RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny

RIOT FACEBOOK etc. POLICE STATE NEW WORLD ORDER DOMESTIC TERRORISM 9-11 COVER UP FEDERAL RESERVE FEMA Constitution PATRIOT ACT AIDS MONSANTO Secret Societies of the NWO BUSH FAMILY LINKS Chemtrails HAARP Agenda 21 NDAA

RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny

WHAT IS RIOT?

RIOT stands for Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny

WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE?

RIOT is here to wake America up to the evil traitors who have infiltrated our government as well as most of Europe. A hardcore global crime syndicate known as the Illuminati is setting up a global tyrannical dictatorship(AKA The New World Order). This has been in the works for over one hundred years and is close to becoming a reality. The Illuminati regulates who is eligible to come into power  in all of the G8 Nations including the United States. The American chapter of the Illuminati is headed by former U.S. President and dark lord of the CIA, George Herbert Walker Bush and Democratic Party puppeteer, David Rockefeller. The Illuminati is made up of many elite families and secret societies. The Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale, Bohemian Grove, The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergs, and the newest, most dangerous group Project for a New American Century, AKA Neo-Cons,are American Illuminati groups.The Neo-Cons are led by former Reagan Secretary of State, George Schutlz. In order to put their plans into effect, they have to fool and scare the people into getting behind it. To do that, they have to use what is called Problem, Reaction, Solution. Meaning they create a crisis, get a reaction from the people and then offer a solution which is to get them to give up their rights and their constitution in order to be "protected" by their government. On this site, we will document such events throughout history and ones that have happened recently especially the horrible attacks on September 11 2001.We will explain who was behind them and why.We will also explain the agenda of these creatures and the history behind their organization. We will discuss the criminal history of the Bush family as well as their Nazi connections. We will discuss documents such as the USAPatriot Act that have seriously eroded the constitution. We will talk about who stood to gain from these horrible events. We will discuss the up comming police state in America and explain the Orwellian nightmare surveilance program and cashless society control grid that is already being set up as well as their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population. Most Importantly we will tell you how YOU can help fight these evil traitors and help restore the American republic and constitution. The skeleton of the New World Order is already in place in the form of the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization. Continental superstates are the next step. The European Union, Asian Union, and African Union are already in place, as are plans for a North American Union. The globalists get their power from the central banks that they use to control nations. The central bank of the United States is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private cabal, not a government agency. The government borrows money from the Federal Reserve and pays it back with interest, using the money it recieves from the equally illegal and unconstitutional IRS which steals that money from you and me.

There is still time to stop these creatures from destroying America and enslaving humanity. The only way that they can pull this off is if we unwittingly allow them to. The global elite know that the American people are their greatest threat. We are the only thing that can stop them now.. We the people outnumber them by 500 to 1 but they think that they can sell us on our own enslavement. Unfortunately, so far it is working and time is running out. They do not have the manpower to enslave us if we resist. If you cut off the head, the body dies. The New World Order cannot survive if we abolish the Federal Reserve, which our congress has the constitutional right to do. If we do not wake up and take action now, we are headed for one of the greatest sadnesses that we could ever imagine. TOTAL TYRANNY, TOTAL ENSLAVEMENT, TOTAL DEHUMANIZATION!!!! Read this site and inform yourself. Get involved now!

-Col. South: RIOT Commander in Chief.

Contact us at: fightglobalists@yahoo.com

RIOT NEWS

Inside the Private Prison Industry's Alarming Spread Across America

For-profit companies like Geo-Group are buying up any politician they can find to expand their share of the "market."

By Aaron Cantú
April 9, 2014 

On a recent Friday afternoon, with budget negotiations winding down, Arizona state representative John Kavanagh was racing against the clock. His position as House Appropriations Chairman afforded him the opportunity to stuff whatever minor extra provisions he wanted into the budget before it went to a vote the following Monday, and he only had a few hours left to do it.

What was Kavanagh frantically trying to accomplish for his constituents at the last minute? Extra funding for education, since Arizona spends less on educating its children than all but three states? No, Rep. John Kavanagh was trying to secure an extra $900,000 gift for the GEO Group, the billion-dollar private prison corporation whose state lobbyists came to him at the last second begging with upturned hats. The $45 million already earmarked for the maintenance of low- and medium-security facilities wasn't enough, they said.

The Arizona Department of Corrections didn't ask for the extra money, nor did anybody push for the prison funds to be included in the Senate budget.

"This came out of nowhere - I mean that," Arizona House Minority Leader Chad Campbell told the Arizona Republic. "No one said a word about it. It wasn't in the Senate budget, it didn't come as a request from DOC. There's something really shady here."

For Kavanagh, there was nothing shady about sweetening the deal with nearly a million extra dollars. On the contrary, he says, it was a moral imperative.

"If somebody cuts you a smoking deal and helps you when you're down, and you get more money back, I think you morally have a responsibility to increase the payments," Kavanagh told the Arizona Republic in a taped interview the following Monday.

Kavanagh is referring to the lowered rate-per-bed the GEO Group offered Arizona as the national economy cratered in 2008. The rate applied to emergency "temporary" beds at two of its facilities to house an overflow of prisoners. In exchange for the discount, the state agreed to meet a 100% occupancy rate for all non-emergency beds at both prisons.

And thank goodness. If it weren't for the flexibility of the GEO Group, how else could Arizona's correction officials reach their forecasted benchmark of 43,000 prisoners-a 9.3 percent increase from current levels-by 2016?

In the end, however, the state legislature may nullify Kavanagh's act of kindness to the private prison industry. Even though the House approved a version of the budget with the extra prison dollars, the Senate Appropriations Committee nixed them, and the two chambers are in the midst of reconciling their different spending plans.

Kavanagh later told the Arizona Republic he would try to retain his gift to the GEO Group unless others found it to be "a deal breaker."

Baffling, abhorrent, hopelessly out of touch: All criticisms that have been lobbed in the representative's direction since his frenzied fourth quarter Hail Mary for the GEO Group. But his gaffe makes a lot more sense in consideration of how much influence the prison industry has in his state.

Arizona is one of four states (along with Virginia, Oklahoma and Louisiana) in which state governments are bound to contracts guaranteeing a 95%-100% occupancy in facilities leased by private prisons. Of the four, Arizona's quotas are the most extreme: as part of the aforementioned "deal" in 2008, prison officials must keep a 100% occupancy rate in the two GEO Group facilities and another facility leased to the state by Management and Training Corporation, according to a 2013 report by In the Public Interest. Paradoxically, this may be costing the state more money: An August 2013 analysis from the Tucson Citizen shows that the "per-prisoner, per-day rates" for those particular facilities have increased by an average of 14% since 2008.

 

The Obama Administration Wants Gun Owners To Wear RFID Tracking Bracelets?

Michael Snyder
American Dream
April 9, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder says that gun owners in the United States could eventually be forced to wear RFID tracking bracelets. In fact, in recent testimony in front of Congress he gave the impression that this was something that the Obama administration has been thinking about for quite a long time.

Holder seems to think that this would advance the cause of "gun safety" and that gun owners wouldn't mind having an RFID microchip tracking their every movement. Apparently he does not know gun owners very well, because most of the gun owners that I know would be extremely resistant to the idea of being "chipped". But this is yet another example of how the Obama administration plans to erode Second Amendment rights. They want to put up as many obstacles as possible to owning and using guns.

When I first came across the testimony by Eric Holder that I am about to share with you, I could hardly believe it. This seemed like something that you would see on "The Onion" or on some other satire website. But this is very, very real. Eric Holder really does seem quite interested in having gun owners wear RFID tracking bracelets. Just check out the following quotes from Holder that come from a recent Free Beacon article...

"I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe," he said.
"By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon."

"It's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis," Holder said.

So would you be willing to wear a government-issued RFID tracking bracelet in order to own a gun?

Of course not.

And such a thing would essentially be a de facto system of gun registration. It would be inevitable that all of the information about the guns and their matching gun owners would be stored in a massive government database somewhere.

In addition, it is also conceivable that under such a system that the authorities could use it to physically track the location of guns and gun owners at all times. Some have suggested that this would be good for us because it would mean that law enforcement agencies could "send automatic alerts if a weapon moves away from the tracker, indicating that the gun is lost or stolen".

But do we really want the government to know where they can find us and our guns 24 hours a day on a permanent basis?

That would give them the perfect tool if they wanted to implement a widespread policy of gun confiscation someday.

Look, I am all in favor of making guns safer. But in the end, that is not what this is about. Just like all other recent presidential administrations, the Obama administration is eroding our liberties and freedoms on a daily basis. We are becoming a "Big Brother society", and they will keep pushing the envelope until the American people demand that they stop. The following is an excerpt from an outstanding commentary by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute...
Adding injury to the ongoing insult of having our tax dollars misused and our so-called representatives bought and paid for by the moneyed elite, the government then turns around and uses the money we earn with our blood, sweat and tears to target, imprison and entrap us, in the form of militarized police, surveillance cameras, private prisons, license plate readers, drones, and cell phone tracking technology.

All of those nefarious deeds that you read about in the paper every day: those are your tax dollars at work. It's your money that allows for government agents to spy on your emails, your phone calls, your text messages, and your movements. It's your money that allows out-of-control police officers to burst into innocent people's homes, or probe and strip search motorists on the side of the road. And it's your money that leads to innocent Americans across the country being prosecuted for innocuous activities such as raising chickens at home, growing vegetable gardens, and trying to live off the grid.

The Obama administration has been very open about the fact that it is anti-gun.
They do not like the fact that tens of millions of Americans currently own guns.

People like Obama and Holder are fully convinced that guns make society less safe, even though the cold, hard statistics show just the opposite.

Most people just want to be able to protect their homes and their families. Because when a home invader breaks in, you never know what is going to happen...

A man breaking into a Winter Haven home Monday morning was shot and killed by the family living there, Police Chief Gary Hester said.

It happened at a little before 7 a.m. on Lake Marriana Road Drive. A mother, father, and son woke up to the sound of someone, identified by police as 40-year-old Mitchell Large, trying to get in through a porch door.

Chief Hester said one of the family members fired a warning shot.
"[A resident] fired a warning shot above the door. That warning shot did not deter the intruder. The intruder didn't retreat," Hester said.

According to politicians such as Obama and Holder, we are just supposed to allow home invaders to take whatever they want, do whatever they want to our wives and children, and then call the police when it is all over so that they can file a report.

What do you think would have happened if that family had been unarmed when that home intruder had entered their home?

That is frightening to think about.

But if Obama and Holder have their way, almost the entire country will eventually be unarmed.

 

WHY FUSION CENTERS MATTER

April 8, 2014
Blacklisted News

While NSA surveillance has been front and center in the news recently, fusion centers are a part of the surveillance state that deserve close scrutiny.

Fusion centers are a local arm of the so-called "intelligence community," the 17 intelligence agencies coordinated by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). The government documentation around fusion centers is entirely focused on breaking down barriers between the various government agencies that collect and maintain criminal intelligence information.
Barriers between local law enforcement and the NSA are already weak. We know that the Drug Enforcement Agency gets intelligence tips from the NSA which are used in criminal investigations and prosecutions. To make matters worse, the source of these tips is camouflaged using "parallel construction," meaning that a different source for the intelligence is created to mask its classified source.

This story demonstrates what we called "one of the biggest dangers of the surveillance state: the unquenchable thirst for access to the NSA's trove of information by other law enforcement agencies." This is particularly concerning when NSA information is used domestically. Fusion centers are no different.

In fact, in early 2012, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the sharing of raw NSA data with the NCTC. The intelligence community overseen by the NCTC includes the Department of Homeland Security and FBI, the main federal fusion center partners. Thus, fusion centers-and even local law enforcement-could potentially be receiving unminimized NSA data. This runs counter to the distant image many people have of the NSA, and it's why focusing on fusion centers as part of the recently invigorated conversation around surveillance is important.

What are fusion centers?

Fusion centers are information centers that enable intelligence sharing between local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal agencies. They are actual physical locations that house equipment and staff who analyze and share intelligence.

How many are there?

There are 78 recognized fusion centers listed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.

Who works at fusion centers?

Fusion centers are staffed by local law enforcement and other local government employees as well as Department of Homeland Security personnel. DHS "has deployed over 90 personnel, including Intelligence Officers and Regional Directors, to the field." Staffing agreements vary from place to place. Fusion centers are often also colocated with FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

What do fusion centers do?

Fusion centers enable unprecedented levels of bi-directional information sharing between state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and the federal intelligence community. Bi-directional means that fusion centers allow local law enforcement to share information with the larger federal intelligence community, while enabling the intelligence community to share information with local law enforcement. Fusion centers allow local cops to get-and act upon-information from agencies like the FBI.

Fusion centers are also key to the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (NSI), discussed below.

What is suspicious activity reporting?

The government defines suspicious activity reporting (SAR) as "official documentation of observed behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity." SARs can be initiated by law enforcement, by private sector partners, or by "see something, say something" tips from citizens. They are then investigated by law enforcement.

What is the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative?

NSI is an initiative to standardize suspicious activity reporting. The NSI was conceived in 2008, and started with an evaluation project that culminated in a January 2010 report describing how NSI would encompass all fusion centers. It appears significant progress has been made towards this goal.

The evaluation project included so-called Building Communities of Trust (BCOT) meetings which focused "on developing trust among law enforcement, fusion centers, and the communities they serve to address the challenges of crime and terrorism prevention."

BCOT "community" events involved representatives from local fusion centers, DHS, and FBI traveling to different areas and speaking to selected community representatives and civil rights advocates about NSI. These were invite only events with the clear purpose of attempting to engender community participation and garner support from potential opponents such as the ACLU.

So what's wrong with Suspicious Activity Reporting and the NSI?

SARs do no meet legally cognizable standards for search or seizure under the Fourth amendment. Normally, the government must satisfy reasonable suspicion or probable cause standards when searching a person or place or detaining someone. While SARs themselves are not a search or seizure, they are used by law enforcement to initiate investigations, or even more intrusive actions such as detentions, on the basis of evidence that does not necessarily rise to the level of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In other words, while the standard for SAR sounds like it was written to comport with the constitutional standards for investigation already in place, it does not.

In fact, the specific set of behaviors listed in the National SAR standards include innocuous activities such as:

taking pictures or video of facilities, buildings, or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person," and "demonstrating unusual interest in facilities, buildings, or infrastructure beyond mere casual or professional (e.g. engineers) interest such that a reasonable person would consider the activity suspicious. Examples include observation through binoculars, taking notes, attempting to measure distances, etc.
These standards are clearly ripe for abuse of discretion.

Do fusion centers increase racial and religious profiling?

The weak standards around SAR are particularly concerning because of the way they can lead to racial and religious profiling. SARs can originate from untrained civilians as well as law enforcement, and as one woman pointed out at a BCOT event people who might already be a little racist who are 'observing' a white man photographing a bridge are going to view it a little differently than people observing me, a woman with a hijab, photographing a bridge. The bottom line is that bias is not eliminated by so-called observed behavior standards.

Furthermore, once an investigation into a SAR has been initiated, existing law enforcement bias can come into play; SARs give law enforcement a reason to initiate contact that might not otherwise exist.

Unsurprisingly, like most tools of law enforcement, public records act requests have shown that people of color often end up being the target of SARs:

One review of SARs collected through Public Records Act requests in Los Angeles showed that 78% of SARs were filed on non-whites. An audit by the Los Angeles Police Department's Inspector General puts that number at 74%, still a shockingly high number.

A review of SARs obtained by the ACLU of Northern California also show that most of the reports demonstrate bias and are based on conjecture rather than articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Some of the particularly concerning SARs include titles like "Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern] Males Buy Several Large Pallets of Water" and "Suspicious photography of Folsom Dam by Chinese Nationals." The latter SAR resulted in police contact: "Sac[ramento] County Sheriff's Deputy contacted 3 adult Asian males who were taking photos of Folsom Dam. They were evasive when the deputy asked them for identification and said their passports were in their vehicle." Both of these SARs were entered into FBI's eGuardian database.

Not only that, there have been disturbing examples of racially biased informational bulletins coming from fusion centers. A 2009 "North Central Texas Fusion Center Prevention Awareness Bulletin" implies that tolerance towards Muslims is dangerous and that Islamic militants are using methods such as "hip-hop boutiques" and "online social networks" to indoctrinate youths in America.

Do fusion centers facilitate political repression?

Fusion centers have been used to record and share information about First Amendment protected activities in a way that aids repressive police activity and chills freedom of association.

A series of public records act requests in Massachusetts showed: "Officers monitor demonstrations, track the beliefs and internal dynamics of activist groups, and document this information with misleading criminal labels in searchable and possibly widely-shared electronic reports." The documents included intelligence reports addressing issues such internal group discussions and protest planning, and showed evidence of police contact.

For example, one report indicated that "Activists arrested for trespassing at a consulate were interviewed by three surveillance officers 'in the hopes that these activists may reach out to the officers in the future.' They were asked about their organizing efforts and for the names of other organizers."

Who oversees the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative?

The NSI is led by the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) in collaboration with the DHS and the FBI. The ISE is "the people, projects, systems, and agencies that enable responsible information sharing for national security." The PM-ISE, currently Kshemendra Paul, oversees the development and implementation of the ISE. The position was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
If this all sounds confusing, that's because it is: the entire intelligence community is a plethora of duplicative agencies with overlapping areas of responsibility.

