase some new holster gear and had to wait 8 weeks for it. When I spoke to the retailer, they told me "Everything is being bought up by returning veterans" who are gearing up at home.

Something huge is taking shape, and my Spidey Sense is getting a really bad vibe about it. I can only hope and pray that whatever comes down does not involve the government making a really bad miscalculation and thinking it can nullify the Bill of Rights and try to disarm the American public. That would be a terrible mistake that could result in a huge loss of life. What government needs to do right now is find some humility and stop destroying the United States Constitution and crushing our rights and freedoms.

Yet, regrettably, that's not what I see happening. All across the country, I see government (both national and local) becoming more arrogant, more combative, and more thuggish in their behavior. Just look at the inexplicable actions of the Michigan DNR which now unleashes arms "hit squads" of government agents to mass slaughter farmers' livestock using armed farm raids (http://www.naturalnews.com/035585_Michigan_farms_raids.html).

Or look at Darrin McBreen's recent visit to Roswell, GA, where brutish-looking local cops warned the InfoWars crew to "stop filming the City Hall" and backed this up by claiming "There is no such thing as public property in Georgia." (Yeah, seriously. This recording was played on national radio.)

In California, we've got the illegal and highly suspect raids against raw dairy farmers, and in Pennsylvania, cops steal children away from mothers in hospitals and have them forcibly vaccinated (i.e. sterilized) as part of a population control agenda.

Government is not getting less arrogant, but MORE arrogant across this nation. And I fear it can only end in something disastrous. The People will not put up with tyranny forever. There is a point beyond which people figure they have nothing left to lose and they take action to restore their fundamental liberties. This is the lesson of history, repeated over and over again, nation by nation, throughout recorded human history.

Where will YOU be in all this?

I urge you to stay safe I plan to be hunkered down at a ranch in Austin, Texas. Got my chickens, goats, rain barrel and ranch rifle. I'll be joining forces with the local Sheriff to stop looters, if it comes to that, and I'll be growing medicinal herbs to use in first aid treatment (I've actually already planted quite a collection). Who knows, I may end up running refugee duty, providing emergency medical care to refugees fleeing the city of Austin itself.

Now, you may not agree with my analysis of all this, but these contract numbers don't lie. DHS is really buying hundreds of millions of ammunition rounds. Private citizens are really buying millions of guns every month. And even if you don't believe in owning firearms yourself, this is nevertheless the reality of what's happening around you. I urge you to have a strategy that deals with this reality in an informed, compassionate and yet determined way. Things are shifting rapidly. The government is in mass stockpiling mode. Citizens are convinced something big is about to happen. We're four months into 2012 and there are a lot of people who think December, 2012 is going to be a chaotic time (I personally don't believe in all the Mayan calendar stuff, but that's just my view).

I know I'll be ready, but I'm concerned that many NaturalNews readers aren't as ready as they should be. I want you to do well through hard times. I want you to be safe, to have crucial skills, and to be part of the solution rather than the problem. People who fail to get prepared become part of the problem, but people who get prepared in advance can help provide critical supplies and skills to their local community, thereby reducing the burden on law enforcement and emergency services.

Be part of the solution.

Get prepared now for whatever might be coming.

And think hard about why DHS is contracting to acquire 450 million bullets to be used domestically.

The writing is on the wall, folks.

Activists plan week of protests against new House cybersecurity legislation

By Brendan Sasso - 04/15/12

BlackListed News

In an attempt to re-create the backlash that killed anti-piracy legislation earlier this year, activists are planning a "week of action" beginning on Monday to protest the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

Many of the groups leading the protest are veterans of the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Free Press, Fight for the Future and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Brock Meeks, a spokesman for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said the protest will rely on similar tactics as the ones used to derail the anti-piracy bills, potentially including petitions and phone calls to members of Congress.

But he said the groups have no plans to blackout websites, which was a central component of the anti-piracy protests.

"The aim of this week of action is to raise awareness about the serious concerns we have about CISPA," said Tiffiniy Cheng, co-director of Fight for the Future.

She said the protest will include a Twitter campaign directed at members of Congress.

Cheng and Meeks said more details about the protests will be available on Monday.

CISPA, which is authored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would tear down legal barriers that discourage companies from sharing information about cyber attacks.

The measure has more than 100 co-sponsors and is expected to come to the House floor for a vote during the week of April 23.

The activists are protesting the bill because they fear it would undermine the privacy of Internet users. They argue the broad language of the bill could lead companies to hand over information unrelated to cyber attacks, including users' names, addresses and Internet activity.

They are also concerned because the bill would give military spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency, access to the information the companies share with the government.

The House Intelligence Committee created a Twitter account for the first time last week to try to push back against criticism of the bill. Many of the first tweets on the account have focused on trying to dispel the notion that CISPA is similar to SOPA.

It is unclear whether the protests will attract the same level of attention that forced Congress to abandon the anti-piracy bills in January. Major websites such as Google and Wikipedia participated in the anti-piracy protests, but many Web companies, including Facebook, actively support CISPA.

Rainey Reitman, activism director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she is hopeful the protest will attract more attention to the information-sharing provisions of the bill.

"How far they're willing to amend it often reflects how intense the criticism is," Reitman said. "Gathering a lot of force right now could cause them to amend or give up entirely on the bill."

Jailing Americans for Profit: The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex

April 13, 2012

By John W. Whitehead

"Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today-perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system-in prison, on probation, or on parole-than were in slavery then. Over all, there are now more people under ‘correctional supervision' in America-more than six million-than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height."-Adam Gopnik, "The Caging of America"In an age when freedom is fast becoming the exception rather than the rule, imprisoning Americans in private prisons run by mega-corporations has turned into a cash cow for big business. At one time, the American penal system operated under the idea that dangerous criminals needed to be put under lock and key in order to protect society. Today, as states attempt to save money by outsourcing prisons to private corporations, the flawed yet retributive American "system of justice" is being replaced by an even more flawed and insidious form of mass punishment based upon profit and expediency.

As author Adam Gopnik reports for the New Yorker:

[A] growing number of American prisons are now contracted out as for-profit businesses to for-profit companies. The companies are paid by the state, and their profit depends on spending as little as possible on the prisoners and the prisons. It's hard to imagine any greater disconnect between public good and private profit: the interest of private prisons lies not in the obvious social good of having the minimum necessary number of inmates but in having as many as possible, housed as cheaply as possible.
Consider this: despite the fact that violent crime in America has been on the decline, the nation's incarceration rate has tripled since 1980. Approximately 13 million people are introduced to American jails in any given year. Incredibly, more than six million people are under "correctional supervision" in America, meaning that one in fifty Americans are working their way through the prison system, either as inmates, or while on parole or probation. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the majority of those being held in federal prisons are convicted of drug offenses-namely, marijuana. Presently, one out of every 100 Americans is serving time behind bars.

Little wonder, then, that public prisons are overcrowded. Yet while providing security, housing, food, medical care, etc., for six million Americans is a hardship for cash-strapped states, to profit-hungry corporations such as Corrections Corp of America (CCA) and GEO Group, the leaders in the partnership corrections industry, it's a $70 billion gold mine. Thus, with an eye toward increasing its bottom line, CCA has floated a proposal to prison officials in 48 states offering to buy and manage public prisons at a substantial cost savings to the states. In exchange, and here's the kicker, the prisons would have to contain at least 1,000 beds and states would have agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

The problem with this scenario, as Roger Werholtz, former Kansas secretary of corrections, recognizes is that while states may be tempted by the quick infusion of cash, they "would be obligated to maintain these (occupancy) rates and subtle pressure would be applied to make sentencing laws more severe with a clear intent to drive up the population." Unfortunately, that's exactly what has happened. Among the laws aimed at increasing the prison population and growing the profit margins of special interest corporations like CCA are three-strike laws (mandating sentences of 25 years to life for multiple felony convictions) and "truth-in-sentencing" legislation (mandating that those sentenced to prison serve most or all of their time).

And yes, in case you were wondering, part of the investment pitch for CCA and its cohort GEO Group include the profits to be made in building "kindler, gentler" minimum-security facilities designed for detaining illegal immigrants, especially low-risk detainees like women and children. With immigration a persistent problem in the southwestern states, especially, and more than 250 such detention centers going up across the country, there is indeed money to be made. For example, GEO's new facility in Karnes County, Texas, boasts a "608-bed facility still smelling of fresh paint and new carpet stretch[ing] across a 29-acre swath of farmland in rural South Texas. Rather than prison cells, jumpsuits, and barbed wire fencing, detainees here will sleep in eight-bed dormitory-style quarters, wearing more cozy attire like jeans and T-shirts. The facility's high walls enclose lush green courtyards with volleyball courts, an AstroTurfed soccer field, and basketball hoops, where detainees are free to roam throughout the day." All of this, of course, comes at taxpayer expense.

"And this is where it gets creepy," observes reporter Joe Weisenthal for Business Insider, "because as an investor you're pulling for scenarios where more people are put in jail." In making its pitch to potential investors, CCA points out that private prisons comprise a unique, recession-resistant investment opportunity, with more than 90% of the market up for grabs, little competition, high recidivism among prisoners, and the potential for "accelerated growth in inmate populations following the recession." In other words, caging humans for profit is a sure bet, because the U.S. population is growing dramatically and the prison population will grow proportionally as well, and more prisoners equal more profits.

In this way, under the pretext of being tough on crime, state governments can fatten their coffers and fill the jail cells of their corporate benefactors. However, while a flourishing privatized prison system is a financial windfall for corporate investors, it bodes ill for any measures aimed at reforming prisoners and reducing crime. CCA understands this. As it has warned investors, efforts to decriminalize certain activities, such as drug use (principally possession of marijuana), could cut into their profits. So too would measures aimed at reducing the prison system's disproportionately racist impact on minorities, given that the incarceration rate for blacks is seven times that of whites. Immigrants are also heavily impacted, with roughly 2.5 million people having been through the immigration detention system since 2003. As private prisons begin to dominate, the many troubling characteristics of our so-called criminal justice system today-racism, economic inequality, inadequate access to legal representation, lack of due process, etc.-will only become more acute.

Doubtless, a system already riddled by corruption will inevitably become more corrupt, as well. For example, consider the "kids for cash" scandal which rocked Luzerne County, Penn., in 2009. For ten years, the Mid Atlantic Youth Service Corporation, which specializes in private prisons for juvenile offenders, paid two judges to jail youths and send them to private prison facilities. The judges, who made over $2.6 million in the scam, had more than 5,000 kids come through their courtrooms and sent many of them to prison for petty crimes such as stealing DVDs from Wal-Mart and trespassing in vacant buildings. When the scheme finally came to light, one judge was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison and the other received 28 years, but not before thousands of young lives had been ruined.

In this way, minor criminals, from drug users to petty thieves, are being handed over to corporations for lengthy prison sentences which do nothing to protect society or prevent recidivism. This is the culmination of an inverted justice system which has come to characterize the United States, a justice system based upon increasing the power and wealth of the corporate-state.

No matter what the politicians or corporate heads might say, prison privatization is neither fiscally responsible nor in keeping with principles of justice. It simply encourages incarceration for the sake of profits, while causing millions of Americans, most of them minor, nonviolent criminals, to be handed over to corporations for lengthy prison sentences which do nothing to protect society or prevent recidivism. This perverse notion of how prisons should be run, that they should be full at all times, and full of minor criminals, is evil.

CISPA: New Internet bill could practically shred the First Amendment

April 9, 2012

By Brent Daggett

Contributing writer for End the Lie

Official portrait for Rep. Mike Rogers (Image credit: house.gov)

If ACTA, SOPA and PIPA were not enough to squelch Internet freedom, a new cyber bill could basically delete any remains of our first amendment.

On November 30, 2011 representatives Michael "Mike" Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD) introduced H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, which has 106 co-sponsors.

[Editor's note: for other cybersecurity proposals, see McCain's legislation which would give even more control to the military and National Security Agency, as well as the alternative proposal which would hand over broad control to the Department of Homeland Security. Also consider the scheme to be voluntarily implemented by Internet Service Providers wherein they will conduct massive surveillance on all Americans in the name of stopping piracy.]

As reported by The Hill, the main goal of this legislation is to assist companies in increasing their defenses against hackers that could steal business secrets, rob customer financial information and cause chaos on computer systems.

"Every day U.S. businesses are targeted by nation-state actors like China for cyber exploitation and theft," Rogers said in a statement last month. "The broad base of support for this bill shows that Congress recognizes the urgent need to help our private sector better defend itself from these insidious attacks."

Govtrack.us reveals the synopsis of H.R. 3523:

"Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 - Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines "cyber threat intelligence" as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information. Requires the Director of National Intelligence to: (1) establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence. Requires the procedures established to ensure that such intelligence is only: (1) shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance, (2) shared consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and (3) used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. Provides for guidelines for the granting of security clearance approvals to certified entities or officers or employees of such entities. Authorizes a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes), with the express consent of a protected entity (an entity that contracts with a cybersecurity provider) to: (1) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and (2) share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government. Regulates the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure. Prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances. Directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to submit annually to Congress a review of the sharing and use of such information by the federal government, as well as recommendations for improvements and modifications to address privacy and civil liberties concerns. Preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act."

While Rogers' intentions maybe to prevent cyber exploitations, advocacy groups are still concerned with the bill's overreaching capabilities.

In a letter to Rogers and Ruppersberger, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) illustrated their disdain.

December 1, 2011

The Honorable Mike Rogers, Chairman

The Honorable C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, Ranking Member House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

HVC-304 Capitol Building

Washington, DC 20515
Re: ACLU Opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011

Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with over half a million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide, we write in opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011. We ask that you delay markup to consider the privacy implications of the bill that would allow companies to share private data with the government. We urge you to amend the bill to include explicit collection and use limitations and rigorous oversight mechanisms. In the absence of such amendments, we will vigorously oppose this legislation as inconsistent with the long tradition of Americans' reasonable expectations of privacy.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act would create a cybersecurity exception to all privacy laws and allow companies to share the private and personal data they hold on their American customers with the government for cybersecurity purposes. The bill would not limit the companies to sharing only technical, non-personal data. Instead, it would give the companies discretion to decide the type and amount of information to turn over to the government. If shared in good faith compliance with the statute, these entities would receive full liability protection and would be immune from criminal or civil liability, even after an egregious breach of privacy. Further, once an individual's information is shared with the government, there would be no restriction on the use of that information. It could be used for any purpose whatsoever and shared with any agency. While such data might be used for cybersecurity purposes, there would be no bar on the government also using it to conduct fishing expeditions for criminal, immigration or other purposes.

Beyond the potential for massive data collection authorization, the bill would provide no meaningful oversight of, or accountability for, the use of these new information-sharing authorities. Congressional reporting would be delegated to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). But the PCLOB has never been activated, therefore making it likely that no regular, institutionalized and substantive reporting will happen at all. Moreover, no federal agency or official has been tasked with issuing guidance to companies and government agencies as to how best protect privacy.

Writing a statute to govern the sharing of cybersecurity information is a complex and challenging task. But any new programs simply must respect privacy. The White House's May legislative draft, the Recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force, and the Privacy Impact Assessment of Einstein 3 all contained more explicit privacy protections than the new bill. We encourage the committee to borrow from any of these documents in improving the privacy provisions of the legislation. Any new information-sharing legislation must at a minimum do the following:

· Narrowly define the privacy laws it will contravene. The committee must carefully consider what privacy laws truly inhibit necessary information-sharing and craft narrow exceptions limited to just those critical circumstances.

· House domestic cybersecurity efforts in a civilian agency. Congress must not empower military or intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency to collect the internet usage data of Americans. Cybersecurity efforts on American soil should be led by the private sector, and any government information collection must be coordinated by a civilian government agency.

· Require companies to remove personally identifiable information (PII) from data they share with the government. While sharing technical data can take place without implicating civil liberties, a presumption of privacy should protect PII. Sharing PII should be an exception and not the norm, even if there could be certain limited exceptions to cover legitimate emergencies or other narrowly defined situations.

· Limit government use of information shared for cybersecurity purposes. Cybersecurity information-sharing should not become a windfall of data for the federal government to use as it pleases. Any information shared with the government must have strict use limitations to ensure that this new program doesn't become an end run around privacy laws that would otherwise offer stronger protections.

· Create an oversight and accountability structure that includes public and congressional reporting. The executive branch must provide regular, substantive and public reporting, ideally by multiple Inspectors General and/or privacy officers.

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to working with you in the coming months as cybersecurity legislation advances through the House. Please contact Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson if you should have questions or comments about this correspondence.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office

Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel
CC: Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The ACLU is not the only organization fighting the bill.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a donor-funded nonprofit organization founded in 1990 that champions digital rights, privacy and censorship concerns.

EFF released this statement, the entirety of which can be found here:

"...There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by "cybersecurity purposes." That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats..."

Is there any validity to the statements made by the ACLU and EFF?

Unfortunately, yes.

Here is an excerpt from the bill, and can be read in its entirety at govtrack.us (linked above):

"2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence' means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from-

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information."

The bill is set to be voted on during the week of April 23 and hopefully, congress will vote down this authoritarian piece of legislation.

Because it is passed this would open Pandora's Box for other restrictions on privacy and sweeping internet censorship.

"There's no way to rule an innocent man. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that is becomes impossible to live without breaking laws," Ayn Rand.

North American Union Plan to Disarm the People of the United States

Rachel Cohen

From the Trenches

April 4, 2012

The international insurgent President Barack Obama hosted Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for talks on transnational trade and security Monday. This is a blatant display of an international socialist cabal, intent on further destroying the sovereignty of our republic and our individual states.

Mexican President Calderon proudly stated that his socialist government had confiscated 140,000 firearms in Mexico and then tried to imply that every one of them was bought in a gun store in the United States. He blamed the rash of violence in Mexico on the sunsetting of our unconstitutional assault weapons ban, suggesting new gun restrictions and confiscations in the United States as a necessity for Mexico's security.

There was of course no mention of the fact that our southern border is being deliberately left wide open. And of course no mention of the fact that US Attorney General Eric Holder, acting as representative for the insurgent Obama and in correlation with the Mexican government, has been running guns to Mexico and drugs back into the United States for years now.

This communist parley was immediately followed by the announcement that the FBI had arrived in Florida to begin investigating the death of Trayvon Martin. It looks like what this whole thing is building into is an attempt at gun confiscation in the United States.

The US government has begun buying up millions of rounds of ammunition, in fact to the point that it has driven up prices and availability for we the people here at home. What we are about to see is a coordinated attack on US nationality and our sovereignty.

Considering the duplicit acts the US government has been caught in in the past three years, using our own military to disarm us is not feasible. In fact what is left of our military in this country is now being considered the enemy as our troops are themselves preparing to stop the socialist insurgency in the United States.

This transnational cabal that has been formed is in preparation for Mexican and Canadian troops to be brought into the United States to disarm the American people in the name of safety and, as psychotic as it sounds, justice for Trayvon Martin.

The Martin case has been latched onto by the socialists in an attempt to put forth the illusion of racial disunity to the extent that the federal government has now had to step in. We must realize that 90% of the killings in the United States are blacks killing blacks and this is a direct result of inner city poverty and the $40 billion per year drug war, which cannot be won because the insurgents in our government are the cartel making billions from the prohibitions to our freedom to smoke or ingest whatever we please.

There are no words to describe the extent of the duplicity and treason we are seeing occur right before our eyes. We must wrap our arms around our 2nd Amendment and prepare to drive the invaders from our borders. We cannot tolerate even the smallest further infringement upon our 2nd Amendment, having the realization that in the end game, these international soviets intend to exterminate us after we are disarmed.

Fascism Comes to the Internet: Introducing CISPA

Joe Wright Activist Post

April 4, 2012

After nearly unprecedented pushback against bills SOPA and PIPA, their apparent defeat cannot yet be claimed. Most skeptics presumed that the defeat of the aforementioned would only serve to offer a compromised "SOPA light" at some point to circumvent criticism over government censorship. Well, it didn't take long. In addition to OPEN and ACTA to combat supposed piracy issues in the U.S. and Europe respectively, we now have been presented with a full-on fascist template for Internet control where government and private corporations will work hand in hand under the very broad definition of cybersecurity.

The CISPA acronym is probably the most honest of those proposed thus far, and certainly is self-explanatory: the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. Cybersecurity initiatives themselves are framed in such a way as to declare the free and open Internet to be subsumed into national security infrastructure, thus giving it over to the Pentagon, NSA, and other agents for use in surveillance and even offensive war. However, CISPA goes one step further to suggest that all information transmitted on this national security infrastructure is fair game for the prying eyes of the state. Most likely the private sector must bow to any and all demands made, or face being labeled as supporters of terrorism.

Both House and Senate are due to address CISPA (H.R. 3523) in the last weeks of April -- we had better make noise ten times louder than what was made against previous attempts to hijack the Internet. Once the Internet is co-opted openly by the military-industrial-surveillance complex, there will be very little chance for regaining what will be lost.

Arizona Passes Sweeping Internet Censorship Bill

Legislation to make it illegal to use "offensive" language online

Steve Watson Infowars.com

April 2, 2012

The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.

The law, which is being pushed under the guise of an anti-bullying campaign, would mean that anything communicated or published online that was deemed to be "offensive" by the state, including editorials, illustrations, and even satire could be criminally punished.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund breaks down Arizona House Bill 2549:

"The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,' ‘offend,' ‘harass' or ‘terrify,' as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying."

First Amendment activist group Media Coalition has written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, urging her not to sign the legislation into law.

The letter notes that the terms used in the bill are not defined in the statute or by reference, and thereby the law could be broadly applied to almost any statement.

"H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,' ‘offend,' ‘harass' or ‘terrify,'" the letter notes. ... ‘Lewd' and ‘profane' are not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd' is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane' is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices."

"H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person." the letter continues.

In this respect the law could even technically be applied to someone posting a status update on Facebook.

"Speech protected by the First Amendment is often intended to offend, annoy or scare but could be prosecuted under this law."The Media Coalition letter continues.

"A Danish newspaper posted pictures of Muhammad that were intended to be offensive to make a point about religious tolerance. If a Muslim in Arizona considers the images profane and is offended, the paper could be prosecuted. Some Arizona residents may consider Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about a Georgetown law student lewd. He could be prosecuted if he intended his comments to be offensive. Similarly, much general content available in the media uses racy or profane language and is intended to offend, annoy or even terrify."

"Bill Maher's stand up routines and Jon Stewart's nightly comedy program, Ann Coulter's books criticizing liberals and Christopher Hitchens' expressions of his disdain for religion, Stephen King's novels or the Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common taunting about sports between rival fans done online is frequently meant to offend or annoy, and is often done using salty and profane language."

This type of legislation is far from unprecedented. Last year, former president Bill Clinton proposed a law to censor internet speech. "It would be a legitimate thing to do," Clinton said in an interview that aired on CNBC. Clinton suggested the government should set-up an agency that monitors all media speech for supposed factual errors.

"That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors" he said. "And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it's a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money."

Cass Sunstein, head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also proposed banning speech on the internet that the government disagrees with. Sunstein proposed the creation of an internet "Fairness Doctrine" similar to the one that was used for years to limit and eliminate free speech on the radio.

This legislation represents yet another move to police and control freedom of expression via the internet. Once again it grants the state and the government the direct right to determine what is and is not "offensive" on a whim. It then allows for the prosecution of individuals and organisations based on such summations - an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

Biden Hints at More Gun Laws in Wake of Trayvon Martin Case

Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

March 31, 2012

Vice president Joe Biden told CBS News Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law will become a subject of debate following the Trayvon Martin shooting.

"It's important that people be put in a position where their Second Amendment rights are protected, but that they also don't, as a consequence of the laws, unintendedly put themselves in harm's way," Biden told Bob Schieffer in an interview that will air on "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Biden told CBS it is questionable if firearms allow people to protect themselves. "The idea that there's this overwhelming additional security in the ownership and carrying concealed and deadly weapons... I think it's the premise, not the constitutional right, but the premise that it makes people safer is one that I'm not so sure of," Biden said.

According to Gun Owners of America, firearms are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year - or about 6,850 times a day," a GOA factsheet notes. "This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives." In the vast majority of cases, brandishing a firearm prevented an attack of crime, the statistics reveal.

Forty three state constitutions contain specific references to the citizen right of self-defense. In addition, seven other states protect the right to self-defense statutorily.

Police cannot protect the public against violent crime and have repeatedly stated it is not their job to do so. Police response to emergencies has actually increased over the last decade.

Prior to the mid-1800s, individuals were responsible for their own protection and were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. "The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded ‘standing army,'" writes Peter Kasler.

In making his anti-gun argument, Biden ignored Supreme Court rulings made in 2008 and 2010. In the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling made in 2008, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm and the Second Amendment affirms the individual right to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense.

Biden favors more gun control laws, including closing the so-called "gun show loophole." The National Rifle Association gave him an "F" for his gun control voting record when he was a Senator.

New Bill Seeks To Let DHS Agents Coordinate More With Private Companies In Seizing Property (Like Domains)

March 30, 2012

By Mike Masnick

The federal government seems to have a real blindness for the fact that companies given government-granted monopoly privileges in the form of trademarks, copyrights and patents might seek to abuse those rights beyond what is reasonably allowed. Instead, they seem to assume that private companies will always properly limit any efforts to use those laws against true violators. Of course, we know that's not true, and that such monopoly holders regularly abuse the laws to block or shut down competitive activity or activity that the IP holder just doesn't like. And yet, the government continues to ignore that this happens. Last year, the White House put forth a bunch of suggested changes to IP law, some of which showed up in SOPA.

One of the ones that didn't show up in SOPA has now made its way into a new legislative proposal, H.R. 4216: Foreign Counterfeit Prevention Act, introduced by Reps. Ted Poe and Steve Chabot. The text of the bill seems simple enough. It changes 18 USC 1905, which currently forbids federal officials from revealing to private parties' information that they come across during investigations. The new bill seeks to make an exception to that: allowing Homeland Security/Customs & Border Patrol agents to share pre-seizure info or products with trademark and copyright holders.

Now, on its face, this might make sense. It's a way for CBP officials to ask copyright and trademark holders if their rights are being abused by potentially infringing products. But, as we noted when the White House first asked for this law, this hasn't always worked out so well in the past, in part because copyright and trademark holders are often not particularly truthful when asked if they infringe -- and they rarely, if ever, give any thought to fair use or other legitimate uses of their copyrights and trademarks. In fact, one of the reasons why the federal government screwed up so badly in seizing Dajaz1 was because it relied on bad claims by the RIAA, who insisted that works that were not infringing were infringing. Organizations like the RIAA have little incentive to get these things right. And this bill encourages greater coordination with those private parties?

The simple fact is that infringement is determined not by the copyright or trademark holder, but through a court process and adversarial hearing. Having Homeland Security sharing more info with private companies seems like a situation that is ripe for abuse. We've already seen how Homeland Security sometimes appears to act as the the private police force of certain private companies. Are we sure that we really want to create a situation that encourages more such activities?

World Bank Nominee Tied to Monsanto Shareholder Bill Gates, Soros

March 28, 2012

By Tim McCoy BlacklistedNews.com

Obama has nominated Dartmouth University president Jim Yong Kim, M.D. to head the United Nations World Bank. Most people think that UN agencies benefit poor people, but this is far from the truth.

The UN World Bank claims to fight poverty in developing nations by financing infrastructure projects. But the UN World Bank is really a tool used to acquire Third World natural resources through conditions on loans that are extremely difficult to repay. The raw resources are then privatized by insider multi-national corporations. The World Bank actually creates more poverty.

The nomination of Jim Yong Kim indicates that the World Bank may shift away from focusing on infrastructure and will instead turn toward providing healthcare in Third World countries. Jim Yong Kim's areas of interest include vaccines for tuberculosis as well as drugs for HIV and AIDS.

Kim brokered a deal with Big Pharma and the UN World Health Organization for expanding the pharmaceutical drug market to a larger populace in exchange for lower drug prices for second-line tuberculosis drugs. Second-line drugs are used when basic treatment fails because of drug resistance. Drug resistance similar to the new ‘resistant White Plague‘ brought about by big pharma's drugs.

Many in the medical community believed it would be dangerous to distribute second-line drugs widely. Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations.

HIV/AIDS drugs used in the Third World have profound side effects that include eye, kidney, liver and heart problems.

Jim Yong Kim says that the highest point in his career was when George Soros donated to Kim's tuberculosis vaccine program, which was followed by a a huge grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for $44.7 million. Monsanto shareholder Bill Gates, who has repeatedly stated that Monsanto's GMOs are the answer to starvation, despite scientific proof of the contrary, gave a controversial speech at a Ted conference outlining the controversial population reduction plan through ‘healthcare':

The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.

Additionally, Kim is the co-founder of Partners in Health along with Paul Farmer who is famous for saying that healthcare is a right. Healthcare as a "right" disables health freedom to escape the medical health paradigm and choose your own methods of healing. In addition, it also enables the government to determine whether or not an individual may receive care - the ‘right' to live or die. Therefore, this shocking and disturbing program falls into the category of a eugenics-based plan.

Conclusion:

The objective of Jim Yong Kim heading the UN World Bank appears to be to promote ludicrous policies by expanding healthcare through dangerous drugs. Kim's support for redistribution of wealth and socialized medicine may come with a tremendous price tag for developed countries (especially the US).

If the UN World Bank was truly a benevolent organization, the focus for the Third World would be on support for independent farming, clean water and food.

Feeding The Homeless Banned In Major Cities All Over America

Michael Snyder, Contributor

Activist Post

What would you do if you came across someone on the street that had not had anything to eat for several days? Would you give that person some food? Well, the next time you get that impulse you might want to check if it is still legal to feed the homeless where you live. Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America.

Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become "out of reach" for most average people. Some cities are doing these things because they are concerned about the "health risks" of the food being distributed by ordinary "do-gooders". Other cities are passing these laws because they do not want homeless people congregating in city centers where they know that they will be fed. But at a time when poverty and government dependence are soaring to unprecedented levels, is it really a good idea to ban people from helping those that are hurting?

This is just another example that shows that our country is being taken over by control freaks. There seems to be this idea out there that it is the job of the government to take care of everyone and that nobody else should even try.

But do we really want to have a nation where you have to get the permission of the government before you do good to your fellow man?

It isn't as if the government has "rescued" these homeless people. Homeless shelters all over the nation are turning people away each night because they have no more room. There are many homeless people that are lucky just to make it through each night alive during the winter.

Sometimes a well-timed sandwich or a cup of warm soup can make a world of difference for a homeless person. But many U.S. cities have decided that feeding the homeless is such a threat that they had better devote law enforcement resources to making sure that it doesn't happen.

This is so twisted. In America today, you need a "permit" to do almost anything. We are supposed to be a land of liberty and freedom, but these days government bureaucrats have turned our rights into "privileges" that they can revoke at any time.

The following are some of the major U.S. cities that have attempted to ban feeding the homeless....

Philadelphia

Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate....

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has announced a ban on the feeding of large numbers of homeless and hungry people at sites on and near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Mayor Nutter is imposing the ban on all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on city parkland, including Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, where it is not uncommon for outreach groups to offer free food.

Nutter says the feedings lack both sanitary conditions and dignity.
Orlando

Last June, a group of activists down in Orlando, Florida were arrested by police for feeding the homeless in defiance of a city ordinance....

Over the past week, twelve members of food activist group Food Not Bombs have been arrested in Orlando for giving free food to groups of homeless people in a downtown park. They were acting in defiance of a controversial city ordinance that mandates permits for groups distributing food to large groups in parks within two miles of City Hall. Each group is allowed only two permits per park per year; Food Not Bombs has already exceeded their limit. They set up their meatless buffet in Lake Eola knowing that they would likely be arrested as a result.

Houston

Down in Houston, a group of Christians was recently banned from distributing food to the homeless, and they were told that they probably would not be granted a permit to do so in the future even if they applied for one....

Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.

That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their "Feed a Friend" effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.

"We don't really know what they want, we just think that they don't want us down there feeding people," said Bobby Herring, a Christian rapper who goes by the stage name Tre9.
Dallas

Dallas has also adopted a law which greatly restricts the ability of individuals and ministries to feed the homeless....

A Dallas-area ministry is suing the city over a food ordinance that restricts the group from giving meals to the homeless.
Courts dismissed Dallas' request for a summary judgment last week, saying the case, brought up by pastor Don Hart (in video above) may indeed be a violation of free exercise of religion, as protected by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the blog Religion Clause reported.

In the court filing, the ministry leaders argue that their Christian faith requires them to share meals with the homeless (Jesus did!) and that the requirement that even churches and charities provide toilets, sinks, trained staff and consent of the city keeps them from doing so.
Las Vegas

A few years ago, Las Vegas became the first major U.S. city to specifically pass a law banning the feeding of homeless people....

Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.

But the Las Vegas ordinance is believed to be the first to explicitly make it an offense to feed "the indigent."
That law has since been blocked by a federal judge, and since then many U.S. cities have been very careful not to mention "the indigent" or "the homeless" by name in the laws they pass that are intended to ban feeding the homeless.

New York City

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Yes, this is really true.

The following is from a recent Fox News article....

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term "food police" to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city's homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can't assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.
Can you believe that?

The bureaucrats are officially out of control.

In America today, it seems like almost everything is illegal.

One church down in Louisiana was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have a government permit.

Well, I don't know about you, but I sure am going to give a cup of cold water to someone if they need it whether I have a permit or not.

It is as if common sense has totally gone out the window in this nation.

Over in New Hampshire, a woman is being sued for planting flowers in her own front yard.

This is the kind of thing that makes me glad that I have moved to a much more rural location. People in the country tend to be much more relaxed.

Sadly, those that love to micro-manage others continue to get the upper hand in America. Back in January, 40,000 new laws went into effect all over America. The politicians continue to hit us with wave after wave of regulations and laws with no end in sight.

All of this is making America a very unpleasant place in which to live.

Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order: ‘National Defense Resources Preparedness'

The White House March 16, 2012
Office of the Press Secretary

Executive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART I - PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").

Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.

PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.

Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.

Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.

PART III - EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY

Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.

Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.

Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.

Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.

Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.

Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.

Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.

Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.

Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).

PART IV - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c), (d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).

PART V - EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL

Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.

Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

PART VI - LABOR REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation's workforce needs for purposes of national defense;(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and(5) develop and implement an effective labor management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.

PART VII - DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE

Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):(1) The Secretary of State;(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;(3) The Secretary of Defense;(4) The Attorney General;(5) The Secretary of the Interior;(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;(7) The Secretary of Commerce;(8) The Secretary of Labor;(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;(10) The Secretary of Transportation;(11) The Secretary of Energy;(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;(13) The Director of National Intelligence;(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and(17) The Administrator of General Services.(b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.

Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.

PART VIII - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:(a) "Civil transportation" includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. "Civil transportation" also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. "Civil transportation" shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.(b) "Energy" means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.(c) "Farm equipment" means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.(d) "Fertilizer" means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.(e) "Food resources" means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. "Food resources" also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.(f) "Food resource facilities" means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).(g) "Functions" include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.(h) "Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense" means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.(i) "Health resources" means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.(j) "National defense" means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.(k) "Offsets" means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government to government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1 130.17.(l) "Special priorities assistance" means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.(m) "Strategic and critical materials" means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.(n) "Water resources" means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except "water resources" does not include usable water that qualifies as "food resources."

Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.

Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.

Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 16, 2012.

Global Activism is Taking Down the Toxic Corporate Food Industry

Anthony Gucciardi

Infowars.comTuesday, March 13, 2012

The foundation of the international food industry, monopolized by large corporations that hold zero regard for your health, is cracking. As more and more individuals begin to realize that they are eating their way to disease through the consumption of these products, they become outraged at the companies peddling their latest toxic food product. The result? Companies are now being forced to either answer to the consumer demands (removing the toxic substances from the food supply and adapting legitimate environmental manufacturing practices) , or lose their customers.

Increasingly, we see this happening on a larger scale. Major companies like Campbell's have begun abandoning bisphenol A (BPA), the cancer-linked chemical found in can linings and plastic containers. The change comes after even the FDA was forced to re-evaluate the safety of BPA, potentially issuing a ban by the end of this month. Linked to cancer, diabetes, and much more, consumers have become fully aware of the dangers that BPA presents - and they aren't handing over their hard-earned dollars to companies that refuse to remove BPA from their products.

On a larger scale, corporations are also being forced to remove high-fructose corn syrup. Well known for its health effects even throughout the general public, not only does high-fructose corn syrup breed obesity and cancer, but it is even known to contain mercury. Consumers are now refusing to eat anything that contains this ingredient, and for good reason. Even Michelle Obama has gone public in stating that she refuses to feed her own children products that contain high-fructose corn syrup. It is due to this that food titans like Sara Lee and Kraft have begun removing the ingredient from their products to avoid losing a large number of sales.

Activism and education is making legitimate changes in the way that the world eats and thinks.

While it is a major victory that these companies are phasing out these ingredients, it is only the beginning of the mass rejuvination of the food supply that needs to take place in order for consumers to experience optimum health. BPA and high-fructose corn syrup alone are creating biological devastation, but what about aspartame, MSG, genetically modified ingredients, trans fat, and other harmful additives? These harmful substances can be removed as well; it simply requires the same activism and education that is resulting in the removal of BPA and high-fructose corn syrup.

Spread the word. It will not only change the health of your close friends and family, but the entire globe. Removing just a few toxic ingredients can prevent countless unnecessary deaths as a result of disease development.

Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill

March 10, 2012

Source: RT

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

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

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

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

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

"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."

Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law." So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones' self.

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

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

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

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

Bill would create partnership between NSA and U.S. corporations

By Stephen C. Webster

March 8, 2012

Speaking at a policy debate Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation, a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned that a bill currently being considered by the House Select Committee on Intelligence would intertwine the National Security Agency (NSA) with corporate America, exposing vast amounts of private civilian data to unprecedented levels of monitoring, all in the name of "cybersecurity."

H.R. 3523, introduced last year by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), purports to help safeguard American corporations from espionage and cyber crime by allowing the NSA and other federal spy agencies to work directly with large corporate players, funneling them classified information on threat assessments to enable companies to defend themselves.

While the bill is openly supported by companies like AT&T, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Facebook, Boeing and Intel, ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson cautioned Wednesday that it is not something to be taken up lightly.

"[The Rogers bill] will encourage companies to share personal and private data with the government," she said. "And then with very little oversight, allow the information to be used in a number of different ways."