What kind of information do fusion centers have?

Staff at fusion centers have access to a variety of databases. Not all staff have the same level of clearances, and the entire extent of what is available to fusion centers is unclear. But we do know certain facts for sure:

Fusion centers have access to the FBI's eGuardian database, an unclassified companion to the FBI's Guardian Threat Tracking System. "The Guardian and eGuardian systems . . . have a bi-directional communication ability that facilitates sharing, reporting, collaboration, and deconfliction among all law enforcement agencies."

Fusion centers also have access to DHS' Homeland Security Data Network and it's companion Homeland Security Information Network. These systems provide access to terrorism-related information residing in DoD's classified network. It is worth noting that HSIN was hacked in 2009 and was considered so problematic that it was briefly decommissioned entirely.

Fusion centers have access to other information portals including the FBI's Law Enforcement Online portal, Lexis Nexis, the Federal Protective Service portal, and Regional Information Sharing Systems .

Finally, as discussed above, we know that unminimized NSA data can be shared with the National Counterterrorism Center, which means that fusion centers could be in receipt of such data.

What federal laws apply to fusion centers?

Because they are collaborative, legal authority over fusion centers is blurred, perhaps purposefully. However, there are some federal laws that apply. The Constitution applies, and fusion centers arguably interfere with the First and Fourth Amendments.

28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 governs certain federal criminal intelligence systems. The "Fusion Center Guidelines . . . call for the adoption of 28 CFR Part 23 as the minimum governing principles for criminal intelligence systems." 28 CFR 23.20 requires reasonable suspicion to collect and maintain criminal intelligence and prohibits collection and maintenance of information about First Amendment protected activity "unless such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and there is reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct or activity." Finally, it prohibits inclusion of any information collected in violation of local law.

Section 552(a)(e)(7) of the Privacy Act prohibits federal agencies, in this case DHS personnel who work at fusion centers, from maintaining any "record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity." A 2012 U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on fusion centers stated: "The apparent indefinite retention of cancelled intelligence reports that were determined to have raised privacy or civil liberties concerns appears contrary to DHS's own policies and the Privacy Act."

What state or local laws apply to fusion centers?

Fusion centers are sometimes bound by local and state laws. The law enforcement agencies that feed information into centers may also be restricted in terms of what information they can gather.

The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, located in San Francisco, CA, serves as a good example of how state and local regulations can apply to a fusion center. NCRIC works with law enforcement partners around the region and stores criminal intelligence information. The California constitution has a right to privacy and California has other laws that address privacy and criminal intelligence. These should cover NCRIC.

The San Francisco Police Department's relationship with NCRIC also serves as a good example of the applicability of local laws. SFPD participates in suspicious activity reporting, but is also bound by a number of restrictions, includingDepartment General Order 8.10, which heavily restricts intelligence gathering by the SFPD, as well as the sanctuary city ordinance, which prohibits working with immigration enforcement. While the fusion center would not be bound by these regulations on its own, the SFPD is.

Who funds fusion centers?

Fusion centers are funded by federal and state tax dollars. Estimates of exactly how much funding fusion centers get from these sources are difficult to obtain. However, there are some numbers available.

For 2014, the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is the federal grant program that funds fusion centers, has$401,346,000 available in grant funds. The grant announcement emphasizes that funding fusion centers and integrating them nationally is a high priority. This is an approximately $50 million increase over last year's allocation-somewhat shocking in light of the critiques around fusion center funding that have been raised by Congress.

A 2008 Congressional Research Service report states that the average fusion center derives 31% of its budget from the federal government. Those numbers may have changed now.

Has there been any discussion about fusion centers at the federal level?

Yes, but not enough. In October of 2012, fusion centers were the subject of an extremely critical report from the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The bipartisan report focused on the waste, ineptitude, and civil liberties violations at fusion centers. The report revealed that fusion centers spent tax dollarson "gadgets such as 'shirt button cameras, $6,000 laptops and big-screen televisions. One fusion center spent $45,000 on a decked-out SUV..." Regarding the information produced by fusion centers, the report noted that fusion centers produced "'intelligence' of uneven quality - oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism."

This report recommended a hard look at fusion center funding, but that clearly has not happened. They are still operating across the country with federal funding. In fact, their funding has even been increased.

What about at the local level?

There are grassroots privacy advocates in multiple cities fighting to get more information about fusion centers and how their local law enforcement participates in them. These efforts have been frustrated by stonewalling of public records act requests and uneducated, or at times dishonest, public officials.

Have any regulations been passed or proposed?

To date, only one place has passed regulations around fusion centers. Berkeley, CA, passed a policy in September 2012 that the Berkeley Police Department can only submit suspicious activity reports after establishing reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, and put in place an audit of SARs.

Massachusetts is also considering changes to fusion centers. SB 642 would strictly limit collection and dissemination of criminal intelligence information and would require a yearly audit of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Fusion Center.

What can I do?

Fusion centers are an area ripe for grassroots organizing. Groups like the StopLAPD Spying Coalition, which put together a "People's Audit" of SARs in LA, provide excellent examples of how this can happen. Public records act requests can be leveraged to get information about what your local law enforcement is doing. Grassroots organizing and education can get people and elected officials talking about this issue.

On April 10, activists across the country will be participating in "Stop the Spy Centers: a national day of action against fusion centers." These activists have three demands: 1. Shut down fusion centers, 2. De-fund fusion centers, and 3. Release all suspicious activity reports and secret files.

While April 10 is one day of action, the conversation around fusion centers must continue hand in hand with our national discourse around NSA, CIA, and FBI surveillance.

Army Admits Fort Hood Shooter Was on Psychiatric Drugs

Connection between violence and SSRI medication emerges yet again

Paul Joseph Watson
April 3, 2014

Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley acknowledged that Fort Hood gunman Ivan Lopez was taking psychiatric medication before the shooting, underscoring yet again the clear and consistent connection between mass shooting incidents and SSRI drugs.

"Was he on any sort of medications....SSRI's, anti-depressants, anything of that nature," an Infowars reporter asked Milley, to which the General responded, "He was on medications that's correct."

In a subsequent report, officials also admitted that Lopez had been prescribed Ambien, a sleeping pill associated with accidents and aggressive outbursts.

34-year-old Lopez, who shot dead three colleagues and injured 16 others before turning the gun on himself, returned from Iraq suffering from "mental problems," according to officials.

The obvious link between psychiatric drugs and violent outbursts is a common theme that crops up in almost every mass shooting incident, yet the media is routinely loathe to make the connection.

After it emerged that Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis "had been treated.... by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems," the press showed little interest in discovering what drugs Alexis had been taking. The only medication currently offered by the VA for mental problems are SSRI drugs.

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was also taking anti-depressant drugs when he massacred 16 Afghan civilians in 2012. SSRI medication, which is known to cause violent outbursts, is routinely used to treat PTSD, which goes some way to explain why there are so many stories about both active duty and returning troops carrying out acts of inexplicable violence on a regular basis.
Despite it being reported that prescription drugs were found in the apartment of ‘Batman' shooter James Holmes days after the Aurora massacre, it took nine months to find out exactly what those drugs were. Like Columbine killer Eric Harris, Holmes had been taking Zoloft, another SSRI drug linked with violent outbursts.

As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. The number of cases is staggering, but the media has completely failed to generate a national conversation about the issue due to its obsession with exploiting mass shootings to demonize the second amendment.

Pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue, which is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons why the connection is habitually downplayed or ignored entirely.

CONFIRMED: NATO's Plans for False Flag Attack on Turkey Revealed

Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer
March 28, 2014

It has been revealed that NATO has been planning a false flag attack against Turkey to justify the Turkish invasion of northern Syria, the International Business Times reported in its article, "Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript of Leaked Syria ‘War' Conversation Between Erdogan Officials."

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ban of YouTube occurred after a leaked conversation between Head of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu that he wanted removed from the video-sharing website.It released the full transcript of a leaked conversation between the head of Turkish intelligence Hakan Fidan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu. The Times reported:

The leaked call details Erdogan's thoughts that an attack on Syria "must be seen as an opportunity for us [Turkey]".

In the conversation, intelligence chief Fidan says that he will send four men from Syria to attack Turkey to "make up a cause of war".

Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Yaþar Güler replies that Fidan's projected actions are "a direct cause of war...what you're going to do is a direct cause of war".

Turkey's foreign ministry said the leaked recording of top officials discussing the Syria operation was "partially manipulated" and is a "wretched attack" on national security.

In the leaked video, Fidan is discussing with Davutoðlu, Güler and other officials a possible operation within Syria to secure the tomb of Suleyman Shah, grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman empire.

The Western media has purposefully obsessed myopically over Turkey's ban of Twitter and Facebook and leaks regarding "corruption," in an attempt to sidestep conversations revealing Turkey, a NATO member for decades, planning a false flag attack that would lead to an intentionally provoked war with neighboring Syria.

This comes as Turkey provides air support, logistics, and artillery cover for members of the US State Department designated terrorist group Al Nursa who have been leading an ongoing offensive from Turkish territory into Syria's northwestern province of Latakia.

Since the operation began days ago, Turkey has fired on and shot down a Syrian warplane that was targeting Al Nusra militants in Syrian territory. While Turkey claims the warplane violated Turkish airspace, the plane crashed in Syrian territory, and the pilot ejected and was recovered on Syrian soil. The incident has been used by Turkey to lay the rhetorical groundwork to further escalate tensions between Ankara and Damascus, most likely in an attempt to serve as an impetus for war instead of NATO's riskier false flag operation.

Turkey's belligerent posture in the north of Syria is matched by a joint US-Saudi offensive in the south, near the Syrian-Jordanian border city of Daraa. Called the "Southern Front," the offensive appears to already have been neutralized by Syrian security forces.

Regarding the creation of the "Southern Front," the US corporate-funded policy think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, even stated in its post, "Does the "Southern Front" Exist?," that:

Rather than an initiative from the rebels themselves, word is that it was foreign officials that called on rebel commanders to sign a statement declaring their opposition to extremism, saying it was a precondition for getting more guns and money. Since beggars can't be choosers, the commanders then collectively shrugged their shoulders and signed-but not so much to declare a new alliance as to help U.S. officials tick all the right boxes in their reports back home, hoping that this would unlock another crate of guns.

With the "Southern Front" arriving on the battlefield stillborn, and NATO resorting to false flag attacks in blatant support of Al Qaeda-affiliated terror organizations, the West's desperation in what appears to be a strategic "last gasp" is palpable.

THE OBAMA REGIME'S HYPOCRITICALLY INSANE PRO-ZIONIST FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE HAS BROUGHT THE WORLD CLOSE TO WAR

March 4, 2014
SOURCE: LEE ROGERS, BLN/DAILY SLAVE

The on-going situation in Ukraine illustrates the unbelievable insanity originating from Washington DC. The U.S. State Department for whatever reason thought that it would be a good idea to spend billions of dollars to finance a coup in Ukraine to help fulfill their never ending quest for world domination. This is a country that was once part of the Soviet Union and shares a border with Russia. This is right in Russia's backyard and with anti-Russian and ultranationalist groups filling the power vacuum in Kiev, these developments represent a direct security threat to the Russian people. This has prompted Russia's President Vladimir Putin to send military forces into the Crimean peninsula. This is an area in Ukraine largely populated by Russian speakers and is also home to an important Russian military base. The propaganda from the Zionist run American media and the nonsensical rhetoric coming from the Obama regime are nothing but delusional lies. They're now trying to paint Putin as an evil aggressor who hates freedom when this whole mess was caused directly by American arrogance. They have now created an incredibly dangerous situation that could potentially lead to war with Russia. Of course the Zionists in the Obama regime who have been primarily responsible for creating this mess don't seem to care. In fact, they are escalating their rhetoric against Russia.

To illustrate the madness that we are dealing with, look at what current U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had to say about the situation on the CBS television program "Face the Nation."

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."

How stupid does this guy think everyone is? This past August Kerry was trying to justify American military strikes against Syria using what could be easily described as a completely trumped up pre-text. He claimed that Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people citing highly questionable evidence. In fact, there was more evidence indicating that Islamic fanatics fighting against the Assad government had used chemical weapons. It is absolutely comical that Kerry is now openly criticizing the Russians for what he was guilty of trying to do just a few months ago.

Kerry has even criticized ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych for the luxurious lifestyle he was leading. This is ridiculous considering that Kerry is a multi-millionaire who married into the wealthy Heinz ketchup family. While he was a Senator, he was consistently ranked as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
How can anyone in the world take this hypocrite seriously when he makes such statements? Kerry has proven on multiple occasions that he is a joke but these recent comments make him the world's laughing stock. It is an absolute embarrassment that this clown is in charge of American foreign policy.

Besides the idiotic statements from Kerry, the Obama regime has even resorted to accusing Russia of interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs and violating their sovereignty. This once again represents more American hypocrisy since the United States has been interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs all along. The Russian military move has been in response to the American financed coup which has destabilized the country. It is laughable that Obama and his cronies act as if they've done nothing to provoke this response.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Zionist Jew Victoria Nuland is on video stating that they spent billions of dollars to finance everything that's happened in Ukraine. She was even caught on a wiretap scheming about how they would put particular people in power. In fact the very person she wanted to become Ukraine's Prime Minister a Jewish banker named Arseniy Yatsenyuk with close ties to institutions of Western power has become Prime Minister. It is not a surprise thatYatsenyuk is immediately leading an effort to secure a multi-billion dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund. He's literally delivering Ukraine right into the hands of central bankers. Historically speaking, IMF loans have never been good for the general population of a country that receives them. Either way, these events prove conclusively that this entire operation has been about the United States imposing its will on the Ukrainian people. Any nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy was just a cover story for this intervention.

Obama himself has laughably claimed that there would be consequences for Russia's military action. One of the supposed consequences is that Russia might find itself excluded from the G8. Why would Russia care if they are excluded from that? The G8 has no power. It is nothing more than a conference where world leaders listen to speeches and socialize.

There's also been talk from the Obama regime that they may try to apply sanctions against Russiawhich is an obvious non-starter. The member nations of the European Union rely heavily upon natural resources that come from Russia. The EU economy is already in bad shape and would not be able to sustain itself if they lost Russia as a trading partner. Not only that, but how likely is it that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would go along with sanctions considering that the United States was spying on her communications? If the United States attempts to apply sanctions on Russia, they are going to have an awfully hard time finding support from European allies.

We even see the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power claiming Russian aggression and how they are responding to an imaginary threat. Perhaps she has been living in a cave for the past decade but since September 11th, 2001 all the United States has done is invent imaginary threats and invade countries based on a threat that they created or made up. Of course when Russia responds militarily to a situation that is happening right along their national border, she criticizes them. This is completely ridiculous considering all of the insane military misadventures America has involved itself in. The hypocrisy is blatantly obvious.

We could argue back and forth trying to figure out if this is the result of these people's insanity or their stupidity. It actually could be a combination of both but in the end it probably doesn't matter all that much. They are so arrogant and filled with narcissism that they would probably prefer to have war than admit that they were wrong.

We must also ask the following question. Why is it that the United States has Zionist Jews in key positions of power responsible for making these major foreign policy decisions? Nuland, Kerry and the newly anointed Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk all have Jewish lineage of some type. Then we have Power who is married to Cass Sunstein another Zionist Jew who has endorsed government infiltration of the alternative media. Who are these people working for any way? It appears as if they all primarily represent the best interests of Israel and the larger concept of international Zionism through their actions and statements. Financing this Ukrainian coup has done nothing for the United States and has further ruined its standing around the world. These people should be fired for their support of such a boneheaded foreign policy.

The United States needs to quit spending billions of dollars financing coups, invading countries and trying to implement world government through brute force. It is time that the people endorsing this type of insane foreign policy be removed from power and exposed as traitors. America has enough issues domestically that need to be sorted out, but instead of solving real problems these buffoons are pushing the country towards world war. A mental institution would be a suitable place for these idiots

The Winners of The Ukraine Revolution: Austerity, Fascism, and the EU


Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
Wednesday, February 26, 2014

To anyone who had a passing knowledge of the nature of color revolutions and destabilization efforts in years past, the recent protests in Ukraine were an obvious example of foreign meddling in the domestic affairs of yet another Eastern European nation.

From the initial spates of violence coming largely from the direction of the protesters to the pro-EU and pro-IMF demands, it was clear from the very beginning that the Ukrainian people were being callously pulled back and forth between two world powers indifferent to any interests but their own.

These powers, the United States and Russia, have been covertly jockeying for more and more control over Ukraine, a strategic location for both countries, for the last several years. Yet, as the United States' power and influence begins to wane and Russia's begins to increase on the world stage, the risk of both powers clashing over Ukraine in a direct fashion becomes a bigger possibility by the day.

While tensions between the United States and Russia have escalated over the last three years through the Syrian crisis, Ukraine is more than a simple sphere-of-influence region for Russia. It is a sphere-of-influence region that borders the homeland. For this reason alone, the level of importance attributed to Ukraine by Russia is obviously higher than that of Syria in the long run.

Interestingly enough, it is for this same reason that the United States considers Ukraine such a vital sphere-of-influence nation as well. That is, the fact that Ukraine lies on the doorstep of Russia.

Although the reasons for considering Ukraine an extremely important part of the world by both the United States and Russia cannot simply be boiled down to that of a border issue, the fact remains that the potential for a direct collision between two world nuclear powers is a possibility if the meddling continues.

In the meantime, as the Ukrainian people are being used as battering rams for the will of world elites, they are quite clearly the guaranteed loser no matter what decision is made. With the recent success of the Western-backed color revolution, what is also clear is that the only winner in Ukraine is austerity, Fascism, the IMF, and, of course, the world elites. International bankers, as usual, are salivating over the coming feast that will come at the expense of the living standards of the Ukrainian people and the coffers of the Ukrainian government.

Even before a ruling government can be formed by the leading color revolutionary leaders Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and other relevant agents of destabilization, the acting President, Oleksander Turchinov, is stating that European integration is a high priority of the new government. This, of course, means that Ukraine will soon move forward in becoming a full-fledged member in good standing of the new European Soviet known as the European Union.

In addition, leading contender for the post of Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and the Parliamentary leader of the Fatherland Party, is now calling on the rest of Parliament to immediately come to agreement on a new government so that Ukraine can now crawl to the International Monetary Fund for "emergency economic assistance." As one may expect, the IMF has already declared that it will require harsh austerity measures and other "economic changes" in exchange for any aid to Ukraine.

The $15 billion bailout package provided by Russia to Ukraine in December has now been suspended, placing Ukraine in imminent danger of default. The Hryvna, the Ukrainian currency, has been sharply devalued and the country's bond rating has been downgraded in such a dramatic fashion that Ukraine is no longer able to borrow on international markets. Foreign reserves have also dropped dramatically.

If conditions persist, Ukraine will soon no longer be able to pay public pensions and salaries.

Yet austerity is not the only result of the recent Ukrainian "revolution." Subtle and even outright Fascism has come to dominate not only the demonstrations themselves but the relatively young "transitional" phase now taking place.

Indeed, this relatively new trend of Fascist rule was enunciated in a recent statement by Natalia Vitrenko of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a party that asserts its opposition to both the Orange Revolution installment of Yuschenko as well as the polices of Yanukovych.

Vitrenko first began by describing the nature of the movement used to oust Yanukovych by pointing out that many of the most powerful elements of the anti-Yanukovych movement, or Euromaidan, were indeed fascists and neo-Nazi's. She stated,

Washington and Brussels should hear our warnings. We hold them responsible for all they have done to transfer power to the political forces responsible for establishing this totalitarian Nazi regime in Ukraine, with the inevitable gross violation of the rights and freedoms of millions of our fellow citizens.

The U.S. and EU should know that this power grab by political parties and movements including neo-Nazi forces (such as "Svoboda - Freedom" and "Right Sector") , announced the implementation of a national revolution under the slogans "Ukraine for Ukrainians," "Glory to the nation - death to enemies," "Muscovite tools and Communists to the gallows!" and others.

Starting on February 22, this new government must assume all responsibility throughout Ukraine for the violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Vitrenko then went on to discuss the events currently unfolding in Ukraine including the capture of government buildings as well as political intimidation, force, beatings, shootings, and even lynchings of those seen as pro-government or opposed to the positions of the Western-backed fascists. Vitrenko states,

Insurgents and terrorists continue to capture Euromaidan administrative buildings and local authorities in the South and East of Ukraine. Using terrorist methods, voters have been deprived of their rights and of the authority of their elected representatives in local councils. Civilians defending their choices have been mercilessly shot by gunmen armed with Kalashinkovs, rifles, and other combat weapons, as for example on February 22 in Lugansk.
Militants not endowed with any legitimate police authority have arrogated emergency police powers to themselves, using axes and sticks to block central thoroughfares, halting cars to carry out inspections and verification of documents of passengers, and arresting people. They have blocked the entrance to the airport and thus grossly violated the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the inviolability of the person, freedom of movement, the presumption of innocence, and the right to security and life. All the people of Ukraine have been humiliated and denied their dignity and rights.

Already on February 23 representatives of the new government announced the formation of the Ukrainian nation: they proclaim that anyone who uses the Russian language will be subjected to deprivation of their native-born status of Ukrainian ethnicity and will be discriminated against in civil and political rights.

The new regime has already announced their intention to ban the broadcast channels of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, branding them as the TV channels of a hostile state . This is the way the new government defends the European values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The regime is preparing lists of enemies who are subject to proscription. This mechanism will deprive of civil and political rights all those who do not share the neo-Nazi views of the new Ukrainian authorities.

Across the country, ghoulish lynchings continue. People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.

In addition, Vitrenko adds that "Euromaidan militants are seizing Orthodox shrines like the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, seeking to transfer them to dissenting churchmen like Filaret. The intention is to grab all the churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to conform them to the Vatican."

In other words, those few participants who at first joined the movement to fight against government corruption and for whatever they perceived to be a better political structure or simply those that were paid to fight in the streets, have been pushed out of the movement after the seizure of power was accomplished. In their place are the more militant wings of the movement such as the political parties mentioned above and the brutal thugs sanctioned by Western governments.

In the end, with the full support of the West, particularly the U.S. State Department, the recent successful "regime change" effort in Ukraine still has the potential to turn into an explosive situation in the literal sense. Aside from the moral qualms of allowing foreign powers the ability to dictate to smaller states the political direction which they must take, provoking a confrontation between two major world powers - both with nuclear capability - is a recipe for disaster.

From Syria to Ukraine, a new geopolitical race has been initiated with a clear destination firmly in the minds of the world political elites currently directing both sides of the contest. That direction, while potentially beneficial for those in positions of power, spells nothing but destruction for the rest of us.

NEOCONS AND THE UKRAINE COUP

February 25, 2014
BY ROBERT PARRY, CONSORTIUM NEWS

Protesters at Hrushevskogo street on January 26, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine. The anti-governmental protests turned into violent clashes. (Photo: Sasha Maksymenko / Flickr)

American neocons helped destabilize Ukraine and engineer the overthrow of its elected government, a "regime change" on Russia's western border. But the coup - and the neo-Nazi militias at the forefront - also reveal divisions within the Obama administration, reports Robert Parry.

More than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America's approach to the world in a more peaceful direction.

But Obama deserves a big dose of the blame for this predicament because he did little to neutralize the government holdovers and indeed played into their hands with his initial appointments to head the State and Defense departments, Hillary Clinton, a neocon-leaning Democrat, and Robert Gates, a Republican cold warrior, respectively.

Even now, key U.S. diplomats are more attuned to hard-line positions than to promoting peace. The latest example is Ukraine where U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, are celebrating the overthrow of an elected pro-Russian government.

Occurring during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the coup in Ukraine dealt an embarrassing black eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offended neocon sensibilities by quietly cooperating with Obama to reduce tensions over Iran and Syria, where the neocons favored military options.

Over the past several weeks, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was undercut by a destabilization campaign encouraged by Nuland and Pyatt and then deposed in a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias. Even after Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward early elections, right-wing armed patrols shattered the agreement and took strategic positions around Kiev.

Despite these ominous signs, Ambassador Pyatt hailed the coup as "a day for the history books." Most of the mainstream U.S. news media also sided with the coup, with commentators praising the overthrow of an elected government as "reform." But a few dissonant reports have pierced the happy talk by noting that the armed militias are part of the Pravy Sektor, a right-wing nationalist group which is often compared to the Nazis.

Thus, the Ukrainian coup could become the latest neocon-initiated "regime change" that ousted a target government but failed to take into account who would fill the void.

Some of these same American neocons pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, not realizing that removing Saddam Hussein would touch off a sectarian conflict and lead to a pro-Iranian Shiite regime. Similarly, U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 eliminated Muammar Gaddafi but also empowered Islamic extremists who later murdered the U.S. ambassador and spread unrest beyond Libya's borders to nearby Mali.

One might trace this neocons' blindness to consequences back to Afghanistan in the 1980s when the Reagan administration supported Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden, in a war against Soviet troops, only to have Muslim extremists take control of Afghanistan and provide a base for al-Qaeda to plot the 9/11 attacks against the United States.

Regarding Ukraine, today's State Department bureaucracy seems to be continuing the same anti-Moscow geopolitical strategy set during those Reagan-Bush years.

Robert Gates described the approach in his new memoir, Duty, explaining the view of President George H.W. Bush's Defense Secretary Dick Cheney: "When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world."
Vice President Cheney and the neocons pursued a similar strategy during George W. Bush's presidency, expanding NATO aggressively to the east and backing anti-Russian regimes in the region including the hard-line Georgian government, which provoked a military confrontation with Moscow in 2008, ironically, during the Summer Olympics in China.

Obama's Strategy

As President, Obama has sought a more cooperative relationship with Russia's Putin and, generally, a less belligerent approach toward adversarial countries. Obama has been supported by an inner circle at the White House with analytical assistance from some elements of the U.S. intelligence community.

But the neocon momentum at the State Department and from other parts of the U.S. government has continued in the direction set by George W. Bush's neocon administration and by neocon-lite Democrats who surrounded Secretary of State Clinton during Obama's first term.
The two competing currents of geopolitical thinking - a less combative one from the White House and a more aggressive one from the foreign policy bureaucracy - have often worked at cross-purposes. But Obama, with only a few exceptions, has been unwilling to confront the hardliners or even fully articulate his foreign policy vision publicly.

For instance, Obama succumbed to the insistence of Gates, Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus to escalate the war in Afghanistan in 2009, though the President reportedly felt trapped into the decision which he soon regretted. In 2010, Obama backed away from a Brazilian-Turkish-brokered deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear program after Clinton denounced the arrangement and pushed for economic sanctions and confrontation as favored by the neocons and Israel.
Just last summer, Obama - only at the last second - reversed a course charted by the State Department favoring a military intervention in Syria over disputed U.S. claims that the Syrian government had launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians. Putin helped arrange a way out for Obama by getting the Syrian government to agree to surrender its chemical weapons. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Showdown for War or Peace."]

Stirring Up Trouble

Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves."

The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan "surge" strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that "an important way station in my ‘pilgrim's progress' from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
"I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam's palaces in Baghdad."

Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more "regime change."

As for Nuland's sidekick, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt previously served as a U.S. diplomat in Vienna involved in bringing the International Atomic Energy Agency into a line with U.S. and Israeli hostility toward Iran. A July 9, 2009, cable from Pyatt, which was released by Pvt. Bradley Manning, revealed Pyatt to be the middleman who coordinated strategy with the U.S.-installed IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano.

Pyatt reported that Amano offered to cooperate with the U.S. and Israel on Iran, including having private meetings with Israeli officials, supporting U.S. sanctions, and agreeing to IAEA personnel changes favored by the United States. According to the cable, Pyatt promised strong U.S. backing for Amano and Amano asked for more U.S. money. [See Consortiumnews.com's "America's Debt to Bradley Manning."]

It was Ambassador Pyatt who was on the other end of Nuland's infamous Jan. 28 phone call in which she discussed how to manipulate Ukraine's tensions and who to elevate into the country's leadership. According to the conversation, which was intercepted and made public, Nuland ruled out one opposition figure, Vitali Klitschko, a popular former boxer, because he lacked experience.
Nuland also favored the UN as mediator over the European Union, at which point in the conversation she exclaimed, "Fuck the E.U." to which Pyatt responded, "Oh, exactly ..."

Ultimately, the Ukrainian unrest - over a policy debate whether Ukraine should move toward entering the European Union - led to a violent showdown in which neo-fascist storm troopers battled police, leaving scores dead. To ease the crisis, President Yanukovych agreed to a power-sharing government and to accelerated elections. But no sooner was that agreement signed then the hard-right faction threw it out and pressed for power in an apparent coup.
Again, the American neocons had performed the role of the Sorcerer's Apprentice, unleashing forces and creating chaos that soon was spinning out of control. But this latest "regime change," which humiliated President Putin, could also do long-term damage to U.S.-Russian cooperation vital to resolving other crises, with Iran and Syria, two more countries where the neocons are also eager for confrontation
.

 

HOMELAND SECURITY CANCELS PLAN TO TRACK LICENSE PLATES NATIONWIDE

02-20-2014

Blacklisted news

The Department of Homeland Security(DHS) has abruptly canceled a recent plan to collect data from private license-plate readers and store it in a national database.

The controversial proposal was intended to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) locate illegal immigrants who have broken the law. DHS wanted to be able to access license-plate recognition databases filled with information from scanners operated by law enforcement and private companies across the country.
But the plan sparked objections from privacy advocates who feared the program would also track the movements of ordinary citizens not suspected of criminal activity.

Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University who also serves on a DHS data privacy subcommittee, told Ars Technica that the effort was "deeply disturbing."

"[This is] a classic example of expanding data collection and centralization, concerning people who have done nothing to warrant suspicion, without a clearly defined purpose or the legally required privacy impact analysis," he said. "‘Build it first and worry about privacy and purpose later'-it is the same disease that has infected the NSA and so much of our government. This type of dragnet search is the modern equivalent of the general search that [the Constitution's] framers were so anxious to guard against.

The decision to cancel the program came from the very top: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.

ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said the solicitation "was posted without the awareness of ICE leadership."
"While we continue to support a range of technologies to help meet our law enforcement mission, this solicitation will be reviewed to ensure the path forward appropriately meets our operational needs," she said in a prepared statement.

News of the plan surfaced in mid-February after The Washington Post reported ICE solicited proposals from companies to compile a database of license plate information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers.

AMERICAN AND ISRAELI ZIONISTS BEHIND CIVIL UNREST IN THE UKRAINE

February 19, 2014
Blacklisted News

For the past several months we have seen all sorts of political turmoil hit the Ukraine including violent protests which have left many people injured or dead. A former member of the Soviet Union and a Russian border country, the Ukraine has become a primary target of Zionist aggression. They have been targeted primarily due to their historical ties with Russia which under Vladimir Putin have successfully blocked a number of Zionist agendas including a potential American military strike on Syria this past year. By destabilizing the Ukraine they hope to bring in a puppet government that will move the country away from Russian influence. The on-going protests against the current Ukrainian government are largely being financed and controlled by the United States and Israel. This is not part of a true popular uprising as the corporate media propagandists will have you believe.

The United States government has actually invested $5 billion dollars into this on-going operation to overthrow the Ukrainian government. This is more commonly known by those in the propaganda machine as spreading freedom and democracy. Victoria Nuland the fanatical war mongering Zionist Jew and current assistant U.S. Secretary of State confirmed all of this in a December 13th 2013 speech that is available for all to see. She may have used more friendly and politically correct terminology to describe the agenda, but considering what is happening now it becomes easy to read between the lines.

This is especially true considering Nuland was recently caught on a wiretap discussing how they were going to place specific people in power once their paid protesters had overthrown the government. She even had a few choice words for the European Union who she perceived as not being helpful to their agenda. In fact she used the specific phrase "fuck the EU" in expressing her outright contempt.

What's really sick about this whole thing is that the United States government has decided to allocate billions of dollars to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country at the same time that we have a whole host of problems domestically. Surely these billions of dollars would have been much better spent domestically to finance infrastructure projects and things of that sort. Or better yet how about returning that money back to the American people? In fact any number of alternatives would have been preferable compared to this misguided project which promotes Nuland's wet dream of Zionist world domination.

This begs another question. Why is that we have so many vile Jews like Nuland in positions of power and influence in Washington DC? No matter which political party is in power it seems as if Washington DC is constantly infested with these creatures. Take for example all of the Jewish neo conservatives that were in the regime of George W. Bush. There needs to be a serious discussion in America about purging these types of people from all government and political offices. How can any of these people be trusted when we have no idea if they're serving the interests of America or Israel? It is unfortunate that such a discussion will unlikely happen anytime soon since the American people have been brainwashed by mass media and Hollywood to view Jews as perpetual victims who cannot be criticized.

Even crazier is the fact that several reports indicate that individuals linked to the Israeli Army and their intelligence agency the Mossad are also involved in helping to organize some of the on-going Ukraine protests. In fact the International Business Times ran a report detailing how a significant number of young Jews are involved in protesting the government.

It is painfully clear that Zionist forces in America and Israel are the primary causes of the civil unrest in the Ukraine. Even though some of the people participating in the protests might be doing so because they have legitimate complaints about how the Ukraine is being run, they need to understand that much of what is happening now is being orchestrated by outside forces that seek control of the Ukraine's future. Even if the protests are successful in overthrowing the existing government, the vast majority of the Ukrainian people will be sorely disappointed with the outcome. Nuland and her cronies will push to setup a government not chosen by the people of the Ukraine but instead a government that will serve the interests of international Zionism

GOVERNMENT SPYING GONE CRAZY: DHS WANTS RFID CHIPS IN EVERY DRIVERS LICENSE

February 19, 2014
Blacklisted News

The Alabama Department of Public Safety (ADPS) are issuing new chipped driver's licenses and IDs under the STAR ID initiative that promises to "improve the integrity and security of state-issued driver licenses and identification cards, which, in turn, will help fight terrorism and reduce fraud."

STAR ID is the Alabama legislature's response to the REAL-ID Act of 2005 (RIDA) which keeps the state in compliance with federal mandates while maintaining ‘security [and] authentication" of Alabama residents.

By December of 2017, Alabama states that all residents must have their STAR ID; having replaced their current ID and driver's license.

RIDA is tasked with protecting Americans from terrorism by empowering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies to monitor and profile residents to ensure their authenticity.

Over four distinct phases, the DHS is enforcing state mandatory deadlines for compliance and a courtesy 3 month "warning" period.