"If you put the government int he middle of an information sharing scheme, it is absolutely critical that you clarify that it must be run by a civilian agency," Richardson added. "One of our biggest criticisms of the Rogers bill is that they either explicitly say information should go to the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, or they're otherwise silent and allow companies to choose where they want to send information, including to these different military facilities."

Rogers contended that the NSA is full of "brilliant" people who "spend their day trying to figure out what the bad guys are doing to people, and what potential bad things are out there that we ought to be looking for."

"Imagine how much stronger [U.S. corporations] would be if we let them know what the enemies are up to, and allowed them to see it in a very classified way, so that they can apply that knowledge to their networks and protect that network," he added.

While it may sound good to some, Richardson countered that Rogers' plan breaks with American tradition by explicitly using a military organization for domestic purposes.

"It's a longstanding American value that the military does not operate on U.S. soil, and that's what we're really talking about here with these cyber security programs: domestic, civilian Internet use," she said. "It is wholly inappropriate to have the military at the center of receiving, processing and distributing that information."

Richardson also stressed that should Congress commit to using the government as an information sharing apparatus for corporate America, it must very narrowly define how information is shared and limit exceptions to privacy laws to extraordinary circumstances only.

The ACLU also recommended in a letter published in December that Congress take special care to require that all personally identifiable information be removed from information shared with its cyber command, to protect against the potential for abuse. They also asked for an oversight structure that produces regular public reports on the program.

"We're very happy to see that the Obama Administration agrees, and they've spent the last several years making sure that these sorts of civilian domestic cyber security operations are going through [the Department of Homeland Security] and not the NSA," Richardson said.

Bust Reveals Government Runs Hacking Groups

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com March 6, 2012

The establishment media has characterized the leader of LulzSec ratting out his hacktivist comrades as betrayal, but the incident reveals something far more sinister - government is responsible for creating and unleashing computer hacker groups.

Hector Xavier Monsegur, said to be the leader of LulzSec, worked for the FBI, according to news reports. He was reportedly arrested in Puerto Rico last June, pleaded guilty to hacking charges, and then began working with the FBI - or so the cover story would have it.

Monsequr, aka Sabu, decided what targets to attack and who would participate in the attacks, more than likely at the direction of this FBI handlers. It is believed he participated in the Anonymous effort to hack HBGary, the security firm that works closely with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Pentagon.

Sabu's Lulz Security, commonly abbreviated as LulzSec, claimed responsibility for taking the CIA website offline. It also attacked Fox News, PBS, Sony, and a number of gamer sites. LulzSec claims to have hacked local InfraGard chapter sites, the organization affiliated with the FBI, and released the emails and passwords of a number of users of senate.gov.

LulzSec and Anonymous attacks have provided the government with an excuse to push their cyber security agenda and propaganda campaign, including the proposal for a "kill switch" that would have allowed Obama to shut down the internet (due to public outrage, the proposal was dropped from a House bill in February).

Government and corporate groups cited LulzSec and Anonymous lawlessness last June to push the so-called Protect IP Act (known as PIPA). The introduction of a House version of the bill, dubbed SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act), was met with public outrage and widespread activism that forced Congress to reconsider the legislation.

In October, Mother Jones revealed that the FBI is notorious for creating supposed terrorist groups from scratch and then framing patsies in order to claim the government is protecting the United States from terrorists and also breathe life into an otherwise moribund war on mostly nonexistent terrorism.

Sabu's role as an FBI provocateur working inside LulzSec reveals the government is attempting to do the same in order to push its so-called cybersecurity agenda. The establishment is eager to pass a raft of legislation to closely regulate the internet, strip the medium of its anonymity, and close it down as an activism and alternative media tool

CIA Operated Aerial Spraying Plane Carrying "Mutated" Virus Shot Down in China

March 1, 2012

antinewworldorderparty

Reports circulating in the Kremlin today are stating that a US government contracted airplane piloted by American CIA agents and carrying a cargo of a "mutated"swine flu virus intended for aerial spraying was shot down at China's Shanghai Pudong airport by a saboteur team of what are believed to be Israeli Mossad soldiers seeking to prevent an American attack upon one of their Central Asian bases located in the Central Asian Nation of Kyrgyzstan.

According to Chinese media reports on this incident the stricken Zimbabwean MD-ll plane, owned by the CIA linked Avient Aviation company operated by a former British military officer named Andrew Smith and registered in the UK , killed 3 American CIA agents and injured 4 other personal who are reported to be from United States, Indonesia, Belgium and Zimbabwe.

Most interesting to note in these reports on the victims of this plane shootdown is that the Indonesian man currently being treated for his injuries has ‘confessed' to Chinese secret police forces that he is a technician employed by the United States Navy at their mysterious Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2 (NAMRU-2 ) located in Indonesia that Indonesian Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono had previously called for the closing of "because its operations were too secretive and were incompatible with Indonesia's security interests. "

Even more interesting to note about this US Navy secret bio-weapons base in Indonesia (the World's largest Muslim Nation) was its establishment in cooperation with the Rockefeller Institute , especially with it being the main center for the Americans Viral Diseases Program (VDP ) they describe as the research of "epidemiologic and laboratory research on viral hemorrhagic fevers, influenza, encephalitis, and rickettsioses" and the head of this institute, David Rockefeller, long calling for a massive reduction in our World's population .

And to the agenda currently underway to radically change our World through the mass death of its population we need look no further for its explanation than David Rockefeller's own words he spoke before the secretive Trilateral Commission in June, 1991, when he said :

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries."

To the United States employing planes to spread a mutated swine flu virus around the World we have further reports from China, and as we can read:

"June 26 Suspicious aircrafts were forced to land. A US operated AN-124 changed its call sign from civillian to military which then triggered a response from the IAF upon entering Pakistani air space, the plane was forced to land in Mumbai while the second one was forced down by Nigerian figther jets that also arrested the crew.

According to reports China (China's People's Liberation Army Air Force) contacted the Indian and Nigerian intelligence officials about the presence of these US operated Ukranian aircrafts amidst growing concern that the United States were spreading "biological agents" in the Earth's atmosphere also which some Chinese officals believed to be a attempt to mass genocide via the spread of h1n1 swine flu.

The strange thing about these reports and arrests as well as the forcing down of the planes were that these aircrafts were carrying "waste disposal" systems that could spray up to 45000kg or 100pounds of aerial type mist from sophisticated network of nano pipes that led throughout the trailing edges of the wings thereby dispersing whatever was in these tanks through a mist."

Reports of these US planes over Ukraine have been reported as well, and as we can further read:

"Authorities in the town of Kiev, Ukraine denied any spraying of "aerosolized medication" by aircraft over the city. This after it was reported that light aircrafts were seen flying over the forest market area that sprayed a aerosol substance to fight h1n1 or swine flu.

5 Sources confirms this and the local newspapers of Kiev also received hundreds of phone calls from residents and business owners close to the area the planes were spraying the suspicious substance. Not only that but local businesses and retailers were "advised" to stay indoors during the day by the local authorities.

As if that is not enough, the government authorities also pushed the radio stations in Kiev to deny the reports. Online on forums, websites and blogs reports came in about eye witness accounts that confirms this. There was also reports of helicopters spraying aerosols over Kiev, Lviv, Ternopil and throughout Ukraine."

Most disturbing of the effects of the spraying of this mutated swine flu virus over the Ukraine is the devastating toll it has taken on the people of that country, and as we can read:

"Almost 40 000 people got infected since yesterday in the Ukraine by what we still call the "Ukraine plague" but doctors have said recently that this is a stronger case of h1n1 or swine flu that has mutated and has that affect on the lungs where it destroys the lungs and fills it with blood."

But, to the most horrible outcome of this mutated swine flu virus is the World Health Organization now reporting that it is killing people in France, Norway, Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico, Ukraine, and the United States as the death toll from this Global Pandemic is now reported to be nearing 8,000 and China now reporting that this deadly disease has now crossed over into dogs.

Important to also note in these reports is that the US spray plane shot down in China was reported to be targeting a secret Israeli base located in the Central Asian Nation of Kyrgyzstan, which many Ashkenazi Jews (Ashkenazi Jews make up approximately 80% of Jews Worldwide) consider their ‘spiritual homeland' after their long exile their under Soviet Communist rule, and where Russian Intelligence Analysts report the Israelis are nearing the end of their decades long deciphering of the ancient Epic of Manas manuscript (with close to half a million lines the Epic of Manas is twenty times longer than Homer's Odyssey and Iliad combined) that they believe contains our World's oldest warning to our present age and which (coincidentally?) agrees with the ancient Mayan peoples that the year of 2012 will see the ending of our present age.

To the final outcome of these events it is not in our knowing; other than to state the obvious, that the truths of these things are continued to be ignored, even scoffed at, by the very people whose extermination has been longed planned by these monsters and is now being carried out, and who still have no idea whatsoever how truly easy it has become for them to be controlled by their propaganda masters.

One can only hope that they awaken before all is lost for them, the facts suggest they won't.

NSA Power Grab: New Legislation Would Give It Broad Powers To Spy On 'Critical' Private Networks

from the doesn't-pass-the-laugh-test dept

BlackListed News

Well, we saw this one coming a mile away. Last week, in talking about the current fight in the Senate over the new cybersecurity legislation that's making the rounds, we noted that the behind-the-scenes story appeared to be that the NSA was going to make a power play to try to get responsibility for cybersecurity handed to it, rather than Homeland Security. Over the last few days, it's become clear that's exactly what's going on. While neither the NSA nor DHS inspire much confidence when it comes to heading up cybersecurity, the NSA plan is really crazy. It's expected that Senator McCain will be introducing legislation shortly that would give cybersecurity responsibility to the NSA.

McCain is positioning his version of the bill as one that focuses on "a cooperative relationship with the entire private sector through information sharing, rather than an adversarial one with prescriptive regulations." However, reports are that McCain's version involves a plan that the NSA has been aggressively lobbying for to give it access to networks deemed "critical." The NSA says that it wants to monitor these networks in case of attack so it can spring into action.

However, given the NSA's other mandates (spying!) this certainly has raised some fairly significant concerns. Should every private company running a network deemed critical automatically be required to install a special NSA spying box? Even the White House and the Justice Department (no strangers to over aggressive monitoring) have pushed back that this would be "unprecedented government" intrusion into the civilian internet. It's apparently gotten so bad, that the Obama administration has privately slapped down NSA boss General Keith Alexander (last heard talking about how Anonymous was going to shut down powerlines) for "advocating for something beyond that, that is undermining the commander in chief."

Of course, the administration can't stop former NSA boss Mike McConnell from running around spreading fear mongering stories about how the entire internet is at risk if we don't give the NSA unprecedented spying powers. Left out of his talks on this matter is that, not only has he been making these claims about how the internet is on the verge of collapse if the NSA doesn't get these powers for many, many years (without any evidence to show that it's true), but he's also now employed by Booz, Allen as a VP -- which is relevant, because Booz is already profiting massively from all this fear mongering, by getting hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts to "help" the government deal with the scary threats of the internet.

Jim Dempsey, over at CDT has a discussion of just how ridiculous this NSA powergrab is, in that it makes some key assumptions that just don't seem supported by reality:

The NSA's claims are premised on the dual assumptions that the private sector is not actively defending its systems and that only the NSA has the skills and the technology to do effective cybersecurity. The first is demonstrably wrong. The Internet and telecommunications companies are already doing active defense (not to be confused with offensive measures). The Tier 1 providers have been doing active defense for years - stopping the threats before they do damage - and the companies have been steadily increasing the scope and intensity of their efforts.

The second assumption (that only the NSA has the necessary skills and insight) is very hard for an outsider to assess. But given the centrality of the Internet to commerce, democratic participation, health care, education and multiple other activities, it does not seem that we should continue to invest a disproportionate percentage of our cybersecurity resources in a military agency. Instead, we should be seeking to improve the civilian government and private sector capabilities.
Dempsey goes on to say that the NSA has already been helping Tier 1 providers by sharing its "secret sauce" to protect them against attack without having to have full access to the networks, and it seems silly that a process like that can't continue and be quite effective without giving up all privacy. Similarly, Jerry Brito, who has been following all of this very closely, notes that it's somewhat crazy to think that we can't just continue with the NSA assisting at arms-length without giving them full access to private networks.

Brito further highlights that there's a reason why we have civilian law enforcement for domestic issues, not military officials -- noting that (while they don't always succeed), civilian law enforcement is used to working within "an environment where constitutional rights apply and to use force only as a last resort." That is simply not true of the military or the NSA, whose operations usually involve issues outside the US, where the Constitution does not apply. And yes, they've certainly blurred that domestic/foreign line over the years, but that's no reason to go even further and give the military more power of the private domestic internet.

Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make protest illegal

February 29, 2012
Source: RT

Just when you thought the government couldn't ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn't already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president's palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting - even temporarily - is covered, as is any building or grounds "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It's not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn't extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn't stop with just him. Santorum's coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone - rather it's President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney - will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of "official functions," engaging in disorderly conduct "within such proximity to" the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate's concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don't just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance - a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security - extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don't forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don't fret. It's not like the country will really try to enforce it - right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a "terrorist" under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, "The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal."

"Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity - even if that activity is annoying to those government officials - violates our rights," adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don't worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn't mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don't take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

Wyoming Introduces ‘Doomsday Bill' To Prepare For Collapse of Federal Government

Legislation lays plans for alternate currency in aftermath of US dollar devaluation

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com, February 27, 2012

Lawmakers in Wyoming have introduced a bill that would compel the state to prepare for a complete collapse of the federal government, laying plans for an alternate currency, a standing army raised via a military draft, and an aircraft carrier.

"House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government," reports the Wyoming Star-Tribune.

Compared to the rest of the country, Wyoming's public finances are in a relatively good condition, a fact that has spurred lawmakers to protect the state against contagion from other areas that could develop in the aftermath of a massive financial collapse.

The bill (PDF) lays the groundwork for how the state would respond in the event of a sudden devaluation of the dollar or "a situation in which the federal government has no effective power or authority over the people of the United States."

"I don't think there's anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape - because that is clearly not the case," state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, said. "To put your head in the sand and think that nothing bad's going to happen, and that we have no obligation to the citizens of the state of Wyoming to at least have the discussion, is not healthy."

The bill has to pass two more House votes before it can be considered by the Senate. If passed, the task force would have until December 1, 2012 to submit a report to the governor detailing the continuity of government plan.

While authorities at both the state and federal level are making preparations for social dislocation, with FEMA recently ordering $1 billion dollars worth of dehydrated food, a total of 420 million meals, Americans who buy food supplies in bulk are being characterized as potential terrorists by the FBI.

Continuity of government plans implemented at the federal level are so sensitive that when the plan was last updated in 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio was barred from seeing the details despite being a sitting member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Peter DeFazio (D - OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House's plan for operating the government after a catastrophic terrorist attack, but was denied access, leading him to comment, "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right."

Five years later, the biggest threat posed to America's survival in its current form of government stems not from terrorists but from the country's huge unsustainable national debt and the possibility of another economic collapse.

A USA Today article published yesterday quoted three separate financial experts who all concur that the worst of the financial turmoil is yet to come, with trend forecaster Gerald Celente warning of an "economic 9/11″ that will provoke mass civil unrest fueled by anti-government sentiment.

The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom

Top-down, international regulation is antithetical to the Net, which has flourished under its current governance model.

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

BlackListed News

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online-and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly-and more fundamentally-than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.

Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet-no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous-should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation-a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe

Drones Come to the US

by Bill Van Auken

Global Research, February 21, 2012

A little-noted amendment to a $63 billion Federal Aviation Authority appropriations bill has ominous implications for democratic rights in the United States.

President Barack Obama signed the bill, the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012", into law on February 14. It clears the way for a vast expansion of the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, over US territory.

The legislation, passed earlier this month, underscores the link between the explosive growth of US militarism abroad and the steady advance of police state repression at home.

Drones have become infamous the world over as instruments of US military aggression and assassination in the "global war on terror". Their use has expanded exponentially over the last decade. In 2001, the US military arsenal included barely 50 drones. Now, it has a fleet of some 7,500, ranging from small Raven drones, used for surveillance, to the better known Predators and Reapers, capable of hovering unseen over human targets for up to 28 hours and firing Hellfire missiles with devastating effect.

Just last month, Obama publicly praised what had ostensibly been a covert drone war against Pakistan, though the Pakistani people themselves were well aware who was responsible for the death raining down upon impoverished villages in the country's tribal areas. The drone strikes have dramatically escalated during the Obama administration. They have claimed nearly 2,700 victims since 2004, the great majority of them unarmed men, women and children.

Drones have been employed in carrying out CIA killings in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. Their targets have included US citizens, like the New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was condemned to death at the direction of the US president, without ever being charged or a shred of evidence presented against him in a court of law.

These massacres and assassinations are carried out by remote-control, with CIA and military operatives targeting their victims on computer screens from cubicles in the Nevada desert and offices near Langley, Virginia.

Now this technology is coming home. The legislation signed last week by Obama requires the FAA, within 90 days, to expedite the process through which government agencies are able to secure permission to operate their own drones over US soil. Smaller drones must be cleared for operation by any "government public safety agency" almost immediately. Within six months, the FAA must establish a pilot program to integrate drones into the "national airspace system" in six test areas around the country.

By 2020 an estimated 30,000 drones could be operating in US skies-including military, police and corporate-owned UAVs. They are already in use by the Department of Homeland Security in monitoring US borders.

A key driving force behind the legislation was the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, whose members include such giants of the military-industrial complex as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, and whose lobbyists reportedly wrote the language of the bill. The market for drones already approaches $6 billion annually and is expected to double over the next ten years.

In the first instance, this proliferation of drones sets the stage for a vast expansion of state spying upon American citizens. Drones can carry sophisticated surveillance equipment capable of not only photographing and video-recording every step taken by individuals once they leave their homes, but also intercepting electronic communications and cellphone calls.

"Drones give the government and other (UAV) operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans' movements and activities," Jennifer Lynch, staff attorney for the Electronic Freedom Foundation warned last month as the EFF filed a lawsuit demanding data on authorizations already granted by the government for drone use in US airspace.

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that drones inside the United States will not be armed, putting to use within the United States the experience the US government has obtained from its killing spree in Pakistan and the assassination of Awlaki. In this regard, it is worth recalling the arguments used to justify the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by Obama last December.

With this bill, the US Congress enshrined in law the president's extra-constitutional power to condemn anyone, including US citizens grabbed on American soil, to indefinite military detention without judicial review.

The rationale offered by congressional backers is that the "global war on terror" has turned the entire planet into a battlefield, including the US itself. There is no reason why a government that accepts this reactionary claim would shrink from using drones to kill people within the United States, while it uses them regularly for assassination abroad.

With the backing of the Obama administration, both the Republican and Democratic Parties and with barely a word of opposition from within the media or the political establishment as a whole, the machinery is being put in place for a full-blown American military-police state.

Underlying this process is the unprecedented social polarization between the financial aristocracy that monopolizes wealth and power and working people, the overwhelming majority of the population.

Under conditions in which the global capitalist crisis has deepened this polarization and given rise to the first signs of renewed class struggle, the ruling elite is turning to the same bloody methods it has used to advance its interests abroad to defend its grip on power at home.

Washington DC: FBI Foils Own Terror Plot (Again)

February 17, 2012

By Tony CartalucciBlacklistedNews.com

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has once again proven that the only thing Americans need fear, is their own government, with the latest "terror attack" foiled being one entirely of their own design.

USA Today reports that a suspect had been arrested by the FBI who was "en route to the U.S. Capitol allegedly to detonate a suicide bomb." While initial reports portrayed the incident as a narrowly averted terrorist attack, CBS would report that a "high ranking source told CBS News the man was "never a real threat."" The explosives the would-be bomber carried were provided to him by the FBI during what they described as a "lengthy and extensive operation." The only contact the suspect had with "Al Qaeda" was with FBI officials posing as associates of the elusive, omnipresent, bearded terror conglomerate. The FBI, much like their MI5 counterparts in England, have a propensity for recruiting likely candidates from mosques they covertly run.

This is but the latest in a string of national terror plots carried out from start to finish by the FBI, who has made a business of approaching likely candidates and grooming them to carry out terror attacks. In September 2011, another FBI terror operation targeting the Capitol was "foiled," involving a patsy who believed he was to take part in an assault that would involve multiple gunmen and even a drone bomber provided to him by the FBI.

And perhaps the most dubious of all, was the December 2010 Portland "Christmas Tree Bomber," who was also approached by the FBI, provided demolition training, including a demonstration with live explosives performed in a Lincoln County park, and a van within which the patsy believed his handlers had provided him a bomb. The van with the inert device was parked next to a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where the patsy attempted to detonate it remotely before being arrested by FBI agents.

It would later turn out that Portland had heroically withdrew from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, (JTTF), with the operation then being carried out behind Portland Mayor Sam Adam's back only for its conclusion to humiliatingly catch the mayor off guard. The city of Portland would eventually rejoin the JTTF after the fallout from the FBI's own terror plot.

The FBI is carrying out what is essentially a campaign of entrapment fueling what alternative news outlet Media Monarchy appropriately calls "terronoia." And while it is true that these incidents are being used to foment a climate of fear to justify the ongoing "War on Terror," there is a more sinister implication readers must be aware of.

In 1993 the FBI was carrying out an identical "sting operation" in New York City. The target was the World Trade Center, the weapon of choice would be a bomb-laden van, that like the above mentioned attacks, was supposed to contain an inert device. Helping the FBI was an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem, who over the course of the investigation grew suspicious of the federal agents and began recording his phone conversations with them.

From these recordings released by the New York Times, it turns out that the FBI switched out the inert device for real explosives at the last moment resulting in an attack that killed 6 and injured over a thousand. Despite this evidence, the 1993 bombing is still to this day attributed to "terrorists" with the FBI's involvement muted if ever mentioned.

The implications are of course, with the FBI's current nationwide stable of patsies being trained, directed, and provided material support to carry out attacks the FBI then "foils," is at any given moment, any one of these operations can be switched "live" just as in 1993. The resulting carnage can then be used to manipulate public opinion just as it was in 1993, 2001, on 7/7 in London, and in Madrid, Spain in 2004.

The risk rises exponentially now with Israel being confirmed to be training, arming, and directing US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, also known as Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK). The US has also played an extensive role in supporting MEK who is currently carrying out a campaign of terror inside of Iran.

This is part of a plot by the US indicated in its own policy papers, openly conspiring to provoke a war with Iran. This is best encapsulated in this often cited quote from US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution:

"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.

The same report would go on to say:

"In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context-both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer-one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians "brought it on themselves" by refusing a very good deal."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran's economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations (MEK) to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

"It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not."

The report continues:

"However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 95.

With this in mind, and with the 1993 World Trade Center attack as a historical precedent, it is almost a certainty that the West and Mossad are carrying out the current global wave of bombings now being blamed on Iran. This includes two failed bombings in India and Georgia, and a more recent incident in Bangkok, Thailand.

Law enforcement officers across America may be witnessing the FBI conducting through their JTTF what they believe to be a "sting operation" that may end up being the next major terrorist attack on US soil - and the pretext for certain war with Iran.

The fears of Portland Mayor Sam Adams were well founded, and it took an act of terror to strong-arm him and the people of Portland into capitulating to the federal JTTF program. Local law enforcement, for the safety of themselves and the people they are charged to serve and protect, would be wise to keep an eye on the FBI - apparently the most likely source from which terror plots both "foiled" and "successful" are hatched

Virginia House Passes NDAA Nullification 96-4

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com

February 17, 2012

In a move completely ignored by the establishment media, the Virginia House of Delegates has voted in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), legislation that codifies in Virginia law noncompliance with the "kidnapping provisions" of section 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).

The final vote, held on February 14, was 96-4. The bill was sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on January 16th of this year.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is on record as opposing the legislation.

HB 1160 reads as follows: "A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation."

Passing the legislation demonstrates the power of local grassroots activism. A number of groups opposed to the federal NDAA bill petitioned the government in Virginia and motivated a Sub-Committee #2 Civil vote followed by a vote of 16-0 by the Courts of Justice Committee which led to the passage of Bob Marshall's final bill earlier this week.

"Under the recently passed 2012 federal Defense Authorization Act American citizens may be indefinitely detained, incarcerated, not presented with charges and denied counsel based on an accusation by federal agents of collaboration with or support of terrorists," Marshall told the Tenth Amendment Center. "While Virginia cannot directly undo this purported law which undermines the Sixth Amendment, I introduced HB 1160 which will prevent the use of any Virginia agency or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force to assist in any way to unlawfully detain a citizen of Virginia on behalf of the United States Government in violation of the Constitution of Virginia."

The Tenth Amendment Center is currently tracking the progress of legislation in opposition to the NDAA in other states.

The legislation "is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people," the Tenth Amendment Center states, "and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution."

As Predicted, CIA-Sponsored Muslim Bros. Becomes Enemy

February 16, 2012

Daily Bell

Egypt's cold shoulder ... A sudden new wave of anti-Americanism is thriving in Cairo ... As 16 U.S. citizens await trial in Egypt for accepting foreign financing to promotedemocracy, for the first time in more than 30 years there is a serious debate in Washington about whether to end the $1.3-billion annual military assistance to Cairo. There's no debate in Egypt, however. More than 70% of Egyptians, according to a recent Gallup poll, no longer want U.S. funding. Facing extreme challenges at home and in need of distractions, anti-Americanism has become Cairo's preferred populist recourse. Although a solution might be found for this particular controversy - with or without U.S. foreign assistance - this bilateral dynamic assures that the next crisis is not far off. - Los Angeles Times

Dominant Social Theme: The Muslim Brotherhood is a bad and radical organization. Now they've emerged from nowhere to challenge the United States and the larger West. Bad luck, eh? Who could have known?

Free-Market Analysis: In a series of groundbreaking articles (beep, beep, alert: self-promotion ahead!) we have tried to establish (with some success in our view) that the Anglosphere power elite has been using the State Department and the US military to overthrow secular Middle Eastern and African regimes.

We have also pointed out that the logical successors were Islamic fundamentalist regimes. We have explained in the past year, in probably half a dozen articles or more, that radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood were positioned to take over in numerous countries. Just search the ‘Net for the terms "Muslim Brotherhood" and "Arab Spring" and "Daily Bell."

Surprise, surprise ... that's exactly what's happening. Like clockwork, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is being cast as the latest Islamic bogeyman. It's forming a government in Egypt and providing the Anglosphere's bought-and-paid-for US columnists plenty of content for frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Islamist op-eds.

No doubt about it. Who would have thunk it? Well, we did because we realized that the war on terror was running out of energy. A new enemy was necessary, or at least an elaboration of what had come before. And now it's occurring. Here's more from the article excerpted above:

By deciding to prosecute Americans, post-Mubarak Egypt has intentionally provoked a bilateral crisis. But the legal assault on U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations and personnel is merely a symptom of a larger, more serious problem. In Egypt today, all major political forces - the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF, the Muslim Brotherhood and the government - are embracing anti-American populism.

The new atmosphere in Egypt leaves the Obama administration - and Congress - with some stark choices. Washington can employ the nuclear option - cut the assistance and test the durability of the U.S.-underwritten 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty - or continue to fund an increasingly hostile and unstable state in hopes that democracy will take root.

In this environment, prospects for democracy in Egypt appear slim. Worse, with reportedly as little as $11 billion remaining in foreign reserves depleting at a rate of $2 billion a month, Egypt is on the precipice of an economic crisis. At the same time, a spate of kidnappings in Cairo and mob violence at a Port Said soccer match this month, which killed more than 70 people, point to a deteriorating security situation.

This is really disgusting stuff. It treats what is going on as if it merely the unrolling of an inevitable "clash of civilizations." It's nothing of the sort. Like the war on terror itself, these mounting tensions in our view are likely being stage-managed.

Yes, this stuff is evidently and obviously premeditated. It's being planned and executed, apparently, by some of the most powerful people in the world. The Anglosphere power elite is trying to create world government and is using tried-and-true methods to do so.

These methods are actually relatively basic ones and involve fomenting wars and economic depression in order to push middle classes into desperate situations where they will positively welcome increased government - in this case, full-out global governance. That seems to be the plan anyway.

The elites are now apparently aiming at a war with Iran. Yet there is significant evidence that the Anglosphere elites helped engineer the initial Iranian Revolution back in 1979. We have written about this numerous times. Our most recent article is here: Western Elites Caught ‘Red-Handed' in Iran?

It is also well known that the CIA has various strategic relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not a young organization. If the Muslim Brotherhood begins to take over Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries, you can bet that at the very top there is some form of communication and cooperation between the Brotherhood and Western Intel. Don't believe us? Just Google "Mulsim Brotherhood" and "CIA."

Information undercutting this latest elite dominant social theme (a clash of civilizations is unavoidable) is available all over the Internet. The elites simply haven't figured out how to cope with the ‘Net, which is a process not an episode. The old methods of damage control just don't apply.

By pursuing warlike manipulations when there is substantive information showing quite clearly the stage-management that is taking place, the elites are not doing themselves any service. They are actively undercutting the memes they are trying to establsh. How does one go about creating a war when the facts themselves are in question along with the "enemy?"

Until the power elite solves the Internet - renders it harmless as a debunking mechanism - the very strategies that the elites used to such great effect in the 20th century will become continually less effective in the 21st. When anyone can see for himself just how extensive the web of untruths has become, then the credibility of the larger conversation is signficantly eroded. People cease to believe. Globalism itself becomes less convincing.

In fact, this undercutting of the faux-cultural fabric that the elites wove with such energy in the 20th century is becoming a crisis for them in the 21st. The more they turn to their "tried and true" formulas to continue to maintain control, the more questions they themselves are raising.

And yet they continue. They seemingly do not have new ideas, even though the old ones are less and less convincing in this era of the Internet Reformation. It is a big problem for them. If we can analyze it, anyone can.

Conclusion: It is always this way with the Anglosphere elites. Wars, "Cold Wars," tensions between competing political systems and religions - they are always configured in the modern era so that the City of London and its enablers and associates are in control of BOTH sides. We told you so.

Internet ‘Kill Switch' Dropped From Cybersecurity Bill

But White House still claims power to intervene in world wide web

Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

February 15, 2012

The much feared Obama Internet ‘kill switch' has been dropped from the latest incarnation of the cybersecurity bill which was introduced yesterday, but the White House still claims that it can intervene in the world wide web under the 1934 law that created the Federal Communications Commission.

"Public apprehension about the possibility of handing the White House a "kill switch" for the Internet has dogged the cybersecurity debate, fueled by a proposal that would have codified emergency powers for the president in the event of a catastrophic attack," reports the Hill.

Indeed, cybersecurity advocate Joe Lieberman ominously pushed for the ‘kill switch' provision to be included in the bill by citing the Chinese system of Internet policing as a model to which the United States should aspire.As we have documented, China routinely censors the Internet and cuts off access in order to hide evidence of government corruption and to cover up atrocities committed by the state.

Although language allowing the President to flip a figurative kill switch to shut down parts of the Internet is gone, the White House still claims that it already retains such powers under the law that created the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. This law states that if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device."

Despite the more controversial aspects having disappeared from the bill, it still contains plenty of provisions that represent a sweeping power grab on behalf of the federal government.

One such provision would empower the Department of Homeland Security to conduct "risk assessments" of private companies in certain sectors and force them to comply with expensive mandates to secure their systems.

Despite the Internet kill switch provision being dropped from the bill, the web as a whole still faces innumerable threats to the anonymity, privacy and freedom of speech of those who use it.

Despite the recent defeat of SOPA and PIPA, protests over governments signing up for ACTA, a global treaty that grants copyright holders sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim, have swept Europe.

ORWELLIAN DRONES: "Eye in the Sky" Spying on Americans

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, February 13, 2012

Money power runs America. So do lobbies representing all corporate and other interests.

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) represents dozens of influential companies.

They include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Bell Hellicopter Textron, Sikorsky Aircraft, Goodrich, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hill & Knowlton, and many more promoting unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drone technology.

Against targeted countries, it's America's newest sport. From distant command centers, operators kill by remote control. They use computer keyboards and multiple monitors. UAVs stand ready round-the-clock for missions.

Predator drones perform sanitized killing on the cheap compared to manned aircraft. Independent experts believe militants are hit about 2% of the time. All others are noncombatants, despite official disclaimers.

In 1995, Predator drones were used for the first time in Bosnia. In 2001, the Global Hawk drone was used in Afghanistan. Throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Pentagon used various type drones for combat and spying missions.

In Libya, Obama authorized Predator drones. They operated throughout the war. They're also used in Yemen, Somalia, and wherever Washington designates targets to kill.

US citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi was assassinated this way. So can anyone anywhere on America's hit list, including perhaps domestically before long.

Washington plans escalated drone killing, as well domestic spying on Americans. Currently, around one in three US warplanes are drones. One day perhaps they'll all be unmanned.

Domestic Drone Spying in America

On January 10, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Jennifer Lynch headlined, "Are Drones Watching You?" saying:

EFF sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for information on domestic drone use. Who's flying UAVs it asked?

Drones carry surveillance equipment, including video cameras, infrared ones, heat sensors, and radar for sophisticated virtually constant spying. Newer versions carry super high resolution "gigapixel" cameras. They enable tracking above 20,000 feet. They can monitor up to 65 enemies simultaneously, and can see targets up to 25 miles away.

Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions. A new model's able to penetrate Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone calls covertly.

Even domestically, drones may be weaponized with tasers, bean bag guns, and other devices able to harm or perhaps kill.

Currently, the US Customs and Border Protection uses UAVs for surveilling borders. State and local law enforcement agencies also use them to investigate "cattle rustling, drug dealing, and the search for missing persons."

Flying above 400 feet requires FAA certification. Information's unavailable on who obtained authorizations for what purposes.

FAA comes under the Department of Transportation (DOT). It failed to respond to EFF's April 2011 FOIA request. EFF attorney Lynch said:

"Drones give the government and other (UAV) operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans' movements and activities."

"As the government begins to make policy decisions about the use of these aircraft, the public needs to know more about how and why these drones are being used to surveil United States citizens."

Drones "could dramatically increase the physical tracking of citizens - tracking that can reveal deeply personal details about our private lives. We're asking the DOT to follow the law and respond to our FOIA request so we can learn more about" what the public has a right to know.

The Supreme Court hasn't been people friendly on many issues, including privacy. In United States v. Place (1983), the court held that sniffs by police dogs trained to detect illegal drugs aren't searches under the Fourth Amendment.

They're sui generis, intended only to reveal the presence or absence of narcotics. In other words, Fourth Amendment protections don't apply to non-human searchers. As a result, privacy rights are on the chopping block for elimination. Already, in fact, they're gravely compromised under institutionalized Bush administration surveillance policy.

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorized spying through the National Applications Office (NOA). It was described as "the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States."

With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch may authorize state-of-the-art technology, including military satellite imagery, to spy on Americans covertly.

Though initial plans were delayed, eye in the sky spying ahead potentially will monitor everyone everywhere once full implementation's achieved. Included will be thousands of Big Brother drones watching.

On February 3, the FAA Reauthorization Act (HR 658) cleared both houses of Congress after differences between Senate and House versions were resolved. Expect Obama to sign it shortly.

It authorizes domestic drone spying under provisions to test and license commercial drones by 2015. Estimates of up to 30,000 UAVs could overfly America by 2020. Privacy advocates are concerned. Steven Aftergood, head of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said:

"There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities."

According to Electronic Privacy Information Center's Amie Stepanovich, "Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates."

Changing the rules changes the game. Expect it. It's coming once Obama signs HR 658. UAV proliferation already is expanding rapidly. A July 2010 FAA Fact Sheet said in America alone, "approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft designs."

America's expected to account for about 70% of global growth. In 2011, Congress, DOD, state and local governments, as well as AUVSI pressured the FAA to review and expand its current "Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA)" program related to unmanned aircraft (UA).

The agency's also examining its own rules for small UAs. It's expected to authorize expanded COA use shortly.

ACLU Concerns

On February 6, the ACLU headlined, "Congress Trying to Fast-Track Domestic Drone Use, Sideline Privacy," saying:

In fact, Congress already authorized expanded domestic drones. Obama's poised to sign HR 658 into law. Provisions in it include requiring FAA:

(1) to simplify and accelerate permission for drone operations. The agency's already working on loosening regulations by spring 2012.

(2) to establish a pilot project within six months for six test zones to integrate drones "into the national airspace system."

(3) create a comprehensive plan within nine months "to safely accelerate the integration of civil (privately operated) unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system."

(4) drones in America's airspace.

On December 15, the ACLU published a report titled, "Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft," saying:

They're coming to America. Privacy may be seriously compromised. Protections are urgently needed. The report recommends that "drones should not be deployed unless there are grounds to believe that they will collect evidence on a specific crime."

"If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required." The report also urges "restrictions on retaining images of identifiable people, as well as an open process for developing policies on how drones will be used."

Overflying America with drones unrestrained changes the game. A "surveillance society" will be institutionalized to monitor, track, and record "our every move."

Given a bipartisan penchant for spying, expect the worst. Privacy, like other civil and human rights, is fast disappearing under policies in place or coming to destroy it.

The State Has Declared War On The American People

U.S. citizens are now the primary target of the war on terror

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

Friday, February 10, 2012

With the announcement that 30,000 drones are expected to fill American skies within ten years, the U.S. government has officially declared war on the American people, turning to technology normally used to hunt down insurgents abroad as the whole arsenal of the war on terror is re-focused domestically.

"The Federation Aviation Administration said up to 30,000 drones could be in airspace shared with airliners carrying passengers," reports UPI.

Once signed by president Obama, the FAA Reauthorization Act allows for the FAA to permit the use of drones and develop regulations for testing and licensing by 2015.

Some types of surveillance drones are already being used by police departments across the country, including in Montgomery County, Texas, where the Department of Homeland Security recently gave the go-ahead for law enforcement in the United States to deploy the ShadowHawk mini drone drone helicopter that has the ability to taze suspects from above as well as carrying 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers.

US law enforcement bodies are already using drone technology to spy on Americans. In December, a Predator B drone was called in to conduct surveillance over a family farm in North Dakota as part of a SWAT raid on the Brossart family, who were suspects in the egregious crime of stealing six missing cows. Local police in this one area have already used the drone on two dozen occasions since June last year.

The DHS also recently announced a plan to spend up to $50 million dollars on a spy system that has been used to hunt insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of "emergency and non-emergency incidents" within the United States.