The phases of compliance are:

1. Restricted areas for DHS headquarters
2. All federal facilities and nuclear power plants
3. Semi-restricted areas at federal facilities
4. Entry into commercial aircraft

States that have complied with RFID chipped ID cards for residents include:
• Alabama
• California
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Kansas
• Maryland
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Virginia
• Wisconsin

The Dept. of Defense (DoD) is using biometrics to fight terrorism, catalogue active duty troops and maintain national security interests. The Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA) utilizes biometrics to "identify the enemy" and verify individuals to ensure secure business and governmental functions.

The US Department of State Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) has more than 90 million people's photographs data based with the continuous use of the Department of Facial Recognition Software.

The DHS Automated Biometric Identification System tracks an estimated 250,000 biometric communications a day. Over 126 million fingerprints, photographs and biographical information are filed for the US government to use at their discretion.

The National ID card by Oracle would establish "a standard and secure national identifier, we could ensure that any system that chose to use it could effectively share information with other systems that use it."

Public Schools Are Preparing America's Children For Life In A Police State


Michael Snyder
Activist Post
Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Our children are the future of America, and our public schools are systematically training them to become accustomed to living in a "Big Brother" police state. All across the United States today, public schools have essentially become "prison grids" that are run by control freaks that are absolutely obsessed with micromanaging the lives of their students down to the smallest detail.

As you will read about below, students all over the country are now being monitored by RFID microchips, their lunches are being inspected on a daily basis by school administrators, and the social media accounts of students are being constantly monitored even when they are at home. Of course these sorts of things do not happen everywhere just yet, but on the path that we are on it is just a matter of time.

At this point, many of our public schools very closely resemble "totalitarian dictatorships", and so if the United States ever slips into totalitarianism the students of today will actually feel very comfortable under that political system.

I went to public schools all my life, so I have experience in this area. Sadly, things have gone downhill quite a bit since those days. For example, one thing that was unheard of back when I was in high school was "active shooter drills". They are being held in school districts all over the nation today, and they often involve the firing of blanks and the use of fake blood. The following is from a recent NBC News about these drills...

In a cramped, carpeted amphitheater in the basement of Troy Buchanan High School, 69 students are waiting to die.

"You'll know when it pops off," says Robert Bowen, the school's campus police officer. "If you get engaged with one of the shooters, you'll know it."

"When you get shot, you need to close your fingers and keep ‘em in," adds Tammy Kozinski, the drama teacher. "When the bad guy and the police come through, they'll step all over you, and who will be saying they're sorry?"
"Nobody!" the students cry in unison.

This isn't a bizarre, premeditated mass murder or some twisted sacrifice led by a student cult. These are the 20 minutes preceding an active shooter drill, the 13th one Missouri's Lincoln County school district has staged in the past year.

Fortunately, the students participating in the active shooter drills in Missouri know in advance what is happening.

In other instances around the country, that is not the case. In fact, sometimes teachers are not even told what is going to happen. Just check out the following example from New Jersey...

About 50 teachers at a New Jersey school experienced a terrifying moment when a shooting rampage turned out to be a drill, but the teachers didn't know it.

It happened Aug. 28 at the Phillipsburg New Jersey Early Learning Center.

A man burst into the library and started shooting. But the gun didn't have any bullets, just blanks.

Teachers took cover under child-sized tables, crying and trembling.

"People are crying. The girl next to me is trembling and shaking. You heard people crying. You heard other people praying. It was pretty dramatic," one teacher said.

Could you imagine your own children being put through something so traumatic?

And of course "active shooter drills" are far from the only way that our public schools are being transformed into prison camps. Just consider the following list...

-Public schools in some parts of the country are beginning to use RFID microchips to track school attendance.

-Some public schools are now systematically monitoring the social media accounts of their students.

-Listening devices are being installed in classrooms all over the nation.

-Bureaucratic control freaks are checking student lunches at many schools to ensure that they are "balanced".

-Students are being suspended from school for simply making gun gestures with their hands.

-Some public schools do not even allow parents to walk their own children to class.

This next set of examples comes from one of my previous articles...

-A few years ago, a class of 3rd grade students at one Kentucky elementary school were searched by a group of teachers after 5 dollars went missing. During the search the students were actually required to remove their shoes and their socks.

-At one public school in the Chicago area, children have been banned from bringing their lunches from home. Yes, you read that correctly. Students at that particular school are absolutely prohibited from bringing lunches from home. Instead, it is mandatory that they eat the food that the school cafeteria serves.

-The U.S. Department of Agriculture is spending huge amounts of money to install surveillance cameras in the cafeterias of public schools so that government control freaks can closely monitor what our children are eating.

-A teenager in suburban Dallas was forced to take on a part-time job after being ticketed for using bad language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637.

-It is not just high school kids that are being ticketed by police. In Texas the crackdown extends all the way down to elementary school students. In fact, it has been reported that Texas police gave "1,000 tickets" to elementary school kids over a recent six year period.

-A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father's lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.

-A 6-year-old girl in Florida was handcuffed and sent to a mental facility after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school.

-In early 2010, a 12-year-old girl in New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs just because she doodled on her desk. "I love my friends Abby and Faith" was what she reportedly wrote on her desk.

-There are actually some public schools in the United States that are so paranoid that they have actually installed cameras in student bathrooms.

-Down in Florida, students have actually been arrested by police for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, for throwing an eraser, and for drawing a picture of a gun.

-The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice has announced that it will begin using analysis software to predict crime by young delinquents and will place "potential offenders" in specific prevention and education programs.

-A group of high school students made national headlines a while back when they revealed that they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem during a visit to the Lincoln Memorial.

-In some U.S. schools, armed cops accompanied by police dogs actually conduct surprise raids with their guns drawn. In this video, you can actually see police officers aiming their guns at school children as the students are lined up facing the wall.

-Back in 2009, one 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Our public schools are systematically training our children for life in a police state, and hardly anyone is complaining about it.

We are heading down a very dangerous road, and at the end of that road we would end up like other totalitarian regimes such as North Korea.

If you think that you would like to live in a truly totalitarian regime, just consider what a new UN report that was just released says is going on in North Korea right now...

The commission documents crimes against humanity, including "extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation."

So why don't the people of North Korea rebel?

Well, one prison camp survivor that escaped said that "we became so used to it that we didn't feel anything"...
One witness, a survivor of a North Korean prison camp, told the commission of seeing a guard beat a nearly starving woman who had recently given birth, then force the woman to drown her baby.

Others told of being imprisoned for watching soap operas, trying to find food for their families, traveling without permission or having family members considered suspect by the government.

"Because we saw so many people die, we became so used to it," one prison camp survivor told the commission. "I'm sorry to say that we became so used to it that we didn't feel anything."

Perhaps you think that such a thing could never happen in America, but the truth is that we are also becoming very accustomed to the emerging Big Brother control grid which is being constructed all around us.

And the youth of today are sadly ignorant of what this nation is supposed to look like.

So is there any hope for the next generation of Americans?

Blackmailed Congress Stalls Legislation Outlawing NSA Surveillance

America is now a totalitarian state

Kurt Nimmo
February 17, 2014

Congress refuses to act on NSA reform legislation despite an overwhelming number of Americans expressing opposition to the agency's pervasive surveillance. Since October bills in both the House and Senate have remained stuck in respective Judiciary Committees. Aides say there is no indication they will move forward anytime soon.

Rep. Jim Sensebrenner's USA Freedom Act, designed to stop the NSA's dragnet collection of data, is stalled in the House. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatter, a Republican from Virginia, is holding back the bill from markup as he waits for the Obama administration to take a formal stand on the legislation.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is waiting for recommendations from Attorney General Eric Holder and the intelligence community before moving forward with his bill.

Rolling back unconstitutional surveillance faces stiff resistance in the Senate from the likes of Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Feinstein is the Intelligence Committee chairwoman.

Congressional leaders say there may be no action on legislation until the summer of 2015 when provisions of the Patriot Act governing data collection are set to expire.
Congress Blackmailed

In June NSA whistleblower Russ Tice, who was instrumental in blowing the cover of the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretapping, told Peter B. Collins the NSA is blackmailing top congressional leaders.

"They went after - and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things - they went after high-ranking military officers," Tice said, "they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the - and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of - heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people."

Former NSA crypto-mathematician William Binney and other whistleblowers have faced intimidation for daring to reveal details of the agency's unconstitutional surveillance program.
"They violated the Constitution setting it up," Binney told James Bamford and Wired in 2012. "But they didn't care. They were going to do it anyway, and they were going to crucify anyone who stood in the way."

Binney believes America is now a totalitarian state.

Bamford writes "there is no doubt that [the NSA] has transformed itself into the largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created."

Many Americans understand the NSA surveillance grid is a tool designed to go after political enemies. In June fifty-seven percent of voters nationwide told Rasmussen Reports NSA data will be used by government agencies to harass political opponents.

Second Possible Terror Attack on U.S. Power Plant Uncovered

Gunman used boat to access Tennessee nuclear facility

Paul Joseph Watson
February 12, 2014

After fresh attention was brought to an April 2013 sniper attack on a power plant in central California, bloggers are highlighting a second possible attack that occurred less than a week later at a nuclear facility in Tennessee.

Although it received little news coverage at the time, last year's assault on the Pacific Gas & Electric's Metcalf transmission substation, during which telephone cables were cut and 100 shots were fired into the facility, has sparked fresh concerns about the safety of "soft targets" in the United States.

Described as a "military-style raid" by the L.A. Times, the FBI is still investigating the attack which knocked out 17 transformers, but has dismissed suggestions that it could have been carried out by terrorists despite no motive, fingerprints or suspects having been identified.
The attack was so serious that the entire plant had to be closed down for a month.

Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft highlights another possible attack that occurred just days later on April 21, when a security guard at TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tennessee was involved in a 2am shootout with a suspect.

"TVA spokesperson Jim Hopson said the subject traveled up to the plant on a boat and walked onto the property. When the officer questioned the suspect, the individual fired multiple shots at the officer. The officer shot back, and when he called for backup, the suspect sped away on his boat," reported WBIR.

Hoft asks if the two attacks were part of a coordinated campaign, while Front Page Magazine's Daniel Greenfield suggests that the second incident has hallmarks of being a carefully planned act.

"A trespasser would not be completely extraordinary, but an armed trespasser willing to engage in a shootout with a police officer who arrives there by boat raises a whole series of questions," writes Greenfield.

The fact that the Spring City plant was a nuclear facility obviously heightens concerns about the security of lesser known targets.

The sophisticated attack on the power plant in California has prompted charges that the government habitually fails to afford proper attention to actual organic terrorist attacks, whereas contrived plots involving huge doses of FBI provocateuring are given blanket media coverage.

"Maybe it is good thing that most people don't know about this," writes Michael Snyder. "The truth is that we are a nation that is absolutely teeming with "soft targets", and if people realized how vulnerable we truly are they might start freaking out."

Spy Agencies Work On Psychologically Profiling Everyone

Washington's Blog
January 31, 2014

Newly-released documents from Edward Snowden show that the NSA and other spy agencies are tracking people's psychological and lifestyle traits such as sexual preference, extroversion-versus-introversion, and whether people are leaders or followers.

IC Off the Record reports on future spying techniques being developed by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence's Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity:

In 2006, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) was created to invest in high-risk, high-payoff classified programs uniquely designed to provide research and technical capabilities for the Intelligence Community. IARPA-funded researchers are currently studying novel ways of processing and analyzing the explosive growth of domestic data. ***

• The Knowledge Discovery and Dissemination (KDD) program will develop advanced analytic algorithms that can effectively draw inferences across multiple databases to allow the Intelligence Community to create virtual fusion centers enabling analysts to produce actionable intelligence.

• The Socio-cultural Content in Language (SCIL) Program will develop novel algorithms, techniques and technologies to uncover the social actions and characteristics of members of a group (ie; within discussion forums, online comment sections, social media, etc.) by examining the language used in relation to acceptable social and cultural norms.

• The Reynard Program starts from the premise that "real world" characteristics are reflected in "virtual world" behavior. The program seeks to identify behavioral indicators in online virtual worlds and "massively multiplayer online games" that are related to the real world characteristics of the users. Attributes of interest include gender, age, economic status, educational level, occupation, ideology or "world view", and physical geographic location.

Indeed, the NSA is working on building a "pre-crime" computer system that uses artificial intelligence and massive amounts of data to try to predict how every thinks and what everyone is likely to do.

NSA Hires Former DHS Official As "Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer"

In other words, NSA hires its future scapegoat

Kit Daniels
January 29, 2014

Instead of reading and understanding the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Agency hired a former Homeland Security employee today as its first "Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer."
NSA Director Keith Alexander claims he cares about Americans' privacy.

In a statement released this morning, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander said that "well-known privacy expert" Rebecca Richards will "provide expert advice" and "oversight" of the NSA's "privacy-related activities" and that she recently worked as the "Senior Director for Privacy Compliance" at the Department of Homeland Security.

Richards' hiring is simply a PR stunt by the NSA to make the agency appear that it actually cares about the privacy of millions and it's especially amusing considering her previous employment at DHS.

"An internal privacy officer does not solve the privacy and other problems revealed in the last seven months," Michelle Richardson, legislative council for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Mashable. "It will take legislative changes and court rulings to make real substantive improvements to the law."

The NSA hired her so it could have someone to take the blame once more leaks about its domestic surveillance are revealed; the agency has no intent of stopping its abuse of the Fourth Amendment.

For one thing, after whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the massive extent of the NSA's dragnet, Alexander told Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that the NSA wanted to collect even more phone records than ever before.

"I believe it is in the nation's best interest to put all the phone records into a lockbox that we can search when the nation needs to do it," he said.

Alexander doesn't just limit his abuse to the Fourth Amendment, either: he also targets the First.

"I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these [Snowden] documents, the 50,000 - whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these - you know it just doesn't make sense," Alexander stated in an interview with the Defense Department's "Armed With Science" blog. "We ought to come up with a way of stopping it."

But let's ignore all these statements for a second and assume that Alexander is not a liar.
If we were to believe his claim today that the NSA cares about privacy and that he simply needs a "privacy officer" to tell him that eavesdropping on private conversations is wrong, wouldn't that, in itself, suggest he is too incompetent to manage the NSA?

Why Are Banking Executives In London Killing Themselves?

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
January 29, 2014

Bankers committing suicide by jumping from the rooftops of their own banks is something that we think of when we think of the Great Depression. Well, it just happened in London, England. A vice president at JPMorgan's European headquarters in London plunged to his death after jumping from the top of the 33rd floor.

He fell more than 500 feet, and it is being reported by an eyewitness that "there was quite a lot of blood". This comes on the heels of news that a former Deutsche Bank executive was found hanged in his home in London on Sunday. So why is this happening? Yes, the markets have gone down a little bit recently but they certainly have not crashed yet. Could there be more to these deaths than meets the eye? You never know. And as I will discuss below, there have been a lot of other really strange things happening around the world lately as well.

But before we get to any of that, let's take a closer look at some of these banker deaths. The JPMorgan executive that jumped to his death on Tuesday was named Gabriel Magee. He was 39 years old, and his suicide has the city of London in shock...

A bank executive who died after jumping 500ft from the top of JP Morgan's European headquarters in London this morning has been named as Gabriel Magee.

The American senior manager, 39, fell from the 33-story skyscraper and was found on the ninth floor roof, which surrounds the Canary Wharf skyscraper.

He was a vice president in the corporate and investment bank technology department having joined in 2004, moving to Britain from the United States in 2007.

What would cause a man in his prime working years who is making huge amounts of money to do something like that?

The death on Sunday of former Deutsche Bank executive Bill Broeksmit is also a mystery. According to the Daily Mail, police consider his death to be "non-suspicious", which means that they believe that it was a suicide and not a murder...

A former Deutsche Bank executive has been found dead at a house in London, it emerged today.
The body of William ‘Bill' Broeksmit, 58, was discovered at his home in South Kensington on Sunday shortly after midday by police, who had been called to reports of a man found hanging at a house.

Mr Broeksmit - who retired last February - was a former senior manager with close ties to co-chief executive Anshu Jain. Metropolitan Police officers said his death was declared as non-suspicious.

On top of that, Business Insider is reporting that a communications director at another bank in London was found dead last week...

Last week, a U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG died last week. The cause of death has not been made public.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence that these deaths have all come so close to one another. After all, people die all the time.

And London is rather dreary this time of the year. It is easy for people to get depressed if they are not accustomed to endless gloomy weather.

If the stock market was already crashing, it would be easy to blame the suicides on that. The world certainly remembers what happened during the crash of 1929...

Historically, bankers have been stereotyped as the most likely to commit suicide. This has a lot to do with the famous 1929 stock market crash, which resulted in 1,616 banks failing and more than 20,000 businesses going bankrupt. The number of bankers committing suicide directly after the crash is thought to have been only around 20, with another 100 people connected to the financial industry dying at their own hand within the year.

But the market isn't crashing just yet. We definitely appear to be at a "turning point", but things are still at least somewhat stable.

So why are bankers killing themselves?

That is a good question.

As I mentioned above, there have also been quite a few other strange things that have happened lately that seem to be "out of place".
For example, Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report posted the following cryptic message on Twitter the other day...

"Have an exit plan..."

What in the world does he mean by that?

Maybe that is just a case of Drudge being Drudge.

Then again, maybe not.

And on Tuesday we learned that a prominent Russian Bank has banned all cash withdrawals until next week...

Bloomberg reports that ‘My Bank' - one of Russia's top 200 lenders by assets - has introduced a complete ban on cash withdrawals until next week. While the Ruble has been losing ground rapidly recently, we suspect few have been expecting bank runs in Russia.

Yes, we have heard some reports of people having difficulty getting money out of their banks around the world lately, but this news out of Russia really surprised me.

Yet another story that seemed rather odd was a report in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that stated that Germany's central bank is advocating "a one-time wealth tax" for European nations that need a bailout...

Germany's central bank Monday proposed a one-time wealth tax as an option for euro-zone countries facing bankruptcy, reviving a idea that has circled for years in Europe but has so far gained little traction.

Why would they be suggesting such a thing if "economic recovery" was just around the corner?
According to that same article, the IMF has recommended a similar thing...

The International Monetary Fund in October also floated the idea of a one-time "capital levy," amid a sharp deterioration of public finances in many countries. A 10% tax would bring the debt levels of a sample of 15 euro-zone member countries back to pre-crisis levels of 2007, the IMF said.

So what does all of this mean?

I am not exactly sure, but I have got a bad feeling about this - especially considering the financial chaos that we are witnessing in emerging markets all over the globe right now.

LAPD Cops Stood Down Minutes Before TSA Shooting

Officers guarding area where Ciancia began attack went AWOL

Paul Joseph Watson
January 22, 2014

LAPD officers assigned to the area where Paul Ciancia began his shooting spree targeting TSA agents at LAX Airport stood down minutes before the attack began, leaving for breaks without informing their dispatcher as required.

"Departmental procedures require that officers notify a dispatcher before going on break and leaving their patrol area in order to ensure supervisors are aware of their absence and, if necessary, a relief unit can be brought in to cover their area," reports the Associated Press.
That didn't happen in the moments before Ciancia began his rampage, with one of the officers on a bathroom break and the other outside on a vehicle traveling to a meal break.

The lack of armed officers allowed Ciancia to begin the shooting unopposed, with TSA agents fleeing the screening area without hitting the panic button or using a land line phone to call for help.

The stand down ensured a one and a half minute lag before police were even alerted about the shooting. Before officers arrived at the scene, Ciancia had fatally wounded TSA worker Gerardo Hernandez as well as shooting two more TSA agents and a traveler. Hernandez did not receive medical attention until 33 minutes after he was shot.

Airport police union chief Marshall McClain claimed that the officers would have alerted their dispatcher once they had arrived at the location of their break but didn't do so "in order to maximize their lunch break so they don't lose time while traveling."

Eyewitnesses on the scene of the shooting reported that the gunman was "dressed like a TSA agent," although this narrative was quickly amended as the portrait of Ciancia as an anti-government lunatic began to emerge.

Immediately after the shooting, news networks like ABC blamed Ciancia's actions on a "shadowy subculture" that opposes the TSA as part of a broader revolt against the growth of big government, directly implicating alternative media journalist, Alex Jones as being responsible for the attack.

The Southern Poverty Law Center also wasted little time in exploiting the incident to smear its political adversaries.

As Jon Rappoport observed at the time, blaming ideological opponents of big government for the actions of one crazed individual would be like blaming J.D. Salinger for the murder of John Lennon.

Paul Ciancia was eventually shot by police officers but survived and now faces murder and other charges

U.S. Army's elite Special Forces train with local cops in a secretive joint exercise

Joshua Cook
Ben Swann.com
January 21, 2014

Unwarranted NSA surveillance, the passage of NDAA, stop and frisk programs, and the rise of warrior cops, have essentially turned America into a centralized police state.
Blurring the lines between the U.S. military and local sheriff departments sets a dangerous precedent that erodes freedom and civil liberties.

Those lines are being blurred right now in South Carolina.

According to The State, the Richland County Sheriff's Department will participate in secretive joint exercise Monday and Tuesday with unnamed units from Ft. Bragg.

The drills are scheduled to run up to midnight on both days and occur primarily in Lower Richland, around Hopkins and Eastover. Exercises will also take place around the Screaming Eagle Road near Elgin and North Richland County near outbound Monticello Road.

According to The State, a sheriff's department spokesman refused to provide which units from Ft. Bragg are involved. Ft. Bragg is home to the U.S. Army's elite groups, including the Special Forces and Delta Force.

The spokesman also said the drills would be noisy at times.

"Citizens may see military and departmental vehicles traveling in and around rural and metropolitan areas and may hear ordnance being set off or fired which will be simulated/ blanks and controlled by trained personnel," a sheriff's department press release said.

The secretive exercises are off limits to the media, reports The Activist Post.

The implications are serious.

Locally elected Sheriffs take an oath to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution. They are not an extension of the centralized federal government. They have the ultimate say in their county as the top law enforcement officer.

If sheriff deputies engage an enemy in conjunction with the U.S. military who do they take orders from? The ARMY commander? Or their Sheriff?

This violates the separation of local authorities and the federal government. If the separation of powers are eliminated, who will protect the Constitutional rights of citizens?

Monsanto readies first-ever GMO wheat

January 15, 2014

Source: RT

Genetically-modified wheat isn't legally approved anywhere in the world, but the billion-dollar St. Louis, Missouri-based agriculture company has for years been determined to develop the first GMO variety of the cash crop. Now Monsanto's chief technology officer thinks the company is on the right track with regards to research.

Monsanto's GMO wheat-in-progress is among 29 endeavors being undertaken by the group to have made "phase advancements" recently, company reps said in a conference call last week, and testing has advanced from the "proof of concept" stage to early development.

Monsanto-made wheat, like other GMO crops created by the company, would be resistant to their weed killer Roundup and thus join the likes of other "Roundup Ready" products already sold by the company, including bioengineered soybean and corn.

"From an overall market perspective, the grain industry and the wheat industry - specifically the wheat trade industry - has remained very interested and supportive of biotech advances," Monsanto CTO Robb Fraley said during last week's call, according to Baking Business reporter Eric Schroeder.

"A wheat farmer generally is also a corn and soybean farmer, and they understand the benefits of the technology, and the wheat industry has watched the benefits that this technology has brought to both corn and soybeans. And so we continue to make advances," added Schroeder.

According to the company's top technologist, though, GMO wheat would likely not be reality until a couple of years down the road.

"We are still several years away from a product launch, but it is nice to see those products in the pipeline," Fraley added.

Indeed, Monsanto has actually spent the better part of a decade-and-a-half researching GMO wheat. The company began field testing a variety starting in 1998, but suspended operations in 2005 after determining that a super-wheat strain wasn't quite ready to be launched.

As RT reported last week, Monsanto also recently announced that sales of its Roundup Ready soybean grew 16 percent during the quarter ending November 30, 2013.

Piper Jaffray Cos analyst Michael Cos told Bloomberg News at the time that Monsanto's GMO soybean "will prove to be the single most important earnings driver" for the company during the course of the next two years. According to Fraley's assessment, though, the company could be nearly completion on its GMO wheat by then.

Should Monsanto stay on track, however, they'll still have to worry about the restrictions currently in place in the United States and abroad against GMO wheat. The company became the centerpiece of a biotech scandal last year when remnants of old biotech wheat turned up on an Oregon farm practically a decade after Monsanto supposedly stopped testing the crop. After those reports circulated, a government official for Japan's farm ministry placed an embargo on all US wheat.

Many others countries outside the US have banned GMO imports, and China recently refused no fewer than five shipments of American corn allegedly over concerns it could have been tainted by a biotech variety of the crop.


Former Top NSA Official: "We Are Now In A Police State"

Washington's Blog
December 18, 2013

Bill Binney is the high-level NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information. A 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency, Binney was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees.

Binney has been interviewed by virtually all of the mainstream media, including CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, PBS and many others.

Last year, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together, and said:

"We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state."

But today, Binney told Washington's Blog that the U.S. has already become a police state.
By way of background, the government is spying on virtually everything we do.

All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally "launder" the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way ... and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.

This is a bigger deal than you may realize, as legal experts say that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all ... and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it.

The NSA also ships Americans' most confidential, sensitive information to foreign countries like Israel(and here), the UK and other countries ... so they can "unmask" the information and give it back to the NSA ... or use it for their own purposes.

Binney told us today:

"The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement.  These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts - cause it has been acquired without a warrant.

So, they have to do a 'Parallel Construction' and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a 'planned programed perjury policy' directed by US law enforcement.

And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to 'Foreign Counterparts.'
This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process - means we are now in a police state."

We asked Binney a follow-up question:

"You say "this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts.' Does that mean that foreign agencies can also 'launder' the info gained from NSA spying? Or that data gained through foreign agencies' spying can be "laundered" and used by U.S. agencies?"

Binney responded:

"For countries like the five eyes (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and probably some others it probably works both ways. But for others that have relationships with FBI or DEA etc., they probably are given the data to used to arrest people but are not told the source or given copies of the data."

Boston Bomber Believed He Was a Victim of Mind Control

Tamerlan Tsarnaev feared he had been brainwashed to act on trigger phrase

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 16, 2013

Suspected Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev believed that he was a victim of mind control, according to the results of a five month investigation published yesterday by the Boston Globe.

Tsarnaev, who was killed in a shootout with police four days after allegedly carrying out the bombings with his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was thought to have "some form of schizophrenia," according to family friends, while his mother said Tsarnaev "felt like there were two people living inside of him."

"He believed in majestic mind control, which is a way of breaking down a person and creating an alternative personality with which they must coexist," Donald Larking, a 67-year-old who attended a Boston mosque with Tamerlan, told the Globe. "You can give a signal, a phrase or a gesture, and bring out the alternate personality and make them do things. Tamerlan thought someone might have done that to him."

The link between allegations of mind control and violent acts such as political assassinations or terror attacks has been a running theme in numerous different high profile cases.

Aurora theater gunman James Holmes said he was "programmed" to carry out the massacre by an "evil" therapist, according to an alleged inmate of the ‘Batman' shooter. Steven Unruh claims that Holmes told him he "felt like he was in a video game" during the shooting and that he had been brainwashed with the aid of neuro-linguistic programming.

The parallels between James Holmes and another alleged victim of mind control - RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan - are astounding.

As the London Independent reported in 2005, evidence strongly indicates that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate, a victim of mind control who was set up to be the fall guy for the murder. Sirhan was described by eyewitnesses as being in a trance-like state as he pulled the trigger.

"There was no way Sirhan Sirhan killed Kennedy," said (Sirhan's lawyer Larry) Teeter....He was the fall guy. His job was to get busted while the trigger man walked out. He wasn't consciously involved in any plot. He was a patsy. He was unconscious and unaware of what was happening - he was the true Manchurian Candidate."
The CIA's use of mind control to create killers is a matter of historical record. MK-ULTRA was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence that came to light in 1975 through investigations by the Church Committee, and the Rockefeller Commission. 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti insists that the program is ongoing and has not been abandoned.

According to his lawyers, Sirhan Sirhan "was an involuntary participant in the crimes being committed because he was subjected to sophisticated hypno programming and memory implantation techniques which rendered him unable to consciously control his thoughts and actions at the time the crimes were being committed," and served only as a diversion for the real assassin.

Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six other people, was also obsessed with mind control.

Were the Tsarnaev brothers set up or brainwashed into carrying out the Boston marathon bombing? It's a claim that would be virtually impossible to prove, but it would explain a number of extraordinary contradictions pertaining to the case, including why the brothers apparently shouted "we didn't do it" during their shootout with police.
The aunt of Tamerlan Tsarnaev claims that the footage which emerged of police arresting a naked uninjured man was her nephew, contradicting the official narrative that Tsarnaev was critically injured in a shootout and suggesting he may have been killed while in custody.

According to Tamerlan's mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, the FBI "were controlling his every step." It was subsequently confirmed that both the FBI and the CIA added the brothers to at least two terrorist watch lists in late 2011.

DECLASSIFIED FBI DOCS DETAIL WARRANTLESS DRONE SURVEILLANCE

December 13, 2013
SOURCE: RT

While previous reports have indicated that the FBI has sought to employ drone technology for years, newly unveiled documents from inside the agency show the extent to which the bureau believes it has the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance.

Growing skepticism over the US foreign drone program and how it may be used in connection with domestic security inspired Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) to file suit against the FBI. CREW, using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, defeated the FBI in court and compelled law enforcement to turn over a database of documents on the growing drone program.

Among that stockpile released earlier this month was an extensive deck of slides titled "Legal Challenges to the Use of UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems)." The slides provide a glimpse into the FBI's future drone plans, which the bureau clearly hopes will not be impacted by legal restrictions, and will provide instructions for agents who hope to use drones in the field now.
A Justice Department inspector general report published in September indicated that the FBI has been quietly spending millions of dollars to operate a small fleet of unmanned aerial devices in recent years. Then-FBI director Robert Mueller said in June that the bureau was in the "initial stages" of writing privacy policies for its still-developing surveillance policy. However, it was later revealed that the FBI has been using drones in a limited capacity since 2006 - years before experts had previously speculated.

The presentation that surfaced this month opens with a reminder that the FBI operates with "rigorous obedience to the Constitution," especially the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. Privacy advocates have argued that flying cameras through the air and sweeping up intelligence on unwitting subjects accused of no wrongdoing does constitute an unreasonable search.

The slides also mention the exclusionary rule, a legal principle that renders evidence collected in an unconstitutional manner inadmissible in a court of law.

FBI counsel seemingly considers this requirement quaint and burdensome," wrote Vice contributor Shawn Musgrave. "One slide notes an Australian High Court judge's warning that the American high evidence standard puts it in danger ‘of becoming something of a legal backwater.' It's not a great start to a defense of drones' ‘rigorous' constitutionality."

The February 2012 presentation also reminds agents to consider when they are required to obtain a warrant, such as when using a "thermal imager looking through walls" or a "GPS tracker installed on subject's vehicle." But perhaps more importantly were the cases which do not require a warrant at all, including surveillance conducted with a "helicopter, airplane (naked eye), or airplane (camera)."

OBAMA'S CORPORATE AGENDA DELAYED AS TPP MISSES DEADLINE

December 10, 2013
Blacklisted news
SOURCE: COMMON DREAMS

NEGOTIATORS FAIL TO CLOSE DEAL AMID REVELATIONS OF INTERNAL DISCORD OVER US CORPORATE BULLYING

Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators meet at the Hale Koa Hotel during the APEC Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 12, 2011. (Reuters / Larry Downing)The Obama administration's pro-corporate Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agenda appears to have missed a deadline.
Ministers and delegates representing 12 nations announced Tuesday they have failed to meet the end-of-year goal of clinching the TPP trade deal after four days of negotiations in Singapore ended without an agreement.

The statement immediately follows a Wikileaks release, previously reported by Common Dreams, exposing near zero support for a drastic pro-corporate agenda pushed in the TPP by the Obama administration, including demands for NAFTA-style secret corporate tribunals, limits to bank regulation, and conditions that would increase the cost of life-saving medicines.

"At this meeting, the negotiators' political imperative to ‘make a deal' - any deal - resulted in a raft of dangerous decisions that would severely threaten consumers' access to affordable medicines, undermine Internet freedom and empower corporations to attack our domestic laws," said Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "[A]s more details emerge weekly about the damage TPP could do to workers, consumers and the environment, grassroots and lawmaker opposition in many countries is growing."

No new timeline has been drafted for what is poised to be the largest U.S. trade deal in history, establishing a "free trade" zone between Australia, the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore-countries that comprise nearly 40 percent of the world's GDP.

Despite the breadth of this potential deal, the contents of its negotiations have been hidden from the public and U.S. lawmakers, with much of what is known publicly about them exposed by leaks.

"We identified potential landing zones for the majority of key outstanding issues in the text," stated U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, reading a joint statement from negotiators on Tuesday. "We intend to meet again next month," he said, indicating that market access issues remain unresolved.

Wikileaks released an internal memo (pdf) and spreadsheet (pdf) from an unidentified government official on Monday that reveal resistance to U.S. demands for inclusion of corporate giveaways, including conditions that would allow corporations to bypass national law and sue governments in secret courts-boosting their power to steamroll environmental, labor, and public health protections. This also includes a push for intellectual property conditions that would reduce access to more affordable generic medicines and reduce the power of governments to negotiate lower medicine prices. The U.S., in addition, is demanding a limit to the ability of governments to regulate banks in times of crisis, according to Zach Carter at the Huffington Post.

The leaked memo reads, "Inadequate progress. The positions are still paralyzed. United States shows zero flexibility," regarding financial services negotiations.

In a statement emailed to Common Dreams, Public Citizen warned, "However, many countries have caved to relentless U.S. demands that they alter their domestic patent and medicine pricing laws to meet the desires of large pharmaceutical firms."