While preparing the use of surveillance drones against Americans, the U.S. government is also keen to characterize a myriad of behaviors and activities, no matter how normal or mundane, as potential indicators of terrorism, encouraging citizens to spy on each other in a chilling throwback to how people were hired as informants under the East German Stasi.

As part of its Communities Against Terrorism program, the FBI is encouraging business owners from across the spectrum to spy on their customers.

Lists of examples of "suspicious behavior" being sent out to everything from Internet Cafes to tattoo parlors define things like paying for a cup of coffee with cash, buying food in bulk, and showing an interest in online privacy as evidence of potential terrorist activity.

The DHS has also released numerous PSAs that depict routine activities as potential signs of terrorism, including using a video camera, talking to police officers, wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application.

The federal agency attracted much derision last week when it announced that Super Bowl vendors, including hot dog sellers, had been trained to spot terrorists under the First Observer program.

Even more chilling, the feds have also begun to characterize perfectly legitimate political and economic beliefs as those held by terrorists, effectively denouncing them as thought crimes.

As Reuters reported on Monday, authorities are now treating those who "believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard" as extremists who are a potential violent threat to law enforcement. The DHS has also previously characterized returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, gold investors, and people who display political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists.

All this serves to underscore the fact that the American people have now been targeted as the number one terror threat in the eyes of the authorities. The state has declared war on U.S. citizens. Not only will they be subject to surveillance and intimidation campaigns, but with the recent passage of the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, the government has afforded itself the power to hold Americans without trial.

Senate sneaks in SOPA under a new name

Category: The Internet Created on Thursday, 09 February 2012

Reposted From: RT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) launches a second round of attacks in an attempt to censor the Internet.

After trying to adopt Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), both pieces of legislation turned out to be a disaster, causing outrage among Internet giants and ordinary users alike. Congress had to retreat. However it's determined to get what it wants this time.

After the shelving of SOPA and PIPA back in January Reid stated,"There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved."

As RT reported last month, Senator Reid added that lawmakers will"continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans' intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the Internet."

The vote on the anti-piracy legislation was postponed from its January 24date after Wikipedia and other popular websites went dark to protest the draft law.

Now the battle for online freedom continues.

The rebuttal to push Internet-regulating legislation has transformed into a new cybersecurity bill. The particulars of the latest attempt by senators to censor the Internet have not been disclosed to the public.

However some leaks suggest that the bill will grant the authority to crack down on the Internet to the executive branch of power, namely the White House. It looks highly possible taking into consideration that the legislation has to come out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.

The same Lieberman who earlier co-sponsored the so called Kill Switch bill that could allow the president of the United States to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and practically shut down the Internet.

After outrage from Internet advocacy groups, Kill Switch never made it in the Senate. This time it may be back under a new name.

Washington Reaps the Rewards of Its "Arab Spring" Destabilization Campaign

US-Funded Tunisian President Prepares to Withdraw Recognition of Syrian Government

by Tony Cartalucci

Global Research, February 8, 2012

On February 5, 2012 - Reuters reported, "Tunisia "to withdraw recognition" of Syria government," and specifically that newly appointed Tunisian president Moncef Marzouki made the announcement on his Facebook page. Reuters also notes "Tunisia's decision to sever ties with Damascus carries moral weight because the north African country's revolution last year started off the "Arab Spring" upheavals which later spread throughout the Middle East, including to Syria." What Reuters of course fails to mention is that the "Arab Spring" was engineered years in advance, planned, funded, and directed by the US State Department, with Moncef Marzouki a direct recipient on record of such support which ultimately paved his way from obscurity to now president of the North African nation.

The US Put Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia into Power

Last December, the BBC hailed Tunisia's assembly and their election of a new president in their article, "Tunisian activist, Moncef Marzouki, named president." What the BBC predictably failed to mention was that Marzouki's organization, the Tunisian League for Human Rights, was a US National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros Open Society-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) member organization.

It was earlier reported in "Soros Celebrates the Fall of Tunisia," that Marzouki was named "interim-president" of Tunisia and that the myriad of NGOs and opposition organizations that worked with him to overthrow the government of Tunisia were fully subsidized and backed by the US government and US corporate-funded foundations.

Marzouki, who spent two decades in exile in Paris, France, was also founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a "Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile" and a participant in the WMD "third assembly" alongside Marzouki's Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros' Open Society, and USAID.

Marzouki, along with his Libyan counterpart Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the Petroleum Institute, sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, makes for the second Western proxy installed into power either by covert sedition or overt military aggression, during the US-engineered "Arab Spring."

Now, it is quite clear how Marzouki is reciprocating the foreign-backed plot that thrust him into power - complete servitude toward Wall Street and London's foreign policy in backing this very same foreign-funded gambit now playing out in Syria.

Like Tunisia, Syria is a Premeditated Foreign-Funded Destabilization

Syria has been slated for regime change since as early as 1991. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton added Syria to the growing "Axis of Evil." It would be later revealed that Bolton's threats against Syria manifested themselves as covert funding and support for opposition groups inside of Syria spanning both the Bush and Obama administrations.

In an April 2011 CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, "We're not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we're trying to do in countries around the globe. What's different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people."

Toner's remarks came after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 and continued until today.

In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments."

The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there," (emphasis added). Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect." That ripple effect of course is the "Arab Spring," and in Syria's case, the impetus for the current unrest threatening to unhinge the nation and invite in foreign intervention."

US Finally Reaping Rewards from Installed Proxy-Regimes

Quite clearly the orchestrated reordering of the Arab World was done in a specific order, so that easier nations to topple would be able to eventually contribute to fueling the downfall of more difficult targets as US proxy regimes were installed. Tunisia's diplomatic attack against Syria is just one example. The despoiling and destruction of Libya by NATO-backed LIFG terrorists has provided a base of operation for the international mercenaries who are now verifiably sending fighters into Syria, led by notorious LIFG commander Abdul Belhaj.

It may be the threat of foreign-funded destabilization hanging over the heads of despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates that have them jumping through diplomatic and tactical hoops in support for Wall Street and London's geopolitical ambitions. Of course, ultimately, the destabilization of Syria is directed at weakening and ultimately attacking Iran as well.

This illustrates yet another justification for Russia and China, and other nations to begin fully resisting the mafioso protection racket that is the UN Security Council and yet another attempt to foist a war of aggression and conquest onto the population of the world. Ultimately, however, it is up to the people, worldwide to identify the corporate-financier power structures that provide the foundation from which this sweeping genocidal, domineering campaign is being carried out - and then boycott and replace them utterly out of existence. Because when the parasitic global elite are done picking the bones of nations afar, they will turn in on their own people - as has always happened throughout human history.

The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America

February 7, 2012

Brandon Smith Al-market.com

The Department Of Homeland Security is the very epitome of unnecessary bureaucracy. Its formation was predicated on the existence of terrorist threats, many of which the U.S. government and orbiting alphabet agencies either created through acts of war, or fabricated out of thin air. Its policies of centralization were sold to the public as necessary to prevent systemic "miscommunications" that never actually took place. Throughout our history, it has been a rare occasion indeed when an attack falls upon American infrastructure or interests that was not influenced, directly or indirectly, by the actions of agencies which were supposedly employed to prevent such events from ever occurring. Whether through ‘blowback', or through ‘false flag', frankly, most of the harm that comes to our nation is perpetrated by the guiding hand of our inexorably corrupt government.

Knowing that the DHS was established on false pretenses forces us to question the agency's true intentions, especially when a professional fear-monger like Secretary Janet Napolitano announces that the globalization of the world economy falls within her jurisdiction:

Average citizens would assume that the DHS is a U.S.-centric institution, and regardless of its Orwellian behavior, is at the very least a distinctly American brand of tyranny. However, under encroaching strategies enforced since 2006 through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), it is becoming very apparent that the Department Of Homeland Security is quickly taking on an "all-of-nation" role, most prominently in the defense of globalization:

In her most recent op-ed / propaganda piece published by Reuters, Napolitano makes it clear that the business of the DHS is lately focused on what she calls "global supply chain security". This by itself could be seen as a perfectly logical extension of the DHS mandate to protect America. Unfortunately, the situation is not that simple. A few talking points and guidelines within the NIPP platform are rather disturbing, and create an open door for the internationalization of the DHS.

Ironically, Napolitano sets the stage first by pointing out the brittle nature of globalization, along with its numerous vulnerabilities:

"A vulnerability or gap in any part of the world has the ability to affect the flow of goods and people thousands of miles away. For instance, just three days after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear tragedies struck Japan last March, U.S. automakers began cutting shifts and idling some plants at home. In the days that followed, they did the same at their factories in more than 10 countries around the world..."

As I have pointed out many times in the past, the utter lack of redundancy within our globalized system makes it the most impractical and downright destructive economic model in history. Janet Napolitano seems to agree at least in part on this point. The problem is that the weaknesses of globalization are not a mistake; they are a deliberate and useful tool for further centralization of once sovereign economies. Instead of addressing the obvious concern that globalization does not work, Napolitano, like every other globalist in our government, claims that it must be propped up at all costs for the "greater good":

"Because protecting the global supply chain is inherently an international challenge, it will take an international effort to meet it. The tremendous benefits we all reap from an interdependent global economy means that we are all stakeholders in the security of that system..."

"...we will continue to think globally, enhancing our coordination with the international community and international stakeholders who have key supply chain roles and responsibilities. We will seek to develop and implement global standards, strengthen detection, interdiction, and information-sharing capabilities, and promote end-to-end supply chain security efforts with the international community."

What "benefits" are we "reaping" from globalization? I haven't the foggiest idea. The internationalization of banking and finance has led to the creation and subsequent implosion of the world's largest debt bubble and further devaluation of many of the world's currencies. Centralized and corporatized food production has led to a complete lack of self reliance within our society, contributed to food scarcity, not abundance, and opened our means of sustenance to the mad-science and genetic criminality of monstrous entities like Monsanto. The globalization of law through treaty has supplanted the U.S. Constitution, fed the growth of unaccountable and unelected councils and committees, and stricken our country with policy initiatives that weren't even written by officials that live here. There are absolutely no substantial benefits to globalization that outweigh its considerable detriments, unless, of course, you are one of the elite few who stand at the helm of the machine.

At the Davos Economic Summit which took place in the final week of January, Napolitano announced a program called the "National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security":

Within this plan, the DHS seeks to unite with international corporate interests in an effort to ensure the dominance of the globalist ideal of centralized economy. The collectivist rhetoric inherent within the document above is apparent. Napolitano summarizes it well when she states:

"As globalization brings nations closer together, we need to jointly disprove and leave behind the notion that security and efficiency cannot coexist, and together build a security architecture that better uses information to assess risk. By taking a coordinated, strategic and thoughtful approach, we can expedite legitimate commerce while focusing our attention on that much smaller portion that poses harm. Security and confidence in the global supply chain enhance our collective economic strength, rather than impeding progress."

Napolitano treats globalism as an inevitability; a future without recourse and without option. A smart person might ask; "What business is it of Janet Napolitano to comment on the global economic model, let alone utilize DHS resources in its defense!" But look at it this way; by using the failings of globalization and the spectral boogie-man of terrorism as a rationale, the DHS has created a grey area in which the U.S. government can be more fully integrated into the global corporate dynamic, which furthers the disintegration of American sovereignty.

The global supply chain encompasses everything! It is a vast artificial international construct. For the DHS to truly "defend" its integrity, it will be REQUIRED to sacrifice the specific and sovereign interests of the U.S. In a globalized trade system, every economy is important, as long as it does not compete with any other economy. The U.S. economy is no exception. Harmonization diminishes the wealth of more successful nations and transfers it to less successful nations. This transfer of wealth does, in a sense, create equality; it makes everyone equally poor. By becoming the militant hand of globalization, the DHS is put in the position of hurting America in order to "save" America.

The National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security document is extraordinarily vague when it comes to the manner in which the DHS will implement defense directives. More DHS agents at shipping ports? Of course. More DHS involvement in airline cargo centers? Certainly. But what about DHS agents overseeing trucking and freight, or even stationed at highway checkpoints (remember, the TSA is an agency under the direct authority of the DHS)? What about DHS agents acting as permanent corporate liaisons? Will corporations decide who is a threat to the global supply chain and who isn't? What about the usage of copyrighted materials on the internet? Is this a disruption of global trade? How does the DHS actually plan to return a disrupted supply line to normal efficiency? The DHS has no production capacity, and would have to TAKE (possibly by force) a supply from somewhere in order to reinstitute it elsewhere. What about communities, states, or countries which refuse to participate in globalization? What about those who choose to decentralize? Could this not be labeled as an attempt to derail the global system, and thus be interpreted as an act of terrorism?

Under any collectivist society, the act of non-participation is always painted as an attack on the group. In a fully interdependent system, refusing to contribute automatically hurts others, and therefore, makes you a criminal by default. These systems are built this way deliberately, in order to control a population by exploiting their sense of innate guilt. The DHS may claim a limited involvement in globalization, restricted to security issues, but the very process of integration with the international corporate framework as well as foreign institutions makes the agency a catalyst for forced collectivism. Bombs in shipping containers (the bombs we're supposed to believe are everywhere), do not warrant the massive shift of our security apparatus into a policy of global centralization. In the end, this move on the part of the DHS has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with manipulating the attitude of the general public towards globalization. It is much more difficult to challenge a methodology when that methodology is suddenly treated as a national security issue, and is defended by an army of bureaucrats and blue-shirted thugs. When a world view is made violently essential to the very survival of a people, defiance is held tantamount to treason, and change, no matter how wise, becomes impossible.

Tennessee begins to push back against NDAA tyranny

06 February 2012

Madison Ruppert Activist Post

Tennessee, the Volunteer State, has begun to push back against the tyranny that is the indefinite detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012, better known simply as the NDAA.

The state bills currently being considered could be one of the most significant steps taken against the atrocious assault on our most essential liberties embodied by the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.

The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC), a group promoting states' rights (something which I think is an honorable cause in these dire times in which we have an increasingly centralized, authoritarian federal government) reports that two bills are to be considered in the Tennessee legislature.

These include HB1629 and SB2669, both of which are set to be considered in the 2012 session.

The legislation could essentially nullify the troubling indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA by requiring federal agents to obtain written permission from the county sheriff before making any arrests in Tennessee for any reason.

So long as county sheriffs are actually doing their job and keeping people safe from an out-of-control federal government, this could be a major step forward.

On the second episode of End the Lie Radio, Bob Tuskin and I discussed how sheriffs can act as a buffer between federal tyranny and the American people, something which these bills are going to reinforce.

The actual text is quite striking, and to me it is very exciting that such a thing is even being placed before a state legislature.

This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.

I try to cover the troubling blending of local, state and federal law enforcement as much as possible, although I can never touch on it enough.

This bill is fighting back against exactly what I - and so many others - have been speaking out against unrelentingly.

It is trying to properly separate the local and federal law enforcement agencies instead of allowing the continued trend in which local power is eradicated in favor of more centralized bureaucracies.

This is done in a myriad of ways, but some of the most prominent are the so-called "fusion centers" which blend local, state, and federal law enforcement along with military and civilian personnel and the Pentagon's 1033 program in which they outfit local law enforcement with free military hardware.

There is also the matter of federal grants from entities like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which essentially put local jurisdictions into federal receivership, making them beholden to the whims of the centralized bureaucracy instead of the people they are supposed to be serving.

Mike Maharrey, the communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, makes a great point in saying that the American people should not blindly trust in the good intentions and moral compass of the president or federal judges who are supposed to be protecting our rights but all too often actively strip them from us.

"It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens," he said.

"I can't imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?"

Indeed I can't think of anything which is a more troubling attack on everything that America is supposed to be, and I'm not willing to put my faith in the federal government, hoping that they interpret the NDAA's indefinite detention provisions in a way wholly different from that in which they are written.

This would simply be imbecilic of me, given that we do not even know how the federal government actually interprets the PATRIOT Act, nor what legal justification they think there is for assassinating American citizens without charge or trial.

The Tennessee legislation also has some teeth to it, beyond just requiring written permission from the county sheriff; it actually "makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution," and it even includes provisions which would allow for kidnapping charges to be filed against any federal agent who detains an American citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.

Unfortunately, the last bit of that passage may open it up to challenge or circumvention, given that a corrupt judicial system could easily determine that everything in the NDAA, including the indefinite detention provisions, is indeed granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution.

The sponsors of the House version of the bill are Representative Bill Dunn, a Republican from Knoxville, and Representative Cameron Sexton, a Republican from Crossville.

The Senate sponsor is Senator Stacey Campfield who is also a Republican from Knoxville.

Thankfully, it is not just Tennessee fighting back against this attack on everything that American was built upon, indeed Washington and Virginia are also considering legislation which would essentially nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA.

Some local governments have also stepped up to the plate, including the El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado.

I have previously covered a similar effort in Rhode Island, although that has been criticized not on its merits, but due to the troubled history of the individual behind the legislation. You can witness just that going on in the comments section of my article.

The most common argument is that the NDAA and the indefinite detention provisions therein do not actually apply to American citizens.

However, Maharrey rightly points out that this should do nothing to stop local and state governments from doing their job and "following James Madison's admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand."

He makes what I think is the strongest point in saying:

If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers - powers supporters claim don't exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists. The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open.

"You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions - Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that's a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from," he added.

This is precisely the point I have tried to make to supporters of the NDAA time and time again. If this isn't going to ever be used against us, why can't they explicitly outline that in the text?

The fact is, as it currently stands, there is absolutely nothing limiting or prohibiting the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.

Indeed, the only thing the indefinite detention provisions say on the matter is that American citizens are not required to be held indefinitely if suspected to be terrorists.

There is absolutely no language saying that they are not allowed to do such a thing and no supporter has ever been able to counter that, at least none that I have conversed with.

Michael Boldin, the Tenth Amendment Center's executive, is confident that other states will follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington soon enough.

"We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start - and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support," he said.

I highly encourage anyone in these states to get involved and support this legislation however you can. Be sure to raise awareness and contact your representatives to be sure they support this once it comes up for a vote.

For those who are not in these states, I urge you to join me in my efforts to get legislation like this introduced.

The Tenth Amendment Center has made model legislation available along with a way to track local and state legislation across the United States.

I recommend that you utilize these resources however you can as this could be the difference between patriotic Americans being thrown in a prison cell never to be heard from again, or Constitutional government being restored in the United States.

I genuinely believe that there is nothing more important than protecting our right to due process and protection from a tyrannical federal government, and thankfully I'm not alone.

If you are participating in or planning a campaign involving legislation like this, please email me immediately at admin@EndtheLie.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. so I can publicize your efforts and hopefully help get you some supporters and raise awareness of your admirable efforts.

Hawaii Lawmaker Acknowledges Defeat On Bill To Monitor All Web Users

Plans to resurrect legislation in 2013

Steve Watson Infowars.com

February 1, 2012

A Hawaii politician who proposed legislation requiring Internet providers to keep records of every website their customers visit has finally acknowledged that the bill is dead in the water.

State Representative John Mizuno says he has conceded to an "incredible" national backlash against H.B. 2288 (PDF) a bill that would have required the creation of virtual dossiers on state residents.

The legislation called for "Internet destination history information" and "subscriber's information" such as name and address to be saved by providers for two years. The records would have also included a list of Internet Protocol addresses and domain names visited.

"It's generated a lot of national attention," Mizuno, a Democrat from Oahu, told CNET's Declan McCullagh, who first exposed the proposed bill.

"I've taken into consideration the thousands of e-mails (which were often) colorful and passionate, which is absolutely fine... This bill just isn't ready. It needs a lot of work." Mizuno added

Although Mizuno said that he had now recommended "that we kill this bill," he plans to return to it in 2013.

The justification behind the legislation was to provide police with a record of pedophiles "going after the kids, trolling for the kids," according to Mizuno.

Daniel Leuck, a software design expert told CNet "While I respect Rep. Mizuno's attempt to assist law enforcement in catching dangerous criminals, his approach is dangerously flawed."

"There is no question that having two years of browsing history for every resident would make it easier for law enforcement. So would warrantless searches of people's homes." Leuck explained.

Mizuno's bill had absolutely no privacy restrictions written into it to specify exactly what internet providers would be capable of doing with customer information. Encryption of data for security was not considered, and neither was requiring police to obtain a court order before viewing the information.

Had the bill passed, it would have set a huge precedent for national internet legislation, given that the Justice Department has only lobbied the U.S. Congress to record origin IP address, and not destination IP addresses.

Behind the Deepening Crisis with Iran: the Real Story Versus the Cover Story

by Mark H. Gaffney

January 31, 2012

Recently, President Obama imposed new sanctions on Iran which according to reports have been very effective, causing a sudden major devaluation of Iran's currency. The Iranians correctly understand that they are under attack, and have threatened to respond by closing the strait of Hormuz, through which a large percentage of oil from the Mideast flows to the global economy.

If the crisis deepens and Iran makes good on its threat to close Hormuz, there is little doubt that the US will intervene to reopen the strait. This will lead to a shooting war for which Iran will be blamed, even though the recent US sanctions were tantamount to overt aggression.

I believe the US will exploit the situation to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But, even more importantly, the US will target Iran's conventional missiles. Indeed, I believe this is the real reason for US sanctions in the first place, and for the buildup of tensions in recent days. Despite public perceptions, and all the rhetoric about nukes, the present crisis has nothing to do with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. In my opinion, that is just a cover story.

The real issue is the fact that Iran has upgraded its medium range conventionally-armed missiles with GPS technology, making its missiles much more accurate. This means Iran can now target Israel's own nuclear, bio and chemical weapons stockpiles, located inside Israel, as well as the Dimona nuclear reactor.

In short, Iran has achieved a conventional deterrent to Israel. Therefore, statements by Iranian officials that Iran has no nuclear weapons program are in my view probably correct. Presently, Iran does not need nukes to deter Israel. It can do so with its GPS-guided medium range missiles. The Israelis are no doubt gnashing their teeth over this, because they now find themselves threatened by their own WMD stockpiles, and by their own nuclear reactors, especially Dimona, all of which have become targets.

A few direct hits by Iran could cause a toxic plume, killing thousands of Israelis. A worst case might signal the end of the Jewish state.

It is important to realize that Iran would never launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel because the Iranians know that the US/Israeli response would be devastating. However, if Iran comes under attack first, all bets are off. Iran will defend itself. A counter attack on Israel cannot be ruled out because Iranian leaders understand clearly (even if the American people do not) that the crisis has been manufactured, on Israel's behalf.

From the Israeli standpoint, the present Iranian deterrent (though conventional) is simply unacceptable. Israel's military strategists have always insisted on total freedom of movement. This is why Israel refused a US offer many years ago to sign a defense pact with the US. Such a treaty would have limited Israel's freedom of movement, and this was unacceptable. Israel's leaders preferred to remain independent. Israel has always insisted on the "freedom" to intimidate its neighbors, whenever and howsoever it chooses. Iran's conventional missiles now curtail that "freedom." Israeli officials probably worry, for example, that Iran's conventional missiles would limit its freedom to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, in a future conflict. Hezbollah is closely allied with Tehran.

I believe the present crisis has been manufactured to create the pretext for a US air campaign to take out Iran's conventional missile sites. The US will also target Iran's nuclear facilities, but the primary target will be Iran's conventional missiles. The US will be doing Israel's bidding. The Zionist tail will be wagging the servile US dog.

Obviously, you can't generate public support for such a bombing campaign, on Israel's behalf. Hence the cover story about nukes and the alleged Iranian threat to wipe Israel off the map, all of which is untrue but very effective propaganda nonetheless.

The problem for the US is that depriving Iran of its conventional deterrent will not be easy to accomplish. Indeed, it will be even more difficult than taking out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran's conventional missiles are probably dispersed widely. If they come under attack, the purpose of the air campaign will be transparently obvious to the Iranian leadership. Faced with the prospect of losing their deterrent, the Mullahs may well decide to fire their conventional missiles. If they do and manage some direct hits on Israel's nuclear-bio-and chemical weapons stockpiles, the ensuing disaster will prompt an Israeli response. Israel may even resort to the Samson Option, and attack Iran with nukes. Words cannot describe the horrific scale of such an outcome. Unfortunately, it is all too possible.

Early in the war, US naval forces in the Gulf will also come under attack. No mistake, Iran has enough anti-ship cruise missiles to pose a grave threat to the US naval presence in the Gulf. Thousands of US sailors are now in harm's way, and at risk.

We must rally to prevent such a war. Peace activists must now marshal every asset for peace that we possess. The American people need to know the truth. This is a phony crisis. Yet the danger is very real. Now is the time to speak out with all of our strength. Tomorrow could come too late.

The Corporate Usurpation of the Internet

January 27, 2012

By Nile Bowie BlacklistedNews.com

In the wake of a public outcry against internet regulation bills such as SOPA and PIPA, representatives of the EU have signed a new and far more threatening legislation yesterday in Tokyo. Spearheaded by the governments of the United States and Japan and constructed largely in the absence of public awareness, the measures of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) dramatically alter current international legal framework, while introducing the first substantial processes of global internet governance. With complete contempt towards the democratic process, the negotiations of the treaty were exclusively held between industry representatives and government officials, while excluding elected representatives and members of the press from their hearings.

Under the guise of protecting intellectual property rights, the treaty introduces measures that would allow the private sector to enforce sweeping central authority over internet content. The ACTA abolishes all legal oversight involving the removal of content and allows copyright holders to force ISPs to remove material from the internet, something that presently requires a court order. ISPs would then be faced with legal liabilities if they chose not to remove content. Theoretically, personal blogs can be removed for using company logos without permission or simply linking to copy written material; users could be criminalized, barred from accessing the internet and even imprisoned for sharing copyrighted material. Ultimately, these implications would be starkly detrimental toward the internet as a medium for free speech.

The Obama Administration subverted the legal necessity of allowing to US Senate to ratify the treaty by unconstitutionally declaring it an "executive agreement" before the President promptly signed it on October 1st, 2011. As a touted constitutional lawyer, Barack Obama is fully aware that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, mandates Congress in dealing with issues of intellectual property, thus voiding the capacity for the President to issue an executive agreement. The White House refused to even disclose details about the legislation to elected officials and civil libertarians over concern that doing so may incur "damage to the national security." While some may hang off every word of his sorely insincere speeches and still be fixated by the promises of hope offered by brand-Obama, his administration has trampled the constitution and introduced the most comprehensive authoritarian legislation in America's history.

In addition to imposing loosely defined criminal sanctions to average web users, the ACTA treaty will also obligate ISPs to disclose personal user information to copyright holders. The measures introduce legislative processes that contradict the legal framework of participant countries and allows immigration authorities to search laptops, external hard drives and Internet-capable devices at airports and border checkpoints. The treaty is not limited solely to internet-related matters,

ACTA would prohibit the production of generic pharmaceuticals and outlaw the use of certain seeds for crops through patents, furthering the corporate cartelization of the food and drug supply.

ACTA would allow companies from any participating country (which include EU member states, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Morocco) to shut down websites without any explanation. Hypothetically, nothing could prevent private Singaporean companies from promptly taking down American websites that oppose the Singapore Air Force conducting war games on US soil, such as those conducted in December 2011. By operating outside normal judicial framework, exporting US copyright law to the rest of the world and mandating private corporations to conduct surveillance on their users, all prerequisites of democracy, transparency and self-expression are an afterthought.

The further monopolization of the existing resources of communication, exchange and expression is ever present in the form of deceptive new articles of legislation that unanimously call for the implementation of the same austere censorship measures. Even if the ACTA treaty is not implemented, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TTP) between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Vietnam and the United States offers more extensive intellectual property regulations. Leaked documents prepared by the U.S. Business Coalition (which have been reportedly drafted by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Motion Picture Association of America) report that in addition to ACTA-style legislation, the TTP will impose fines on non-compliant entities and work to extend the general period of copy write terms on individual products.

Under the sweeping regulations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, individual infringers will be criminalized and sentenced with the same severity as large-scale offenders. Within the United States, the recently announced Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) H.R. 3782 regulation seeks to install policies largely identical to SOPA and PIPA. The Obama administration is also working towards an Internet ID program, which may be mandatory for American citizens and required when renewing passports, obtaining federal licenses, or applying for social security. Spreading these dangerous measures to other countries participating in these treaties would necessitate a binding obligation on the US to retain these policies, averting any chance of reform.

The ACTA will become law once it is formally ratified and cleared by the European Parliament in June. By petitioning members of the European parliament and educating others about the potential dangers imposed by this legislation, there is a chance of the treaty being rejected. Upon closer examination of the human condition with all of its inequalities, food insecurity and dire social issues, our governments have lost their legitimacy for giving such unwarranted priority to fighting copyright infringement on behalf of lobbyists from the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries. The existence of ACTA is a clear statement that surveillance, regulations and securing further corporate centralization dwarfs any constructive shift towards stimulating human innovation and self-sufficient technologies.

When former US National Security Advisor and Trilateral Commission co-founder, Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke before the Council on Foreign Relations in 2010, he warned of a global political awakening beginning to take place. Technology such as file sharing, blogging, and open source software has the potential to undermine the oligarchical governing interests seeking to centrally control our society and enforce the population into being entirely dependent on their commodities. The following excerpt from Brzezinski's book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, provides invaluable insight into the world being brought in; "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

ACTA has same dangers as PIPA and SOPA

By Leonardo Castaneda,

26 January 2012.

If you thought the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act were scary, imagine this: There is an international treaty with the same goals and civil rights infringements as its American cousins, crafted in secrecy outside any existing trade organization with the help of industry giants such as the Motion Picture Association of America.

The treaty's goal is to ban counterfeit goods and online piracy by requiring Internet Protocol servers and individual websites to monitor and prosecute suspected copyright infringements. But the goal comes packaged with some collateral damage: infringements on individual's civil rights and the creation of a system responsible for widespread, international online censorship.

This nightmare treaty is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It has most of the same goals, supporters and privacy abuses of SOPA and PIPA. What it didn't have was the kind of public outcry led by websites such as Reddit and Wikipedia when it was signed by the U.S. The treaty now awaits ratification by the European Union before it goes into full force.

ACTA's scope is far wider than SOPA or PIPA. It aims to stop the "proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, as well as of services that share infringing material." This includes knockoff Louis Vuitton purses and cheap counterfeit medicine in developing nations. It also means any website or program that could potentially be used to infringe copyrighted material, from sites with links for music downloads to music-burning software, would be automatically outlawed.

The dangers of governmental control of the Internet under the auspices of copyright protection are difficult to overstate. The Internet is a breeding ground for innovation, where crowd sourcing can turn a beta program full of bugs into the hottest new piece of software. But it has now also become a forum for the free exchange of ideas and information across international and cultural boundaries. It is this freedom from government control that has given the Internet so much power.

When individuals are free to use the Internet freely, as they did in Tunisia, they can use it to oust deeply entrenched dictators. When a government is able to stop the free flow of information and spy on the online activity of its citizens, it can kill democracy the way Iran did during the failed Green Revolution in 2009. From Occupy Wall Street in the U.S. to the Indignados in Spain, the Internet has allowed pro-democracy protesters to exchange ideas, tools and advice.

Online freedom has been widely acknowledged as vital for democracy. When Egypt tried to shut off the Internet to quell protests against the rule of President Hosni Mubarak, world leaders, led by President Barack Obama, stood in outrage. Now these same leaders, once more led by Obama, are working to quietly build the infrastructure to control the Internet.

Of course, no one says ACTA's goal is to censor the Internet. The stated goal of the treaty is to protect the copyrights of business and artists. The scenario supporters of ACTA - and SOPA and PIPA - point to is that a website such as The Pirate Bay, built for the express purpose of allowing people to illegally download copyrighted music, movies and software, would be shut down. The nightmare scenario opponents of ACTA fear is an individual posting a link to or citing a news article critical of the government could be shut down for not having explicit permission to use that content.

The question is whether the damage being done to the industries ACTA aims to protect is grave enough to warrant stepping on the edge of the slippery slope of Internet censorship. Organizations such as the MPAA and the Recording Industry Association of America argue it is. Both the MPAA and the RIAA argue online piracy is killing creativity and destroying entertainment industries that employ thousands of people.

However, comparing some quick industry statistics from 2000 - the year Napster was shut down - to 2010, proves these claims are patently wrong. In 2000, 506 movies were released with a total worldwide gross of more than $7.7 billion. In 2010, 883 movies were released with a total gross of more than $10.2 billion. Clearly the birth of file-sharing programs like BitTorrent has done little to stymie the creativity of filmmakers.

We cannot risk allowing the governments of not just the U.S., but also the 27 members of the European Union, Japan and Mexico, among others, to create a system for online censorship to stop a nonexistent threat to intellectual property.

The only way to prevent it is with the kind of backlash and social outcry that put a stop to SOPA and PIPA in Congress. This outcry proved once more the Internet can be an unparalleled tool for democracy and government accountability. Now is the time to use it once more to ensure the government won't take it away the day we need it most.

Christopher Bollyn

January 25, 2012

"Adelson uses his money to abuse or anoint Israeli prime ministers and American presidents (Gingrich versus Obama)."

Source - "Is Gingrich's Hard Line on Palestine Paid for by Sheldon Adelson?"

Ron Paul, a popular Southern conservative who supports states' rights, supposedly came in fourth place in the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday, January 21. The winner, according to the tally produced by the privately-owned voting machine company ES&S, was Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is supported by Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist casino billionaire who supports the most extreme hard-liners in the right-wing Likud in Israel. The Gingrich campaign received a $5 million donation from Sheldon Adelson the week before he "won" the South Carolina primary. Gingrich calls the indigenous Palestinian population an "invented" people and supports Israel's right to attack Iran as "self defense". Gingrich told CNN he would help Israel attack Iran and would move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem on his first day in office by executive order. These are the hard-line positions Adelson is paying Gingrich to espouse.

THE ZIONIST PLOT TO STOP RON PAUL

Mitt Romney is supported by the Crown family of Chicago, a Zionist family that is closely connected to Israeli military intelligence. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is supported by Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist billionaire who works closely with the same people. Are these different factions or is this a Zionist plot that has the same goal?

The Zionist strategy is to stop the very popular conservative Ron Paul. Because there is obviously no candidate that can beat Paul in popularity or on the issues, the Zionists are supporting a slew of venal candidates in order to steal as many votes as possible from Paul. These candidates are essentially a gang of Zionist-funded candidates who form the anti-Paul coalition. Using privately-owned and controlled electronic voting systems like ES&S, the South Carolina primary shows how the Zionists plan to block Ron Paul from being the Republican nominee ...

From this event, one can state as fact - not theory, that Israel and its supporters in the US are actively working to derail Ron Paul's race towards the GOP nomination, and the Presidency. This fact alone, should be cause for alarm from even the most moderate of public corridors. Should a foreign country, in this case Israel, be allowed to buy a significant influence through the media in American democratic elections? Should candidates be allowed to accept donations - even indirectly, from foreign interest PACs or agents thereof, thus creating a serious conflict of interest, and threat to national security?

- "Israeli Lobby launch new Super PAC effort to bring down Ron Paul" , by Patrick Henningsen, Global Research, 21 January 2012
WHO STOLE THE IOWA CAUCUS?

After two weeks, the Republican Party of Iowa released its certified tally of the January 3 caucus. The certified final tally released on January 18 indicates that Mitt Romney did not win the Iowa caucus and that the results had been manipulated to give Romney the important first victory. The scale of the fraud in the Iowa caucus is so large that it suggests that there was a hidden hand manipulating the data from across the state as it was sent to party headquarters to give the victory to Romney. This suggests that the people behind Romney are likely to be the people behind the vote fraud, i.e. Lester Crown, Israeli intelligence, and the Zionist Fifth Column in the United States.

I spoke to Ryan Gough, the 24-year-old Organization Director for the Republican Party of Iowa on January 20. I asked him how there could be so many mistakes in so many precincts. The Des Moines Register, for example, reported that "typographical errors in tabulations" for two Fayette County precincts resulted in an inflated vote for Romney, who was initially reported to have carried the county by 67 votes. The final count showed Santorum carrying the county by 36 votes. Romney was reported to have won the caucus by only 8 votes on January 3. This was false.

There were similar problems in 131 precincts with double-digit errors in 51 precincts. In spite of the wrong candidate having been declared the winner, Gough defended the caucus, which he called a "volunteer-driven process" in which typographical errors had occurred across the state to benefit Mitt Romney. I don't buy it.

I reminded Gough that we had spoken a week before the primary and that he had told me that the way in which that precincts would communicate the results to caucus headquarters in Des Moines was being kept secret for security purposes. Now that the caucus was over, I asked, could he tell me how this was done. Gough said that a phone and computer system had been used but he had not gone into detail. When I asked if the telephonic system had been voice-to-voice, he said it was.

MYSTERY TELECOM

I then asked Gough if any outside agency had been involved in the tally of the results on January 3. He asked me what I meant and I told him that the Democratic Party of Iowa had used a telephonic tally system based in Florida called Voxeo in 2004 and 2008. I had been told by Nicole Sizemore of the GOP of Iowa that no outside agency would be involved in the tally, I told Gough.

Yes, Gough said, there was an outside "telecom" involved in the tally, although he said he could not reveal the name of the company. This "telecom" is the most likely culprit behind the fraudulent tally in the Iowa caucus. I am seeking information from people who were involved in the caucus to find the identity of this mysterious "telecom" that gave Romney the first, but fraudulent victory on January 3. As the rest of the primaries will use even less verifiable electronic voting machine systems, solving what happened in the Iowa caucus is important because it could expose the criminals who steal our elections.

THE IOWA CAUCUS WAS STOLEN - ROMNEY DID NOT WIN

GOP officials discovered double-digit errors in 51 of those certified precincts when they compared what was reported on caucus night with the official Form E documents signed by precinct volunteers. Eleven precincts had errors of 50 or more votes.

- Des Moines Register, 19 January 2012
"The one thing that we can't say is, we can't certify every precinct in the state."

- Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn, 19 January 2012
When I began writing this article, just after Christmas, I was simply going to predict that Mitt Romney would win the Iowa primary by vote fraud, just like Obama and John Kerry had won the Democratic state polls of 2008 and 2004. My dire and pessimistic prediction was based solely on the fact that Romney was being supported by the high-level Zionist family of Lester Crown of Chicago. These are people who steal elections, I thought, and they will find a way for Romney to win the crucial first caucus - one way or another.