This latest leak follows the November 13 Wikileaks exposure of the Obama administration's TPP push to erode internet freedoms and cut access to medicines in what analysts say are the most damaging and dangerous proposals in the history of U.S. "free trade" deals

ROCKEFELLER ATTACHES CYBERSECURITY BILL TO NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (NDAA) 2014

December 10, 2013
SOURCE: A SHEEP NO MORE

Call your senator and tell them to vote no to the Cyber Security Amendment attached to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill. COPY AND PASTE THIS INFORMATION below into BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS EMAILS! They must know we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE UP TO AND ARE EXPOSING THEM!!! SENATOR MAIN NUMBER IS 202 224 3121 and their email can be found here...http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment (I attached it below) to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America's cyber infrastructure and private entities. Those of us who represent private entities, will soon find our free access to the internet eliminated. The fact that this internet control bill is attached to the NDAA is no accident because this means that dissidents, posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet, can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely for their "terrorist" views. There is a second and equally disturbing development in that the government has declared that the people of this country do not have the right to challenge the government on its unconstitutional actions. This is a position which fully exposes the fact that America is no longer a democratic republic, but rather a dictatorship which serves the elite. At issue is the ACLU's right to sue the NSA for the unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by spying on their every communication and their web-surfing habits. This position, taken by the government, validates that we have no rights and are living under a dictatorship. BILLS-113s1353is

Rockefeller's proposal, S.1353, was unanimously approved by the Commerce Committee in July but has stayed relatively dormant ever since. On Thursday he submitted that bill as an amendment to be considered as part of an annual Pentagon spending plan that could fast track his attempts to land his proposal on President Barack Obama's desk after attempts in Congress to adopt cybersecurity legislation have largely proven to be futile.

BILLS-113s1353is
- See more at:
http://asheepnomore.net/2013/12/08/rockefeller-attaches-cybersecurity-bill-ndaa-2014/#sthash.wOKXkmMb.dpuf

Hawaiian Mayor Signs GMO Ban into Law

This bill prohibits biotech companies from operating on the island, and it bans farmers from growing any new genetically altered crops.

Food Revolution Network: By Ocean Robbins
December 9, 2013

It's official. The mayor of the island of Hawaii, Billy Kenoi, has signed bill 113 into law. This bill prohibits biotech companies from operating on the island, and it bans farmers from growing any new genetically altered crops. (The papaya industry, which has more than 200 farms on the island, is exempt from the bill.)

Hawaii is joining Mexico, which last month banned (on an interim basis) the planting of all genetically engineered corn, and Italy, which in July became the 9th European country to ban planting of Monsanto's GMO corn.

Monsanto and its allies are trying to convince you and I and the rest of the American public that the case is settled and GMOs have been proven safe. But counties and nations around the world are banning them. And a group of 230 scientists from around the world, including Dr. Belinda Martineau, who helped commercialize the world's first GM food (the Flavor Savor tomato), recently joined together to sign a declaration that they: "deplore the disinformation over the safety of GMOs." They add: "Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods, are false." ( Read the scientist's statement in full here.)

Do you think GMOs should be labeled? If you do, you are far from alone. The vast majority of people in the United States would like to see the country join 64 other nations, including all of Europe, in labeling GMOs. It's a cause supported, according to polls, by 93% of the American public.

But last month the Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), funded by secret donations from the junk food industry, led a campaign to block labeling in the state of Washington. And now recently uncovered documents have revealed that the GMA is plotting a campaign for federal preemption that would permanently block any state from requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Monsanto and the GMA want to keep you eating in the dark. That's why the Food Revolution Network, for which I serve as CEO, has launched a campaign that seeks to peel away the GMA's funding base, and expose the "natural" brands whose corporate owners are funding the GMA's anti-labeling agenda. We've started with a petition and boycott campaign that targets Coca-Cola's "healthy" brands.

Most people don't realize that Coca-Cola owns Honest Tea, Odwalla, Zico Coconut Water, Simply Orange, and Vitamin Water. And that this corporation, which sweetens most of its beverages with genetically engineered high fructose corn syrup, recently contributed more than $1 million in an illegal money laundering scheme to the cause of GMO secrecy. But now, hundreds of thousands of people like you are finding out and joining the campaign.

The people of Hawaii, and their mayor, have spoken. Now it's your turn. Together, we can force Coca-Cola to honor the wishes of the vast majority of Americans who want to see GMOs labeled.

NELSON MANDELA WAS A COMMUNIST TERRORIST BACKED BY ZIONISTS

December 6, 2013
BY LEE ROGERS, BLACKLISTED NEWS

Nelson Mandela the former President of South Africa has passed away at the age of 95. The big American media outlets are currently spending hours upon hours of air time praising Mandela as some sort of angelic icon of peace. This is a total fabrication of reality. Mandela originally aligned himself with the African National Congress a Communist revolutionary group heavily influenced and financed by Zionist Jews. This organization would be responsible for all sorts of atrocities in South Africa which eventually led to Mandela's time in jail. Mandela co-founded the militant wing of the ANC with various South African Communists including an Israeli Jew by the name of Arthur Goldreich. The group was called Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation. It is important to note that the ANC not only attacked official government buildings but even non-government targets like movie theatres as well. It was this activity that made it easy for several countries including the United States to label the ANC as a terrorist organization. Mandela himself was even on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008. Fun facts about Mandela such as these are completely ignored by all of the big media outlets because it runs contrary to the portrait they are trying to paint.

In order to understand who Mandela really was it is necessary to understand the real history of apartheid South Africa. The policies of apartheid or racial segregation were largely implemented starting in the late 1940s to early 1950s. These policies were originally intended to give the different races within South Africa an independent area of their own. It was argued by South African leaders at the time that South Africa wasn't a single nation but was made up of several different racial groups which should be split apart. Although the merits of these policies or lack thereof could be argued, the policies were not as nefarious as we have been led to believe.

The so-called apartheid South African government which was dominated by White Europeans had made South Africa a successful independent first world nation. This was the real reason why Jewish Communists sought to use the ANC as a way to demonize the White European leaders in power. South Africa represented an independent economic and military power that needed to be brought under their influence.

Much like the phony civil rights movement in America, the ANC was dominated by Jewish Communists even up until the 1990s when Mandela took power. A recent article from Haaretz notes the following.

The African National Congress, the liberation movement that became the governing party in 1994, also had a full complement of Jews, including Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils and Denis Goldberg.

The ANC would not only engage in acts of terror against Whites but they would also do the same against Blacks who they suspected of collaborating with Whites. Specifically they would execute and torture people by igniting a rubber tire filled with petrol that they forced over their chests and arms. The practice referred to as necklacing would typically take the victim over 15 minutes to die in certain cases. Hundreds of executions using this method were carried out by the ANC. Even Mandela's one-time wife Winnie would implicitly endorse this method of torture and execution.

Early in his life Mandela was surrounded by Jews and was given his first job as a clerk by a Jewish lawyer named Lazar Sidelsky. He would associate himself with a large number of Jewish Communists including some of the ones mentioned previously. In fact during a sweep of the ANC in the early 1960s which resulted in his arrest and lengthy prison sentence, a significant number of Jews were also arrested. Enormous caches of weapons and explosives held by the ANC were also uncovered. A recently published article from Tablet Magazine goes into great detail about how Mandela was aligned strongly with a significant number of Zionist and Communist Jews before and up until the time of his arrest.

In 1985, the President of South Africa Pieter W. Botha offered to release Mandela from prison if he would unconditionally reject violence as a political instrument. Mandela refused the offer. This fact completely destroys the notion that Mandela was a man of peace.

Mandela's release from prison in 1990 was greeted with widespread media coverage from all of the major Jewish controlled press outlets including American mainstream media. Instead of focusing on his past, he was portrayed as a man of peace and an iconic freedom fighter. The biased media spin was used to make people forget about who he really was. Amazingly the ridiculous media extravaganza helped Mandela become President of South Africa allowing his Jewish backers to change South Africa into a nation run by Communist principles.

Since Mandela's ascent to the Presidency, the South African economy has actually worsened compared to when it was led by the apartheid government. A BBC article goes into great detail about how many things were better before the ANC and Mandela took power. In fact economic inequality is far worse now than before. Unemployment and poverty is rampant with many South Africans living in shacks. Dissent against the ANC is largely stifled as one would expect in a nation run by Communist principles. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of White South Africans murdered by Blacks since this transformation. Specifically White South African farmers have been primary targets during this reign of murder and terror.

Simply put, Mandela was nothing more than a cult of personality fraud who has brought ruin to South Africa. Many Black South Africans are actually worse off now than under the alleged evils of the apartheid government. He was always a puppet for powerful Jewish interests who were the ones that really helped him gain power in South Africa. It is no wonder why Barack Obama had so many kind things to say about Mandela because Obama is literally doing the same thing to America that Mandela did to South Africa. Mandela should be remembered with disdain and not with reverence

BIG BROTHER WANTS YOUR KIDS PALMS & VEINS SCANNED 

December 6, 2013
SOURCE: MASS PRIVATE I

Washington - Puyallup School District says by the end of the year, every lunchroom will have palm scanning devices that will allow students to pay for their lunch with a wave of a hand.

Parents from Washington state's Puyallup School District successfully ended the implementation of palm-scanners this week after attempts to push the system without parental approval backfired.

"Efficiency is another reason for implementing this. The accuracy of the scanner reduces human error, reduces fraud, the ability for students to share numbers allows parents to know the money that they're spending is being spent on their child's lunch," said Brian Fox, spokesperson for Puyallup School District.

The district says the devices will be in all 32 schools by the end of the school year.

So far, Wildwood Elementary and Stahl Junior High have the scanners in their lunchrooms.
Christina Allen has a daughter in middle school and said she was blindsided by a letter that her daughter came home with that said the scanners would be used at Kalles Junior High in a few weeks.

"I have issue with privacy with that. If the school district needs my signature in order to obtain my daughter's photograph and use that photograph in publication because of a privacy issue, then I believe I should have to sign an authorization to use my child's identity and for them to do that," said Allen.
The scanners work by using infrared technology to look for vein patterns in palms.

"To hear those words 'vein recognition program' huge it's very invasive to me. What is it in my daughter's veins do they need to photograph or have that information?" said Allen.
But Fox says the school district cannot access the biometric scans.

"It doesn't take a picture of a finger print or a handprint, it simply connects the activity of the vein to the number system where the account where the parents have already given us their Visa number or MasterCard number and paid for lunches. It's the same information we already keep like Social Security numbers and phone numbers and addresses, we are charged with keeping confidential," said Fox.

A group of New York engineers announced the development of a "biometric classroom." According to developers at SensorStar Labs, cameras that track students' eye movements, conversations and smiles will help teachers improve classroom learning.

TSA NOW OVERSEEING WARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHES FOR CARS PARKED AT AIRPORTS

December 3, 2013
SOURCE: POLICE STATE USA

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has now expanded its intrusive searching protocol to include the interior of parked cars left at the airport. Reports of vehicle searches have been reported at multiple airports since this summer.
Since roughly June, airports have been performing vehicle searches of cars parked in front of terminals. According to their signs, this is being done in accordance with TSA mandates and local authorities.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, a traveler photographed the sign pictured above at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport in Birmingham, Alabama. It reads:

"ALL CARS WILL BE SEARCHED BY UNIFORMED SECURITY AS MANDATED BY BAA AND TSA"
The sign is being displayed by AmeriPark, a valet company. It cites the Birmingham Airport Authority and TSA as the government agencies responsible for the warrantless vehicle searches.
This report is similar to what was reported in Rochester, NY, this July. A woman discovered a note left in her car that her vehicle had been searched without her permission or notice. Laurie Iacuzza said she was "furious" that airport personnel had used her keys to gain access to the vehicle which she had entrusted to a valet parking attendant.

The notice, found on her dashboard read: "Thank you for your patronage. Your vehicle has been inspected under TSA regulations."

When asked which parking lots were being searched, John McCaffery, TSA, said that the searches include vehicles that were parked close enough to present a "vulnerability" to the airport, which did not necessarily include distant garage parking.

WHEC 10 News's Berkeley Brean reported that "The TSA says that this is part of its overall security plan, in that its a proactive move to keep you and your family safe at the airport. "
"The attendants told me that its kind of a three-phase thing, they're ordered to search the trunk, the engine, and scan the inside of the car," Brean continued. "They say it takes about 30 seconds to do it. They say that they don't go through your console or your glove boxes. The TSA says that they're instructing these valet attendants to look for large amounts of explosive material."

The TSA responded to outrage in July over the program, claiming that the searches were not technically mandated - despite staff at multiple airports apparently believing the opposite. "While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA, it is up to each airport authority and its state and local law enforcement partners to follow the plan that has been implemented," wrote Bob Burns of the TSA Blog.

The warrantless searches of vehicles at the behest of the TSA and local airport officials should not be tolerated. While outrageous, given the wholesale infringement of travelers' rights, it cannot be surprising to anyone paying attention. As the 4th amendment fades into distant memory, we are left to wonder where the mission-creep of the homeland security complex will lead us next.

Earnest thanks goes to all those who have contributed to the operation of this website. We are committed to covering stories that remain conspicuously ignored by the national mainstream media, and your generous support is essential to effectively distributing this message. Many victims of government-sanctioned violence offer their gratitude

THE OTHER POLICE STATE; THE PRIVATE INTEL INDUSTRY GROWS

December 1, 2013
DAVID ROSEN,
COUNTERPUNCH

Together, the public-state and private-corporate security system is gaining ever-greater control over the lives of ordinary Americans.

On November 20th, the Center for Corporate Policy, a Washington, DC, good-government group, issued a revealing study, "Spooky Business: A New Report on Corporate Espionage Against Non-profits." Written by Gary Ruskin, it confirms one's worst suspicions about the ever-expanding two-headed U.S. security state.

One "head" of this apparatus consists of the formal law-enforcement, security juggernaut. It includes the vast network of federal, state and local entities that are duly, "legally," constituted to maintain law and order. It maintains state power.

The second "head" consists of a parallel "police" force, local and national corporate entities that use legal - and often questionable - practices to undermine democracy, most notably a citizen's right to object to what s/he perceives as an unjust business practice. It maintains corporate power.

Together, the public-state and private-corporate security system is gaining ever-greater control over the lives of ordinary Americans. They constitute the postmodern, 21st century policing apparatus.

The revolving-door thesis acknowledges the link between government employees and private corporations. Pres. Eisenhower warned against it in his legendary 1961 Farewell Address in which he publically identified the military-industrial complex. In the last half-century, the revolving door has become an unquestioned, acceptable career path for upwardly mobile bureaucrats. So, few were surprised when Timothy Geithner, former Sec. of the Treasury and head of the New York Fed, and one of those who orchestrated the banking plunder known as the Great Recession, took a job as president and managing director of Warburg Pincus, a leading private equity firm.

"Spooky Business" shows that many leading U.S. corporations are retaining the services of former federal security personnel to wage campaigns to subvert Constitutionally protected citizen rights. It details the practices of Bank of America, BP, Brown & Williamson, Burger King, the Chamber of Commerce, Chevron Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Kraft, McDonald's, Monsanto, Shell and Wal-Mart. Going further, it argues that to pull this off, these companies hire former employees of the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service, the military and local law-enforcement. As Ruskin shows, these "security officials" are linked to infiltration, espionage, surveillance and other tactics that are intended to undermine ostensible threats posed by nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.

The two-headed security apparatus is nothing new in America. It traces its roots to the post-Civil War era, a period of industrialization, immigration and urbanization. Then, especially in both big cities and the recently settled West, the formal state was weak, law enforcement still being development. Thus, many private companies turned to private security efforts to resolve differences.

The tension - and increasing integration - of the state and the corporation has shaped the U.S. since the Civil War. The interlinking of public and private policing is the gravest threat to American democracy. The security state flourished during the anti-Communist, McCarthy '50 and again against anti-war and black activists during the ‘60s. It is now being implemented as the war against "terrorism."

Israeli Data Spies Have Eyes Focused on U.S. Citizens 

November 26, 2013
By Keith Johnson

While the National Security Agency (NSA) spying scandal continues to grab national headlines, the equally egregious intelligence gathering on United States citizens by Israeli security firms has virtually flown under the radar.

A recent article in Rolling Stone magazine, entitled "Meet the Private Companies Helping Cops Spy on Protesters," comes close to scratching the surface by identifying the four major security contractors that have been aggressively hawking their invasive surveillance products at various trade shows and police conferences throughout the nation. However, they fail to mention that at least two of those companies are owned and operated by members of a foreign nation with a long and notorious history of spying on the U.S. government and its citizens.

Among them is NICE Systems, Ltd., an Israel-based company founded in 1986 by seven "Israeli ex-army colleagues." NICE's current CEO is Zeevi Bregman, who formerly helmed Comverse Technology, Inc., an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm that provides wiretapping equipment to U.S. law enforcement.

In 2001, Comverse was the subject of a Fox News investigation into Israeli spying, where it was alleged "that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties. Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50% of its research and development costs."
More recently, Comverse subsidiary Verint Systems, Inc. has been linked to the current NSA spy scandal. AMERICAN FREE PRESS has previously reported on how the company was hired by the feds to wiretap U.S. telecommunications networks and even offered back-door access to major U.S. technology companies like Facebook, Microsoft and Google.

Bregman now oversees NICE Systems projects that are just as intrusive. One product marketed to law enforcement is "NiceTrack Target 360°," an intelligence gathering tool that collects and monitors the activities of persons targeted in surveillance operations. According to their brochure, "The solutions retrieve target location, relations and conversation content from any type of communication including telephony, IP and satellite, resulting in a multi-dimensional intelligence picture."

Nice Systems also provides a suite of video surveillance products that monitors street activity 24/7 and alerts law enforcement of potential disruptions. In a promotional video for the "NICE Security Portfolio," a group of protestors are depicted as posing a "security risk" by demonstrating in a city center. The fictitious activists are shown chanting slogans and hoisting signs that read "No More" and "Stop It Now" as the narrator explains how a variety of NICE Systems products can be used to help mitigate the "situation." The narrator concludes by saying, "The entire event is then reconstructed on a chronological timeline, based on all multimedia sources," to help "managers evaluate and understand trends and prepare for, predict and even prevent the next event."

According to foreign trade portal Israel Gateway, NICE Systems products are already being used at the Statue of Liberty and the New Jersey Transit System.
A spokeswoman for NICE declined to provide Rolling Stone with specific clients, but said "Thousands of customers worldwide" use their products, including "law enforcement and other government agencies."

A quick review of NICE's website however, reveals some high-profile "leading customers" the Jewish firm has accumulated, including:

• Air France
• Beijing Metro
• Bank of Tokyo
• American Airlines
• Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'l Airport
• Mitsubishi UFJ
• American Express
• Eiffel Tower
• India Parliament House
• HSBC
• T-Mobile
• Miami-Dade Police Department
• NJ Transit
• New York Police Department
• Port of Miami
• Belgian Railways
• UBS
• Shanghai Pudong Int'l Airport
• Washington Mutual
• Statue of Liberty

The other Israeli-owned security firm referenced in Rolling Stone is 3i-MIND, which is profiled in the below article. 3i-MIND's founder and CEO is Israeli-born billionaire Mati Kochavi, who also owns AGT International, a security firm managed by a team of retired Israeli generals and Mossad agents, according to an article in Le Figaro.

Though AGT has only been in business since 2007, it has already secured $8B in contracts and has become a leading supplier of surveillance technologies to the governments of India, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and others.

In 2010, AGT entered into a strategic partnership with Microsoft as an initial foray into the U.S. security market. According to a press release, the two companies plan to "provide government homeland security and corporate customers with complete solutions" in a shared "belief that the benefits of globalization for the world economy need to be accompanied by in-built sophisticated security technology."

More recently, AGT's Kochavi has ventured into the realm of journalism by launching a digital news website called Vocativ, which produces pro-Israel news content targeted at the young adult demographic. According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, Kochavi "has organized his newsroom along the lines of an intelligence agency in the belief that journalism needs to undergo the same transformation that's already swept the field of spycraft."

Although Kochavi wants his staff and clients to enjoy full-spectrum intelligence gathering capabilities, he doesn't believe the general public should be afforded the same. In 2011, Kochavi and former President Bill Clinton appeared together in a CNBC interview to push for the creation of a regulatory agency that would prevent "misinformation and rumors" from being spread over the Internet.

"Why can't we have a credibility bar near every resultive search," Kochavi asked. "When we buy food we have ingredients on the food. When we go to see a movie we have ratings."
It's certain that if Kochavi had his way, real news organizations like AMERICAN FREE PRESS would be given a "zero" credibility rating.

Israeli security companies like AGT and NICE Systems can only survive if their sordid pasts are concealed from public scrutiny. And that's precisely why AFP will continue to expose them at every opportunity.

Israeli Firm Peddling Technology to U.S. Cops to Spy on Dissenters

• Former members of Israeli intelligence work to help crush free speech

A multinational security firm with ties to Israeli intelligence is providing U.S. law enforcement with intrusive surveillance tools to spy on American citizens and track the movements of political activists.

According to the above-mentioned Rolling Stone article, for-hire intelligence group 3i-MIND has been found peddling their highly advanced data-mining system at various security trade shows and police conferences throughout the nation.

The product, marketed to law enforcement as "OpenMIND," scours the so-called "deep web"-that 80% of the Internet inaccessible to other search engines-for insights about upcoming demonstrations, identifies and collects information on political activists and monitors their activities in real-time.

"Your insight is distributed to the local police force warning them that the political rally may turn violent and potentially thwarting the violence before it occurs," says promotional material for the product on the 3i-MIND website.

Very little is revealed about 3i-MIND in the Rolling Stone article. They don't mention that its founder and CEO is Israeli-born billionaire Mati Kochavi, who made his fortune in real estate after serving as an intelligence operative for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

"Several years ago he became involved in the homeland security field, and this involvement increased after the September 11 attacks in 2001," reads a 2008 article from Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "He forged contacts within Israel's military establishment and began hiring high-ranking former officials in the field."

Kochavi's companies reportedly employ dozens of former IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet security service officials, including Major General Amos Malka, who headed Israel's Military Intelligence from 1998-2001.

This isn't the first time an Israeli-linked company has been implicated in spying on American activists exercising their First Amendment rights. In 2010, public outcry forced the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to end a contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response after it was discovered that the Jerusalem-based intelligence group used the Internet to spy on peaceful protestors and then generated misleading "terror bulletins" on their activities, which were in turn distributed to Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies.

If American citizens are upset that the federal government is eavesdropping on their communications, they should be more than outraged that proxies of an oppressive and untrustworthy foreign nation like Israel are helping their local police departments do the exact same thing

UN Academic Impact Joins CFR to Infiltrate U.S. Classrooms  

November 23, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: The New American

The United Nations is proud of the impact it is having on all levels of public and private education in the United States. On November 22, the UN News Centre [sic] issued the following announcement:

Created three years ago to actively support universally accepted principles in human rights, literacy, sustainability and conflict resolution, the United Nations initiative working with higher education institutions has marked its third anniversary by spotlighting efforts of students in the New York tri-state area making a difference locally and internationally.

According to the press release promoting its achievements, the UN's influence extends from high school to higher education, providing curriculum "to make students representing religious minorities feel more comfortable and connected with peers, to balance of power and gender equality."

The project is known as the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI).

What is the ultimate goal of the globalists' infiltration of the American classroom? The UN describes this initiative's agenda to be the aligning of "institutions of higher education with the UN to actively support universally accepted principles in human rights, literacy, sustainability and conflict resolution, among others."

Put another way - and judging from the list of speakers who addressed a recent conference hosted by the UNAI in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations - the goal of the "global classroom" is the spreading of the UN doctrines of population control, Agenda 21 sustainability, and the abandonment of traditional religious morals. The November 1 event began a series of quarterly "talks" known as CFR@UNAI where CFR and UN dignitaries will address students, teachers, and others on topics of "current interest." The first of these educational chats dealt with global health issues. One need only imagine that, given the identity of the speakers, the subject matter would include convincing impressionable schoolchildren of the need for greater population control, sustainability, and the reduction of human destruction of the planet.
One of the most potent weapon in the UN's war on education is a popular program known as the Global Classrooms.

In concert with its overall educational agenda, the UN Global Classrooms is being marketed as a way to inculcate students with the "valuable insight into the growing influence of globalization."
One prong of this pernicious attack on our sovereignty is known as the Model United Nations. As many parents will know, the Model United Nations is a program created by the UN to engage "middle school and high school students in an exploration of current world issues through interactive simulations and curricular materials. Global Classrooms cultivates literacy, life skills and the attitudes necessary for active citizenship."

Global citizenship, not American citizenship. If the two collide, there is little doubt which allegiance the UN would prefer our young people to declare. In 2008, the Model U.N. project was promoted in a statement made by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Los Angeles:

You are here to step into the shoes of UN Ambassadors - to draft resolutions, to plot strategy, to negotiate with your allies as well as your adversaries. Your goal may be to resolve a conflict, to cope with a natural disaster or to bring nations together on an issue like climate change. You may be playing a role, but you are also preparing for life. You are acting as global citizens.
Again, the emphasis is not on being good citizens of their home countries; instead, it is to diminish that concept in favor of the creation of global citizens who will see participation in worldwide government as their primary responsibility, regardless of national sovereignty or principles of national law.

The United Nations is proud of the proliferation of the Global Classroom program. On its website, it crows about the growth it is enjoying around the world:

Over the past decade, Global Classrooms has worked in 24 major cities around the world, helping bridge the gap in the Model UN community between experienced programs and traditionally underserved public schools or schools new to Model UN. Global Classrooms is distinguished by its teacher and student resources that develop critical thinking, conflict resolution and communication skills for middle and high school students.

A detached observer of this plan could see in it the potential for harm to the United Nations itself. Should students truly be trained to think critically, resolve conflicts, and communicate effectively, would they not be liable to see through the United Nations' propaganda and perhaps recognize the wisdom and virtue of our own Constitution and the writings of those who created our own government?

Naturally, the United Nations apparatchiks overseeing the Global Classroom/UN Academic Impact would be savvy to that possibility, as well, hence the emphasis placed on "global citizenship" and the prompting to use these skills to solve international crises.

Is it too farfetched to believe that these crises could include the resistance of the United States to the implementation of United Nations climate change resolutions? Or to the Arms Trade Treaty? Or to the Law of the Sea Treaty? Or to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Would the thousands of American students taught at the knee of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his corps of classroom czars be willing to use their academic tools to dismantle the Constitution in favor of a more global-minded government? Will they come to share their overseers' opinion that the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate impediment to a peaceful, sustainable, equitable planet?

With those thoughts in mind, the number of American educators and students participating in the UN Global Classroom project is worrisome. Currently, students in school districts in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, Minneapolis, Miami, Boston, and Atlanta have active chapters of the United Nations Global Classroom operating in their schools. The participation of the school districts in Detroit and New Orleans was announced at a recent UN conference. The list of international partners is just as lengthy.

Of course, the resources needed to maintain these academic outposts of the United Nations don't come cheap. The list of global corporate partners that support this project is impressive and not at all surprising to those familiar with the close connection between big business and the push toward one world government.

Among others, the following enterprises have "generously supported" the spread of United Nations doctrine and devotion in the classrooms of the United States:

Merrill Lynch/Bank of America Corporate Philanthropy;

Deutsche Bank;

Goldman Sachs Foundation;

The New York Times Company Foundation;

Microsoft;

The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation;

United Parcel Service (UPS); and
The United States State Department.

Last year at the annual United Nations Association Leadership Conference, Esther Brimmer, the Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, praised the UN Global Classroom team for its "terrific work" in helping American children learn about the "positive story of the UN's vital work worldwide."

Don't think for a minute that the powers that be at the United Nations don't appreciate the ability of these young people to push the plan along.

Speaking at the Model UN/Global Classroom conference in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took the opportunity to educate students about "sustainability" and the other tenets of Agenda 21 that were presented at the Rio+20. He told the students: "Time is tight. In about four weeks, five days, 14 hours and 50 minutes, we will open the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The truth is: I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough."

Finally, Ban Ki-moon gave the students his list of three things he would like to see accomplished at the Rio+20 meetings and how they could help:

1. Inspire new thinking: "the old economic model is breaking down" said Ban. He called for businesses to put an emphasis on a "triple bottom line" that includes social environment and economic instead of just profit.

2. Make Rio about people. Teach people that sustainable development "offers concrete hope for real improvements in daily lives." He also called for a greater voice for women and young people saying that "women should be empowered as engines of economic dynamism and social development."

3. Issue a "waste not" call to action: "Mother Earth has been kind to us. Let humanity reciprocate by respecting her natural boundaries," said Ban as he called for better protection of our air, water and forests and the improvement of the quality of life in our cities.

The United Nations will not be deterred in its quest to convince our children of their responsibility to protect their "Mother Earth" from the evils of humanity. The priority now is to sound this anti-American screed in the ears of every American child while they sit captive in our country's classrooms. As the website explains:

The popularity of U.N. classroom projects in U.S. has grown steadily at both the high school and middle schools levels. With the expansion of the Global Classrooms program over the last decade, and the UNAI, the UNA-USA brings the experience to an increasing number of public schools and their students.

The United Nations' drive to train our children to be better "global citizens" - to bring Common Core to every classroom in the world - is accelerating and may soon come to a school district near you.

The TSA Precheck Program Is Another Government Sanctioned Fraud 

November 21, 2013
Source: Lee Rogers, Blacklisted News

The TSA precheck system which has been sold to the public as a way for people to bypass body scanners and government sanctioned molestations is another fraud. Even if you go through the process of signing up to be eligible to go through TSA precheck security lines there is nothing to stop the TSA from randomly taking you out of a precheck line and forcing you through a body scanner. Here's the fine print located on the TSA's own web site.

What it fails to mention is that the only terrorists in U.S. airports these days are the ones wearing blue uniforms with the letters TSA on them. The TSA has yet to stop any so-called terrorist attacks throughout its entire existence. In fact they are the one's doing all of the terrorizing considering the countless horror stories that travellers have reported in dealing with them over the years. Not only that but nearly every so-called domestic terrorist attack has either been staged or has been a manufactured operation by the FBI.

I was already aware of the TSA precheck caveat but since I have to fly for work semi-frequently I decided to sign up anyway to see if it was actually worthwhile. I signed up for the Global Entry program which automatically makes you eligible to go through TSA precheck security lines. I figured that by doing this I'd be able to avoid the body scanners most of the times I fly and my chances of being randomly selected for additional screening would probably be low.

The European Union has forbid the use of the body scanners currently in use around U.S. airports because they could potentially subject the public to health and safety problems. There are also many other questions surrounding the safety of these devices which is why when I fly I choose not to go through them. As disgusting as the grope downs are, it is a preferable alternative to being radiated by the body scanner machines. Nobody really knows how much radiation these machines are pumping into our bodies and I sure as hell am not going to trust the companies which make these body scanners to provide accurate answers. After all, the criminal Zionist Jew and dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff was involved with Rapiscan one of the manufacturers of these devices. With that said, you'll have to forgive me if I don't place a whole lot of trust in the companies that make these products.

I also figured that since I've been incredibly vocal about my hatred of the federal government and their insane policies for the past seven years, that these clowns probably already knew most everything about me any way. So giving them my information at this point is inconsequential. Besides, it is now a widely accepted fact that the NSA has illegally collected an untold amount of data and information on us. There's little doubt that they already have extensive dossiers on the most outspoken critics of the federal government.

After paying a $100 processing fee and providing a bunch of personal information I scheduled the required interview at Boston's Logan International Airport. The interviewing agent was skeptical about a previous arrest I didn't report on the form based on a misunderstanding of what they were asking for on the application. Apparently it is OK for the government to lie endlessly about everything they do but god forbid if they think you aren't being 100% truthful when filling out a government form. The hypocritical double standard is beyond belief but that's par for course when dealing with the federal government. Besides this small snafu the process went smoothly and they accepted me into the program as I met all of the qualifying standards.
The first time I went through a TSA precheck line was when I was flying back from Denver after a week of hiking in the Rocky Mountains. Things actually went smoothly and it was basically like airport security before the 9/11 attacks. You didn't have to take your laptop out of your bag, you didn't have to take your shoes off and you could just go through a metal detector. At least these procedures are reasonable unlike the current farce that is in place with the regular security lines in which every air traveller is treated like a prisoner.

Things didn't go quite as smoothly when I flew out of Boston overseas to London a few weeks ago. I was waiting in the TSA precheck line and one of the TSA goons randomly selected me to go through a second line which only had a body scanner. Needless to say this really pissed me off. The only reason I signed up to be eligible for the TSA precheck lines was so I could avoid the radiation machines and not have to get my groin groped just to board an aircraft. Of course only the second time I go through a precheck line they want to put me through a body scanner. I don't necessarily believe that this was a conspiracy of some kind but I still thought it was a bunch of bull shit. After objecting to this angrily they still would not allow me back in the regular precheck line. Of course if I didn't go through the body scanner line than they told me that they would view that as me refusing security.

Once I got to the body scanner I refused to go through it and was subjected to the standard government mandated molestation. I told them that their policies were for the purpose of enslaving the general population and that the war on terror was bull shit. My rantings were loud enough where I had nearly every person in the security area staring at me like I was some sort of mad man for protesting what is obviously a completely bull shit policy. It just goes to show you what a bunch of god damn zombies everybody is. If everybody protested this shit than the TSA would be forced to modify these policies. Instead, everybody just accepts all of this like it is normal which is why the policies continue. Even the TSA thugs seemed surprised that somebody was questioning them. It is obvious that none of these people have any concept of what the Fourth Amendment is because what they are doing does not constitute a reasonable search of any kind.

During my rant they threatened to have me removed from precheck eligibility which didn't matter to me all that much because the purpose of having it was already defeated. Finally after they were confident enough that I didn't have a bomb jammed up my asshole they let me through the checkpoint. They told me I could file a complaint which is a joke since complaints directed towards any federal government agency always fall on deaf ears. After all, look at the criminal scum we have occupying positions of powers in Washington DC. It is nothing more than a gaggle of traitors who should be charged and convicted of high crimes and treason. A lot of them are lucky that they aren't being strung up on traffic lights by their necks.

I think my experience proves that the TSA precheck program is just another fraud courtesy of the federal government. If you pay the $100 processing fee, go in person for an interview and voluntarily submit information about yourself there is no reason why you should be randomly subjected to this type of shit. The fact that I was subjected to additional screening only the second time I went through a precheck line is ridiculous. These policies are counterproductive and will only create a larger amount of people who will seek retribution against the government. It is literally designed to create enemies who can than later be demonized as terrorists.
It should be interesting to see if these clowns randomly select me for additional screening the next time I fly and go through a precheck line. If they do than I will assume that they have done this intentionally. After opting out of the body scanner perhaps I'll just have an accidental bladder discharge in my pants. We'll see how eager they are to inspect my crotch for an explosive device after that.

In closing, there is no doubt that the TSA is one of the biggest jokes in America and you should feel far less safe with these government goon squads manning security checkpoints. The federal government has put terrorists in charge of airport security and it doesn't look as if the status quo will change anytime soon.

Judge Orders Homeland Security to Release Details for Shutting Down Wireless Networks

November 21, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: All Gov.