I repeatedly queried three different people at the Republican Party of Iowa about how the results would be tallied and after hearing that they would not use an outside contractor to count the votes, decided to qualify my dismal prediction by giving them the benefit of the doubt. I didn't want to be a bearer of bad news so I wrote this (in the article below):

Mitt Romney would most likely win the caucus if the Republican Party of Iowa were to tally the caucus results using the dodgy telephonic tally system (Voxeo) used by the Iowa Democrats in 2004 and 2008. But after having intensively queried the Republican Party of Iowa about how the results will be tallied it seems to me that the Republican Party of Iowa will be tallying the results themselves in Des Moines... Let's hope Ron Paul wins Iowa in a truly honest and transparent caucus on January 3. We certainly don't need anymore illegal Zionist wars for profit and the people of Iowa know that as well as anyone.

Today, two weeks and three days after Romney was declared the winner in Iowa, the certified final tally from the Republican Party of Iowa shows that he did NOT win the caucus at all. The caucus process and tally were completely messed up and, according to the final, but still seriously flawed results, Rick Santorum reportedly won the caucus. There is now very clear evidence of serious vote fraud in the Iowa caucus. This cannot be simply dismissed as human error. This was criminal vote fraud that cheated the entire nation. The people involved in this case of egregious vote fraud must be investigated and prosecuted.

VOTE FRAUD IN AT LEAST 131 PRECINCTS

Here are the key extracts from the Washington Post article of 19 January 2012:

Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses Thursday - 16 days after the last vote was cast - when the state Republican Party said a final count showed him 34 votes ahead of Mitt Romney.

Santorum's strange, belated victory also served to embarrass the Iowa GOP - which had to admit that it had misallocated some votes, and simply lost some others, in a razor's-edge election where every vote mattered.

It also cast an unflattering light on the old-fashioned and convoluted system that the party uses to collect and count caucus votes.

"It should be like a fine Swiss watch," said Iowa State political science professor Steffen Schmidt. "It's really more like a sundial." He said the system used by Iowa Democrats was not significantly better.

In fact, Iowa Republican leaders seemed to cast doubt on their own results, saying Thursday that it was hard to declare a "winner" without knowing what happened in those eight precincts.

Thursday's final count came from these forms, which had to be submitted by Wednesday evening. The Des Moines Register, citing unidentified officials in the Iowa GOP, reported that in 131 precincts, the forms showed numbers different than those reported on caucus night.

But some Form E's didn't show up at all.

The state party found that it was missing results from eight precincts, spread across five counties.

Source: "Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally; votes from 8 precincts missing", by David A. Fahrenthold and Debbi Wilgoren, Washington Post, 19 January 2012

SOPA and PIPA Fully Alive - And a New Bill Joins Them

January 24, 2012

By Heather Callaghan Activist Post

Many of us breathed a sigh of relief when an overwhelming amount of Americans banned together and voiced their opposition to Congress over both the Stop Online Piracy Act, and Protect Intellectual Property Act.

Sites that dimmed the screen for a day or two have gone back to normal - Facebook users have swapped their anti-SOPA images for their previous profile pictures.

We may have even believed that the postponement of the vote originally scheduled for January 24th was some sort of white flag of capitulation. But that is certainly not the MO of most lawmakers.

While the outcry did get the attention of Congress, they are simply returning unflinchingly back to the drawing board to wait out our attention spans. Articles whirled that SOPA was dead and the bill was pulled when the bill's sponsor Lamar Smith said in a statement that there would be no further action "until there is wider agreement on a solution."

Lamar isn't really listening. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products."

Actually, SOPA is set to be reformulated in February. PIPA will be revisited with possible amendments in the coming weeks. Case in point, all is still open and possible - nothing is dead, pulled, or cancelled. If that wasn't enough to keep us on our toes, a new, similar bill has surfaced.

Déjà Vu in the form of OPEN - The New Anti-Piracy Bill

As an alternative to SOPA-PIPA, Representative Darrell Issa (CA-R), and 24 co-sponsors introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) H.R. 3782 on Wednesday, during the Internet blackout.

From PCWorld:

OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that "willfully" promote copyright violation.

The bill pretends to only target foreign websites, while keeping Americans free to surf and post, but the bill's wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing aninfringing site, it starts with those "that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name," but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that "conducts business directed to residents of the United States."

It sounds like, "in general," copyright holders will be the ones filing complaints to the Commission, but the writing leaves it open for any complainant to file. The ITC would still have the ability to coerce payment processors and ad networks to cease funding and linking the accused in question. Who could determine "willful" infringement?

Also, none of these bills had been decided before the U.S. Government took down New Zealand owned Megaupload.com during the commotion. To which, Anonymous responded by shutting down the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice, Universal Music, Recording Industry Association of America, the U.S. Copyright Office, Broadcast Music Inc. and the Motion Picture Association of America.

"The [DOJ's] action ‘demonstrates why we don't need SOPA in the first place,' points out PCWorld's Tony Bradley." The government was enforcing a previous anti-piracy law called PRO-IPsigned by Bush in 2008.

OPEN is gaining support from groups like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Consumer Electronics Association and more.

While it seems admirable that the bill is transparent and open for public comment, most laws of this nature are broad and allow for bigger, no-common sense crackdowns later. Plus, there might only be a couple concessions and the pacifying effects of "being heard."

One commenter of the bill aptly noted:

‘Reasonable belief' and ‘credible evidence' are too vague and have the appearance of inviting highly subjective interpretation with the option for the commission and/or the provider to exercise sweeping powers with impunity.

Whenever any group is appeased after a battle, it cannot be emphasized enough - the lawmakers' modus operandi will be: aim high, brace for the outcry, make a couple alterations and sneak the bill back in when no one's looking. Keep it going and going. Call it by a different name. Haggle. It appears there is compromise and reasoning now, but once the bill passes into law, reason goes out the window, and we are the only ones compromised.

Theft is a reality - although not one that has seriously damaged the growing entertainment industry, or caused massive death and devastation. If Hollywood, pitching the biggest fit, were actually going down, why should we go down with it?

It is more unfortunate that Americans must be so tirelessly vigilant to protect their online activities from the same lawmakers who are tanking the country in so many other truly devastating ways.

The dismantling of Internet freedom will not stop here. Let's borrow an MO and not let up.

To SOPA - Say NOPA!

To PIPA - Pipe down!

To OPEN - Shut it!

NDAA Is Washington's Totalitarian Response To Political Dissent And Economic Collapse

Saman Mohammadi

Prisonplanet.comJanuary 21, 2012

"In 1789, France entered a period of revolutionary change which was to see the complete restructuring of the state, the collapse of the monarchy, and its replacement by a republic. By 1793, France was riven by civil war and factional struggles and had also opened hostilities upon several neighbouring states. At home, political dissent and economic collapse were repressed by the use of political terror. For many contemporaries, as for later historians, the connection between these events and the Enlightenment was highly problematic. How could an era which had seen so much struggle for the rational reform of society, government and the individual have ended with such turmoil and violence?" - Dorinda Outram. The Enlightenment. 1995. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 126.

"All we have to do is remember who we are. We are not Germans. We're not peasants in China. We're not peasants in Russia. We have a legacy and a history of fighting for liberty. Americans have always fought for liberty. And we will fight again. So we will not be the Fourth Reich. We will not let that happen. Not without a fight." - Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, speaking on the Alex Jones show on January 12, 2012.

"I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have "disappeared" into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism." - Chris Hedges, "Why I'm Suing Barack Obama,"Truthdig, January 16, 2012.

An analysis of the passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) must start from the premise that since September 11, 2001, the hijacked U.S. government has been at war with America.

As they say, it's nothing personal, it's just business.

The American people are a big liability for the political and corporate elite who are openly hostile towards the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights. America is dead to them because the reality is that America and all nation states no longer matter.

Western elites favour technocratic regional unions, a world fascist economy, and authoritarian policing. Towards the fulfillment of their "new world order," they have destroyed democracy, social welfare programs, free market competition, and civil liberties.

The treasonous hijackers in Washington gained their war footing against the American people in the 1980s and 1990s, two decades which saw the privatization of the prison system, the militarization of the police, the betrayal of the American middle class, and the consolidation of the American media.

The ideological build-up of "domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism," was also necessary to the process of the centralization of power and destruction of the U.S. constitution by Washington's secret rulers. The false flag terror attacks in Oklahoma City and New York City were instrumental in pushing this process over legal obstacles as well as public, congressional, and bureaucratic resistance.

It can be argued that Oklahoma and New York - two cities which are poles apart from each other - were chosen by the state terrorists to emphasize that Middle America and the heart of the empire both share a deep sense of vulnerability and insecurity. It was psychological warfare at its finest. The enemy of "terrorism," which is a total invention, was solidified as a real threat in the minds of the American people through recurrent acts of state terrorism.

The political and moral bankruptcy of Washington's counter-terrorism policies are further unmasked when it is revealed, as the NDAA plainly does, that American citizens are the targets of counter-terrorism laws and the counter-terrorism bureaucracy.

Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, wrote about the anti-dissent nature of Washington's counter-terrorism agenda in his article on January 1, 2012 called, THE INAUGURATION OF POLICE STATE USA 2012. Obama Signs the "National Defense Authorization Act":

"Obama justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a "counter-terrorism" agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can -under the provisions of the NDAA- be labelled a "suspected terrorist" and arrested under military detention. Already in 2004, Homeland Security defined several categories of potential "conspirators" or "suspected terrorists" including "foreign [Islamic] terrorists", "domestic radical groups", [antiwar and civil rights groups], "disgruntled employees" [labor and union activists] and "state sponsored adversaries" ["rogue states", "unstable nations"]. The unspoken objective in an era of war and social crisis is to repress all forms of domestic protest and dissent.

The "National Defense Authorization Act " (H.R. 1540) repeals the US Constitution. While the facade of democracy prevails, supported by media propaganda, the American republic is fractured. The tendency is towards the establishment of a totalitarian State, a military government dressed in civilian clothes.

The passage of NDAA is intimately related to Washington's global military agenda. The military pursuit of Worldwide hegemony also requires the "Militarization of the Homeland", namely the demise of the American Republic."

The ramifications of the NDAA won't be known until the global economy collapses and political dissent in America reaches a crisis point. American citizens will indeed be put away in secret prisons by the thieves and traitors in Washington. So far, they have not been held accountable for their crimes against America, crimes against the Constitution, and crimes against humanity.

Americans, Canadians, and everybody else should psychologically prepare for future false flag attacks which will be blamed on political opposition groups and pro-democracy activists in the West. Western elites are fearful that a global public consensus will emerge around basic issues of freedom and safety, and that the world's people will challenge the international counter-terrorism strategy, the destruction of the rule of law, and the emerging global fascist state.

As stated by the creators of the Psywar documentary, the battlefield is your mind and soul. It is there that freedom, truth, peace, and justice will be won. It is there that mankind will take one final stand against political evil and economic fraud. It is there that fear and terror will be conquered.

Vote On PIPA Internet Censorship Bill Postponed

Key victory for free internet but effort to implement government control continues

Steve Watson Infowars.com

January 20, 2012

Following the announcement by the Department of Justice that it had shuttered file sharing website Megaupload last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today declared that the Senate vote on the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), scheduled for Tuesday, has now been postponed indefinitely.

"In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the PROTECT IP Act," Reid said in a statement, referring to this week's "blackout" protest against PIPA and the House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

Just two days ago, Reid had been adamant that the vote would go ahead in the Senate next week.

The two contrasting events highlight the ferocity of the battle that is currently raging over internet freedom in the US and the wider world.

Although forced to sideline the decision on PIPA indefinitely, Reid acknowledged the fact that the battle over the internet legislation is far from over.

"We made good progress through the discussions we've held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks," Reid said.

"There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved," he added. "Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices." Reid's statement continued.

"I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans' intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet." the statement read.

Following Wednesday's protest, several lawmakers who had previously supported the legislation began to backtrack away and reverse their stances.

In the House, the Judiciary Committee postponed a decision on SOPA earlier in the month, but is expected to bring it up again in February. House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday that "it's pretty clear to many of us that there is a lack of consensus at this point."

As we have repeatedly pointed out, and as proven by the seizure of Megaupload yesterday, the bills are not legislating for anything that isn't already being carried out by the federal government, which routinely seizes and blacklists any website it wishes.

Furthermore, major online corporations like Google are already following government mandated procedures and even using SOPA-like censorship.

Although the backlash against PIPA/SOPA and the resulting postponement of the bills represents a key victory for the free internet, it is clear that the establishment war against the web will remain in full force

SOPA - Don't Just Protest - Get Even

January 19, 2012

Tony Cartalucci Land Destroyer Report

The entire reason why SOPA's authors and supporters have the money, influence, and power to put draconian bills like it forward in the first place is because of our daily patronizing of their corporations and the goods and services they provide.

SOPA supporters include the US Chamber of Commerce, the MPAA, and many of the mega-corporations Americans, and indeed people around the world, support on a daily basis. The key to stopping SOPA and the watered down feigned "concession" that will surely follow it is to undermine the unwarranted power and influence of the corporations and financiers backing it in the first place. If Americans withdrew their support from these corporations, if theaters were left empty, if Pepsi and Coke were left collecting dust on the shelves of an empty Walmart, bills like SOPA would not exist, let alone have a chance to be passed into law.

Below is just one letter signed by just one group of these corporations and organizations. Boycott, put out out of business, and replace these corporations with local alternatives.

Sponsors of this letter in support of "rouge sites legislation" include:

3M

Alliance of Automobile Manufactures

American Apparel and Footwear Associations

Autodesk Inc.

Bose Corporation

Broadcast Music Inc (BMI)

Caterpillar

CBS

Council of Fashion Designers of America

Electronic Arts (EA)

Ford Motor Company

GlaxoSmith Kline

Harley-Davidson Motor Company

Johnson & Johnson

L'Oreal

Macmillian

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

National Basketball Association (NBA)

National Football League (NFL)

NBC Universal

News Corporation (Fox News)

NHL

Nike

Nintendo of America

Oakley

Pfizer

PGA of America

Philip Morris International

Reebok

Rite Aid

Rolex

Rosetta Stone

Software & Information Industry Association

Sony

Dow Chemical

McGraw-Hill

Timberland

Walt Disney

Tiffany & Co.

Time Warner

Toshiba

US Chamber of Commerce

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)

Universal Music Group

Viacom

Wal-Mart

Warner Music Group

World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)

Xerox Corporation

Zippo Manufacturing

If you can't live without the endless crass torrent of "bread and circus" as well as trinkets provided by the above mentioned supporters of this corporate-fascist agenda - the literal crafting and backing of legislation of, by, and for corporations -you don't deserve the freedom you believe yourself entitled to.

There is not one corporation listed above that society could not live without and in many cases replace with decentralized, superior local alternatives. Freedom is not simply voicing your opposition or choosing representatives to do so on your behalf. Freedom is also about the responsibility to keep in check the creation of unwarranted power and influence garnered from your daily payments in attention, money, time, and energy to corporations that would seek to impose their will upon society using the very mechanisms of governance designed solely for the people's benefit.

Identity the source of power behind bills like SOPA, and indeed many of the government policies wrecking our society, miring us in endless war, and leaving us in economic destitution.Boycott them, and replace them. We cannot be blamed for the greed and depravity of the global corporate-financier elite, but we can be blamed for fueling their megalomania on a daily basis.

SOPA/PIPA Battle Rages: Tell Congress We Will Not Accept Censorship

Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

January 18, 2012

The underhanded effort to fundamentally alter the internet under the guise of protecting the copyrights of Hollywood and its transnational "entertainment" corporations was delivered a distinct set-back a few days ago when Congress retreated on its full-steam ahead effort to ram SOPA down our throats.

Faced with massive outrage and a political backlash, the Obama administration threatened a veto of the SOPA legislation and in response Congress shelved it.

Equally important is the battle to defeat PIPA, the Protect IP Act, which will soon be up for a vote. Congress needs to be told it must reject this legislation as well.

Even though the shelving of SOPA appears to be a victory, we cannot trust the government to not reintroduce the bill after sprucing it up as a kinder and gentler effort to rob of us our ability to freely disseminate information and speak our minds on the internet without fear of the censor's truncheon crashing down. After all, in 2010 the government shut down 73,000 web sites under the cover of fighting copyright infringement.

We must continue to let our "representatives" in Congress know that in no uncertain terms will we accept any modification of the internet at the behest of large corporations and the globalists who intend by hook or by crook to neuter the only free communication medium left to the people.

Use the links below to contact Congress now and speak your mind:

Congress:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

http://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Senate:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

STOP AMERICAN CENSORSHIP:

http://americancensorship.org/

Read the bills in full here:

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act):

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261

PIPA (Protect IP Act):

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968

YOU are the resistance.

EXCLUSIVE: Jailed Ed / Elaine Brown Supporter Danny Riley Stabbed in Prison

January 13, 2012 by Jack Blood

I just received this up date from one of our people close to the Browns and those Jailed via the Plainfield NH standoff in 2007

NEVER FORGET THE SACRIFICE MADE BY THESE BRAVE ACTIVISTS!!!

this is a relay from Donna......

I want to let everyone know that Danny Riley was attacked recently, he is being held prisoner at the Terre Haute FCI here in Indiana. I have a feeling the CO's may had something to do with this. I was asked recently to come up and help him more closely with filings and so forth, which is what I believed they may have had him in the hole to begin with.... Here is an email sent to his brother. Thoughts, prayers and meditations are definitely needed more than ever. Danny is an incarcerated Ed and Elaine Brown Supporter whom was given 36 years.

Dan is in grave danger, prayers requested!

From Dan:

I rec'd Sven's letter, good to go. I thank you Sven, for doing the right thing, for the truth, I know how difficult it was for you, again i deeply appreciate it. I just wish it could have been sooner as you told me, because now i have to supplement my 2255 since it's already been typed and sent.
Furthermore. on Friday Jan 6th 2 11:57am, i was ambushed attacked(unprovoked). Stabbed 4 times ( 3 in back, 1 in throat), both eyesblack, gash over right eye. I will be all right though. i just got out of the hole (5 days).
The attacker was a mexican mob affiliated type

from california (HITMAN?). Luckily for me, the poinard failed in it's design, meaning the dagger part broke.
WE WILL UPDATE AS WE GET MORE INFO....

COMMENT FROM SUPER MARIO:

One thing to keep in mind is that once inside the prison system, it can mean anything; the hit can be called by different prison gangs. In this case, however, the prison is in Indiana, which is Latin Kings territory (because it's near Chicago). We know that Chicago and the Latin kings are, for the most part, controlled by Sinaloa. In fact, DEA-CIA-Sinaloa operative Vinny Zambada is currently serving time in Chicago. If Zambada is there, then so are his Sinaloa-CIA handlers. The CIA might've issued the order to Sinaloa to find a hitman; Sinaloa then goes to the Latin Kings (or the Mexican Mafia if this was a west coast hitman that might've recently been transferred to Indiana). The prison gangs receive the order for the hit from high above, and they carry it out without questions.

These types of hits happen a lot in state prisons; they don't happen as often in federal prisons. Since this is a federal prison, you can bet your bottom federal reserve note that this was a professional hit... and who stands to gain from this? The government, of course! It would be very convenient for a dissident like Danny to suddenly die in prison in the hands of a violent thug. We're just fortunate that nothing like this happened to Cele (Our friend and DEA / Iran Contra whistle-Blower Cele Castillo was a major target in Federal Prison. He was just released early, but is likely still in danger.)

There is no doubt that the federal government wants this issue -the Browns Tax Protest- dead and buried (no pun intended). They do not want any other Americans to stand up and follow the Brown's footsteps, especially when they're contemplating the idea of raising our taxes as they spend us into oblivion. They are already demonizing and dismissing Ed Brown as a lunatic that ‘psychologically abused his wife.' Of course, he and his wife cannot defend themselves because they're in prison. It now looks like they may be going after their supporters. They DO NOT want any of their supporters, like Danny, to finish their time in prison because they will be viewed as heroes in the patriot community, and they may start a new tax revolt as the s**t hits the fan this year.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Danny, the Browns, and all the rest of the activists doing time in prison for simply asking the proverbial question: "Where is the law that says we need to pay income taxes?" We hope Danny recovers soon. Hang in there, Danny! We will do everything in our power to expose those responsible for this crime. When we find them, we will make them pay!!!

-Mario

NDAA Protests End In Ironic Swarm Of Arrests

January 11, 2012

Brandon Smith Alt Market

The absurdity of America today never ceases to amaze. In fact, it has become so elaborate that one might even suggest it has reached a kind of poetic symmetry. When a protest group is willing to stick their necks out to expose the horror of the National Defense Authorization Act and its open door strategy for unconstitutional arrest and indefinite detainment of American citizens, I have to stand up and applaud. This is the kind of protest we need to see all over the country. Of course, any establishment system which is willing to dissolve the inherent liberties of its citizens certainly isn't going to stand by quietly while they blatantly point out the injustice. The Grand Central Terminal action is a perfect example of the swift and immediate stifling of peaceful dissent by an increasingly totalitarian government:

Responses to the event vary. Most people who have actually been exposed to the facts on the NDAA have expressed utter disgust and fury. Rightly so. Some, however, have taken the old elitist mantra, perpetuated effectively by the Neo-Cons in their heyday, that if you are not for the system, then you are a danger to society. Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of useful idiots out there buzzing about like parasites in search of blood.

For those who would applaud these arrests, and suggest that they are well deserved, I would have to ask very pointedly; why?

Is it right to crush free speech as long as the message is offensive to you personally? Do peaceful protestors really present a legitimate threat to our national stability? Are they truly more dangerous than a corrupt government hellbent on assassinating the legal protections of our natural rights which have existed for centuries? Would any supporter of the jackboot methodology like to explain to me in a coherent manner why they believe their skewed world view should be shielded from sincere questions? Please, I can't wait to witness the kind of ridiculous mental gymnastics required to make such arguments palatable. If this kind of ignorance wasn't so destructive, it might actually be entertaining.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if these activists were in Grand Central Terminal, on the streets, or busting through the doors of the Oval Office. While New York authorities will attempt to argue property loopholes in free speech protections for Grand Central, or national security because of the vulnerability of the terminal, really, this has nothing to do with either. This is about the removal of American voices from a room, and nothing more. If the message is going to be suppressed by the mainstream media, and shrugged off by representatives, then protesters must go to where the people are, and make the truth heard by whatever means necessary.

Ultimately, activism is about disturbing people's normal mundane routines and shocking them out of their pop-culture stupor, even if for a moment. If we aren't allowed to do that without constant police intervention, then the First Amendment is not being served, and then, my friends, we have a problem, a problem which should be forced down the throat of government with even more public action

Another Tyrannical Success for Lieberman: Enemy Expatriation Act Now Law Under NDAA

Eric Blair: Activist Post

1-6-2012

Last January, four-term senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced that he would not seek reelection in the upcoming 2012 elections. This seems to have relieved any pressure of facing his constituency for approval, allowing him to push for some of the most draconian legislation in the history of the United States. Or, perhaps, he is just auditioning for a more powerful position like Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the DHS.

Besides his renewed pressure on Google and Twitter to openly censor the Internet, Lieberman's desire to crush all dissent against the war machine has manifested in bills like his Enemy Belligerent Act, his Internet Kill Switch bill, and the recently introduced Enemy Expatriation Act.

Unfortunately, the most egregious parts of the above mentioned bills already found their way into law under the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which seemingly renders any further discussion of these bills as somewhat redundant, but they certainly won't be critically discussed in the corporate media.

The Enemy Belligerent Act grants "the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone -- including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president's sole authority as commander in chief."

The Internet Kill Switch bill, officially called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, gives the President the authority to police, censor and shut down parts of the Internet under a cyber emergency. While promoting the bill, Lieberman openly called for the U.S. to have the same ability to censor the Internet as China.

The Enemy Expatriation Act aimed to remove the rights protected by U.S. citizenship from those who "support hostilities against the United States." This act was in response to Obama's assassination of a U.S. citizen without formal charges or due process to, in effect, legalize such action by removing Constitutional protections of those suspected of supporting hostilities.

The NDAA, which has declared American soil part of the formal battlefield, permits the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on the suspicion of supporting or sympathizing with broadly defined terrorists -- thus effectively rendering their rights as citizens obsolete -- expatriation in practice but not in name.

The NDAA also includes authorization to go after those who engage in a "belligerent act" including protests and speech, thus fulfilling the intent of the Enemy Belligerent Act. Shahid Buttar points out on FireDogLake:

If Occupy and Tea Party groups are treated as terrorists, does that render them among the 'associated forces' of groups 'engaged in hostilities against the United States' for whom the NDAA authorizes military detention without trial? Just to be clear: no one has a good answer here, which is precisely the problem.
Even within the four corners of the NDAA itself (here's the full text of the bill), section 1031(b)(2) includes among 'covered persons' subject to potential military detention 'any person who has committed a belligerent act....' What, exactly, is a belligerent act? 'Hostile' and 'aggressive' are synonyms, and while the term has an established (though not entirely defined) meaning in the context of international war, its precise meaning in the context of the NDAA remains unspecified.
And finally, the NDAA declares the Internet an "operation domain" in the war on terror allowing for the Pentagon, "upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace." The authority goes even further than passive Internet censorship. The Pentagon also claims the authority to use military force as a response to serious cyber attacks. The Pentagon announced their efforts (PDF) to recruit and train an army of cyber soldiers as funded by the NDAA.

How bad each of these bills are separately only reflects the magnitude of what Lieberman and his hawkish ilk were able to accomplish in the NDAA. No other elected official can claim the success of Lieberman in terms of ramming through increasingly tyrannical legislation. But nearly all elected officials are responsible for passing the NDAA and its predecessor the USA PATRIOT Act.

So, protest of these individual bills are futile, much like the overwhelming public opposition to the bank bailouts was futile in swaying the "deciders." As Lieberman departs the Senate in a blaze of tyranny, Americans will most certainly continue to be burned unless the people wake up.

Obama Crowned Himself on New Year's Eve

by David Swanson

Global Research, January 1, 2012

warisacrime.org

These were among the complaints registered the last time this nation had a king:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

"For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

To prevent the U.S. government from behaving like a king, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution empowered an elected legislature to write every law, to declare every war, and to remove its executive from office. To further prevent the abuse of individuals' rights, those authors wrote into the Constitution, even prior to the Bill of Rights, the right to habeas corpus and the right never to be punished for treason unless convicted in an open court on the testimony of at least two witnesses to an overt act of war or assistance of an enemy.

President Barack Obama waited until New Year's Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice. On that day, Obama issued an unconstitutional signing statement rewriting a law as he signed it into law, a practice that candidate Obama had rightly condemned. The law that Obama was signing was the most direct assault yet seen on the basic structure of self-governance and human rights that once made all the endless U.S. shouting of "We're number one!" significantly less ludicrous. The National Defense Authorization Act is not a leap from democracy to tyranny, but it is another major step on a steady and accelerating decade-long march toward a police-and-war state.

President Obama has claimed the power to imprison people without a trial since his earliest months in office. He spoke in front of the Constitution in the National Archives while gutting our founding document in 2009. President Obama has claimed the power to torture "if needed," issued an executive order claiming the power of imprisonment without trial, exercised that power on a massive scale at Bagram, and claimed and exercised the power to assassinate U.S. citizens. Obama routinely kills people with unmanned drones.

The bill just signed into law, as sent to the President, said this:

"Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

In other words, Congress was giving its stamp of approval to the unconstitutional outrages already claimed by the President. But then, why create a new law at all? Well, because some outrages are more equal than others, and Congress had chosen to specify some of those and in fact to expand some of them. For example:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."

And this:

"The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Jon Stewart explained when those detained without trial under the law might be released: "So when the war on terror ends, and terror surrenders and is no longer available as a human emotion, you are free to go."

An exception for U.S. legal residents and citizens was kept out of the bill at President Obama's request.

So why did Obama threaten to veto the bill initially and again after it passed the Senate? Well, one change made by the conference committee was this (note the crossed-through text):

"The Secretary of Defense President may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States."

The reference here is to military tribunals. The President - that is, the current one and future ones - need not hand someone over even to a military tribunal if . . . well, if he (or she) chooses not to.

That was the most power Obama could have transferred to the White House in this bill. But it was not absolute power, and was therefore not good enough. Hence the signing statement, the relevant portion of which begins:

"Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."

This is Bush-Cheneyspeak for "I will not comply with the following sections of this law despite signing it into law."

After having persuaded the Congress to remove an exception for U.S. legal residents, Obama has the nerve in the signing statement to assert, not that the law makes any such exception, but that he personally will choose to do so, at least for U.S. citizens. Future presidents may lock U.S. citizens up without trials, but Obama won't do so. He promises:

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

The first two sentences above are highly unusual if not unprecedented. Most, if not all, of Bush and Obama's law-altering signing statements up to this point have not sought to clarify what a particular administration would choose to do. Rather, they have focused on declaring parts of the laws invalid. Usually this is done in a manner misleadingly similar to the third sentence above. By claiming the power to interpret a law in line with the Constitution, Bush and Obama have each on numerous occasions asserted the view that the Constitution grants presidents far-reaching powers that cannot be restricted by legislation. If Obama had wanted to deny that this law could be applied to U.S. citizens (or legal residents), the above paragraph would look very different, although equally unusual in that it would then be rejecting power rather than claiming it.

Also note, as Marcy Wheeler has already pointed out, Section 1021 applies to any detention, and Obama promises only not to subject U.S. citizens to indefinite military detention. While locked away forever without a trial you'll be able to take comfort that yours is a non-military imprisonment.

Also, remember that Obama claims and exercises the power to kill U.S. citizens or anyone else (arguably at least as serious a violation of rights as imprisonment!), and for that he will use the military if he sees fit, or even allow the military to operate freely.

Also notice that legal residents are not included in the category of citizens.

Next, Obama declares Section 1022 on military custody "ill-conceived." His personal right to a waiver, won through the conference committee, was not enough. Obama insists on also erasing this section of law: "I reject," he writes,

"any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations. I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. ... I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation."

Obama goes on to reject several other sections of the law, including restrictions on his unlimited power to rendition prisoners to other countries. Among the notable rejections is this:

"Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section."

In other words, U.S. prisoners held in Afghanistan will not be given even any formal pretense of a legalistic review of their status unless Obama and his Secretary of "Defense" see fit.

I've just been editing a forthcoming book in which one of the contributors writes:

"In 1971, Congress passed the Anti-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), which states that "no person shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Fred Koramatsu, who had brought the unsuccessful case before the Supreme Court, was eventually awarded the Medal of Honor. Congress apologized and provided for limited reparations for this heinous act."

The author is referring to the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War II. This type of criminal abuse for which Congress had to apologize and pay reparations, and for which there is a misleadingly pro-war-looking memorial hidden between the U.S. Capitol and Union Station, has now been effectively sanctioned by our Constitutional Scholar in Chief.

My chief regret is that we have not seen the major resistance we could have, and without any doubt would have, seen to this if only Obama were a Republican

The Tide Is Turning Against SOPA ... And We Might Actually Succeed In Stopping It

December 28, 2011

Washington's Blog

While a short week ago the Internet censorship bill - SOPA - looked certain to pass, the tide appears to be quickly turning.

Politico notes today:

The conservative and liberal blogospheres are unifying behind opposition to Congress's Stop Online Piracy Act, with right-leaning bloggers arguing their very existence could be wiped out if the anti-piracy bill passes.

"If either the U.S. Senate's Protect IP Act (PIPA) & the U.S. House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) become law, political blogs such as Red Mass Group [conservative] & Blue Mass Group [liberal] will cease to exist," wrote a blogger at Red Mass Group.

"Some good news on the SOPA front: Its corporate base of supporters is starting to crumble," David Dayden wrote at Firedoglake. "GoDaddy is not alone. Scores of law firms are requesting their names be removed from the Judiciary Committee's official list of SOPA supporters."

In the blogosphere, the trajectory of the bill seemed set - that it is destined for failure if the pressure of the online community is kept up.

"The dynamic is clear. Once SOPA - and its Senate counterpart, Protecting IP Act, or PIPA - became high-profile among the Internet community, the lazy endorsements from companies and various hangers-on became toxic. And now, those supporters are scrambling, hollowing out the actual support for the bill. Suddenly, a bill with ‘widespread' corporate support doesn't have much support at all," Dayden said.

Conservatives took a slightly different tact, though with similar disdain for the anti-piracy measures.

Indeed, blogger Erick Erickson said that he would encourage a primary for any Republican who supports the bill.

"I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress. And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 reelection bid" due to her co-sponsorship for SOPA, Erickson wrote at RedState. "Congress has proven it does not understand the Internet. Perhaps they will understand brute strength against them at the ballot box. If members of Congress do not pull their name from co-sponsorship of SOPA, the left and right should pledge to defeat each and every one of them."

Digital Journal reports:

The legislation, which many are suggesting is nothing less than censorship of Internet content and an assault on free speech, has brought many disparate groups together for the first time, such as ... the Heritage Foundation and Beregrond, a Libertarian website.

Several Washington D.C. law firms and lobbying groups were added to a list of corporate supporters by mistake and those who were willing to speak on the record were decidedly unhappy with the House Judiciary Committee. "It's just incorrect. The firm has no position on SOPA," Davis Wright Tremaine LLP spokesman Mark Usellis stated to Politico.

Even the White House is looking toward opposing the bill, with a petition on the White House website to veto the bill if passed by Congress. The petition needed 25,000 signatures and so far it has 43,351.

Time to redouble our efforts ... the tide may be turning, and we have a chance of winning.

Exclusive: Military to Designate U.S. Citizens as Enemy During Collapse

FEMA Continuity of Government Plans Prep Total Takeover of Society, Dispatching Military Domestically Under Economic Collapse Emergency

Aaron Dykes Infowars.com

December 21, 2011

UPDATE: Government censors document revealing plans to wage war on Americans. READ HERE.

NOTE: Within an hour of posting this article and linking to the pertinent document, the feds at FBO.gov have pulled the link and implied that it was a classified posting. We believe this was public and of interest to American citizens, taxpayers and peoples of the world and are in the process re-establishing an archive link of the material. Obviously, however, this information is revealing and certain parties do not wish it to be widely known. If you believe this material is important, please archive it and share it with your contacts. Infowars has discovered new FEMA documents that confirm information received from DoD sources that show military involvement in a FEMA-led takeover within the United States under partially-classified Continuity of Government (COG) plans. It involves not only operations for the relocation of COG personnel and key officials, population management, emergency communications and alerts but the designation of the American people as ‘enemies' under a live military tracking system known as Blue Force Situational Awareness (BFSA).

Further, this Nov. 18, 2011 FEMA-released plan National Continuity Programs (NCP) Program and Mission Support Services (PAMSS) [PDF] linked at the FedBizOpps.gov website outlines a scenario that overlays with eerie accuracy the bigger picture sketched out by concurrent calls for troops to keep order in the streets of places like New Orleans, as well as other bombshell documents like those released from KBR seeking to activate contracted staff for emergency detention centers and for services like fencing and barricades, as well as numerous agencies and think tanks who've prepared for civil unrest and economic breakdown in America.

Hold onto your seats. The plan for the takeover of the United States has not only been drafted, but activated. Our sources and independent research make this abundantly clear. Martial law scenarios preparing for a breakdown of order under the ongoing economic collapse are underway, even as pretexts for control are initiated in locales across the country. Bold individuals like Ron Paul have warned that dangerous legislation like the NDAA designate the American population as potential enemies. Now, there is more evidence this targeting of the people is sadly taking place.

A laundry list of operations organized under FEMA's National Continuity Programs (NCP) provides a base of technical support for the deployment of national emergency plans and the logistical tracking of all personnel incorporated under what Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has lovingly termed the big "federal family."

"Friendly" military and FEMA personnnel, along with their contracted employees and those of other federal agencies, will carry transponder ID badges, like those described here, to designate their "blue" inclusive status. As our military sources have confirmed, under the Blue Force Situational Awareness (BFSA) all other American citizens and civilians are designated under the "red" category and treated as an enemy or potential unfriendly. Throughout his past investigative work including witnessing numerous military drills, Alex Jones has also witnessed the technology and the use of this alarming code branding ordinary Americans as battlefield enemies. The plan includes drone and other high-tech tools to monitor and target individuals designated under the "enemy" status.

The military's blue force tracking technology has been adopted since 2003 in Iraq and used in theaters like Afghanistan to quickly distinguish "Blue" friendlies (including U.S. forces and allies like tribal forces) from "Red" enemies. However, on the U.S. homeland battlefield, it is the American people who will be designated under "red," whereas cleared occupying personnel are tracked as "blue" friendlies by their ID transponder badges. The designation was set-up to reduce "friendly fire" incidents.

Blue Force and other related programs like Geospatial Information Systems (GIS), Continuity Analysis and the Command, Control, Communications and Computing (C4) operations named in the document electronically track and verify the location and clearance of COG-related personnel, the usage of emergency shelter facilities and their components as well as the military's friendly/enemy designations- creating a matrix for live monitoring and control coordinating with FEMA databases during martial law or national emergency scenarios.

For instance, FEMA acknowledges in its documents the use of Blue Force tracking systems and other geospatial information systems to monitor the capacity and usage of its facilities under the National Shelter System and other programs. Preparations for the orderly control of the masses have already been put into place.

In particular, the Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center outside Washington, D.C. is empowered to "coordinate, track, and synchronize the relocation of key leadership and staff from the DHS and FEMA Emergency Relocation Groups (ERG) members to perform their essential functions" during a declared national emergency using the Blue Force and other related tracking programs managed under the established joint relocation operations control center and emergency relocation programs referenced in the document. Section 1.3.4 further details the minimum ID requirements for contractor employee identification and verification.

The FEMA National Shelter System (NSS) is a comprehensive, Web-based database created to support Federal, State and local government agencies and voluntary organizations responsible for Mass Care and Emergency Assistance. The FEMA NSS allows users to identify, track, analyze, and report on data for virtually any facility associated with the congregate care of people and/or household pets following a disaster.

FEMA has also outlined detailed support for its vast Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), proscribed under Executive Order 13407 for the federal takeover of communications. It details the continuity of emergency communications and the issuance of warnings to the public, including public-private partnerships concerned with issuing alert messages through cellular providers- a program that only recently caused panic when it was publicly tested without forewarning in New Jersey. It is designated in the document under the Commercial Mobile Alerting System (CMAS).

As we have mentioned here and detailed in the past, this is part of larger COG government takeover- not part of any ordinary natural disaster response as the media has been told. The elite have initiated worldwide economic collapse and prepared their power-grabbing response as currencies and markets fall across the globe. All the experts we've talked to over the years concur with this basic analysis.

To put it simply: once the economic depression has sunken in completely, the population will willingly head in droves to government centers for basic requirements like food. As Henry Kissinger bluntly quipped, "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." FEMA's response will in hinge, in part, on just that- encouraging people sign up for their own enslavement.

First Amendment Under Attack: 18 Examples Of How They Are Coming For Our Free Speech

by Michael Snyder Informaion Liberation

In the United States today, the First Amendment is under attack like never before. Technological innovations such as the Internet have made it possible for average Americans to communicate directly with one another in ways that completely bypass the mainstream media, and this is making the elite very uncomfortable. They have decided that they better come after our free speech before it is too late. Right now, free speech in America is being chipped away at it in thousands of different ways. On the one hand, you have the disciples of "political correctness" that want to make all forms of speech that are "offensive" to anyone against the law. On the other hand, you have those that are obsessed with "national security" that want to ban all speech that is critical of the U.S. government or the U.S. military. These twin forces are constantly seeking to push the First Amendment into a smaller and smaller box. If you say the wrong thing in America today, your website might be shut down, you could be suspended from school, you may find yourself out of a job and there is now even a possibility that you could be arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay without a trial.

Usually those that are targeted for their speech are those that the "establishment" does not like. That would include free thinkers, political activists, libertarians, true conservatives and Christians.

Instead of seeing the value in allowing everyone to say what they think, we are being taught in America today that there is speech that is "acceptable" and speech that is "not acceptable".

If we allow this attack on the First Amendment to continue, eventually we will wake up in a country where our freedom of speech is totally gone.

The following are 18 examples of how the elite are coming for our free speech....

#1 Two bills currently going through Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, would give the U.S. government the ability to shut down literally millions of websites.

These bills are incredibly dangerous and if they are passed they could change the way that the Internet operates forever.

The following is from a piece that Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently authored about these new bills....

"Imagine my astonishment when the newest threat to free speech has come from none other but the United States. Two bills currently making their way through congress -- SOPA and PIPA -- give the U.S. government and copyright holders extraordinary powers including the ability to hijack DNS and censor search results (and this is even without so much as a proper court trial)"
Any website that posts "infringing material" could be instantly shut down under these news laws. For example, if one "infringing video" was posted on YouTube, the entire site could be taken down forever and permanently erased from Google in a matter of days. That is how serious these new bills are as Brin noted later on in his piece....

"While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world."
Can you imagine a world where there is no more YouTube, no more Facebook and no more Twitter?

That is what we could be looking at.

Sadly, many in the U.S. Congress seem absolutely obsessed with censoring the Internet.

U.S. Senator Chris Dodd once said the following....

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites"
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman has gone even farther. Just check out what he once said....

"Right now, China -- the government -- can disconnect parts of its internet in a case of war. We need to have that here too"
Not only that, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman also recently asked Google to install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers can easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.

The Internet is under attack from Washington D.C., and if you love the Internet you need to say something while you still can.

Please contact your representatives in Congress and tell them that they must vote against these bills.

#2 Politicians all over the United States are using law enforcement authorities to shut down free speech that they do not like. For example, during a recent meeting of the Pensacola City Council, a priest was nearly arrested after he calmly said some things that members of the city council did not like. If you have not seen this video of the incident yet, you should really check it out.

#3 The First Amendment is especially under attack in our public schools. For example, one group of high school athletes was recently suspended for "Tebowing" in the hallways of their school.

#4 The U.S. government is now encouraging children to spy on their parents as part of the "war on terror". If a school official hears that a parent has said the "wrong thing" at home, that parent could potentially get labeled as a "potential terrorist".

#5 Even though tens of millions of Americans have found the information and products sold by Kevin Trudeau to be incredibly helpful, the FTC has mercilessly gone after him. They have done everything that they can to shut him up and now he is being ordered to pay a ridiculous financial penalty of 37.6 million dollars.

#6 Hillary Clinton recently said that certain "political, cultural, and religious beliefs" are obstacles to promoting alternative lifestyles around the world and therefore must not be tolerated....

"Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs"
#7 Some U.S. courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to use the name of "Jesus Christ" during any official government meeting. The following comes from a recent WorldNetDaily article....

But the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are standing by their victory in a U.S. circuit court decision that states even "a solitary reference to Jesus Christ" in invocations before the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners' meetings could do "violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life."
#8 In North Carolina last year, a pastor was dismissed from his chaplain duties for praying in the name of Jesus.

#9 Down in Texas, the Department of Veteran Affairs actually tried to ban prayers that include the words "God" or "Jesus" during funeral services for veterans.

#10 Being able to engage in peaceful protests is one of the most important rights that the First Amendment protects. But in recent years that right has been under attack like never before. In a recent article I detailed some of the violence that law enforcement authorities have used against protesters in 2011....

In recent weeks, we have seen law enforcement authorities brutally dragging female protesters to the ground by their hair. We have also seen them use pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang stun grenades against protesters. If this is how protesters are going to be dealt with from now in America, then we have completely lost the moral high ground. How will we ever get other nations to take us seriously when we criticize their brutality against protesters when we are so brutal ourselves?
#11 As I have written about previously, the FBI is now systematically recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. This is going to cause many Internet talk radio hosts to watch what they are saying. After all, who wants a visit from the FBI? The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....

If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.

The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.

The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.
#12 In Wichita, Kansas last year, a Christian minister was handcuffed and hauled off to jail by police for sharing the gospel and handing out tracts to Muslims on a public sidewalk.

#13 On June 18, 2010 two Christians decided that they would peacefully pass out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside a public Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan and within three minutes 8 police officers surrounded them and placed them under arrest.

#14 As I have written about previously, a very revealing document obtained by Oath Keepers shows that the FBI is actually instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. Apparently the FBI now believes that the definition of "suspicious activity" includes "radical theology" and making "extreme religious statements".

#15 Last year, a high school student in Southern California was suspended for two days because he had private conversations with his classmates during which he discussed Christianity. He was also banned from bringing his Bible to school ever again.

#16 A Christian consultant was recently fired by Bank of America and by Cisco because they discovered a book that he had written that expressed Christian viewpoints about social issues.

#17 Members of the U.S. Congress have been banned from saying "Merry Christmas" in any piece of congressional mail that is paid for by U.S. tax dollars. Even if you do not celebrate that holiday, you should still be outraged at that infringement of free speech.

#18 Barack Obama recently signed a new law that officially designates the United States as part of the "battleground" on the war on terror. This new law allows the U.S. military to arrest American citizens if they are suspected of being "potential terrorists" and to detain them indefinitely without trial. So if the U.S. military comes and grabs your neighbor and ships him off to Guantanamo Bay, then this new law is probably to blame.

This new law is also going to have a huge chilling effect on free speech in America.

I have personally been contacted by several people that I know in recent weeks that are changing their behavior because of laws that have recently been passed.

It is not enough for the elite that they control Wall Street, most of the big corporations and the U.S. government.

They also want to shut all the rest of us up and keep us from complaining about it.

The elite literally want to control what we think and what we say.

We live in a country where political correctness is way out of control and where bureaucrats are constantly trying to push our free speech into a smaller and smaller box.

They are coming for our free speech my friends.

If you love free speech, and if you love the Internet as it currently exists, then you need to stand up and say something right now.

If we do not respond to these constant attacks on the First Amendment, then eventually we are going to lose it for good

Military Contractors Funded Detention Bill

December 18, 2011

Source: Voice Of Detroit

NDAA 2012 codifies Commander in Chief President Obama, DHS, military police waging war against American internet users, independent reporters, whistleblowers of high-level corruption

The National Defense Authorization Bill 2012 (NDAA FY2012) passed in the House yesterday, contains language allowing the Pentagon to wage cyberwar on domestic enemies of the state, a human and civil rights violation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as reported by MSNBC Wednesday, potentially impacting both Occupy movement and Tea Party participants plus independent news reporters and whistleblowers exposing government corruption. President Obama will have the bill to sign this week according to Government Executive, as ACLU and David Swanson urgently call Americans to action to thwart the signing of the bill into law.

It is "astonishing and disappointing" that the bill's language has been approved by Congress and President Obama said Jameel Jaffer of National Security division of ACLU in his interview by Rachel Maddow in her MSNBC show Wedneday, "Suspicion Accomplished."

The NDAA FY2012 includes the following language in its final "reconciled" bill now in the Senate and then traveling to President Barack Obama to be signed into law, despite earlier assertions he would veto the human rights violating legislation:

"Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to-

(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and

(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.)"

As part of Full Spectrum Dominance, the Pentagon's cybersecurity plan released in July declared the internet a domain of war, claiming hostile parties "are working to exploit DOD unclassified and classified networks, and some foreign intelligence organizations have already acquired the capacity to disrupt elements of DOD's information infrastructure."

According to the Pentagon, "non-state actors increasingly threaten to penetrate and disrupt DOD networks and systems."

The term "non-state actors" is addressed by Brent Jessop who writes that a problem with the current internet is the "potential for the dissemination of ideas and information not consistent with US government themes and messages, commonly known as free speech."

NDAA FY2012 thus directly threatens safety of whistleblowers and independent reporters.

Kurt Nimmo of InfoWars reports Thursday, "After the NDAA is signed into law by Obama, he will have the authority to wage war against "domestic terrorists," defined by the Department of Homeland Security as "rightwing extremists" and other anti-government types.

As already observed in DHS coordinated organized attacks on the Occupy movement human rights defenders, NDAA 2012 codifies the DHS to "direct the work" against enemies of the state.

"DHS will work with the Pentagon to militarily neutralize the threat posed by activists and the alternative media," says Nimmo.

This author reported in November, "U.S. soldiers are trained to use non-lethal force as much as possible according to the DoD that added, ‘But until recently, not every soldier had ‘the right mix' of tools and capabilities to meet those goals, an officer said during exercises in 2008.'

"Now, ‘the right mix' has been passed to the Department of Justice, to local police, since a quiet agreement was made as the DoD states on its website answering question, ‘Q7: What organizations are involved?'"

"In November, the DHS practiced its work by coordinating a nationwide police crackdown on the OWS movement," says Nimmo.

"In the not too distant future, it may be using the Pentagon - now that Posse Comitatus is a dead letter - in its ongoing efforts to wage war on political opposition to the establishment."

From Forbes to statesmen to Anonymous and hactivists, NDAA FY2012 war on Americans is far from over

On December 5, Forbes reported, "If Obama does one thing for the remainder of his presidency let it be a veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a law that "would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists."

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said about NDAA FY2012 that it "denigrates the very foundations of this country."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has repeatedly said that NDAA FY2012 "puts every single American citizen at risk."

Representative Dennis Kucinich stated Wednesday, "Our children deserve a world where they know the government will protect them, that it is not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts."

The internet war is now involves a battle with Anonymous.

Wednesday, "Internet hacktivists gathered on the Web to find a way to take on the lawmakers, who have allowed for this detrimental legislation to make it all the way to the Oval Office desk," according to Russia Today.

"Upon discussion of routes to take to show their opposition to the overwhelming number of politicians who voted in favor of NDAA, Anonymous members agreed to begin with Senator Robert J Portman, a Republican lawmaker from the state of Ohio.

By Thursday morning, an Anonymous operative released personal information pertaining to the lawmaker, and revealed that not only was Sen. Portman among the politicians to vote "aye" on the legislation, but it has also been revealed that the senator had good reason to do so.

"According to a OpenCongress.org, Sen. Portman received $272,853 from special interest groups that have shown support for NDAA."

"Robert J. Portman, we plan to make an example of you," writes an Anonymous operative. The hacktivist has also released personal data including the senator's home address, phone number and social networking accounts in an attempt to further an infiltration from the Internet to show the opposition to the bill that colossally impacts the constitutional rights of Americans.

According to the information posted by the operative, the nearly $300,000 in special interest monies lobbied at Portman could have helped him purchase around $1.7 million in real estate in Ohio.

RT reports, "Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago.

"Also contributing to the cause (and the lawmakers who voted ‘yes') are Honeywell (who secured a $93 million deal with the Pentagon last May and a $24 million contract this year) and Bluewater Defense, a longtime DoD-ally that produces, among other garments, fire resistant combat uniforms."

"When the military storms down your door for suspicion of ‘belligerent' acts, you can thank Bluewater and Senator Portman for the lovely flame-proof attire the soldiers will be donned in as they haul you off to Gitmo."

Instead of protecting Americans by abiding by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights, President Obama is due to sign the NDAA 2012 into law according to a White House announcement Wednesday.

According to ACLU's Jaffer, NDAA 2012 is likely to end up in court.

ACLU and War Is A Crime head David Swanson have released calls to action to thwart the NDAA in the eleventh hour, before the president codifies martial law.

The NDAA bill, that must pass the Senate, would also include bringing overall spending authorization to $554 billion for bases and $115.5 billion for overseas expenditures, including the war in Afghanistan, according to The Hill.

The Obama administration has now said President Barack Obama supports NDAA 2012 according to Government Executive.

The bill could come before the Senate as early as week's end.

Nationwide protests of NDAA 2012 and what rights defenders say is treasonous of congresspersons who voted for it, are being held today, Bill Of Rights Day.

Business Insider reports Thursday, "If you're not completely disgusted by what Congress has done, it's time to lower your dose of Zoloft and ask your doctor if the Bill of Rights is right for you."

The end of America: House and Senate pass final version of NDAA

December 16, 2011 By Madison Ruppert

Today the Unite States House of Representatives and Senate both passed their final versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, or H.R. 1540.

This represents the complete destruction of everything that America is supposed to stand for, the most essential of rights have been stripped away and we are left wondering what the traitors in Washington will do next.

It has become painfully clear that the true terrorists are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan shooting at NATO troops with rusted second-hand assault rifles, but instead wear $5,000 suits and stroll happily through the halls of power in the United States.

The House passed their final version of the NDAA with a massive majority of 283 to 136 and the Senate passed it with a vote of 86 to 13, once again proving that our so-called Representatives do not represent us in any way and in fact are traitorous criminals and enemies of freedom.

No longer do we need to fear our country being attacked by foreign forces hell bent on destroying the American way of life, as these forces can be found calling themselves our "Representatives" while living large on the backs of the American people.

The signing of the NDAA with the detention provisions - that is, sections 1031 and 1032 most importantly - intact represents the final nail in the coffin of our once Constitutional Republic.

I can honestly say that I previously thought that the PATRIOT Act would be the worst legislation I would ever see in my lifetime and quite unfortunately, I was wrong. Dead wrong.

As I said when first covering S.1253, the precursor to S.1867 which the Senate passed with a 93% majority, this legislation makes the PATRIOT Act look like the Bill of Rights, and that is not in any way hyperbolic.

I previously exposed the fact that the claim that Obama would veto the NDAA was wholly without merit, and unfortunately I have been proven right once again when the White House withdrew the veto threat completely.

With the detention provisions intact, and thus the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial on nothing more than suspicion, the NDAA is the most dangerous legislation to come before the President in recent history.

Some have attempted to amend the NDAA to explicitly protect American citizens and lawful permanent residents from being targeted, but to no avail.

This is the most major problem with so many proponents' arguments: if they did not intend to leverage this against the American people, especially dissidents who are standing up to the rampant corruption and pervasive police state measures, why wouldn't they pass such an amendment?

The answer is quite obvious, really. They have every intention of using this against so-called "belligerents" which could be anyone who refuses to bow down to the megalomaniacal ruling class, including people like myself who explicitly reject any and all forms of violence.

When the NDAA is signed by the President - which is all but ironclad at this point - it will only be a short time until the military can begin rounding up American citizens and the FEMA camps could be activated and utilized thanks to KBR's National Quick Response Teams.

Yet there is indeed a silver lining to this nightmarish cloud, although I'm still holding back from jumping for joy at this point.

This last bastion of hope is known as the "Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011" which was proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

The bill is intended, "To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States".

The bill is intended to amend Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, known as the "Limitation on detention; control of prisons".

The bill would insert the following after subsection (a), "(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

"(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2001."

Sounds great, doesn't it? Well, there are still a few glaring problems, the most major of which is that this only applies to American citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended within the United States.

Furthermore, it only protects us so long as an Act of Congress does not expressly authorize such detention.

Given the fact that the Congress has already betrayed us in passing the NDAA, can we really rely on hoping that they wouldn't pass an Act nullifying the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, if it indeed passes?

I think such a hope would not only be misguided and naïve but indeed ignorant and divorced from the reality which has presented itself to us in the past months.

Moreover, we are relying on what is arguably an equally nonsensical hope: that the Senate - which voted with a massive majority in favor of the NDAA both times - would actually vote for the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.

I, for one, am not going to hold my breath in hopes that they will come through and do the right thing as they have proven that they are some of the most untrustworthy, despicable individuals all too well as of late.

Another major problem for me is that Feinstein, who unfortunately is one of my so-called Representatives, actually voted for the NDAA as you can see in the Senate's roll call for today's vote.

She also voted in favor of S.1867, the Senate's version of the NDAA. Can we really expect her to pass something that will protect us after actively working against us in such a blatant manner?

I think not, and unless there is a massive change in how our government views the American people I do not expect to see positive events unfold as a result.

However, the future is ours to determine at this point and the situation could unfold in any number of ways.

Either we could see the most hellish police state imaginable with Americans being arrested and detained indefinitely by the military for any reason or no reason at all, or we could see the military step up and honor their oaths and refuse unlawful orders and arrest those who issued them, or we could see a second American revolution.

It is impossible to say which we will see, but I hope that the military will pause and remember their sworn oaths and who the real enemies are.

"We the People" are not the enemies of the Constitution; instead it is those traitors in Washington who would love to see nothing other than all of our most essential liberties stripped away in the name of fighting the fraudulent war on terror.

Hopefully the military would realize this and act accordingly, or else the situation would likely be one in which the vast majority of people in the United States would suffer for an unimaginable length of time.

Editor's Note: People Of the United States, Your government has declared war on you! Every Senator and Congressman that voted for this bill and President Obama MUST be held accountable for this treasonous act of war they have committed against us. Let's make certain they are all removed from office.

-Col. South

Say NO to the Use of the Military against Peaceful Protest in the United States

Will the Military be used against the Occupy Movement?

by Kevin Zeese

Global Research, December 13, 2011

The Congress is rushing through S. 1867, the Defense Authorization Bill. It contains a radical change in law - allowing the use of the military inside the United States, against U.S. citizens and residents, allowing their indefinite military detention based merely on suspicion of being engaged in hostilities against the U.S. This amendment, sponsored by Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, was added in the senate after a closed door hearing and has received bi-partisan support on the Senate floor, with very little debate.

At the request of the White House language that exempted American citizens and legal residents from indefinite military detention was removed from the bill passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, as Senator Levin said on the senate floor.

This is a major shift from a country that forbids the use of the military domestically under the Posse Comitatus Act passed in 1878 during the Reconstruction Era. There have been holes in the domestic use of the military primarily in drug enforcement. Indeed, I worked on one case involving Esequiel Hernandez, an 18 year old high school student killed on the Texas-Mexican border by Marines on drug patrol in 1997. The Hernandez killing shows why the U.S. military is the wrong tool for enforcement inside the United States and raises questions for young soldiers ordered to turn their weapons on Americans.

On Friday Occupy Washington, DC on Freedom Plaza had a discussion on the Department of Justice's responsibility to uphold the rule of law when it comes to abuses of the military and CIA regarding human rights abuses like torture and the killing of civilians. During that discussion Ray McGovern, a retired 27 year veteran of the CIA, who provided the morning intelligence briefing to multiple presidents and security advisers, said that he thought the provisions allowing domestic use of the military and military detention were being added because of fear of civil unrest at home.

The Tea Party and Occupy Movement are signs of an American revolt - a revolt against a corrupt government that funnels wealth to the top 1% while leaving Americans economically insecure. When I asked McGovern about this he said he could not see any reason for the domestic use of the military except for the fear of the elites:

"I think it may be fear. They worry that the DC police, Park Police, even Capitol Police will be subverted into seeing that they are really part of the 99%; that when push comes to shove (literally) they cannot be relied upon to carry out mass arrests/imprisonments; that the powers-that-be need to be able to call on the Army, which can be more dependably relied upon to carry out whatever bloody orders may be required at the time."

In fact, there have been examples of police criticizing and not participating in efforts to arrest or remove occupiers. In Albany, NY police refused to arrest occupiers saying they were not causing any trouble. In Baltimore, the police union endorsed the occupy and urged the mayor to let them stay. Retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis went to Zucotti Park to urge police to join the occupiers. When a police commander in New York pepper sprayed arrested women, you can hear another police officer saying on the video tape, "I can't believe he just pepper sprayed her." Oakland police officer Fred Shavies who had gone undercover against the Occupy Movement now says he supports it and knows police are part of the 99%. From the beginning at Freedom Plaza we have described the police as part of the 99%

. Police have mostly treated us with respect; some have even made financial donations to our effort. Those police who abuse their power will create more divides among police and pull more to our side because most know we only seek fairness, justice and participatory democracy.

But, will the military obey orders to shoot Americans or make mass arrests of non-violent civilian protesters? That is an open question. There is dissent in the military as well. United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY told New York City policy, in a widely watched, now iconic video, there is no heroism in attacking unarmed civilians. No doubt many who have volunteered to serve in the military feel the same way as Sgt. Thomas.

The the vague language of the amendment allows the military to be used against protesters. In subsection A of Section 1032 it states that the military can be used against people (including U.S. citizens) that "are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A). The key, vague words are "substantially supporting" "associated forces" "engaged in hostilities" "in aid of a . . . organization or person." There is a lot of flexibility in those words and when they apply - no need for probable cause, a trial, jury verdict or sentencing - just on suspicion you get indefinite military detention.

The military's role in the United States has been growing. In 2002 President Bush established NorthCom, a military command inside the United States based in Colorado with additional bases in Alaska, Florida, Texas, Virginia and the DC area. On October 1, 2008, the 3rd Infantry Division (United States)'s 1st Brigade Combat Team was assigned to U.S. Northern Command, marking the first time an active unit had been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. In 2008 The Pentagon announced plans to deploy 20,000 troops inside the United States, set to be trained by 2011. The change in law in the new Defense Authorization comes at a time of rapidly creeping domestic military expansion.

Could the elites actually see protesters seeking a participatory democracy who challenge concentrated wealth as terrorists? Well, in a December 2, 2011 document issued by City of London police entitled a "Terrorism/extremism Update" given to London businesses, the police defined Occupy London as a terrorist group. In the section on domestic terrorism the Occupy Movement and other critics of capitalism were singled out as terrorists. As the Guardian reported the document said: "As the worldwide Occupy movement shows no sign of abating, it is likely that activists aspire to identify other locations to occupy, especially those they identify with capitalism." The document went on to say that police had "received a number of hostile reconnaissance reports concerning individuals who would fit the anti-capitalist profile," and asked businesses to be "vigilant for further sign of occupation activity."

When the Guardian asked the police about the document rather than apologizing, they defended it saying the "City of London police works with the community to deter and detect terrorist activity and crime in the City in a way that has been identified nationally as good practice . . . We've seen crime linked to protests in recent weeks, notably around groups entering office buildings, and with that in mind we continue to brief key trusted partners on activity linked to protests." While the terrorist label has not been applied to U.S. occupiers, the counterterrorism unit of the NYPD has been used at Zucotti Park.

The Occupy Movement is in its infancy, less than three months old, and already it has the elites petrified. As a top Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, told a Republican Governors meeting last week, I'm "scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death." The Tea Party, which has its roots in similar economic insecurity and economic unfairness has for the most part been co-opted by the Republican Party and lost its energy, but the Occupy Movement has resisted co-option by the Democratic Party and its operatives.

The Occupy Movement, despite more than 5,100 arrests and aggressive police actions across the country, is not going anywhere. In fact, it strives to become an even bigger movement and more powerful political force. Plans are being made to bring occupiers from across the country to Washington, DC for an American Spring. If the elites are scared now, what will it be like when this movement grows and matures?

This is all occurring when economic insecurity is getting worse. The economy is not done collapsing, critical resources are getting more limited and hence more expensive, the greed of the elites seems unquenchable, the global economy means that the middle class will have a hard time getting decent paying jobs as more jobs are shipped to less expensive labor markets and the very limited social safety net is under attack while poverty rises. The elites know they are not solving critical problems, are incapable of doing so because of their own corruption and that the political system cannot respond. As economic insecurity gets worse, the economic unfairness becomes more evident resulting in growing anger and action.

It is not that the economic problems are unsolvable. When Occupy Washington, DC held its own Occupied Super Committee hearings and asked experts to put forward evidence-based solutions to the economic mess, they did so. By facing up to the 1% and the military industrial complex, we achieved the super committee's deficit reduction targets in two years, created millions of jobs, forgave student debt, restored the housing market and began to democratize the economy. Knowing solutions exist, but the dysfunctional government cannot implement them will lead to more Americans joining the Occupy Movement.

One of the gravest grievances described in the Declaration of Independence was the misuse of standing armies against the colonialists. Numerous state constitutions declared standing armies a threat to liberty and the U.S. Constitution showed antipathy to militarism. Now, the Congress and President Obama are prepared to turn the military against Americans and allow indefinite military detention without any finding of guilt. If the elites think military force against Americans will quell the revolt of the people they are wrong; it will have the opposite effect and fuel the revolt against the elites.

Wednesday, December 14th is a national day of action against the use of the military in the United States

Demise of the Euro: Part of a Long-term Plan for a Global "Super-currency" controlled by the Banksters

by Adrian Salbuchi

Global Research, December 9, 2011

Efforts by European leaders to shoe-horn a range of diverse countries into a rigid financial cage are doomed to fail. But that's all part of a long-term plan for a global super-currency which can only bring more hardship to ordinary working people.

A question that more and more people are asking nowadays is, "What on Earth were the Europeans thinking when they agreed to have just one currency for all of Europe?"

In Greek mythology, Procrustes was the son of Poseidon, God of the deep blue seas. He built an iron bed of a size that suited him, and then forced everybody who passed by his abode to lie on it. If the passerby was shorter than his bed, then Procrustes would stretch him, breaking bones, tendons and sinews until the victim fitted; if he was taller, then Procrustes would chop off feet and limbs until the victim was the "right" size...

This ancient story of "one size fits all" seems to have made its 21st Century comeback when Europeans were coaxed into imposing upon themselves an oxymoron; a blatant and conceptual contradiction they call "the euro".

This common supranational currency invented by the French and Germans, boycotted by the UK, ignored by the Swiss, managed by the Germans and accepted by the rest of Europe in blissful ignorance, has finally dropped its mask to reveal its ugly face: an impossible mechanism that only serves the elite bankers but not the working people.

It masked gross contradictions as large, far-reaching and varied as the relative sizes, strengths, profiles, styles, histories, econometrics, labor policies, pension plans, industries, and human and natural resources of the 17 Eurozone nations, ranging from Germany and France at one end of the scale, to Greece, Portugal and Ireland at the other.

As we said in a recent article, the euro carries an expiry date; perhaps the eurocrats who were its midwives a decade ago expected that it would live a little longer, maybe even come of age... But they certainly knew that, sooner or later, the euro would die; that it was meant to die.

Because the euro is not an end in itself, but rather a transition, a bridge, an experiment in supranational currency earmarked for replacement by a far more ambitious and powerful global currency issued by a global central bank, controlled by a cabal of global private bankers, obeying a New World Order blueprint emanating from a private Global Power Elite.

The problem today is that what impacted Europe as a financial ripple effect in 2008 has now grown into a veritable financial tsunami threatening to swamp the whole euro system... And more big trouble lies ahead!

In fact, today's euro-troubles are nothing more than one of many variations of sovereignty-troubles. Because when a country's leaders irresponsibly cede a part or all of its sovereignty - whether monetary, political, financial, economic, judicial or military - it had better take a really good look at what it is doing and what the implications are for the medium and long term.

Ceding national sovereignty means that somebody else, somewhere else, will be taking decisions based on other people's interests. Now, as long as everyone's interests coincide, then we are OK. But as soon as the different parties' interests diverge, then you are confronted with a power struggle. And power struggles have one simple thing in common: the more powerful win; the weaker lose.

Now, we have a huge power struggle inside the eurozone. Who do you think will win? Who will impose new policies - Germany or Greece? France or Portugal? Britain or Spain? Germany or Italy?

And that is just on the public scene. You also need to look at the more subtle, less media-highlighted private scene, which is where the real global power decisions are made.

Will the new Italian PM, Mario Monti, cater for the needs of the Italian people or for the mega-bankers' lodge sitting on the powerful Trilateral Commission of which he himself is European chairman? The same question goes for Greek president Lucas Papademos, also a Trilateral member. The same question goes for all the governments of the EU member states where the real power brokers are the major bankers, industrialists and media moguls sitting on the Trilateral, Bilderberg, World Economic Forum and Chatham House think-tanks and private lobbies.

Global elites will do everything to keep the euro on its transitional path towards a global currency that will eventually replace both the euro and the US dollar. This entails engineering the controlled collapse of both currencies, whilst preparing the yellow brick road for a "Global Dollar" or some such new oxymoron.

The US dollar will be easy to collapse: all that is needed is for the mainstream media to yell, "The dollar is hyper-inflated!!" and the Naked Emperor Dollar will fall swiftly. The euro, in turn, will simply break up as its member nations revert to the old days of pesetas, lire, francs, escudos and drachmas...

Is the time ripe for that? Maybe not... yet. So, no doubt we will still see more "emergency treatment," more "financial chemotherapy" to "bail out the euro" just as we've seen them "bail out the banks," even though most banks and the Oxymoron Euro cannot be salvaged but just kept artificially alive, like the "Living Dead..."

So, here's a question for Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irish, even the French and Germans: will you accept the invitation by your Procrustean Leaders in Brussels to lie down on their bed?

U.S. one bill away from totalitarian rule

December 8, 2011

By Sherwood Ross BlacklistedNews.com

The grim face of totalitarianism is emerging in the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) now before Congress.

This bill is the last mile post on America's sad, well-traveled road to the butcher shop of dictatorship. We have been headed that way for some time and, with a little help from Congress, we'll arrive there shortly, putting an ugly end to the American experiment. The Senate December 1st passed the bill by a vote of 93-7.

In the name of "defense," NDAA underwrites $662-billion for continued U.S. aggression in our many foreign wars while, on the domestic front, it incinerates the last surviving shreds of the Bill of Rights. According to the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), it authorizes presidents "to order the military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial." (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) So much for Amendment VI to our Constitution that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."

Just destroying your protection against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment means the bill's authors Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona don't have to bother with junking anything else. Once you're imprisoned you won't need any other "stinkin' rights."

The ACLU charges the provisions of NDAA "were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review (and), are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution....(our) fundamental freedoms are on the line."

A few years back, President Carter denounced the Patriot Act for authorizing federal agents "to search people's homes and businesses secretly, to confiscate property without any deadline or without giving notice that the intrusion had taken place, and to collect without notice personal information on American citizens including their medical histories, books checked out of libraries, and goods they purchase." The NDAA is far worse than that.

According to Noam Chomsky, the arbitrary arrest philosophy in this country dates back to the Bush regime. "The current (Bush) government," he writes in "Imperial Ambitions"(Metropolitan Books, 2005), "has claimed rights that go beyond any precedents, including even the right to arrest citizens, hold them in detention without access to their family or lawyers, and do so indefinitely, without charges."

"What the American People are witnessing now with this new legislation is the further development of an American Police State into a Military Dictatorship, a process that was started by the so-called USA Patriot Act in 2001," says Professor Francis Boyle, the constitutional law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

"If it is enacted into law, America will lose all pretense of having our Military subjected to the control of democratically elected civilian leaders as originally envisioned and required by the Constitution. Our experiment in 1776 will have failed," adds Boyle, author of "Tackling America's Toughest Questions"(Clarity Press.)

President Obama is already exercising his kingly right to rain Hellfire missiles from drone assault planes down on any human being anywhere on the planet without a legal authorization. This is called assassination as it is utterly devoid of any semblance of rudimentary justice. Unfortunately, the president appears to have no qualms about his actions. Will such a man hesitate to arrest Americans on suspicion and imprison them for years, or worse, without trial?

Adds the prescient Paul Craig Roberts, "The (Obama) regime's objection to (the) military detention (provision in NDAA) is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war...(and) detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime's ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas."

Perhaps this is a good time to remind swindled American taxpayers that totalitarianism is what comes of funding a perpetual warfare state that spies on all global communications, builds the greatest military in human history, assassinates foreign leaders, overthrows elected governments, invades small nations based on lies to seize their natural resources, and threatens the world from its 800 military bases.

The NDAA perpetuates all this and now endows the criminal leadership in Congress and the White House with the weapons to turn upon their own.

The only senators with guts to oppose the bill were Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa; Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon; Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky; and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As Sen. Paul asked during the debate, "Under the provisions, wouldn't it be possible, then, that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

If you don't call your congressperson today to stop the NDAA, you are not likely to enjoy the blessings of liberty tomorrow. The light in the torch of the Statue of Liberty has already been snuffed out by our illegal foreign wars. The final disgrace will be to imprison the beautiful lady behind the barbed wire of the NDAA.

‘Indefinite Detention' Bill Passes Senate 93-7

Americans completely stripped of all rights under Section 1031

Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

December 2, 2011

The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

One amendment that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.

Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists," also failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.

Feinstein was able to include a largely symbolic amendment which states that "nothing in the bill changes current law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens," but this measure is meaningless according to Republican Congressman Justin Amash, a fierce critic of the bill.

"Some have asserted that Sen. Feinstein's amendment, S Amdt 1456, protects the rights of American citizens and preserves constitutional due process. Unfortunately, it does not. It's just more cleverly worded nonsense," Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

Though the White House has threatened to veto the bill, the fact that Obama administration lawyers yesterday reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored assassination of U.S. citizens would suggest otherwise. Not voting for the bill, or in other words upholding the oath to protect the Constitution, has been described over and over again as "political suicide".

"The bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

As Spencer Ackerman highlights, the bill completely violates the sixth amendment in that it allows American citizens to be locked up indefinitely, including in a foreign detention center, without any burden of proof whatsoever. An American merely has to be declared a terrorist and they can be abducted off the streets and never seen again.

"The detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn't limited to foreigners. It's confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas' Robert Chesney - a nonpartisan authority on military detention - "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority," writes Ackerman.

Do not be deceived: S. 1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act

November 30, 2011

By Maddison Ruppert

Recently I reported on the highly controversial bill S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012 which was introduced back in June.

This bill was replaced by the one introduced on the 15th of November, S. 1867. Today Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator John McCain of Arizona faced off on the floor of the Senate over a proposed amendment to S. 1867.

The minimal coverage this bill is getting in the corporate-controlled establishment media, especially when it comes to the massive danger it poses to everything America was built upon, is nothing short of deplorable.

This amendment would, according to Senator Paul, put "every single American citizen at risk." Paul rightly pointed out that if the amendment were to pass, "the terrorists have won."

I couldn't agree more and this is the major fact that McCain and far too many others in Washington seem to miss. Or, equally likely, McCain and others are well aware of the erosion of civil liberties and have no interest in stopping it.

After all, it isn't the sycophantic corrupt politicians in Washington that have to endure being groped by TSA goons or surreptitiously blasted with X-Rays by a passing DHS van; it is the everyday Americans like you and me that are subjected to such absurd "counterterrorism" measures.

John McCain is a man who revels in death and suffering in true sociopathic style: joking about bombing Iran, calling for military operations in Syria, and supporting the murderous and thoroughly racist al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan rebels.

McCain is the epitome of Washington doublethink: in Libya, al Qaeda is good. Yet, al Qaeda is still the biggest threat to humanity, so much so that it justifies turning the entire world into a theater of war in which all rights are suspended in the name of the war on terror?

Senator Paul argued against the amendment to S. 1867 that McCain co-sponsored by saying, "Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won. [D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

Unfortunately, the PATRIOT Act has already removed "some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism," but there are very few politicians who will put their careers on their line in saying this fact.

McCain quickly attempted to defend the amendment he's been peddling on the Senate floor by saying, "Facts are stubborn things. If the senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people who are released go back in to the fight to kill Americans, he is entitled to his opinion."

This is the typical, "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists," fallacious logic employed by those in Washington who will take every opportunity to exploit the non-threat of terrorism as a method of control and erosion of civil liberties.

McCain, who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a member of the camp of individuals who either lie on a regular basis while knowing the facts or are so deluded and removed from reality that they actually fear the al Qaeda boogeyman.

Senator McCain, just like the non-profit groups that are directly linked to the Department of Homeland Security, promotes a fear of terrorism that is completely at odds with the facts, using this climate of fear and paranoia to justify otherwise unacceptable legislation like S. 1867 and the PATRIOT Act.

McCain's proposed amendment would allow the executive branch, which has already murdered American citizens abroad without so much as a single charge, to have power over if a suspect was put through the civilian court system or through the military tribunal system.

Military tribunals are the complete antithesis of the civilian justice system and putting American citizens through such a system would signal the death of everything the American justice system was built upon.

The most dangerous aspect of S. 1867 is not only that it could subject American citizens to military tribunals and detention, but also that individuals could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial.

Even if this was not used on American citizens, it represents a deplorable move that would only make the rest of the world hate us that much more, knowing that it is explicitly allowed for the American government to snatch up people and detain them forever without charge or trial.

If any other government were to even consider engaging in such behavior, people like Hillary Clinton who laughably claim to support human rights, would likely decry such moves.

Yet, the nonsensical logic of American exceptionalism makes people like McCain think that America has the right to operate outside of the rule of law (not to mention common decency and respect for other human beings) at home and abroad, so long as it is supposedly to combat terrorism.

Senator Paul countered McCain's absurd assertion by saying, "I don't think it necessarily follows I am arguing of the release of prisoners. I am simply arguing that particularly American citizens should not be sent to a foreign prison without due process."

It amazes me that any such thing would have to even be argued. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from such egregious breaches of our inalienable rights and our so-called representatives take an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

It is now clear that the true enemies of the Constitution, the ones that truly put our liberties in danger, are domestic.

They wear expensive suits and happily stroll through the halls of power in Washington, seemingly confident that they will not be treated as the traitorous criminals that they are.

McCain is one of these traitors who are launching an all-out assault on our way of life and our civil rights, S. 1867 is just the most recent, and most virulent, manifestation of this.

"An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat," McCain said in defense of his attack on our rights.

"We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that's for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives ... in our armed services," McCain added.

The real people who put the men and women in our armed services at risk are warmongers like McCain who happily put Americans in the line of fire in order to keep their war profiteering cronies satisfied.

44 Republican Senators and 15 Democrats along with one Independent voted to keep the new detainee provisions in the NDAA, with Senator Paul and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois being among the few Republicans who broke party ranks and sided with a majority of Democrats who voted to block the new provisions.

Paul argued, "If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay," while Republican Senator Lindsey Graham countered, "To be clear: These provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens."

Did that stop the American government from murdering a citizen of the United States in Yemen in a drone attack?

No, in fact, the National Security Council's secret death panel makes these decisions outside of all legislation and accountability, so Graham's claim that it wouldn't apply to American citizens is hollow, at best.

A couple of days ago Glenn Greenwald, a journalist for Salon and a former Constitutional and civil rights lawyer tweeted a very similar sentiment:

"With very few exceptions, the McCain-Levin bill, awful though it is, doesn't create any powers beyond what the O[bama] Admin[istration] thinks it now has."

The problem is that this bill would make it explicitly legal for the United States to conduct the horrific operations they have already been carrying out.

If this were to pass, there would be absolutely nothing standing in the way of the government rounding up dissidents who they could easily label terrorists or individuals planning/supporting terrorism (given the absurdly broad definition used).

They could then imprison them without charge or trial for however long they please, and if they have their way, they would be able to openly torture them, not just the torture deceptively labeled "enhanced interrogation" but torture that can go by no other name.

Of course, that is not to diminish the fact that the tactics now employed by the CIA and others are indeed torture. Just ask people like conservative radio host Mancow who was waterboarded and came to the conclusion that it is indeed torture after having held the complete opposite opinion previously.

Or if that isn't enough proof, take the Vanity Fair article written by Christopher Hitchens in which he describes his experience being waterboarded which brought him to the exact same conclusion: waterboarding is torture.

Even Bahrain ostensibly has more democratic accountability for torture, although I think we all know that is about as legitimate as calling waterboarding "enhanced interrogation."

McCain laughably claimed that the changes would "help defend our nation against the threat posed by al Qaeda while upholding our values and honoring our Constitution."

This is especially hilarious given that McCain said that the al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan rebels "inspired the world" in carrying out their bloody revolution.

Does McCain actually believe that he has the power to pick and choose when individuals and groups directly linked to al Qaeda are good or bad?

How can they actually reconcile such absurdist moral relativism? Personally, I don't think that McCain can actually believe the things he says unless he has actually been able to eliminate every bit of sense and logic that is innate in human beings.

To the many people commenting and emailing me claiming that this is overblown and it will not apply to American citizens, you might want to listen to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's own words on the Senate floor.

"In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn't apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland," Graham said.

Is there really anything even remotely unclear here? Our government is making the final strides towards turning the brutal military apparatus that has slaughtered so many people abroad in the name of "freedom" back to our own people.

What we are witnessing now is truly historic, the American government is trying to explicitly codify the ability to detain Americans without trial or charge in a military facility under military rule with military tribunals.

While I argue that we already live in a police state, based on the citizen spying programs, ludicrous amounts of domestic surveillance, collection and storage of massive amounts of biometric information, and the Department of Homeland Security's invisible surveillance state (just to mention a few) the passage of this bill would bring about a new dangerous paradigm in America.

Even if it was sold as something that wouldn't apply to American citizens, like the PATRIOT Act was sold as a counterterrorism bill, it would undoubtedly be used against us regardless of these claims, just as the PATRIOT Act has been utilized in cases wholly unrelated to terrorism.

Even the officials from the Department of Justice readily admit that the PATRIOT Act is being used against non-terrorist American citizens.

As you will see in the above video, they admit that the PATRIOT Act is used in cases completely unrelated to terrorism.

Is anyone really naïve enough to believe that the government will actually restrict the usage of S. 1867 to terrorists and not Americans who stand up to their corrupt, out of control, and wholly illegitimate criminal government?

To make matters even worse, the usage of drones in the United States is being considered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the FAA plans to propose new rules this coming January, which would give free license to police departments and other domestic agencies to use them in the United States.

Yet, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, have been used by law enforcement in the United States for some time now.

In fact, The Washington Post reported on the usage of aerial drones domestically in January of this year along with Homeland Security News Wire.

Currently, law enforcement agencies supposedly have to seek out emergency authorization from the FAA to use drones, which, according to The Washington Post is "only occasionally" granted.

The new FAA regulations coupled with turning the United States into a battlefield in which all Americans could be enemy combatants is dangerous, to say the least.

Given the fact that our current administration under the traitorous warmonger Barack Obama has no problem killing children with drones abroad, do we really think that they wouldn't conduct such operations at home?

To an administration that commits extrajudicial executions of American citizens - and their 16-year-old child who was born in Denver, Colorado - is anything off the table?

The unfortunate and thoroughly disturbing reality is that our government has no problem carrying out such operations and S. 1867 would just make it that much easier by codifying it and creating an explicit legal apparatus through which they can operate.

I highly recommend that you explore at least some of the 344 proposed amendments for S. 1867 in the Library of Congress' Thomas system which can be found here.

You can track all of the updates on the act with the amendments organized by date on this Library of Congress page.

As you can tell, the 28th was by far the busiest day so far in the life of S. 1867 with over 100 amendments considered in that single day, although this very well might be beat in coming days when our so-called representatives continue to debate turning the United States into a giant battlefield.

UPDATE: If the ridiculous assault on our inalienable rights embodied by S. 1867 wasn't enough, the Senate is also considering repealing the anti-torture measures currently in place (lax though they may be).

This flies in the face of the fact that torture does not provide actionable intelligence or anything even remotely reliable unless you're looking for a false confession to anything from terrorism to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

This bill must be stopped if we want to preserve anything that America is supposed to stand for. The PATRIOT Act was a crippling blow to the Constitution but S. 1867 would be the death of every last bastion of hope and freedom that was left after the vicious attacks on our civil liberties that have brought us to this point.

Senate Rejects Effort To Strip Detainee Provision In Defense Authorization Bill

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Huffington Post

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Tuesday rejected an effort to strip divisive provisions from a defense bill that deal with the capture and handling of suspected terrorists, setting up a showdown with the White House.

The resounding 61-37 vote sent a strong message to the Obama administration, which has threatened a veto of the bill over the requirement of military custody for captured terror suspects and limitations on the ability to transfer detainees from the naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The clash underscores the ongoing dispute between the executive branch and some in Congress over whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals.

It also exposed deep divisions within Senate Democratic ranks.

"The provisions would dramatically change broad counterterrorism efforts by requiring law enforcement officials to step aside and ask the Department of Defense to take on a new role they are not fully equipped for and do not want," said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who added that the legislation would make the military "police, judge and jailer."

His amendment would have taken out the sections on detainees and instead called for congressional hearings with Pentagon and administration officials on the issue.

Defending the provisions, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin argued that they contain a national security waiver for the administration. The issue has pitted Levin against other senior Democratic senators, including the chairmen of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

"Should somebody when it's been determined ... to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? And the answer is yes," said Levin, D-Mich.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States.

"We're fighting a war, not a crime," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller have spelled out their opposition in letters to lawmakers. Mueller said Monday that because the legislation applies to people detained in the United States, it could disrupt ongoing international terrorism investigations and make it difficult for the FBI to work with a grand jury or obtain subpoenas.

Mueller also described the waiver as too cumbersome, requiring that it be obtained from the defense secretary in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of National Intelligence with a certification to Congress.

The vote came shortly after the weekly Republican and Democratic policy luncheons. A guest at the Republican session was former Vice President Dick Cheney, an advocate for harsh interrogation tactics against suspected U.S. enemies during his two terms in office. Republicans said he was a guest and did not make remarks at the session despite an intense discussion within GOP ranks about the detainee provisions.

The sweeping defense bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. Reflecting a period of austerity and deficit-driven cuts in military spending, the bill is $27 billion less than what Obama requested for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 of this year. The Senate hopes to complete the legislation by week's end.

30 Signs That The United States Of America Is Being Turned Into A Giant Prison

November 29, 2011

By Michael Snyder BlacklistedNews

If you live in the United States of America, you live in a giant prison where liberty and freedom are slowly being strangled to death. In this country, the control freaks that run things are obsessed with watching, tracking, monitoring and recording virtually everything that we do. Nothing is private anymore. Everything that you do on the Internet is being monitored. All of your phone calls are being monitored. In fact, if law enforcement authorities suspect that you have done something wrong, they will use your cell phone microphone to listen to you even when you think your cell phone is turned off. In many areas of the country, when you get into your car automated license plate readers track you wherever you go, and in many major cities when you are walking on the streets a vast network of security cameras and "smart street lights" are constantly watching you and listening to whatever you say. The TSA is setting up "internal checkpoints" all over the nation, Homeland Security is encouraging all of us to report any "suspicious activity" that our neighbors are involved in and the federal government is rapidly developing "pre-crime" technology that will flag us as "potential terrorists" if we display any signs of nervousness. If you are flagged as a "potential terrorist", the U.S. military can arrest you and detain you for the rest of your life without ever having to charge you with anything. Yes, the United States of America is rapidly being turned into a "Big Brother" prison grid, and most Americans are happily going along with it.

The sad thing is that this used to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

So what in the world happened?

A fundamental shift in our culture has taken place. The American people have eagerly given up huge chunks of liberty and freedom in exchange for vague promises of increased security.

Our country is now run by total control freaks and paranoia has become standard operating procedure.

We were told that the terrorists hate our liberties and our freedoms, and that we needed to fight the terrorists so that we could keep our liberties and our freedoms.

But instead, the government keeps taking away all of our liberties and our freedoms.

How in the world does that make any sense?

Have the terrorists won?

As a country, we have moved so far in the direction of communist China, the USSR and Nazi Germany that it is almost impossible to believe.

Yes, turning the United States of America into a giant prison may make us all slightly safer, but what kind of life is this?

Do we want to be dead while we are still alive?

Is this the price that we want to pay in order to feel slightly safer?

Where are the millions of Americans that still yearn to breathe free air?

America is supposed to be a land teeming with people thirsting for independence. For example, "Live Free or Die" is supposedly the official motto of the state of New Hampshire.

But instead, the motto of most Americans seems to be "live scared and die cowering".

We don't have to live like this.

Yes, bad things are always going to happen. No amount of security is ever going to be able to keep us 100% safe.

We need to remember that a very high price was paid for our liberty and we should not give it up so easily.

As one very famous American once said, when we give up liberty for security we deserve neither.

The following are 30 signs that the United States of America is being turned into a giant prison....

#1 A new bill that is going through the U.S. Senate would allow the U.S. military to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial. This new law was recently discussed in an article posted on the website of the New American....

In what may be a tale too bizarre to be believed by millions of Americans, the U.S. Senate appears ready to pass a bill that will designate the entire earth, including the United States and its territories, one all-encompassing "battlefield" in the global "war on terror" and authorize the detention of Americans suspected of terrorist ties indefinitely and without trial or even charges being filed that would necessitate a trial.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham is a big supporter of the bill, and he says that it would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield".

According to the PPJ Gazette, the following are three things that this new law would do....

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

#2 U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman is asking Google to install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers can easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.

#3 Most Americans have no idea how sophisticated the "Big Brother" prison grid has become. For example, in Washington D.C. the movements of every single car are tracked using automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The following comes from a recent Washington Post article....

More than 250 cameras in the District and its suburbs scan license plates in real time, helping police pinpoint stolen cars and fleeing killers. But the program quietly has expanded beyond what anyone had imagined even a few years ago.

With virtually no public debate, police agencies have begun storing the information from the cameras, building databases that document the travels of millions of vehicles.

Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the District, which has more than one plate-reader per square mile, the highest concentration in the nation. Police in the Washington suburbs have dozens of them as well, and local agencies plan to add many more in coming months, creating a comprehensive dragnet that will include all the approaches into the District.

#4 In some American schools, RFID chips are now being used to monitor the attendance and movements of children while they are at school. The following is how one article recently described a program that has just been instituted at a preschool in California....

Upon arriving in the morning, according to the Associated Press, each student at the CCC-George Miller preschool will don a jersey with a stitched in RFID chip. As the kids go about the business of learning, sensors in the school will record their movements, collecting attendance for both classes and meals. Officials from the school have claimed they're only recording information they're required to provide while receiving federal funds for their Headstart program.

#5 Increasingly, incidents of misbehavior at many U.S. schools are being treated as very serious crimes. For example, when a little girl kissed a little boy at one Florida elementary school recently, it was considered to be a "possible sex crime" and the police were called out.

#6 But what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California earlier this year was even worse....

Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old.

#7 In the United States today, police are trained to respond to even the smallest crimes with extreme physical force. For example, one grandfather in Arizona was recently filmed laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood after police rammed his head into the flood inside a Wal-Mart on Black Friday night. It was thought that he was shoplifting, but it turns out that he says that he was just trying to tuck a video game away so other crazed shoppers would not grab it out of his hands.

#8 Did you know that the government actually sets up fake cell phone towers that can intercept your cell phone calls? The following is how a recent Wired articledescribed these "stingrays"....

You make a call on your cellphone thinking the only thing standing between you and the recipient of your call is your carrier's cellphone tower. In fact, that tower your phone is connecting to just might be a boobytrap set up by law enforcement to ensnare your phone signals and maybe even the content of your calls.

So-called stingrays are one of the new high-tech tools that authorities are using to track and identify you. The devices, about the size of a suitcase, spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting to the tower, as they would to a real cellphone tower.

The government maintains that the stingrays don't violate Fourth Amendment rights, since Americans don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower.

#9 U.S. border agents are allowed by law to search any laptop being brought into the United States without even needing any reason to do so.

#10 In the United States of America, everyone is a "potential terrorist". According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, "homegrown terrorists" represent as big a threat to American national security as al-Qaeda does.

#11 Most Americans are not that concerned about the Patriot Act, but that might change if they understood that the federal government has a "secret interpretation" of what the Patriot Act really means. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden says that the U.S. government interprets the Patriot Act much more "broadly" than the general public does....

"We're getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says."

#12 The FBI is now admittedly recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....

If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.

The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.

The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.

#13 The federal government has decided that what you and I share with one another on Facebook and on Twitter could be a threat to national security. According to a recent Associated Press article, the Department of Homeland Security will soon be "gleaning information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook for law enforcement purposes".

#14 What you say on your cell phone is never private. The truth is that that the FBI can demand to see your cell phone data whenever it wants. In addition, according to CNET News the FBI can remotely activate the microphone on your cell phone and listen to whatever you are saying....

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

#15 In some areas of the country, law enforcement authorities are pulling data out of cell phones for no reason whatsoever. According to the ACLU, state police in Michigan are now using "extraction devices" to download data from the cell phones of motorists that they pull over. This is taking place even if the motorists that are pulled over are not accused of doing anything wrong.

The following is how a recent article on CNET News described the capabilities of these "extraction devices"....

The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.

#16 The federal government has become so paranoid that they have been putting GPS tracking devices on the vehicles of thousands of people that have not even been charged with committing any crimes. The following is a short excerpt from a recent Wired magazine article about this issue....

The 25-year-old resident of San Jose, California, says he found the first one about three weeks ago on his Volvo SUV while visiting his mother in Modesto, about 80 miles northeast of San Jose. After contacting Wired and allowing a photographer to snap pictures of the device, it was swapped out and replaced with a second tracking device. A witness also reported seeing a strange man looking beneath the vehicle of the young man's girlfriend while her car was parked at work, suggesting that a tracking device may have been retrieved from her car.

Then things got really weird when police showed up during a Wired interview with the man.

The young man, who asked to be identified only as Greg, is one among an increasing number of U.S. citizens who are finding themselves tracked with the high-tech devices.

The Justice Department has said that law enforcement agents employ GPS as a crime-fighting tool with "great frequency,"and GPS retailers have told Wired that they've sold thousands of the devices to the feds.

#17 New high-tech street lights that are being funded by the federal government and that are being installed all over the nation can also be used as surveillance cameras, can be used by the DHS to make "security announcements" and can even be used to record personal conversations. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson for Infowars.com....

Federally-funded high-tech street lights now being installed in American cities are not only set to aid the DHS in making "security announcements" and acting as talking surveillance cameras, they are also capable of "recording conversations," bringing the potential privacy threat posed by ‘Intellistreets' to a whole new level.

#18 If you choose to protest in the streets of America today, there is a good chance that you will be brutalized. All over the United States law enforcement authorities have been spraying pepper spray directly into the faces of unarmed protesters in recent weeks.

#19 In many areas of the United States today, you will be arrested if you do not produce proper identification for the police. In the old days, "your papers please" was a phrase that was used to use to mock the tyranny of Nazi Germany. But now all of us are being required to be able to produce "our papers" for law enforcement authorities at any time. For example, a 21-year-old college student named Samantha Zucker was recently arrested and put in a New York City jail for 36 hours just because she could not produce any identification for police.

#20 According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate "in monthly anti-terrorism drills". The following is an excerpt from a letter that he recently received from the school where his child attends....

Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.

So who in the world ever decided that it would be a good idea for 1st grade students to endure "lockdown" and "active shooter" drills?

To get an idea of what these kinds of drills are like, just check out this video.

#21 With all of the other problems that we are having all over the nation, you would think that authorities would not be too concerned about little kids that are trying to sell cups of lemonade. But sadly, over the past year police have been sent in to shut down lemonade stands run by children all over the United States.

#22 The federal government has decided to invest a significant amount of time, money and energy raiding organic farms. The following example comes from Natural News....

It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special "farm to fork" picnic dinner put on for guests - and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.

#23 It is an absolute disgrace that all of us (including grandmothers and young children) must either go through body scanners that reveal the intimate details of our naked bodies or endure "enhanced pat-downs" during which our genitals will be touched before we are allowed to get on an airplane.

It is also an absolute disgrace that the American people are putting up with this.

#24 Invasive TSA security techniques are not just for airports anymore. Now, TSA "VIPR teams" are actively conducting random inspections at bus stations and on interstate highways all over the United States. For example, the following comes from a local news report down in Tennessee....

You're probably used to seeing TSA's signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Tuesday Tennessee was first to deploy VIPR simultaneously at five weigh stations and two bus stations across the state.

TSA "VIPR teams" now conduct approximately 8,000 "unannounced security screenings" a year at subway stations, bus terminals, ports and highway rest stops.

#25 More than a million hotel television sets all over America are now broadcasting propaganda messages from the Department of Homeland Security promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. In essence, the federal government wants all of us to become "informants" and to start spying on one another constantly. The following comes from an article posted by USA Today....

Starting today, the welcome screens on 1.2 million hotel television sets in Marriott, Hilton, Sheraton, Holiday Inn and other hotels in the USA will show a short public service announcement from DHS. The 15-second spot encourages viewers to be vigilant and call law enforcement if they witness something suspicious during their travels.

#26 Certain "types" of American citizens are being labeled as potential threats in official U.S. government documents. An unclassified Department of Homeland Security report published a couple years ago entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" claims that a belief in Bible prophecy "could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons." The report goes on to state that such people are potentially dangerous.

#27 Back on February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued a report entitled "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement". That report warned that the following types of people may be potential terrorists....

*anti-abortion activists

*those that are against illegal immigration

*those that consider "the New World Order" to be a threat

*those that have a negative view of the United Nations

#28 As I have written about previously, a very disturbing document that Oath Keepers has obtained shows that the FBI is now instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes the following....

*paying with cash

*missing a hand or fingers

*"strange odors"

*making "extreme religious statements"

*"radical theology"

*purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers

*purchasing meals ready to eat

*purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks

Do any of those "signs of suspicious activity" apply to you?

#29 Soon you may get labeled as a "potential terrorist" if you are just feeling a little nervous. A new "pre-crime" technology system that is currently being tested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will soon be in use all over the nation. It is called "Future Attribute Screening Technology" (FAST), and it is very frightening. The following description of this new program comes from an articlein the London Telegraph....

Using cameras and sensors the "pre-crime" system measures and tracks changes in a person's body movements, the pitch of their voice and the rhythm of their speech.

It also monitors breathing patterns, eye movements, blink rate and alterations in body heat, which are used to assess an individual's likelihood to commit a crime.

The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) programme is already being tested on a group of government employees who volunteered to act as guinea pigs.

#30 The truth is that nobody puts more people into prison than America does. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and thelargest total prison population on the entire globe.

To read about some of the crazy things that the control freaks running things have planned for the future, just check out this article by Natural News: "10 outlandish things the ‘scientific' controllers have in mind for you in the near future".

Once again, despite all of this outrageous "security", it is inevitable that a lot of really bad things are going to happen in the United States in the years ahead.

When there are incidents of violence, it is also inevitable that there will be calls for even more "Big Brother" security measures.

We are going to be caught in a never ending spiral of tyranny where the "solution" is always even tighter security.

Eventually, we will have lost all of our liberties and freedoms, and we will probably be even less safe than we are today.

Do not be deceived. We could put a soldier on every corner, a video camera in every room of every home and an RFID chip in every citizen but that would not make us "safe".

Every single lawmaker that is backing these laws which strip our liberties and freedoms away deserves to be voted out of office.

If you love the United States of America, please stand up and say something while you still can.

Please use this article and other articles like it as tools. Share them with your friends and your family. If we can get enough people to wake up, perhaps there is still enough time to turn the direction of this country around.

Will the final chapters of the history of the United States of America be mentioned in the same breath as communist China, the USSR and Nazi Germany, or will the final chapters of the history of the United States of America be the greatest chapters of all?

The choice, America, is up to you.

Neocons Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago

WashingtonsBlog

Monday, November 28, 2011

I've repeatedly documented that the Neocons planned regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria and a host of other countries right after 9/11 ... if not before.

And that Obama is implementing these same plans - just with a "kindler, gentler" face.

Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:

General Wesley Clark ... said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in ...Iraq, ... Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran"] was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz - back in 1991 - in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region - in the Middle East - and the Soviets won't stop us. And we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes - Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq - before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's desires because, as Clark put it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It's not to deter conflicts?"

[I]n the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya ... with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and escalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to South Sudan, and the active use of drones in six - count ‘em: six - different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it's worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam's rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz ... put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:

As far as I can tell, there's barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.

The neocon end as Clark reported them - regime change in those seven countries - seems as vibrant as ever. It's just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.

Note: The so-called "war on terror" has also weakened our national security and created many more terrorists than it has killed, imprisoned or otherwise stopped. It is also destroying our economy.

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

NDAA detention provision would turn America into a "battlefield"

Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Senate is set to vote on a bill next week that would define the whole of the United States as a "battlefield" and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

"The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president-and every future president - the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself," writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial' provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

"I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect," Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved."

This means Americans could be declared domestic terrorists and thrown in a military brig with no recourse whatsoever. Given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism, such a provision would be wide open to abuse.

"American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?" asks Anders.

The ACLU is urging citizens to call their Senator and demand that the Udall Amendment be added to the bill, a change that would at least act as a check to prevent Americans being snatched off the streets without some form of Congressional oversight.

We have been warning for over a decade that Americans would become the target of laws supposedly aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants. Alex Jones personally documented how U.S. troops were being trained to arrest U.S. citizens in the event of martial law during urban warfare training drills back in the 90′s. Under the the National Defense Authorization Act bill, no declaration of martial law is necessary since Americans would now be subject to the same treatment as suspected insurgents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you thought that the executive assassination of American citizens abroad was bad enough, now similar powers will be extended to the "homeland," in other words, your town, your community, your back yard.

Occupy The Fed Kicks Off Tuesday November 22

Col. South www.riotusa.org

11-21-2011

The people have taken back the movement from the provacateures that started it and we have made it our own. We have transformed into Occupy The Fed and come up with our own list of demands. It will be held in 14 cities that have a Federal Reserve branch and we are working in solidarity with the our local Occupy movements. This is the defining moment and movement of our time. The cities participating are Houston, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, Richmond, San Francisco, St. Louis and Washington DC.

More info on our movemsnt below:

OccupyTheFED

This is in solidarity with the #OccupyWallSt, and #OccupyDc, #oct6th Movements as well as Occupations beginning around the world!!!

Our initial demands include:

Immediate passage of the following:

H.R. 2768 (Cancelation of Public Debt to Federal Reserve)
H.R. 1496 (Federal Reserve Transparancy Act)
H.R. 1095 (Freedom to Bank Act)
H.R. 1094 (Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act)
H.R. 459 (Federal Reserve Transparancy)
S 202 (Senate Federal Reserve Transpanancy Act)
H.R. 1098 (Free Competition in Currency Act)
Immediate resignation of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

A timely & specific end date, set by Congress to end the Federal Reserve System

There is very much a possibility of an economic collapse due in majority to the actions of the Federal Reserve. However, we encourage all Americans to be prepared at all times by storing food, water, gold, silver, seeds etc. and by taking action now to end the Federal Reserve system by joining or supporting an occupation at your nearest Federal Reserve building.

This is about peaceful and non-violent resistance. We are calling for the blockade of entrances to the Federal Reserve offices by occupation. Remain peaceful, read from the constitution, meditate, lay down, etc!!!

"Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." - Henry David Thoreau

This is an information war, and FREE THINKERS are Dangerous. LIVE FREE. THINK FREE.

We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Congress Prepares to Censor the Internet

November 16, 2011

By Nathaniel Botwinick

The House of Representatives is currently considering the bill "Stop Online Piracy Act," (SOPA) which would infringe upon the freedom we currently enjoy on the Internet.

SOPA is so controversial - EFF calls it "disastrous" - because it would force changes to the Domain Name System and effectively create a blacklist of Internet domains suspected of intellectual property violations

Those against SOPA include Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and hundreds of Internet start-up companies. Those opposed to the bill have described it in dark terms:

SOPA is an "Internet blacklist bill" that "would allow corporations, organizations, or the government to order an internet service provider to block an entire website simply due to an allegation that the site posted infringing content."

The House is also attempting to silence criticism of the bill by presenting a skewed hearing:

Rep. Lofgren from California said during this morning's hearing that it was a mistake for SOPA's backers to dismiss criticism from people and companies who would be affected by it.

"It hasn't generally been the policy of this committee to dismiss the views of the industries that we're going to regulate," Lofgren said. "I understand why cosponsors of this legislation aren't happy about widespread criticism of this bill," but attacking the messenger isn't the answer.

Lofgren also accused Smith, the panel's chairman, of deliberately stacking the composition of the panel in favor of SOPA. Of the six witnesses invited, "five are in favor and one is against," she said. "That's not a balanced panel

JP Morgan Chase Donates $4.6 Million To NYPD On Eve Of Protests

October 18th, 2011 GREANVILLEPOST

by Jacob Sloan

Wondering how much it costs to buy off the police department? JP Morgan Chase just gave the New York City Police Foundation the largest donation in its history. How the police show their gratitude will presumably determine whether they receive similar donations from companies in the future. Via Naked Capitalism:

No matter how you look at this development, it does not smell right. From JP Morgan's website, hat tip Lisa Epstein:

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD's main data center.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing "profound gratitude" for the company's donation.

"These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe," Dimon said. "We're incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work."

Now readers can point out that this gift is bupkis relative to the budget of the police department, which is close to $4 billion. But looking at it on a mathematical basis likely misses the incentives at work. Dimon is one of the most powerful and connected corporate leaders in Gotham City. If he thinks the police donation was worthwhile, he might encourage other bank and big company CEOs to make large donations.

And what sort of benefits might JPM get? The police might be extra protective of your interests. Today, OccupyWallStreet decided to march across the Brooklyn Bridge (a proud New York tradition) to Chase Manhattan Plaza in Brooklyn. Reports in the media indicate that the police at first seemed to be encouraging the protestors not only to cross the bridge, but were walking in front of the crowd, seemingly escorting them across. Over 700 of the marchers were arrested, and the media has a rather amusing "he said, she said" account, with OccupyWallStreet claiming entrapment and the cops batting their baby blues and trying to look innocent.

We simply don't know whether the police would have behaved one iota differently in the absence of the JP Morgan donation. But it raises the troubling perspective that they might have.

Homeland Security Coordinated 18-City Police Crackdown on Occupy Protest

November 16, 2011

Source: Washington's Blog

National Coordination Goes Against Protection of Local Accountability

According to Oakland Mayor Jean said that 18 cities coordinated police crack downs on Occupy protests.

Wonkette reports that Homeland Security likely organized the crack downs:

Remember when people were freaking out over the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and all this other conveniently ready-to-go post-9/11 police state stuff, because it would obviously be just a matter of time before the whole apparatus was turned against non-Muslim Americans when they started getting complain-y about the social injustice and economic injustice and income inequality and endless recession and permanent unemployment? That day is now, and has been for some time. But it's also now confirmedthat it's now, as some Justice Department official screwed up and admitted that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated the riot-cop raids on a dozen major #Occupy Wall Street demonstration camps nationwide yesterday and today. (Oh, and tonight, too: Seattle is being busted up by the riot cops right now, so be careful out there.)

Rick Ellis of the Minneapolis edition of Examiner.com has this, based on a "background conversation" he had with a Justice Department official on Monday night:

Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.

(And for those who are understandably doubtful about Examiner.com as a news source,here's an AP story from a couple hours ago that verifies everything except the specific mention of DHS coordination.)

Yves Smith notes:

The 18 police action was a national, coordinated effort. This is a more serious development that one might imagine. Reader Richard Kline has pointed out that one of the de facto protections of American freedoms is that policing is local, accountable to elected officials at a level of government where voters matter. National coordination vitiates the notion that policing is responsive to and accountable to the governed.

FOIA lawsuit reveals FBI collecting biometric information for massive interagency database

November 11, 2011 By Madison Ruppert

BlacklistedNews.com

Big Brother is on the march in the United States and as I have previously shown, once one delves into the depths of this system it is nothing short of astounding to the point where Orwell wouldn't even believe it was possible.

Previously my articles have focused mostly on the Department of Homeland Security's role in this and how their programs are criminalizing Americans who have done absolutely nothing wrong while eroding our freedoms and liberties to a dangerous degree.

However, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights along with the National Day Labor Organizing Network and the Benjamin Cardozo Immigrant Justice Clinic, it has now emerged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is an equally large player in the high-tech police state in which we find ourselves.

An article by Sunita Patel and Scott Paltrowitz on CommonDreams points out, "Big Brother is already upon us." This is a point that I attempt to make at every possible juncture as it is crucial for Americans to realize that an Orwellian high-tech police state is not something on the distant horizon but something in which we already live.

The documents obtained reveal that the FBI "views massive biometric information collection as a goal in itself" as a part of the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system.

The NGI system aims to collect fingerprints, palm prints, iris scans, identifying marks, scars, tattoos, facial characteristics and voice recognition.

These are not necessarily collected from arrested suspects but also from mobile biometric scanning devices and fingerprints left anywhere and everywhere.

This biometric information can then be used in conjunction with facial recognition technology and threat assessment algorithms that can be deployed in an airport or even on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), better known as a drone.

These drones can then track you, record your movements, who you meet with, and just about anything else. Tie this in with the Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) being tested by the Department of Homeland Security and you have a record of not only incredibly detailed biometric information but also social habits, daily schedules, etc.

All of this can be conducted without the subject's knowledge or consent which makes this technology even more powerful as intelligence agencies can conduct surveillance on many individuals without any need to worry about being detected.

The most important aspect for anyone to grasp about these issues is that all of this technology can easily be tied together and collected in a centralized database in which astounding amounts of information from a variety of sources can be collated and analyzed.

The highly personal information stored in the NGI system is already accessible by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, and through the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services division (CJIS) more than 75 potential foreign nations.

The CJIS has already carried out a test on latent finger and palm prints in which they collected more than one million palm prints from crime scenes or literally any other location in which palm prints could be recovered.

They have also scheduled a pilot program for iris scanning and developed plans for deployment of biometric collection equipment across the nation to collect scars, marks, tattoos and facial measurements for facial recognition.

The NGI program will utilize so-called "FBI Mobile," a type of technology first deployed by the military in warzones that is used to collect biometric information in the field without even having to arrest the subject.

The precursor to the NGI program was called Secure Communities (S-Comm) which was launched in 2008.

S-Comm links the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) databases with the FBI's criminal database.

With this system, any time a local, state, or tribal law enforcement officer carries out a routine criminal background check, the subject of the background check's information is transferred to the DHS database.

S-Comm was implemented in a highly deceptive manner, at first offering an opt out policy which would allow local agencies to opt out of receiving information while still requiring to send all information. Later, the FBI decided that S-Comm participation was mandatory, while waiting to disclose this fact to states and the public.

Furthermore, the FBI and DHS have both prevented states and local agencies from imposing limits on how the FBI uses the data they gather.

In a somewhat disturbing statement, senior ICE official Gary Mead told local advocates at a New York debate that governors did not have the right to restrict information sharing because letting the FBI share the information is the "price of admission" for joining "the FBI club."

In a fact sheet published on the NGI and S-Comm, the following disturbing fact is highlighted: "Many details about the scope, impact and process of the NGI and the legal basis for the FBI's policies are still unknown and have not been scrutinized by the media or the public."

It also reveals that one of the major driving forces, like most of the government's actions, is profit. Specifically, a billion dollar contract with Lockheed Martin issued in 2008 to work on the NGI with the FBI.

This is the same Lockheed Martin which represents part of the 0.01% of America that are acting in an even more parasitic manner than the 1% - the war profiteers that rake in record profits while killing Americans and innocent people abroad.

It might seem alarmist or sensationalist, but when the authors of the CommonDreams piece say, "This ubiquitous world-wide surveillance of anyone and everyone should serve as a wake up call (sic) for what the future may hold" they are simply reflecting reality.

They point out that we are being brought "closer to an extensive and inescapable surveillance state, where we blindly place our hands on electronic devices that capture our digital prints, stare into iris scanning devices that record the details of our eyes, and have pictures taken of different angles of our faces so that the FBI and other federal agencies can store and use such information."

Of course these images taken at different angles can be compiled into a 3-Dimensional model of the face which can then be used for faster, more accurate facial recognition, even by drones flying at an altitude at which they are essentially invisible to the unsuspecting individual on the ground.

There is another major consideration ignored by the FBI and DHS: the fact that major mistakes are made by federal agencies.

One apt example is American citizen Mark Lyttle, a man who was deported and transferred to five different countries in four months when an administrator incorrectly typed "Mexico" as Lyttle's place of birth.

Lyttle, who suffers from mental disabilities which made him unable to understand the criminal proceedings and following deportation, spent months living on the streets, in shelters, and in prisons in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, all because an administrator typed the wrong birthplace.

Thankfully, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took up the case and filed lawsuits in federal courts in Georgia and North Carolina on behalf of Lyttle.

Or there is the case of American born lawyer and former Army lieutenant Brandon Mayfield who was erroneously accused of the 2004 train bombing in Madrid after which he was held by police for two weeks.

All of this was based on a supposed match between Mayfield's fingerprints and latent prints found at the scene, of course this match was later found to be inaccurate.

The entire fiasco lasted two and a half years and in 2006 the Oregon lawyer was awarded $2 million by the U.S. government along with a formal apology to him and his family.

Then there is the case of a Massachusetts man, John Gass, who had his driver's license revoked because a facial recognition system found that his authentic license was fraudulent.

These types of egregious and hardly negligible mistakes are only going to become more prevalent as the FBI employs new facial recognition and biometric technology.

This was shown by a study published by the Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response at New York University entitled, "Facial Recognition Technology: A Survey of Policy and Implementation Issues" by Lucas D. Introna and Helen Nissenbaum.

The study found that when facial recognition technology is used among large populations, like the massive federal database, incorrect identifications will indeed occur due to the lack of variation among faces.

The Gass case proves that this is already a problem and the database is in a relatively infant stage compared to how massive the NGI collection of data will be once information on every American has been gathered.

This is especially true when one considers that since sharing information is "the price of admission" into the "FBI club" many foreign governments and federal agencies will be handing over sensitive personal information of their citizens.

George Orwell couldn't have possibly imagined the scope and pervasiveness of the invisible surveillance state we currently find ourselves in, though his infamous 1984 gives a glimpse of what a much more low-tech version of today's world would look like.

The technology is growing to the point where many people do not even know it exists or how they are being tracked and monitored.

Hopefully by spreading information like this far and wide we can actively combat the Big Brother surveillance state before it grows to the point that there is no possible way to turn back.

If you care about the future of America and the world, I beg of you, spread this information far and wide as bringing massive awareness to this subject is the only way to halt the growth and hopefully reverse the trend.

Only by bringing this real Big Brother technology out into the mainstream can we wake up the majority of the populace to the fact that these are not silly conspiracy theories but indeed heavily documented and irrefutable facts.

UK Foreign Office: Israel Expected To Attack Iran Next Month

‘Sooner rather than later'

Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as next month, according to a British Foreign Office official quoted by the Daily Mail newspaper, raising the prospect of a new crisis in the region before Christmas.

"We're expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the new year," the source is quoted as saying, adding that the Israelis will attack Iran's nuclear sites "sooner rather than later".

The source ruled out UK involvement, suggesting that even if Iran acquired the bomb it would not dare use it, adding, "The bigger concern is it will be impossible to stop Saudi Arabia and Turkey from developing their own weapons."

The revelation came one week after British chief of staff, Gen. Sir David Richards paid a secret visit to Israel which was followed the next day by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visiting London for talks with British military chiefs.

While some news outlets noted that the Mail's links with intelligence circles gave the source some credibility, others like YNet, the website for Israel's most widely read newspaper, largely dismissed the claim as "questionable".

As we previously reported, the window of opportunity for an attack before Iran moves the bulk of its nuclear processing equipment underground is quickly evaporating.

Although NATO powers, along with President Obama, have reacted with less enthusiasm about the possibility of an attack, the prospect of Israel going it alone for the duration of a bombing campaign is seen as unlikely. The intelligence source quoted by the Mail says the U.S. will provide "logistical" support along similar lines to America's involvement in Libya.

As we previously highlighted, even if the United States does not become embroiled in the military campaign from the outset, reprisal attacks by Iran and its offshoots will be used as the pretext for American involvement.

"Since this attack would almost certainly bring forth reprisals from Tehran and its allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami, it would almost certainly expand into a wider Middle East conflict, thus also broadening US and West European military intervention," reports DebkaFile.

In a related development, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that any attack on Iran would be met with an "iron fist".

"Our enemies, particularly the Zionist regime (Israel), America and its allies, should know that any kind of threat and attack or even thinking about any (military) action will be firmly responded to," Khamenei told state television.

Libya: The Globalist Attack on National Sovereignty

November 4, 2011

By Ethan Jacobs, J.D. - Activist Post

Video and photographic evidence obtained by Global Post demonstrates that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was literally sodomized before being murdered by NATO/U.S.-backed Al-Qaeda rebel forces.

An analysis of video obtained by Global Post from a rebel fighter who recorded the moment when Col. Muammar Gaddafi was first captured confirms that another rebel fighter, whose identity is unknown, sodomized the former leader as he was being dragged from the drainpipe where he had taken cover.

The footage reveals the mindset of the NATO backed forces, violent thugs that U.S. taxpayers are funding as their homes are foreclosed. It is a mindset that clearly knows no bounds and has been unleashed on sovereign nations worldwide.

Just weeks ago it was believed that the first act of Al-Qaeda's new "democratic" Libyan government was shooting Gaddafi in the head at close range without due process or formerly charging him with any crime. No, the first act was sodomy with a foreign object on a wounded man.

Of course, the Al-Qaeda backed rebels would not have been successful in capturing Libya and murdering Gaddafi absent massive NATO air bombardment of Tripoli, which resulted in thousands of civilian casualties. Shortly after the start of the conflict in March, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the anti-Gaddafi rebel army, admitted that the rebel ranks include Al-Qaeda terrorists who have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This all makes sense when you realize that Al-Qaeda is run by the Pentagon and is used as a tool of regional destabilization against governments like Gaddafi's that oppose globalist objectives.

While Gaddafi may have been a tyrant and dictator, he was also an eccentric nationalist that opposed Western colonization of resource-rich Libya.

On gaining power he immediately ordered the shutdown of American and British military bases, including Wheelus Air Base. He told Western officials that he would expel their companies from Libya's oil fields unless they shared more revenue. In his warning, he alluded to consultation with Nasser. The oil companies complied with the demand, increasing Libya's share from 50 to 79 percent.

Under Gaddafi, Libya exported as much oil per capita as Saudi Arabia, and through various social programs Libya achieved the highest living standards in Africa. Libya also remained debt free, with no loan whatsoever from the IMF, World Bank or any other source of western financial enslavement.

Gaddafi also planned to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold. This would have allowed Libya and African countries to do business without using the worthless fiat U.S. dollar, which is continuously devalued by the private Federal Reserve printing excess money out of nothing and giving it to their bankster friends.

The Gaddafi government also funded the Great Man-Made River, a network of pipes that supplies water from the Sahara Desert in Libya, from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System fossil aquifer. It is the world's largest underground network of pipes (2820 km) and aqueducts in the world. The project consists of more than 1,300 wells, most more than 500m deep, and supplies 6,500,000 m3 of fresh water per day to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere. Gaddafi described it as the "Eighth Wonder of the World."

The globalists decided that nationalist Gaddafi had to go before he inspired other world leaders to protect national sovereignty and interests. Libyans must now live under a brutal terrorist regime, whose members will be handsomely rewarded when Fortune 500 companies arrive to exploit Libya's natural resources while enslaving the population in debt.

Libya's rebel militants recently named a new puppet "prime minister" this week, Abdurrahim el-Keib. El-Keib has spent decades in the United States and is former employee of the Petroleum Institute, which is sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. El-Keib is listed as a "Professor and Chairman" in his Petroleum Institute profile which also describes extensive research conducted by him sponsored by various US government agencies and departments over the years. Therefore, el-Keib, like his predecessor Jalil, is Libyan in name only and has been working for Western corporations, governments, and institutions for decades.

The Western-sponsored coup of Libya also demonstrates that the globalists are now focused on seizing control of the world's natural resources just as Zbigniew Brzezinski's outlined in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. They also have Syria and Iran on the menu of destruction as they rush to complete their one world fascist government.

In all the violence and chaos, one thing is crystal-clear: unless people refuse to participate in wars of conquest and diligently boycott corporate sponsors of the Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings Institution, Gaddafi and Libyans won't be the last ones to get sodomized by the New World Order.

Globalists Using London Cyberspace Summit to Push for Global Internet Treaty

November 1, 2011

By Eric Blair - Activist Post

For the next two days, leaders from around the globe will collude with tech giants to discuss how to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the Internet. Translation: they'll be negotiating a global Internet treaty.

It's reported that officials from 60 countries will join Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Tudou.com (Chinese video sharing site), as well as cyber crime agencies, and computer security firms at the London Conference on Cyberspace.

The London summit is hosted by Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who said the purpose is to "discuss ideas and expected behaviour in cyberspace".

To which he claims the goal is bring together major players to determine how "collectively, we should respond to the challenges and opportunities which the development of cyberspace presents."

A few days before the conference, Council on Foreign Relations members Adam Segal and Matthew Waxman wrote that the conference presents those calling for a global Internet treaty with "a step in that direction."

They also pointed out that NATO allies have already essentially agreed to a treaty; "June 2011, NATO defense ministers agreed to a collective vision of cyber defense, and the United States and Australia recently announced that their mutual defense treaty extends to cyberspace."

Meanwhile, in September of this year, an alliance between Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan collaborated on cybersecurity by introducing The International Code of Conduct for Information Security to the U.N. Secretary General.

This alliance views "information security" to mean combating the dissemination of certain types of information which "undermines other countries' political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environment." In other words, if passed, political dissent on the Internet would be censored by U.N. decree.

Analysts explained the power struggle to be that Western states want to protect their networks from cyber attacks, while China and Russia seek security of information, which means controlling content.

Western powers will preach Internet freedom to their counterparts at this conference, yet they themselves have engaged in draconian measures like arbitrarily seizing websites for merely linking to copyrighted material and ordering politically "harmful" material removed from websites like YouTube. Also, in a blatant act of censorship, they infamously colluded with Amazon to drop hosting service to WikiLeaks.

What's more, multiple bills are floating in the U.S. Congress that seek further control over the Internet like the recent "rogue websites" bill which one Representative called the "end of the Internet." At the same time, the new net neutrality rules initiated without Congress, rather by the FCC with a 3-2 vote (where one commissioner was rewarded with a cushy job at Comcast), go into effect on November 20th.

So, while they talk a good game about protecting free speech, the U.S. and other Western powers seem to have similar ambitions to censor the Internet as China and Russia do, each already using private Internet cartels to do their dirty work. Therefore, they're likely not as far off from agreeing on a treaty as the mainstream press is letting on.

Where they may not agree, however, is how to respond to potential cyber crimes and suspected threats.

China, while strongly denying any government involvement, has been blamed for many recent cyber attacks. Therefore, China, and most others, tend to take the approach of prosecuting cyber crimes through a legal process.

The Pentagon, on the other hand, in their recently released cybersecurity strategy, said the military would be "prepared to respond to hostile acts in cyberspace."

"The United States reserves the right, under the laws of armed conflict, to respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing," said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn at a speech announcing the new strategy.

Most nations want to legally separate cybersecurity from traditional security concerns. So, if only America can convince other attendees to police the Internet with predator drones, they may actually agree to a global Internet treaty.

E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'

Blacklisted News

10-29-2011

from the this-gets-worse-and-worse dept

We already wrote about the ridiculously bad E-PARASITE bill (the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act), but having now had a chance go to through the full bill a few more times, there are even more bad things in there that I missed on the first read-through. Now I understand why Rep. Zoe Lofgren's first reaction to this bill was to say that "this would mean the end of the Internet as we know it."

She's right. The more you look at the details, the more you realize how this bill is an astounding wishlist of everything that the legacy entertainment gatekeepers have wanted in the law for decades and were unable to get. It effectively dismantles the DMCA's safe harbors, what's left of the Sony Betamax decision, puts massive liability on tons of US-based websites, and will lead to widespread blocking of websites and services based solely on accusations of some infringement. It's hard to overstate just how bad this bill is.

And, while its mechanisms are similar to the way China's Great Firewall works (by putting liability on service providers if they fail to block sites), it's even worse than that. At least the Chinese Great Firewall is determined by government talking points. The E-PARASITE bill allows for a massive private right of action that effectively lets any copyright holder take action against sites they don't like. (Oh, and the bill is being called both the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and E-PARASITE (which covers the PROTECT IP-like parts of the bill, SOPA refers to the larger bill that also includes the felony streaming part).

Some of the key problems with the bill, beyond what we discussed yesterday:

While supporters of the bill still continue to insist that this bill is only targeted at foreign infringers, that's false. Part of the bill focuses on foreign infringers -- the part that allows the Attorney General to kill websites. But the private right of action section has no such restriction. Instead, it allows copyright holders to effectively kill any site they'd like. You have to dig down into the details to see this, but let's pull out the key sections to see. The act, in section 104, defines sites that are "dedicated to the theft of US property" as including any "US-directed site" that:is taking, or has taken deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code;
If that sounds massively confusing, you're right. But what it's saying, in the most twisted language possible, is that if it's probable that a site used in the US (note no restriction to just foreign sites here) can be used to infringe, and that site fails to take some sort of action against the "high probability" that the site can be used to infringe, then it can be declared dedicated to the theft of US property. This turns both the DMCA safe harbors and the Supreme Court's Sony Betamax ruling completely on their heads. In effect, it appears to be saying that if you choose not to self-police your site for infringement -- i.e., putting up filters, or proactively monitoring content for infringement -- you can be declared in violation of the law... at which point a court can order all ad networks and payment processors to automatically stop doing business with you.

Think of all the sites this could effect. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Tumblr, SoundCloud, Ebay, Flickr, Wikipedia, Craigslist, Wordpress -- basically any site that has any user-generated content. If they don't proactively filter or monitor their content, they could be at risk of a claim that they took "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that their sites could be used to infringe... and thus they could be subject to an action by a private party that strips them of both ad revenue and the ability to process any payments.

Remember how Monster Cable -- massive supporters of this bill -- declared both Craigslist and eBay as being dedicated to infringement? Under this bill, a company like Monster could take action against those sites, putting a tremendous burden on them.

The definitional problems don't stop there. Separate from the ridiculous definition above, this act would also declare a site "dedicated to theft of U.S. property," if it is "primarily designed" in a way that "engages in, enables, or facilitates" a violation of copyright law. Those last two points are ridiculously broad. "Enables" infringement? "Facilitates"? That's practically the entire internet. The primary design of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. all "enable" or "facilitate" infringement.

While some reporters claimed that the "private right of action" was taken out of this bill, or even "softened," nothing could be further from the truth. The details show that the private right of action is significantly worse in this bill. What changed is that in PROTECT IP, private copyright holders could go to court to force payment processors and ad networks to stop dealing with sites they accuse. Under E-PARASITE, before they go to court, they first have to send a notification, very similar to a DMCA takedown notice. But, of course, as we've seen with the DMCA, while it's "voluntary" to comply, if you don't comply you lose safe harbors -- so nearly everyone complies. That means this private right of action almost certainly will lead to ad networks and payment processors cutting off any site they receive a notification on -- no matter how legitimate. And, while the bill does allow for a counternotification process, unlike the DMCA, there is no requirement that the payment processors and ad networks restore service to anyone who files a counternotice, after a given period of time (absent a lawsuit). In other words: a copyright holder could issue a bogus claim that a site is dedicated to infringement, and the payment processor and ad network could pull the plug on the site... and even if a counternotice is filed, those services have no obligation to bring back service.

Again, using our Monster Cable example, it could force all payment processors to no longer allow payments on Craigslist or eBay, and even if those sites filed counternotices, the service providers would be under no obligation to turn those things back on. And just think of the massive, irreparable harm if legitimate sites lose both the ability to accept payments and to have ads for just a few days? And while there is liability for those who file false notices, as we've seen with the DMCA, such provisions are rarely, if ever, enforced -- and generally are interpreted to only apply in cases of extreme misrepresentation.

As noted above, the private right of action establishes an astoundingly broad new standard for what's considered infringing. Beyond user-generated content sites, pretty much any cloud computing service can be deemed "dedicated to the theft of US property," if they choose not to filter and monitor the content being sent through the cloud. Any of the online locker services are in serious trouble if this bill becomes law. Amazon's and Google's music services would have to monitor your uploads and try to stop infringement to avoid liability. Box.net and Dropbox would likely have to monitor what files you're storing to avoid liability. It's honestly that insane.

Supporters of the bill, beyond falsely claiming that it's just focused on foreign sites, are also claiming that this bill does not target such sites. An aide to the House Judiciary Committee, who supports the bill, claimed, "Sites that host user content -- like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- have nothing to be concerned about under this bill." But that's demonstrably false. Perhaps this aide is unaware that Viacom is still in the middle of a $1 billion lawsuit claiming that YouTube was dedicated to infringement. Under the definitions in this bill, YouTube would absolutely have been liable, and likely would have been shut down years ago. In fact, Viacom never would have had to sue. It would have just made use of the notification process, and kept any and all advertising and payment processing from the site... and voila, dead YouTube, without the benefit of a judge reviewing the case (and, need we remind the House Judiciary Committee, that so far the judge has sided with YouTube?).

The bill would be red meat to any foreign government that censors its internet. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia are going to love this. The mechanisms for censorship are quite similar. Under E-PARASITE, service providers have to proactively block to prevent liability. China's Great Firewall works the exact same way: by threatening ISPs with liability if they don't block content harmful to Chinese citizens. Replace harmful to Chinese citizens with "a high probability" of being used for infringement... and you've got E-PARASITE.

Another change between this bill and the Senate's PROTECT IP is that this bill calls out "search engines" more directly, rather than "information location tools," as in the Senate bill. While that may seem to be narrower, the definition of a search engine is ridiculously broad (of course).

The term ‘‘Internet search engine'' means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection.
Under this definition, Techdirt could be declared a search engine under this law. After all, we take "questions" and queries from readers, and often return stories that link elsewhere on the internet. Yikes!

As highlighted above, there are all sorts of definitional problems with the bill. And you can tell how insane things get with definitions when the authors of this bill even go so far as to define the word "including." I'm not joking:
INCLUDING.--The term "including" means including, but not limited to.
This is the kind of mess we're dealing with.

About the only good thing is that the insanity and out-and-out censorship and hindering of the internet that this bill provides appears to have scared off co-sponsors of the bill. Despite a massive lobbying effort from the US Chamber of Commerce and the MPAA (among some others), Rep. Lamar Smith was only able to wrangle up eleven co-sponsors. For a bill of this nature, this is woefully low. Even more surprising is that they couldn't even get Rep. Mel Watt to co-sponsor the bill, despite being the ranking Democrat on the IP subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, they had to settle for Howard Berman, the Representative from Disney. In other words, it appears that many Congressional reps have heard the massive concerns of the public, technologists, entrepreneurs, investors, artists, human rights activists, and many others who are quite afraid of how this bill will break the internet. And that means that it can only help to continue to speak out and reach out to your representatives about how awful this bill is, and how much harm it would do.

Robin Hood Tax: Occupy Movement now marching straight into the globalist trap

Patrick Henningsen

October 25, 2011

It was inevitable that a movement which has struggled to agree on a manifesto, would in the end, do the bidding of the very elite globalist powers that they are demonstrating against to begin with.

The Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

Instead of achieving freedom from Central Bank debt enslavement, naive Occupiers appear to have taken the bait, pulling the mob towards endorsing a global taxation system, and one to be administered... by a brand new global government body.

As the Occupy Movement sets its sights on the upcoming G20 Summit in France on November 3-4, its globalist handlers behind the scenes have succeeded in carefully directing its crowds towards the Holy Grail of all socialist super-states - the celebrity supported, trendy "Robin Hood Tax", also known as a Tobin Tax, a financial transaction tax levied on all transactions involving shares, bonds and derivatives. It's likely that such a blanket tax will eventually end up on the end of things like cash withdrawls and the like.

The resulting funds, they claim, counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, would go toward popular Bono-led liberal heart-string fantasy causes like ‘reducing poverty in the third world', social programs and surprise, surprise... "combating climate change" and perhaps even saving polar bears - a move that would surely please desperate men like Al Gore (but a complete waste of money seeing that man-made global warming has already been thoroughly discredited).

The rallying cry for this globalist wet dream is coming directly from the supposed brain-child of the Occupy Movement, the globalist foundation-funded organization, Ad Busters, quietly shepherding its flock towards one of the biggest revenue spinning and control scams ever conceived.

Reuters reported yesterday:

"Canada-based Adbusters wants the Occupy Wall Street protest movement against economic inequality to take to the streets to call for a 1 percent tax on such deals ahead of a November 3-4 summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in France.

"Let's send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3 trillion easy money that's sloshing around the global casino each day - enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world," the activist group said on its website, www.adbusters.org.

Adbusters put out the initial call for Occupy Wall Street and since protesters set up camp in a park in New York City's financial district on September 17, they have inspired solidarity demonstrations and so-called occupations around the world."

In many ways, the Robin Hood Tax is an identical transaction-tax scam to the one proposed by globalists at the 2009 UN COP15 Climate Summit in Copenhagen, where a number of new taxes on financial transactions and new carbon taxes would be put into a giant "slush fund" to be handled by none other than the World Bank.

Ultimately, any Robin Hood Tax will most likely end up in a giant fund to "ensure that banks are adequately capitalized", and one which will be used to bailout, or insure big bank losses and trillions in gambling derivative bets gone bad.

In reality, a Robin Hood Tax does just the opposite of what its name represents. Rather than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it is designed to steal more money through taxation from working people- money which will end up directly in the hands of institutions like the US Federal Reserve and its cartel of Wall Street banks.

OWS losing the plot

It's very easy for the throngs of young protesters to fall into an obvious socialist, or collectivist trap, as many naive young Americans are unable, or unwilling, to liberate themselves from the Hegelian dialectic which tells them that the government must raise taxes and spending in order to achieve any social progress.

It's obvious that the number one and two problems in America are a lack of jobs and creeping inflation, a duel plague which is fueling poverty- and ultimately dissent in the US. Occupiers are not asking why their government allowed US corporations to ship millions of American jobs off shore, and why it never bothered to offer incentives to foreign corporations to relocate in the US. Likewise Occupiers have not identified that their own Federal Reserve is robbing them every day by creating artificial scarcity, driving the kind of boom and bust cycles which ultimately rob Americans of their life saving and assets.

Rather than demand an additional new monster system of taxation, Occupiers should first be asking if any government can be trusted to spend their tax revenue responsibly. Certainly today it seems that pork rules in Washington and Obama's Administration is presiding over the biggest budget deficit in the history of the US. This should be cause for alarm, yet, it's hardly mentioned by the Occupy crowd.

They might also consider asking their beloved government in Washington - and elsewhere around the globe too, where all their tax revenue actually goes right now. If they understood that at present, their Federal Income Tax(in some cases, collected at gunpoint by the IRS) goes directly to paying off the debt which their government owes on each and every dollar printed by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank... then Occupiers would surely be wary of allowing a Federal or global government to erect a new massive taxation system.

The OWS has, to their credit, urged protesters to close their bank accounts and transfer their money to credit unions with a bank transfer day on November 5th, certainly a step in a positive direction. But is it enough?

Disengage with the financial system

OWS protesters should be talking about taking steps to completely disengage from the system that enslaves them- this might include removing their hard-earned liquidity from the system by canceling all credit cards, not taking out student loans, or pointless car and electronic loans.

Another obvious trap of the Robin Hood Tax is that it would target all transactions - including pension funds. Occupiers should instead consider not paying in their pensions and 401K's into stock market-indexed retirement funds. For older protesters, it might be a case of shifting their IRAs into gold and silver-backed retirement funds, disallowing the speculators and gamblers on Wall Street to decimate their life savings any further.

Has their been any call for a mass protest against the IRS, who continue to defy the US Constitution by robbing each and every working American of their labor and property in order to service their national debt to the Federal Reserve cartel? Certainly this would rock the establishment overnight. The Occupy Movement would have struck the most serious- and the most obvious blow imaginable, one which would finally call into question the legitimacy of a national income tax.

Or even better, Occupiers might consider taking the total expenditure of the US military- domestically and overseas , and divide by the number of working Americans, giving them an individual figure of money which each protester will refuse to hand over to the Federal government- a peace protest combined with an intelligent liberty move by free men and women.

Sadly, none of these kind of truly revolutionary ideas have come out of the Liberty Square protests. Instead, all they could manage in the end up with is to latch on to one of the most misleading and tyrannical ponzi schemes, the Robin Hood Tax, where the 99% end up giving the 1% even more of their hard earned cash over to the banks. Ironic, but this is the current direction which the angry, but naive mob is being led.

If any of the 99% truly believe that the top tier banks would happily give away trillions per year to the new Robin Hood Taxman, then think again. Their new tax will likely be imposed most stringently on small to medium size institutions and fund managers in an effort to drive out any competition to the mega banks- who already enjoy cuts to corporate income tax, and in some cases, pay no tax at all. Big banks are safe, but smaller competition will surely be hit hard by a Robin Hood Tax- ensuring the current hierarchy stays exactly as it is. This has always been the way when blanket government regulations and punitive taxes come into play.

In typically disingenuous fashion, when a mob has no clear objective it normally plays follow the leader. In this case, the leader is foundation-funded Ad Busters, who have supplied the directionless, vague OWS movement with the master plan to its own demise.

Vatican Calls for "Central World Bank"

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com October 24, 2011

The Vatican has called for a "global public authority" and a world central bank to rule over financial affairs in the wake of the engineered economic collapse.

A document released by the Vatican's Justice and Peace department "should be music to the ears of the ‘Occupy Wall Street' demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn," according to CNBC.

Condemning the "idolatry of the market," the document states that the "economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence."

The planned implosion of the global economy "has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale."

The 18-page document, entitled "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority," declares global economics needs an "ethic of solidarity" among rich and poor nations.

"If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid," it said.

In response, the Vatican is calling for "a supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions. The authority will be run by the United Nations, according to the document.

It will take time to replace economic policies and in the process destroy national sovereignty, according to the Vatican.

"Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation's powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world."

"Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites

The People's Movement has been Hijacked

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, September 20, 2010

"Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as "making the World safe for capitalism", reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))

"By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, ... and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions" (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )

"Under the New World Order, the ritual of inviting "civil society" leaders into the inner circles of power --while simultaneously repressing the rank and file-- serves several important functions. First, it says to the World that the critics of globalization "must make concessions" to earn the right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global elites should --under what is euphemistically called democracy-- be subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it says "there is no alternative" to globalization: fundamental change is not possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an ineffective "give and take".

While the "Globalizers" may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not challenged. And what this "civil society mingling" does is to reinforce the clutch of the corporate establishment while weakening and dividing the protest movement. An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City [1999-2001] are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a few may get richer.

This rank and file and some of their leaders as well, are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the right of the "Globalizers" to rule. This requires that we rethink the strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they are the force that must be mobilized to challenge those who plunder the Globe." (Michel Chossudovsky, The Quebec Wall , April 2001)

The term "manufacturing consent" was initially coined by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.

"Manufacturing consent" describes a propaganda model used by the corporate media to sway public opinion and "inculcate individuals with values and beliefs...":

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda. (Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky)

"Manufacturing consent" implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. "Manufacturing consent" describes the submission of public opinion to the mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.

"Manufacturing dissent"

In this article, we focus on a related concept, namely the subtle process of "manufacturing dissent" (rather than "consent"), which plays a decisive role in serving the interests of the ruling class.

Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail. It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.

To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism. In other words, "manufacturing dissent" acts as a "safety valve", which protects and sustains the New World Order.

To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement.

"Funding Dissent"

How is the process of manufacturing dissent achieved?

Essentially by "funding dissent", namely by channelling financial resources from those who are the object of the protest movement to those who are involved in organizing the protest movement.

Co-optation is not limited to buying the favors of politicians. The economic elites --which control major foundations-- also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order. The programs of many NGOs and people's movements rely heavily on funding from both public as well as private foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.

The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.

The mechanisms of "manufacturing dissent" require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.

Whereas the mainstream media "manufactures consent", the complex network of NGOs (including segments of the alternative media) are used by the corporate elites to mould and manipulate the protest movement.

Following the deregulation of the global financial system in the 1990s and the rapid enrichment of the financial establishment, funding through foundations and charities has skyrocketed.

In a bitter irony, part of the fraudulent financial gains on Wall Street in recent years have been recycled to the elites' tax exempt foundations and charities. These windfall financial gains have not only been used to buy out politicians, they have also been channelled to NGOs, research institutes, community centres, church groups, environmentalists, alternative media, human rights groups, etc. "Manufactured dissent" also applies to the "corporate left" and "progressive" media, funded by NGOs or directly by the foundations.

The inner objective is to "manufacture dissent" and establish the boundaries of a "politically correct" opposition. In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.

Piecemeal Activism

The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people's movement into a vast "do it yourself" mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate "issue oriented" protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women's rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People's Summits of the 1990s.

The Anti-Globalization Movement

The Seattle 1999 counter-summit is invariably upheld as a triumph for the anti-globalization movement: "a historic coalition of activists shut down the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, the spark that ignited a global anti-corporate movement." (See Naomi Klein, Copenhagen: Seattle Grows Up, The Nation, November 13, 2009).

Seattle was an indeed an important crossroads in the history of the mass movement. Over 50,000 people from diverse backgrounds, civil society organizations, human rights, labor unions, environmentalists had come together in a common pursuit. Their goal was to forecefully dismantle the neoliberal agenda including its institutional base.

But Seattle also marked a major reversal. With mounting dissent from all sectors of society, the official WTO Summit desperately needed the token participation of civil society leaders "on the inside", to give the appearance of being "democratic" "on the outside".

While thousands of people had converged on Seattle, what occurred behind the scenes was a de facto victory for neoliberalism. A handful of civil society organizations, formally opposed the WTO had contributed to legitimizing the WTO's global trading architecture. Instead of challenging the WTO as an an illegal intergovernmental body, they agreed to a pre-summit dialogue with the WTO and Western governments. "Accredited NGO participants were invited to mingle in a friendly environment with ambassadors, trade ministers and Wall Street tycoons at several of the official events including the numerous cocktail parties and receptions." (Michel Chossudovsky, Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order , Covert Action Quarterly, November 1999, See Ten Years Ago: "Manufacturing Dissent" in Seattle).

The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.

Funded by private foundations (including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Charles Stewart Mott, The Foundation for Deep Ecology), these "accredited" civil society organizations had positioned themselves as lobby groups, acting formally on behalf of the people's movement. Led by prominent and committed activists, their hands were tied. They ultimately contributed (unwittingly) to weakening the anti-globalization movement by accepting the legitimacy of what was essentially an illegal organization. (The 1994 Marrakech Summit agreement which led to the creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995). (Ibid)

The NGO leaders were fully aware as to where the money was coming from. Yet within the US and European NGO community, the foundations and charities are considered to be independent philanthropic bodies, separate from the corporations; namely the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, for instance, is considered to be separate and distinct from the Rockefeller family empire of banks and oil companies.

With salaries and operating expenses depending on private foundations, it became an accepted routine: In a twisted logic, the battle against corporate capitalism was to be fought using the funds from the tax exempt foundations owned by corporate capitalism.

The NGOs were caught in a straightjacket; their very existence depended on the foundations. Their activities were closely monitored. In a twisted logic, the very nature of anti-capitalist activism was indirectly controlled by the capitalists through their independent foundations.

"Progressive Watchdogs"

In this evolving saga, the corporate elites --whose interests are duly served by the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO-- will readily fund (through their various foundations and charities) organizations which are at the forefront of the protest movement against the WTO and the Washington based international financial institutions.

Supported by foundation money, various "watchdogs" were set up by the NGOs to monitor the implementation of neoliberal policies, without however raising the broader issue of how the Bretton Woods twins and the WTO, through their policies, had contributed to the impoverishment of millions of people.

The Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Network (SAPRIN) was established by Development Gap, a USAID and World Bank funded NGO based in Washington DC.

Amply documented, the imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) on developing countries constitutes a blatant form of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states on behalf of creditor institutions.

Instead of challenging the legitimacy of the IMF-World Bank's "deadly economic medicine", SAPRIN's core organization sought to establish a participatory role for the NGOs, working hand in glove with USAID and the World Bank. The objective was to give a "human face" to the neoliberal policy agenda, rather than reject the IMF-World Bank policy framework outright:

"SAPRIN is the global civil-society network that took its name from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI), which it launched with the World Bank and its president, Jim Wolfensohn, in 1997.

SAPRI is designed as a tripartite exercise to bring together organizations of civil society, their governments and the World Bank in a joint review of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and an exploration of new policy options. It is legitimizing an active role for civil society in economic decision-making, as it is designed to indicate areas in which changes in economic policies and in the economic-policymaking process are required. ( http://www.saprin.org/overview.htm SAPRIN website, emphasis added)

Similarly, The Trade Observatory (formerly WTO Watch), operating out of Geneva, is a project of the Minneapolis based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), which is generously funded by Ford, Rockefeller, Charles Stewart Mott among others. (see Table 1 below).

The Trade Observatory has a mandate to monitor the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). (IATP, About Trade Observatory, accessed September 2010).

The Trade Observatory is also to develop data and information as well as foster "governance" and "accountability". Accountability to the victims of WTO policies or accountability to the protagonists of neoliberal reforms?

The Trade Observatory watchdog functions does not in any way threaten the WTO. Quite the opposite: the legitimacy of the trade organizations and agreements are never questioned.

The World Economic Forum. "All Roads Lead to Davos"

The people's movement has been hijacked. Selected intellectuals, trade union executives, and the leaders of civil society organizations (including Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) are routinely invited to the Davos World Economic Forum, where they mingle with the World's most powerful economic and political actors. This mingling of the World's corporate elites with hand-picked "progressives" is part of the ritual underlying the process of "manufacturing dissent".

The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders "whom we can trust" and integrate them into a "dialogue", cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are "global citizens" acting on behalf of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment:

"The participation of NGOs in the Annual Meeting in Davos is evidence of the fact that [we] purposely seek to integrate a broad spectrum of the major stakeholders in society in ... defining and advancing the global agenda ... We believe the [Davos] World Economic Forum provides the business community with the ideal framework for engaging in collaborative efforts with the other principal stakeholders [NGOs] of the global economy to "improve the state of the world," which is the Forum's mission. (World Economic Forum, Press Release 5 January 2001)

The WEF does not represent the broader business community. It is an elitist gathering: Its members are giant global corporations (with a minimum $5 billion annual turnover). The selected non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are viewed as partner "stakeholders" as well as a convenient "mouthpiece for the voiceless who are often left out of decision-making processes." (World Economic Forum - Non-Governmental Organizations, 2010)

"They [the NGOs] play a variety of roles in partnering with the Forum to improve the state of the world, including serving as a bridge between business, government and civil society, connecting the policy makers to the grassroots, bringing practical solutions to the table..." (Ibid)

Civil society "partnering" with global corporations on behalf of "the voiceless", who are "left out"?

Trade union executives are also co-opted to the detriment of workers' rights. The leaders of the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), among others, are routinely invited to attend both the annual WEF meetings in Davos, Switzerland as well as to the regional summits. They also participate in the WEF's Labour Leaders Community which focuses on mutually acceptable patterns of behavior for the labor movement. The WEF "believes that the voice of Labour is important to dynamic dialogue on issues of globalisation, economic justice, transparency and accountability, and ensuring a healthy global financial system."

"Ensuring a healthy global financial system" wrought by fraud and corruption? The issue of workers' rights is not mentioned. (World Economic Forum - Labour Leaders, 2010).

The World Social Forum: "Another World Is Possible"

The 1999 Seattle counter-summit in many regards laid the foundations for the development of the World Social Forum.

The first gathering of the World Social Forum took place in January 2001, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This international gathering involved the participation of tens of thousands of activists from grass-roots organizations and NGOs.

The WSF gathering of NGOs and progressive organizations is held simultaneously with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). It was intended to voice opposition and dissent to the World Economic Forum of corporate leaders and finance ministers.

The WSF at the outset was an initiative of France's ATTAC and several Brazilian NGOs':

"... In February 2000, Bernard Cassen, the head of a French NGO platform ATTAC, Oded Grajew, head of a Brazilian employers' organisation, and Francisco Whitaker, head of an association of Brazilian NGOs, met to discuss a proposal for a "world civil society event"; by March 2000, they formally secured the support of the municipal government of Porto Alegre and the state government of Rio Grande do Sul, both controlled at the time by the Brazilian Workers' Party (PT).... A group of French NGOs, including ATTAC, Friends of L'Humanité, and Friends of Le Monde Diplomatique, sponsored an Alternative Social Forum in Paris titled "One Year after Seattle", in order to prepare an agenda for the protests to be staged at the upcoming European Union summit at Nice. The speakers called for "reorienting certain international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO... so as to create a globalization from below" and "building an international citizens' movement, not to destroy the IMF but to reorient its missions." (Research Unit For Political Economy, The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum, Global Research, January 20, 2004)

From the outset in 2001, the WSF was supported by core funding from the Ford Foundation, which is known to have ties to the CIA going back to the 1950s: "The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source." (James Petras, The Ford Foundation and the CIA, Global Research, September 18, 2002)

The same procedure of donor funded counter-summits or people's summits which characterized the 1990s People's Summits was embodied in the World Social Forum (WSF):

"... other WSF funders (or `partners', as they are referred to in WSF terminology) included the Ford Foundation, -- suffice it to say here that it has always operated in the closest collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency and US overall strategic interests; the Heinrich Boll Foundation, which is controlled by the German Greens party, a partner in the present [2003] German government and a supporter of the wars on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (its leader Joschka Fischer is the [former] German foreign minister); and major funding agencies such as Oxfam (UK), Novib (Netherlands), ActionAid (UK), and so on.

Remarkably, an International Council member of the WSF reports that the "considerable funds" received from these agencies have "not hitherto awakened any significant debates [in the WSF bodies] on the possible relations of dependence it could generate." Yet he admits that "in order to get funding from the Ford Foundation, the organisers had to convince the foundation that the Workers Party was not involved in the process." Two points are worth noting here. First, this establishes that the funders were able to twist arms and determine the role of different forces in the WSF -- they needed to be `convinced' of the credentials of those who would be involved. Secondly, if the funders objected to the participation of the thoroughly domesticated Workers Party, they would all the more strenuously object to prominence being given to genuinely anti-imperialist forces. That they did so object will be become clear as we describe who was included and who excluded from the second and third meets of the WSF....

... The question of funding [of the WSF] does not even figure in the charter of principles of the WSF, adopted in June 2001. Marxists, being materialists, would point out that one should look at the material base of the forum to grasp its nature. (One indeed does not have to be a Marxist to understand that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".) But the WSF does not agree. It can draw funds from imperialist institutions like Ford Foundation while fighting "domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism" (Research Unit For Political Economy, The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum, Global Research, January 20, 2004)

The Ford Foundation provided core support to the WSF, with indirect contributions to participating "partner organizations" from the McArthur Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the European Commission, several European governments (including the Labour government of Tony Blair), the Canadian government, as well as a number of UN bodies (including UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, ILO and the FAO) .(Ibid).

In addition to initial core support from the Ford Foundation, many of the participating civil society organizations receive funding from major foundations and charities. In turn, the US and European based NGOs often operate as secondary funding agencies channelling Ford and Rockefeller money towards partner organizations in developing countries, including grassroots peasant and human rights movements.

The International Council (IC) of the WSF is made up of representatives from NGOs, trade unions, alternative media organizations, research institutes, many of which are heavily funded by foundations as well as governments. (See Fórum Social Mundial). The same trade unions, which are routinely invited to mingle with Wall Street CEOs at the Davos World Economic Forum (WSF) including the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation and the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC) also sit on the WSF's International Council (IC). Among NGOs funded by major foundations sitting on the WSF's IC is the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) (see our analysis above) which oversees the Geneva based Trade Observatory.

The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), which has observer status on the WSF International Council plays a key role. While channelling financial support to the WSF, it acts as a clearing house for major foundations. The FTNG describes itself as "an alliance of grant makers committed to building just and sustainable communities around the world". Members of this alliance are Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Heinrich Boell, C. S. Mott, Merck Family Foundation, Open Society Institute, Tides, among others. (For a complete list of FTNG funding agencies see FNTG: Funders). FTNG acts as a fund raising entity on behalf of the WSF.

Western Governments Fund the Counter-Summits and Repress the Protest Movement

In a bitter irony, governments including the European Union grant money to fund progressive groups (including the WSF) involved in organizing protests against the very same governments which finance their activities:

"Governments, too, have been significant financiers of protest groups. The European Commission, for example, funded two groups who mobilised large numbers of people to protest at EU summits at Gothenburg and Nice. Britain's national lottery, which is overseen by the government, helped fund a group at the heart of the British contingent at both protests." (James Harding, Counter-capitalism, FT.com, October 15 2001)

We are dealing with a diabolical process: The host government finances the official summit as well as the NGOs actively involved in the Counter-Summit. It also funds the multimillion dollar anti-riot police operation which has a mandate to repress the grassroots participants of the Counter-Summit, including members of NGOs direcly funded by the government. .

The purpose of these combined operations, including violent actions of vandalism committed by undercover cops (Toronto G20, 2010) dressed up as activists, is to discredit the protest movement and intimidate its participants. The broader objective is to transform the counter-summit into a ritual of dissent, which serves to uphold the interests of the official summit and the host government. This logic has prevailed in numerous counter summits since the 1990s.

At the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, funding from the Canadian federal government to mainstream NGOs and trade unions was granted under certain conditions. A large segment of the protest movement was de facto excluded from the People's Summit. This in itself led to the formation of a second parallel People's venue, which some observers described as a "a counter-People's Summit. In turn, in an agreement with both the provincial and federal authorities, the organizers directed the protest march towards a remote location some 10 km out of town, rather than towards the historical downtown area were the official FTAA summit was being held behind a heavily guarded "security perimeter".

"Rather than marching toward the perimeter fence and the Summit of the Americas meetings, march organizers chose a route that marched from the People's Summit away from the fence, through largely empty residential areas to the parking lot of a stadium in a vacant area several miles away. Henri Masse, the president of the Federation des travailleurs et travailleuses du Quebec (FTQ), explained, "I deplore that we are so far from the center-city.... But it was a question of security." One thousand marshals from the FTQ kept very tight control over the march. When the march came to the point where some activists planned to split off and go up the hill to the fence, FTQ marshals signalled the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) contingent walking behind CUPE to sit down and stop the march so that FTQ marshals could lock arms and prevent others from leaving the official march route." (Katherine Dwyer, Lessons of Quebec City, International Socialist Review, June/July 2001)

NGO Leaders versus their Grassroots

The establishment of the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 was unquestionably a historical landmark, bringing together tens of thousands of committed activists. It was an important venue which allowed for the exchange of ideas and the establishment of ties of solidarity.

What is at stake is the ambivalent role of the leaders of progressive organizations. Their cozy and polite relationship to the inner circles of power, to corporate and government funding, aid agencies, the World Bank, etc, undermines their relationship and responsibilities to their rank and file. The objective of manufactured dissent is precisely that: to distance the leaders from their rank and file as a means to effectively silencing and weakening grassroots actions.

Funding dissent is also a means of infiltrating the NGOs as well as acquiring inside information on strategies of protest and resistance of grass-roots movements.

Most of the grassroots participating organizations in the World Social Forum including peasant, workers' and student organizations, firmly committed to combating neoliberalism were unaware of the WSF International Council's relationship to corporate funding, negotiated behind their backs by a handful of NGO leaders with ties to both official and private funding agencies.

Funding to progressive organizations is not unconditional. Its purpose is to "pacify" and manipulate the protest movement. Precise conditionalities are set by the funding agencies. If they are not met, the disbursements are discontinued and the recipient NGO is driven into de facto bankruptcy due to lack of funds.

The WSF defines itself as "an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person". (See Fórum Social Mundial, accessed 2010).

The WSF is a mosaic of individual initiatives which does not directly threaten or challenge the legitimacy of global capitalism and its institutions. It meets annually. It is characterised by a multitude of sessions and workshops. In this regard, one of the features of the WSF was to retain the "do-it-yourself" framework, characteristic of the donor funded counter G7 People's Summits of the 1990s.

This apparent disorganized structure is deliberate. While favoring debate on a number of individual topics, the WSF framework is not conducive to the articulation of a cohesive common platform and plan of action directed against global capitalism. Moreover, the US led war in the Middle East and Central Asia, which broke out a few months after the inaugural WSF venue in Porto Alegre in January 2001, has not been a central issue in forum discussions.

What prevails is a vast and intricate network of organizations. The recipient grassroots organizations in developing countries are invariably unaware that their partner NGOs in the United States or the European Union, which are providing them with financial support, are themselves funded by major foundations. The money trickles down, setting constraints on grassroots actions. Many of these NGO leaders are committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.

Global capitalism finances anti-capitalism: an absurd and contradictory relationship.

"Another World is Possible", but it cannot be meaningfully achieved under the present arrangement.

A shake-up of the World Social Forum, of its organizational structure, its funding arrangements and leadership is required.

There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests which are the target of the protest movement. In the words of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979),"Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as 'making the World safe for capitalism'".

Bank Of America Is Attempting To Rob America Blind With The Help Of The Federal Reserve

October 20, 2011

By Madison Ruppert BlacklistedNews.com

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) is in trouble and any other business which would just go under without any help; the corrupt banksters, with the help of the private Federal Reserve, are attempting to pass off their failures to the American people. Again.

Only three years ago the American people had massive debts piled on our heads by being forced to bail out the biggest lenders in the United States.

During this bailout, Bank of America received a whopping $45 billion and as of midyear had deposits numbering some $1.04 trillion.

Now Bank of America is attempting to protect itself from its derivative exposure through its Merrill Lynch unit by moving derivatives to a subsidiary replete with insured deposits.

This means that if the bank were to fail, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, would be on the hook for paying for the moved derivatives.

If the derivatives remained in Merrill Lynch, which is not insured by the FDIC and thus the taxpayer, and the bank were to collapse, the money would be lost.

Unsurprisingly, the private Federal Reserve has absolutely no problem with the move, while the FDIC is objecting according to anonymous sources cited by Bloomberg.

Even more unsurprisingly, Bank of America thinks that no regulatory approval is needed, regardless of the fact that this is an openly fraudulent way of insuring items which should never be insured.

This is surreptitiously timed given Moody's downgraded Bank of America's long term credit ratings on September 21st, slashing both the holding company and the retail bank's ratings by two notches each.

Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act is supposed to act like a firewall, preventing the affiliates of lenders from gaining from the lenders' federal subsidy and also to protect the bank from risks originating from the affiliate, according to Saule Omarova, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor.

This section was created because, "Congress doesn't want a bank's FDIC insurance and access to the Fed discount window to somehow benefit an affiliate," Omarova said to Bloomberg.

However, in September of 2010, Bank of America was officially given a letter of exemption from Section 23A, effectively ending what the Federal Reserve's general counsel, Scott Alvarez, told Congress in 2008 "is among the most important tools that U.S. bank regulators have to protect the safety and soundness of U.S. banks".

So, with the help of the Fed, Bank of America is already exempt from one of the most important impediments to banks going out of control.

And now the Fed is once again backing the Bank of America's attempts to undermine what little regulation we have in the banking system by putting the American people on the hook for their derivative exposure.

Bill Black, a Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, summed the issue up nicely in an e-mail to Washington's Blog:

1. The bank holding company (BAC) is moving troubled assets held by an entity not insured by the public (Merrill Lynch) to the Bank of America, which is insured by the public

2. The banking rules are designed to prevent that because they are designed to protect the FDIC insurance fund (which the Treasury guarantees)

3. Any marginally competent regulator would say "No, Hell NO!"

4. The Fed, reportedly, is saying "Sure, no worries" by allowing the sale of an affiliate's troubled assets to B of A

5. This is a really good "natural experiment" that allows us to test whether the Fed is protects the public or the uninsured and systemically dangerous institutions (the bank holding companies (BHCs))

6. We are all shocked, shocked [sarcasm] that Bernanke responded to the experiment by choosing to protect the BHC at the expense of the public.

It is also worth noting that Bank of America has been guilty of refusing to let customers close accounts in what are essentially mini-bank runs. Unfortunately, this is not isolated to one branch.

America's poverty problem is worse than ever with 46.2 million Americans living in poverty in 2010 - the worst since record-keeping began over 50 years ago at the Census Bureau.

A record percentage of Americans are impoverished at 15.1% and even more disturbingly, 22% of children are living below the poverty line.

Hunger problems in America are already worse than China's according to Gallup.

How long are we going to allow bankers to run roughshod over the American people?

How long are we going to allow the private Federal Reserve - which is rife with deception and corruption and can block internal investigations, audits and subpoenas by its own Investigator General via the Fed's Chairman, Bernanke - to keep serving the banks while robbing the rest of us?

While the Occupy Wall Street movement is mostly accurate in targeting the criminals on Wall Street and in the banks, we must not forget that the private Federal Reserve is what makes it all possible.

We must not lose focus on the head of the snake as cutting off the tail will just allow the snake to wriggle away and strike again.

America needs to step up to the plate and fight back against the private Federal Reserve and their buddies in the "too big to fail" banks that continue to take every single penny from hungry Americans' pockets.

I hope the Fed reads this and detects "an ongoing trend of negative sentiment" - if you'd like to help them get the picture you can plaster anti-Federal Reserve language on every social network you are a part of.

We need to make them get the picture one way or another: we are sick and tired of a criminal banking cartel controlling our country's finances. We want freedom. We will no longer stand for corporatism or crony capitalism. We want the Federal Reserve to be dismantled as there is no other way to dig ourselves out of the hole they've put us in

FBI Ramps Up Next Generation ID Roll Out

Jennifer Lynch

EFF.org October 20, 2011

NextGov.com is reporting that the FBI will begin rolling out its Next Generation Identification (NGI) facial recognition service as early as this January. Once NGI is fully deployed and once each of its approximately 100 million records also includes photographs, it will become trivially easy to find and track Americans.

As we detailed in an earlier post, NGI expands the FBI's IAFIS criminal and civil fingerprint database to include multimodal biometric identifiers such as iris scans, palm prints, photos, and voice data. The Bureau is planning to introduce each of these capabilities in phases over the next two and a half years, starting with facial recognition in four states-Michigan, Washington, Florida, and North Carolina-this winter.

Why Should We Be Worried?

Despite the FBI's claims to the contrary, NGI will result in a massive expansion of government data collection for both criminal and noncriminal purposes. IAFIS is already the largest biometric database in the world-it includes 70 million subjects in the criminal master file and more than 31 million civil fingerprints. Even if there are duplicate entries or some overlap between civil and criminal records, the combined number of records covers close to 1/3 the population of the United States. When NGI allows photographs and other biometric identifiers to be linked to each of those records, all easily searchable through sophisticated search tools, it will have an unprecedented impact on Americans' privacy interests.

Although IAFIS currently includes some photos, they have so far been limited specifically to mug shots linked to individual criminal records. However, according to a 2008 Privacy Impact Assessment for NGI's Interstate Photo System, NGI will allow unlimited submission of photos and types of photos. Photos won't be limited to frontal mug shots but may be taken from other angles and may include close-ups of scars, marks and tattoos. NGI will allow all levels of law enforcement, correctional facilities, and criminal justice agencies at the local, state, federal and even international level to submit and access photos, and will allow them to submit photos in bulk. Once the photos are in the database, they can be found easily using facial recognition and text-based searches for distinguishing characteristics.

The new NGI database will also allow law enforcement to submit public and private security camera photos that may or may not be linked to a specific person's record. This means that anyone could end up in the database-even if they're not involved in a crime- by just happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or by, for example, engaging in political protest activities in areas like Lower Manhattan that are rife with security cameras.

The biggest change in NGI will be the addition of non-criminal photos. If you apply for any type of job that requires fingerprinting or a background check, your potential employer could require you to submit a photo to the FBI. And, as the 2008 PIA notes, "expanding the photo capability within the NGI [Interstate Photo System] will also expand the searchable photos that are currently maintained in the repository." Although noncriminal information is ostensibly kept separate from criminal, all the data will be in the NGI system, and presumably it would not be difficult to search all the data at once. The FBI does not say whether there is any way to ever have your photo removed from the database.

Technological Advancements Support Even Greater Tracking Capabilities

According to an FBI presentation on facial recognition and identification initiatives (pdf, p.5) at a biometrics conference last year, one of the FBI's goals for NGI is to be able to track people as they move from one location to another. Recent advancements in camera and surveillance technology over the last few years will support this goal. For example, in a National Institute of Justice presentation at the same 2010 biometrics conference, the agency discussed a new 3D binocular and camera that allows realtime facial acquisition and recognition at 1000 meters. The tool wirelessly transmits images to a server, which searches them against a photo database and identifies the photo's subject. As of 2010, these binoculars were already in field-testing with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. Presumably, the backend technology for these binoculars could be incorporated into other tools like body-mounted video cameras or the MORIS (Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System) iPhone add-on that some police officers are already using.

Private security cameras and the cameras already in use by police departments have also advanced. They are more capable of capturing the details and facial features necessary to support facial recognition-based searches, and the software supporting them allows photo manipulation that can improve the chances of matching a photo to a person already in the database. For example, Gigapixel technology, which creates a panorama photo of lots of megapixel images stitched together (like those taken by security cameras), allows anyone viewing the photo to drill down to see and tag faces from even the largest crowd photos. And image enhancement software, already in use by some local law enforcement, can adjust photos "taken in the wild" so they work better with facial recognition searches.

Cameras are also being incorporated into more and more devices that are capable of tracking Americans and can provide that data to law enforcement. For example, one of the largest manufacturers of highway toll collection systems recently filed a patent application to incorporate cameras into the transponder that sits on the dashboard in your car. This manufacturer's transponders are already in 22 million cars, and law enforcement already uses this data to track subjects. While a patent application does not mean the company is currently manufacturing or trying to sell the devices, it certainly shows they're interested.

Data Sharing and Publicly-Available Information Will Supplement the FBI's Database

Data sharing between the FBI and other government agencies and the repurposing of photographs taken for noncriminal activities will further support the FBI's ability to track people as they move from one location to another. At least 31 states have already started using some form of facial recognition with their DMV photos, generally to stop fraud and identity theft, and the Bureau has already worked with North Carolina, one of the four states in the NGI pilot program, to track criminals using the state's DMV records. The Department of Justice came under fire earlier this year for populating the NGI database with non-criminal data from the Department of Homeland Security through the Secure Communities program and could be considering doing the same with facial-recognition ready DMV photos. Even if the FBI does not incorporate DMV photos en masse directly into NGI, the fact that most states allow law enforcement access to these records combined with the new expansion of the FBI's own photo database, may make this point moot.

Commercial sites like Facebook that collect data and include facial recognition capabilities could also become a honeypot for the government. The FBI's 2008 Privacy Impact Assessment stated that the NGI/IAFIS photo database does not collect information from "commercial data aggregators," however, the PIA acknowledges this information could be collected and added to the database by other NGI users like state and local law enforcement agencies. Further, the FBI's 2010 facial recognition presentation notes another goal of NGI is to "Identify[ ] subjects in public datasets." If Facebook falls into the FBI's category of a public dataset, it may have almost as much revealing information as a commercial data aggregator.

The Problem of False Positives in Large Data Sets

As the FBI's facial recognition database gets larger and as more agencies at every level of government rely on facial recognition to identify people, false positives-someone being misidentified as the perpetrator of a crime-will become a big problem. As this 2009 report by Helen Nissenbaum and Lucas Introna notes, facial recognition

performs rather poorly in more complex attempts to identify individuals who do not voluntarily self-identify . . . Specifically, the "face in the crowd" scenario, in which a face is picked out from a crowd in an uncontrolled environment, is unlikely to become an operational reality for the foreseeable future.

The researchers go on to note that this is not necessarily because the technology is not good enough but because "there is not enough information (or variation) in faces to discriminate over large populations." In layman's terms, this means that because so many people in the world look alike, the probability that any facial recognition system will regularly misidentify people becomes much higher as the data set (the population of people you are checking against) gets larger. German Federal Data Protection Commissioner Peter Schaar has noted false positives in facial recognition systems pose a large problem for democratic societies. "[I]n the event of a genuine hunt, [they] render innocent people suspects for a time, create a need for justification on their part and make further checks by the authorities unavoidable."

It appears it will take a few years for the FBI to bring NGI up to its full potential. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor this troubling trend.

HOLY BAILOUT - Federal Reserve Now Backstopping $75 Trillion Of Bank Of America's Derivatives Trades

The Daily Bail

October 19, 2011

This story from Bloomberg just hit the wires this morning. Bank of America is shifting derivatives in its Merrill investment banking unit to its depository arm, which has access to the Fed discount window and is protected by the FDIC.

This means that the investment bank's European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to "give relief" to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.

This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input. You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.

What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan. Even worse, the total exposure is unknown because Wall Street successfully lobbied during Dodd-Frank passage so that no central exchange would exist keeping track of net derivative exposure.

This is a recipe for Armageddon. Bernanke is absolutely insane. No wonder Geithner has been hopping all over Europe begging and cajoling leaders to put together a massive bailout of troubled banks. His worst nightmare is Eurozone bank defaults leading to the collapse of the large U.S. banks who have been happily selling default insurance on European banks since the crisis began.

Bloomberg Excerpt:

Bank of America Corp. (BAC), hit by a credit downgrade last month, has moved derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a subsidiary flush with insured deposits, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting, said the people. The bank doesn't believe regulatory approval is needed, said people with knowledge of its position.

Three years after taxpayers rescued some of the biggest U.S. lenders, regulators are grappling with how to protect FDIC- insured bank accounts from risks generated by investment-banking operations. Bank of America, which got a $45 billion bailout during the financial crisis, had $1.04 trillion in deposits as of midyear, ranking it second among U.S. firms.

"The concern is that there is always an enormous temptation to dump the losers on the insured institution," said William Black, professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a former bank regulator. "We should have fairly tight restrictions on that."

Moody's Downgrade

The Moody's downgrade spurred some of Merrill's partners to ask that contracts be moved to the retail unit, which has a higher credit rating, according to people familiar with the transactions. Transferring derivatives also can help the parent company minimize the collateral it must post on contracts and the potential costs to terminate trades after Moody's decision, said a person familiar with the matter.

Keeping such deals separate from FDIC-insured savings has been a cornerstone of U.S. regulation for decades, including last year's Dodd-Frank overhaul of Wall Street regulation.

U.S. Bailouts

Bank of America benefited from two injections of U.S. bailout funds during the financial crisis. The first, in 2008, included $15 billion for the bank and $10 billion for Merrill, which the bank had agreed to buy. The second round of $20 billion came in January 2009 after Merrill's losses in its final quarter as an independent firm surpassed $15 billion, raising doubts about the bank's stability if the takeover proceeded. The U.S. also offered to guarantee $118 billion of assets held by the combined company, mostly at Merrill.

Bank of America's holding company -- the parent of both the retail bank and the Merrill Lynch securities unit -- held almost $75 trillion of derivatives at the end of June, according to data compiled by the OCC. About $53 trillion, or 71 percent, were within Bank of America NA, according to the data, which represent the notional values of the trades.

That compares with JPMorgan's deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm's $79 trillion of notional derivatives, the OCC data show.

Moving derivatives contracts between units of a bank holding company is limited under Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, which is designed to prevent a lender's affiliates from benefiting from its federal subsidy and to protect the bank from excessive risk originating at the non-bank affiliate, said Saule T. Omarova, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.

"Congress doesn't want a bank's FDIC insurance and access to the Fed discount window to somehow benefit an affiliate, so they created a firewall," Omarova said. The discount window has been open to banks as the lender of last resort since 1914.

FEMA Communication Takeover Test Scheduled for November 9

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com October 18, 2011

FEMA, the FCC, and Homeland Security plan to commandeer the airwaves next month. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) will be tested at 1 PM EST on November 9. EAS alerts are transmitted over radio and television broadcast stations, cable television and other media services.

Local and state EAS components are tested weekly and monthly, but this will be the first national test of the system. It is significant that FEMA will conduct the mandatory test.

FEMA was created by executive fiat. EO 12148 was signed into law by a stroke of Jimmy Carter's pen on July 20, 1979. FEMA is described as a federal agency designed to coordinate government response to natural disasters that overwhelm the resources of local and state authorities.

In fact, the federal agency was established as part of a martial law mechanism.

Under Reagan, FEMA was headed by Louis O. Giuffrida, the former national guard general who contributed to the Garden Plot and Cable Splicer, two sub programs under REX 84, a plan to establish concentration camps in America. Operation Cable Splicer is described as "the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government." For more information on these martial law programs, see Mary Louise, Stalag 17, American Style Plans For Civilian Internment (& Worst).

Giuffrida, a counterinsurgency enthusiast, focused the agency's resources on the "civil disturbance" aspect of its charter and worked to undermine Posse Comitatus. In 1982, Reagan formally militarized FEMA with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 26). The result was a series of national training exercises led by the military. Under REX 82, civilian police from around the country received what FEMA euphemistically referred to as "military police methods" for quelling domestic political unrest.

Under Reagan, with Giuffrida at the helm, FEMA mutated "civil defense planning into a military/police version of civil society," a plan on a collision course with Posse Comitatus.

"Hidden behind FEMA's benevolent face as the body whose chief responsibility is disaster relief, another FEMA exists," Ritt Goldstein wrote in 2002, referring to Bush's effort to turn the agency into a counter-terrorism and "enemy combatant" detention outfit under the newly established Department of Homeland Security.

"At present, the final contents and disposition of the Reagan security initiatives, part of a national crisis plan, remains beyond public knowledge," Goldstein writes. "But given the ‘War On Terror's' scope, even if a formal crisis is not declared, speculation exists that a de facto drift into an effective deployment of FEMA's crisis powers could occur."

Next month's EAS test represents the public notification aspect of that national crisis plan. It is significant that EAS will be tested nationally. Natural disasters are usually regional affairs and do not require a nationwide response. The new national EAS system is designed for a more significant event that conforms to the implementation of martial law as envisioned under Garden Plot and Cable Splicer, a plan that was nearly revealed when Representative Jack Brooks of Texas grilled Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987

The World in Crisis: Time for responsible decision-making

Global Research, October 13, 2011

Elaborate efforts are being made by corporate-controlled mainstream media to downplay (if not ignore outright) the mass demonstrations taking place worldwide in the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement which began in New York City last month. Mirror protests are springing up globally with momentum and support increasing day by day.

Some of the big-brand media dismiss the protestors as ill-informed youth bored with their workaday lives. Still others point fingers at the attempts being made to infiltrate the movement by the same influential individuals and institutions that have financed and controlled earlier mass movements and so-called color revolutions, intent on aligning them with Western military and corporate interests.

Whatever one may believe at this point, there can be no denying that unprecedented numbers of people, of all ages and creeds, are increasingly frustrated by the governmental controls and machinations which keep them struggling to make ends meet while effectively jeopardizing their long-term potential to secure an adequate and fair standard of living.

Those who research further have come to see how the markets are manipulated by powerful figures to serve the interests of the few, the elite, the same individuals who control and determine economic trends and invariably direct them in their favour... at the expense of the broader public. As Tony Cartalucci points out:

"As Americans begin pouring into the streets with dissatisfaction, there seems to be some confusion as to who the source of their problem is. That 'who' is a corporate-financier oligarchy that has been destroying America for nearly a century and until now, has done a good job of parasitically feeding from America in the shadows.

They are not the "1%." They are the 1% of the 1%. They are billionaire banksters the Rothschilds, the Federal Reserve and the directors and chairmen of many of the largest corporations on earth including big oil, the military industrial complex, big pharma, big agri, and the corporate media which combine their resources and collective agenda in self-contrived institutions, think-tanks, and working groups to dominate humanity." (Read: #Occupy Wall Street: Change will not come until we Understand and Rewrite the Entire Balance of Power in America)

And while mainstream media keeps pumping out absurd disinformation of the necessity of invading and crippling sovereign nations abroad in order to bring them "freedom", the juxtaposition of these "humanitarian wars" with the economic collapse at home is not going unnoticed. (Watch the video: "I am not moving": Confronting America's Hypocrisy, which contrasts Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's statements on freedom and democracy relating to Syria, Egypt, Libya and Iran with the brutal and repressive treatment of peaceful protestors in America.)

Global Research has been bringing you a broad spectrum of voices analyzing these situations and we will continue to do so because we believe that access to information is the key to the truth. We encourage you to read as much as possible and discuss widely the issues on the table. Challenge yourselves and challenge each other, and in that way we will come to identify the real limits to our freedom and democracy and thereby determine the course of action that is right for us. It is time to seek out the truth and engage in responsible decision-making.

You can help Global Research make information available to the widest possible readership. The Internet is a tool that makes access to information easier than ever and it is our major means of connecting with the world. Likewise, our contributors and correspondents are scattered across the globe in order to report the issues with accuracy and insight. We ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research so that we may continue to support independent analysts in their battle against mainstream media disinformation.

You can also browse our Online Store and see the material we have available to give you in-depth understanding on the important issues of globalization facing humanity today. There are also various membership options available with free book offers to thank you for supporting our efforts.

Ultimately, we all have our own decisions to make on where we stand politically and economically, and the role our lives will play historically. Global Research gives you some of the important tools to make those decisions based on fact and real understanding. Please support us in these goals.

My Occupy Houston Experience: The Defining Moment Of Our Time

Why it can and will succeed

Col. South: www.riotusa.org

10/11/2011

When I heared that Occupy Wall St. was branching out to every major city and was scheduled to begin in Houston on Oct. 6, I didn't expect much. Having learned about the parasites that had their tenticles in Occupy Wall St, I expected Occupy Houston to be crawling with provacateures. Was I in for a surprise.

A few of my soldiers attended day one and advised me that I had better come out as soon as I could make it. When I did, I discovered hundreds of peaceful, well informed and incredibly organized people. It is a total utopian commune much like the Symbionese Liberation Army envisioned some four decades ago.

People from many different walks of life, from many different activist groups and people who are just plain fed up with corporate fascism and are now taking a stand. I met a Louisiana couple who hocked everything they owned to come up there. The core group, Occupy Houston, knows what they are doing. They have a legal team present to give them advice as to what they can legally do and are working with the city, not against it. They are organized and unified. All for one, one for all. Everyone gets to have a voice in what they will do or not do. Food and drinks are all donations and belong to everyone. The police , for the most part are on our side and believe in our right to protest and are not standing in our way.

The group camped out at city hall for the first few days and voluntarily moved to accomodate the arts festival for the weekend and returned to city hall today. We assembled at the Federal reserve building on Saturday and were joined by the legendary Alex Jones.

I have been out there for the past three days and it is not shrinking, it is growing. The people are being heard. This can no longer be ignored and we will keep this up as long as necessary. This is the defining moment and movement of our time, I have been active in Houston and nation wide for seven years and everything that has happened from that point has all come to this. I implore everyone to come out and join this movement in your closest major city now. At some point, the government will send in their provocateures to try to break us up and demonize us. It is the duty of everyone involved to find and point out these people and neutralize them. If every Occupy movement is being conducted like Occupy Houston, then we have a chance to succeed.

George Soros, ACORN, SEIU Are Behind Occupy Wall Street

First of all I want to make it clear that I am totally against Wall Street corruption, Globalism and the New World Order. In principal I support REAL reform of Wall Street and the corrupt government. The NWO elite however are very crafty and I have become increasingly suspicious of the real motivations behind "Occupy Wall Street". As always, I try to get to the bottom of issues and dig into what nearly nobody else wants to. Recently many have suggested that this movement is being funded by the very same global elite that the protestors claim to be against. At first I thought "no way" and "they can't possibly be doing this" but in my investigation I have uncovered evidence that seem to prove my suspicions correct. So let me ask you, is George Soros involved and what is this about? Their website says this is all about combating banking and the financial forces that shape our country, but is there more? It would seems there is. I have discovered some information that suggests Wade Rathke, co-founder of ACORN and SEIU, announced the Day of Rage on March 25, 2011. I don't doubt that is true, but haven't been able to find anything other than someone else quote him - nothing linking to the actual quote. The source for the information seems to come from Canada FreePress. More so I have now discovered new information. It would seem George Soros is connected to the U.S. Day of Rage aka Occupy Wall Street through The Ruckus Society. On the U.S. Day of Rage website. The Ruckus Society receives funding from the Tides Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Institute provides grants to Tides, including a mere $4.2 Million in 2008, the last year figures are available. Several paragraphs down you'll find more on the hopes for a Robin Hood tax, and rewriting our U.S. Constitution, among other little Marxist dreams, including violence since "fiscal reform" probably won't do the job.

Occupy Wall Street, planned for September 17th, posted a video of a test run on September 1st. They planned to spend the night on Wall Street. They announce a Second Revolution and chant, "Wall Street is all streets." Exhilerating! You'll see police interaction, and the "revolutionaries" are telling police the Constitution of the United States gives them the right to sleep on the sidewalks. But Federal law transcends state law, don't you know? The other organization's they show is warresisters.org for the War Resister's League. That's not surprising, Marxism has always been behind peaceniks for a long, long time in America - just like they are behind their anarchists and Islamists. They don't want the "bastion of freedom", America to be either free or a bastion. See Gulag Bound's category, "Peace Movement Manipulation," for many articles primarily or secondarily about that.

So we have confirmation of George Soros connections. Surely there is enough of the $4.2 Million for the U.S. Day of Rage, and no doubt more millions have flowed in during the years since 2008. The U.S. Days of Rage (Occupy Wall Street ) agenda is to demand that money be removed from politics, that the U.S. see to it, that in the future, no bank is too big to fail, and to demand that the Federal Reserve no longer be able to "steal our future." So what will the "occupiers" do about that on standing around on sidewalks?
This is essentially just a loosely knit gathering of sidewalk groups.

WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein happened upon a tweet (don't you love Twitter!), from the account of Alice Khatib, who identifies as being located in Geneva, Switzerland. That led to the website Take the Square where Khatib posted a "Message from The General Assembly of New York City."

Here are some of her thoughts:

Some of us think that the imposition of a Robin Hood Tax on all financial transactions, tax increases on capital gains, and the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act are three essential measures to reestablish a minimum of fiscal sanity in the United States and abroad. [Read about the Glass-Steagall act here]
Some of us think that true autonomy and independence cannot be achieved through fiscal reform.
Some of us believe that we ought to reboot the system, rewrite the constitution, recuse a system of government employed by the rich for the rich.

Many of us think that what truly matters at this stage is to create a shared framework which may enable everyone to speak out, be heard, co-evolve and advance with others. If you look through this framework you may not see one defined picture. If you walk through it you will be amazed at the strange world on the other side. It is time to take back our lives. We ask you to join us now in New York City or to start your own General Assembly in your own town.

The Occupiers are hoping for 20,000 in Lower Manhattan, for what is billed a ‘Tahir moment,' emulating the ‘freedom fighters' in Cairo who have received no freedom. They are hoping for tents and kitchens to be a part of the sidewalk landscape. "Peaceful barricades" are also planned.
The following is a snippet from Adbusters, addressed to "patriots, rabble-rousers, revolutionaries:"

What if, try as we might, we just can't come up with only one demand? Well, then maybe we can decide together on an END THE MONIED CORRUPTION OF AMERICA MANIFESTO - a rousing compendium of our most urgent demands. And on the seventh day of our occupation we publicly deliver our manifesto to the White House and to the American media, letting Obama know that we won't leave Wall Street until he responds.
If thousands of us hang in there day after day, week after week, we may be able to create a spectacular revolutionary experience that fires up the public imagination and eventually maneuvers Obama into doing something that he has so far not had the guts to do: agree to a bold, decisive stroke against the financial corruption of America. Now that would get the American people behind us and cheering us on from coast to coast.
If we can achieve that, the sky will be the limit ... further demands will follow and a new America will be born.
On Saturday, our Tahrir moment begins ... strength, courage, nonviolence!

So, I believe it is clear Soros is connected to Occupy Wall Street via ACORN, and SEIU (founded by the same man), and you might want to do some more fact checking. This shows a clear definitive connection to George Soros via the the millions he gives these organizations. Just as he funded Barak Obama's election. Read confirmation of the SEIU connection here.
The best way to oppose the liberal agenda is to support genuine tea party sentiment. The reason is two-fold. Genuine embrace of our nation's founding principles as expressed by those who genuinely represent the tea party movement are honest interests to cure what ails our fine republic. Rejecting false purveyors of the tea party sentiment as evidenced by pseudo-tea party candidates in the 2010 midterms brings home the point. Most Americans have decided to express a conservative tone realizing a return to our founding principles is the best way forward.

Now all we have to do is separate the wheat from the chaff. Move On types and Soros sympathizers must be dispatched when they try to ‘co-opt' the tea party movement. We must also remove fake conservatives from the ranks of the tea party. It is the liberal intent to destroy this genuine movement by characterizing it as something it is not. Keep the faith conservatives and be on guard against liberal attempts to disrupt the tea party sentiment. Rather then target the real enemies, the private federal reserve, the organizers of this protest seem hell bent on destroying capitalism and instituting full on Marxist Socialism.

Exposed: Globalist Illuminati New World Order Agenda

"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other." - Myron Fagan

RIOT Deleted From Facebook: Targeted For Political Views

Who doesn't like when we expose criminals and murderers? The criminals and murderers, of course

Col. South: www.riotusa.org

Wednesday night September 28 2011 at about 11:30 pm I attempted to access my RIOT Facebook account. To my horror, I discovered my account had been disabled. I dug deeper and found that I had been accused of "severe violations" of facebook rules. I was given the option to contact Facebook if I felt that this was a mistake. I obviously could not recall doing anything to violate any rules that I knew of, much less "severely", so I did just that. I demanded an explanation and for the situation to be fixed imediatley. The response came back, with Facebook talking lound and saying very little. They said they would not reinstate me because I severely violated facebook rules and that they "do not tolerate hate speech" HATE SPEECH???!!! Anyone who knows me and follows my website knows that all I do here is expose criminals and murderers. Exposing criminals and murderers can only be called hate speech if it is the criminals and murderers that are calling it such. I inquired about what specifically I did to constitute Hate speech and severe violations, I got no answers back exept for the same run around bullshit. Obviously, I thought, These people are not being honest with me. I was obviously being targeted for my political views. I continued my investigation.

So who really owns and controls Facebook? 30% is owned by it's employees. 24% is owned by founder Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg once made the statement that people " need to get over the fact that there is no privacy on the internet". Four percent is owned by, guess who?, Goldman (Government) Sachs.

So who funded Zuckerberg?

Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet.

Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.

She was also an adviser to the Secretary of Defence and overseeing the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.

So there we have it: Goldman Sachs (criminals) and CIA/DoD (murderers). Are you starting to get the picture?

This is a warning to all freedom fighters on Facebook. They will soon come for you too. This is a call to all freedom fighters to copy this article and spread it virally on Facebook and other sites. RIOT Facebook page will be back up and running in a matter of days. They can't keep us down. We are the resistance!

.‘Occupy Wall Street' protest slowly spreads across the United States

By Eric W. Dolan

Monday, September 26th, 2011

Small groups of demonstrators in major American cities have started their own "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations and organizers are planning further actions in more cities across the United States.

A diverse coalition of people have pledged to occupy Wall Street until something is done about corporate greed and the financial system's undemocratic influence on the U.S. government.

The protesters have been camped out in New York's old Liberty Plaza, one block from the Federal Reserve, since Saturday.

"The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99 Percent that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the one percent," said a statement on the Occupy Wall Street website.

At least 80 to 100 people were arrested over the weekend in the first big crackdown since the demonstration began. Police accused the protesters of blocking traffic and resisting arrest.

Video recordings showed female protesters being rounded up in an orange-colored mesh pen by police and subsequently sprayed with mace, seemingly without any provocation, and other protesters being dragged across the street by police. Another protester said she was arrested for trying to film the demonstration and locked in a police van for over two hours.

The protest spread to other cities over the weekend.

A small group of "Occupy Los Angeles" demonstrators marched through the streets of downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to show their support for the protesters in New York City.

"Corporate interests seem to be controlling both parties," one protester told LAActivist.com. "The ‘little man,' the ‘American every man,' just isn't getting their voice heard. When you need $35,000 to donate to a campaign to get your voice heard, to have a meeting, that's not democracy."

"Occupy Los Angeles" protesters plan to begin a demonstration at City Hall on October 1. The "Occupy Los Angeles" Facebook page had nearly 2,000 likes as of Tuesday afternoon.

Another demonstration popped up in Chicago over the weekend. Around 20 "Occupy Chicago" protesters gathered at Willis Tower, formerly known as the Sears Tower, on Friday and then marched to the Federal Reserve Bank. Some protesters have remained camped out in front of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the organizers said the "occupation" had grown from 4 people to about 50.

Other "occupation" protests are being planned for Detroit, Denver, Cleveland, Boston, Phoenix, Seattle, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. The site occupytogether.org has been set up in hopes of coordinating the protests.

Although the New York Times described the protest as a "noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people" whose purpose was "virtually impossible to decipher," the demonstration has attracted some prominent voices in the progressive and liberal community.

Journalist Chris Hedges described the protest as "really where the hope of America lies."

"The real radicals have seized power," he asserted, "and they are decimating all impediments to the creation of a neo-feudalistic corporate state, one in which there is a rapacious oligarchic class, a thin managerial elite, and two-thirds of this country live in conditions that increasingly push families to subsistence level."

MIT professor Noam Chomsky also said he supports the protest.

"Anyone with eyes open knows that the gangsterism of Wall Street -- financial institutions generally -- has caused severe damage to the people of the United States (and the world)," he said. "And should also know that it has been doing so increasingly for over 30 years, as their power in the economy has radically increased, and with it their political power."

Filmmaker Michael Moore and Current TV host Keith Olbermann both separately lamented the lack of substantial news coverage of the event, questioning why same-sized or smaller tea party protests garnered more attention than "Occupy Wall Street."

Even Stephen Colbert chimed in, wondering why his reporters couldn't find the stereotypical "mindless hippie argle-bargle" in the protest.

Wall Street protesters cuffed, pepper-sprayed during 'inequality' march

BY Matt Deluca and Christina Boyle DAILY NEWS WRITERS

Sunday, September 25th 2011

Scores of protesters were arrested in Manhattan Saturday as a march against social inequality turned violent.

Hundreds of people carrying banners and chanting "shame, shame" walked between Zuccotti Park, near Wall St., and Union Square calling for changes to a financial system they say unjustly benefits the rich and harms the poor.

At least 80 people were carted away in police vehicles and up to five were hit with pepper spray near 12th St. and Fifth Ave., where tensions became especially high, police and organizers said.

The National Lawyer's Guild, which is providing legal assistance to the protesters, put the number of arrests at 100.

Witnesses said they saw three stunned women collapse on the ground screaming after they were sprayed in the face.

A video posted on YouTube and NYDailyNews.com shows uniformed officers had corralled the women using orange nets when two supervisors made a beeline for the women, and at least one suddenly sprayed the women before turning and quickly walking away.

Footage of other police altercations also circulated online, but it was unclear what caused the dramatic mood shift in an otherwise peaceful demonstration.

"I saw a girl get slammed on the ground. I turned around and started screaming," said Chelsea Elliott, 25, from Greenpoint, Brooklyn, who said she was sprayed. "I turned around and a cop was coming ... we were on the sidewalk and we weren't doing anything illegal."

Police said 80 protesters were arrested or ticketed at multiple locations for disorderly conduct, blocking traffic and failure to obey a lawful order but the number could rise.

Officials said protesters did not have a permit for the march and one demonstrator was charged with assaulting a police officer, causing a shoulder injury. The NYPD was investigating the use of pepper spray.

"I was shocked because it seemed like one person after another was being brutally tackled, and it wasn't clear why," said Meaghan Linick, 23, from Greenpoint, Brooklyn, who attended the rally. "I was deeply disturbed to see them throw a man [down] and immediately they were pounding on him. Their arms were going back in the air. I couldn't believe how violent five people needed to be against one unarmed man."

The protesters, joined together under the banner of an organization called Occupy Wall Street, have been stationed in Zuccotti Park since last weekend, attempting to draw attention to what they believe is a dysfunctional economic system that unfairly benefits corporations and the mega-rich.

"The central message is that in this country, there needs to be more conversation about wealth and power," said 23-year-old student Patrick Bruner.

As night fell, those detained were hauled out of vans and buses and into police precincts to be processed.

Hundreds more protesters congregated in Zuccotti Park where for a while another clash with police seemed imminent, but as midnight approached tension eased as die-hards prepared to camp out for the night.