The federal government must release documents explaining how, when and why it might decide to shut down the nation's wireless networks because of a "national crisis," U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled last week. His ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) against the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) in February 2013.

EPIC filed its FOIA request with DHS in July 2012, asking for the full text of Standard Operating Procedure 303, a document approved in March 2006 by the National Communications System (now the Office of Emergency Communications) that codifies "a shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crises", but was never released to the public. EPIC also requested the text of the pre-determined "series of questions" that determines if a shutdown is necessary and other supporting documents.

Dissatisfied with DHS's claim in August 2012 that the agency was "unable to locate or identify any responsive records," EPIC filed its suit in February, only to learn that an administrative law judge had ruled that DHS had not made an adequate search and ordered them to do so. That search turned up the text of SOP 303, which DHS released in heavily redacted form. DHS claimed the redactions were made under FOIA Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), which permit withholding of law-enforcement information if it would "disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" or "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

EPIC challenged the applicability of those exemptions and won. Judge Boasberg ruled that Exemption 7(E) did not apply because SOP 303 is not an investigatory or prosecution technique, and that 7(F) was not appropriate because DHS could not identify which individuals' life or safety was supposedly being endangered.

Boasberg added that the Government's only recourse-aside from an appeal to the D.C. Circuit-is to get Congress to change the FOIA. The judge ordered DHS to release SOP 303 within 30 days.

Secret TPP Negotiations Resume in Salt Lake City

November 20, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: EFF

The newest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations begin today in Salt Lake City, Utah, where trade representatives will work towards finalizing the text of this sprawling secret agreement. Last week's publication of thecontroversial "Intellectual Property" chapter by Wikileaks confirmed our worst fears: the TPP carries draconian copyright enforcement provisions that threaten users' rights and could stifle innovation well into the 21st Century. Public opposition to the TPP continues to grow as a result of the leaked document; an opaque policymaking process that seems geared towards appeasing Big Content does not provide much in the way of legitimacy.

In the past week, 23 Republicans and 151 Democrats in the House of Representatives wrote letters to the Obama administration indicating their unwillingness to comply with the Executive's request for power to fast-track trade agreements through Congress. Fast-track authority, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, limits congressional approval over trade agreements to a yes or no, up or down vote. If a bill granting fast-track were to pass, hearings would become extremely limited, and lawmakers would have no ability to make amendments. It would give the Obama administration unchecked power to shape TPP and other agreements like the EU-U.S. trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).

There are some Congress members who are actively pushing for fast-track and are vowing to introduce legislation to enact it by 2014. Thankfully, these letters from the House show the White House is going to have difficulty in finding support in Congress to pass such a bill. Still, the Obama administration is going to push hard for the passage of fast-track. The U.S. trade office is negotiating TPP as if it already has fast-track authority, by deciding for itself which countries to negotiate with and what issues are on the table.

Without fast-track, it's inconceivable that the TPP would survive congressional debate. And that's the point of all of this secrecy: the TPP's myriad harmful provisions for users wouldn't survive the sunlight of transparency, so it's being negotiated in the dark. And since negotiators only get to hear corporations' concerns while drafting these policies, it only makes sense that its agenda would exclude users' interests.

So we need to demand that our lawmakers oppose fast-track. Let's ask them to call for a hearing and exercise their authority to oversee the U.S. trade office's secret copyright agenda.

TPP: NAFTA on Steroids

November 19, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: Stephen Lendman

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat.

It's a giveaway to banksters. It's a global neoliberal ripoff. It's a business empowering Trojan horse. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls it "a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement."

More on TPP below. New York Times editors support it. Two decades ago, they endorsed NAFTA.

On January 1, 1994, its destructive life began. It's anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-consumer and anti-democratic.

Corporate giants love it. Why not? They wrote it. Hundreds of pages of one-size-fits-all rules benefit them.

They override domestic laws. A race to the bottom followed. NAFTA was a disastrous experiment. In November 1993, New York editors headlined "The 'Great Debate' Over NAFTA," saying:

"The laboriously constructed agreement to phase out trade barriers among the US, Mexico and Canada, which this page has strongly supported, is likely to have a positive, though small, impact on US living standards and provide a modest boost to the Mexican economy."

"Some American jobs would be lost to cheaper Mexican labor, other jobs would be gained because American exports would increase as Mexico's high tariffs gradually disappeared."

"Economics aside, Nafta's defeat would suggest that the US had abandoned its historical commitment to free trade and would thus discourage other Latin and South American countries thathave moved toward more market-oriented economies in the expectation of freer world trade."

So-called "free trade" is one-sided. It isn't fair. NAFTA proponents promised tens of thousands of newly created US jobs.

Ordinary famers would export their way to wealth. Mexican living standards would rise. Economic opportunities would reduce regional immigration to America.

NAFTA's promises never materialized. Reality proved polar opposite hype. A decade later, about a million US jobs were lost.

America's Mexican trade deficit alone cost around 700,000 jobs by 2010.

Official government data show nearly five million US manufacturing disappeared since 1994.

NAFTA alone wasn't responsible. It reflected broken promises, lost futures, and other trade deals from hell to follow. TPP stands out. It's NAFTA on steroids.

Since 2008, multiple negotiating rounds were held. They continue secretly. Twelve nations are involved.

They include America, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Others are invited to join.

At issue is agreeing on unrestricted trade in goods, services, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers, government procurement and competition policies, and intellectual property (IP).

It's about eliminating fundamental freedoms. It's circumventing sovereign independent rights. Corporate power brokers want unchallenged control.

They want global rules and standards rewritten. They want supranational powers. They want them overriding national sovereignty. They want investor rights prioritized over public ones.

They already rule the world. Imagine giving them more power. Imagine no way to stop them.

Imagine a duplicitous president. Obama's in lockstep with their wish list. He intends giving them everything they want.

Public Citizen is independent. It's our voice. Its work entails "ensur(ing) that all citizens are represented in the halls of power."

Its Global Trade Watch (GTW) monitors TPP developments. It calls it "a stealthy policy being pressed by corporate America. (It's) a dream of the 1%." It'll:

• "offshore millions of American jobs,

• free the banksters from oversight,

• ban Buy America policies needed to create green (and many other) jobs (as well as) rebuild out economy,

• decrease access to medicine,

• flood the US with unsafe food and products,

• and empower corporations to attack our environment and health safeguards."

Hyped benefits are fake. Reality is polar opposite what corporate shysters claim. Everything accruing from TPP benefits them. It does so by undermining what matters most to ordinary people.

Lori Wallach heads GTW. Ben Beachy is research director. Last June, they headlined their New York Times op-ed"Obama's Covert Trade Deal."

He's committed to open government, he claims. His policies reflect otherwise. He's negotiating TPP secretly.

It's "the most significant international commercial agreement since the" World Trade Organization's 1995 creation, said Wallach and Beachy.

Congress has exclusive "terms of trade" authority. Obama systematically refuses repeated congressional requests to release the entire draft agreement being negotiated.

He "denied requests from members to attend (sessions) as observers." He "revers(ed) past practice" snubbing them.

He "rejected demands by outside groups" to release the draft text. George Bush never went that far.

Obama's "wall of secrecy" had one exception. About "600 trade 'advisors,' dominated by representatives of big business," got access to what Congress was denied.

TPP overrides American laws. It requires changing them. Otherwise trade sanctions on US exports can be imposed.

Wall Street loves TPP. It prohibits banning risky financial products. It lets banksters operate any way they want without oversight.

Congress has final say. Both houses will vote on TPP. Ahead of doing so, they'll have access to its full text.

Why later? Why not now? Why not earlier? Why not without enough time for discussion and public debate?

Members won't get enough time to examine TPP carefully. Maintaining secrecy as long as possible prevents public debate.

Obama wants TPP fast-tracked. He wants it approved by yearend. Until March, Ron Kirk was Obama's trade representative.

He was remarkably candid. He said revealing TPP's text would raise enormous opposition. Doing so might make adopting it impossible.

According to Wallach and Beachy:

"Whatever one thinks about 'free trade,' (TPP secrecy) represents a huge assault on the principles and practice of democratic governance."

"That is untenable in the age of transparency, especially coming from an administration that is otherwise so quick to trumpet its commitment to open government."

On October 30, a newly formed Friends of TPP caucus was formed. Four House co-chairman head it. They include Reps. David Reichert (R. WA), Charles Boustany (R. LA), Ron Kind (D. WI) and Gregory Meeks (D. NY).

They sound like earlier NAFTA supporters. They claim TPP is important for US jobs, exports and economic growth. They lied saying so.

Wallach commented separately. TPP is hugely hugely destructive, she said. It's more than about trade. It's a "corporate Trojan horse." It has 29 chapters. Only five relate to trade.

The others "either handcuff our domestic governments, limit food safety, environmental standards, financial regulation, energy and climate policy, or establish new powers for corporations."

They promote offshoring jobs to low-wage countries. They ban Buy America. Corporations can do whatever they please. Instead of investing domestically, they can use "our tax dollars" to operate abroad.

They can exploit national resources freely. They'll have "rights for min(ed) (commodities), oil, gas" and others "without approval."

TPP includes all sorts of "worrisome issues relating to Internet freedom."

It provides a back door to earlier failed legislation. It resurrects SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA provisions. It tramples on fundamental freedoms and national sovereignty.

"Think about all the things that would be really hard to get into effect as a corporation in public, a lot of them rejected here and in the other 11 countries, and that is what's bundled in to the TPP," said Wallach.

"And every country would be required to change its laws domestically to meet these rules."

"The binding provision is each country shall ensure the conformity of domestic laws, regulations and procedures."

Negotiations are secret. Nothing is discussed publicly. Details leaked out. TPP includes hugely unpopular policies. It forces them on member countries.

It overrides domestic laws protecting people and ecosystems. It's predatory capitalism at its worst writ large. Obama fully supports it. Lawmakers hadn't seen it until last year.

They got access to a single chapter. Examining it is severely restricted. Their office is denied a copy. They alone can read it. Their staff is denied permission.

They can't take detailed notes. They can't publicly discuss what's in it. Technical language makes it hard to understand what they read.

Congressional approval is likely. Lobby pressure is intense. "Everything is bought and sold," said Wallach. "Honor is no exception."

The reason there's no deal so far "is because a lot of other countries are standing up to the worst of US corporate demands," Wallach explained.

For how long remains to be seen. If TPP is adopted, public interest no longer will matter. The worst of all possible worlds will replace it. Corporate rights will supersede human ones. A global race to the bottom will intensify.

Signatory countries will be legally bound to support loss of personal freedoms. Sovereign laws won't protect against poisoned food, water and air.

Ecosystems will be destroyed. Millions more jobs will shift from developed to under or less developed nations.

Corporate power will grow more exponentially. Fundamental human and civil rights may erode altogether. Not according to Times editors.

On November 5, they headlined "A Pacific Trade Deal."

A dozen nations want a deal by yearend, they said. They want it to "help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies."

It bears repeating. TPP is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare. Times editors didn't explain.

They lied to readers. They betrayed them. They repeated their 1993 duplicity. Millions affected understand best.

An October 8 White House press release lied. It called TPP "a comprehensive, next-generation model for addressing both new and traditional trade and investment issues, supporting the creation and retention of jobs and promoting economic development in our countries."

"The deepest and broadest possible liberalization of trade and investment will ensure the greatest benefits for countries' large and small manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers, as well as workers, innovators, investors, and consumers."

Times editors endorsed what they haven't read. TPP provisions remain secret. Leaked information alone is known.

Times editors willingly accept Obama misinformation as fact. Twenty years ago, they got NAFTA wrong. Here they go again.

They're mindless about secret negotiations. Public concerns don't matter. Corporate interests alone count.

Subverting national sovereignty is OK. So is empowering transnational giants without oversight. They'll be able sue countries for potentially undermining future profits.

Times editors support the worst of corporate excess. Doing so shows which side they're on.

Fundamental freedoms aren't important. Corporate rights drive The Times' agenda. Its editors explained nothing about fast-track authority.

Max Baucus (D. MT) chairs the Senate Finance Committee. He supports fast-tracking. Doing so hands congressional authority to Obama.

Proper hearings are restricted. Debate is limited. Amendments can't be introduced. The Senate can't filibuster. Congress can only vote up or down.

It can happen virtually out of sight and mind. It can happen with scant media coverage. It can happen with none at all. It can become law with practically no public awareness.

Imagine corporate America getting coup d'etat authority with hardly anyone knowing what happened. Imagine the consequences if it does. Imagine today's America becoming worse than ever.

Times editors stressed how Obama wants TPP to be "an example for the rest of the world to follow."

Imagine one more than ever unfit to live in. Imagine a president promising change to believe in promoting it.

Imagine Times editors endorsing what demands condemnation. Imagine not explaining what readers most need to know.

Imagine substituting misinformation for truth and full disclosure. Imagine all the news they call fit to print not fit to read.

A Final Comment

On November 13, Public Citizen headlined "Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks."

"US Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad."

TPP's leaked text reveals Obama demands limiting Internet freedom. He wants restricted access to lifesaving medicines.

He wants all TPP signatory countries bound the the same deplorable rules.

He lied claiming TPP reduces health care costs. It has nothing to do with advancing online freedom as he promised. It's polar opposite on both counts.

According to Public Citizen:

"It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the US government is isolated and has lost this debate."

"Our partners don't want to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures either."

Obama's in the pocket of Big Pharma. He's a Wall Street tool. He represents other corporate interests. He spurns popular ones. He lies claiming otherwise. He repeatedly avoids truth and full disclosure.

He lied about Obamacare. It's an abomination. It's a scam. It's a scheme to enrich insurers and other healthcare giants.

TPP is a global scam. It's an assault on fundamental freedoms.

Reports indicate around half the House members strongly oppose it. Others lean that way. According to Lori Wallach:

"This could be the end of TPP."

"All these other countries are like, 'Wait, you have no trade authority and nothing you've promised us means anything. Why would we give you our best deal?' Why would you be making concessions to the emperor who has no clothes?"

It bears repeating. TPP is a trade bill from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d' etat. Killing it is essential.

The alternative is losing fundamental freedoms. It's destroying national sovereignty. It's making healthcare less affordable. It's undermining what ordinary people value most.

TSA Rolls Out ‘Detention Pods' at Airport Terminal Exits

Making you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 18, 2013

The TSA is funding the rollout of exit pods at major airport terminals across the country that temporarily detain passengers before they are allowed to leave, another example critics say of how the federal agency's policies treat travelers as prisoners.
Travelers are forced to be bottlenecked through the pods as they leave the airport terminal. A robotic voice gives instructions to wait inside the pod until a green light is shown and the door opens.

The pods have already been installed at Syracuse International Airport as part of a $60 million dollar renovation and are likely to make their way into other major airports soon. Once travelers exit the pods, they are unable to re-enter the terminal.

Some of the passengers exiting through the pods at Syracuse thought the machines were performing x-ray body scans, according to CNY Central.

"It was odd, I was like - where did they come up with this?" asked Patricia Goodrich.
"We need to be vigilant and maintain high security protocol at all times. These portals were designed and approved by TSA which is important," said Syracuse Airport Commissioner Christina Callahan.

The justification for installing the pods is that they replace police or security guards who would normally stand at the exit, therefore saving money, something which the TSA isn't normally concerned about given how it is now selling abandoned naked body scanners to prisons for 10 per cent of their value.

According to Karen De Coster, the pods are a way "to remind you that you are a captive" and are "meant to make you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave."
The prison inmate feel of the devices compliments numerous other TSA policies which critics have charged serve little other purpose than making travelers feel like they are under constant suspicion.

Last week, a Government Accountability Office investigation revealed that the TSA's $1 billion dollar "chat down" program has been a complete failure in that it is "no better than chance" at identifying genuine security threats.

While threatening to arrest passengers who make jokes about airport security, the federal agency has also instituted a ludicrous "freeze" policy whereby travelers are ordered to stand in place like statues while TSA agents resolve some unexplained security threat.

Another policy that has provoked questions is the TSA's random testing of passengers' drinks for explosives after they have already passed through security and purchased beverages inside the secure area of the airport.

DHS Creates New Fusion Centers, Taking Control of Local Police 

November 14, 2013
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D.
The New American

As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) doles out billions of dollars to convince local police departments to surrender control to the federal agency, a recent report indicates that intelligence gathered at precincts-cum-surveillance-centers will be shared among all levels of law enforcement.

An article published by Fierce Homeland Security on November 4 reports:
The phenomenon of fusion centers sharing intelligence and skills with each other - not just with the federal government - is a new and underappreciated aspect of the centers, panelists at a Homeland Security Policy Institute event said.

Fusion centers mainly apply national intelligence to local contexts and gather information locally that they can share with federal agencies. But in recent years, a great deal of "horizontal sharing" has occurred, where fusion centers work closely with each other, said Ross Ashley, the executive director of National Fusion Center Association.

"We'll find an expert in Washington state on international human trafficking over international ferry systems. Well, I don't need that expert everywhere. What I need is the ability to reach out to that expert if I'm in West Virginia," he said at the event, held Oct. 23 in Washington, D.C.
That meeting, entitled "State and Local Fusion Centers: Key Challenges for the Next Decade," featured three panelists: John Cohen, principal deputy under secretary for intelligence and analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Thomas Kirk, director, West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center; and Ross Ashley, executive director, National Fusion Center Association. The keynote address was delivered by Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

In July, McCaul co-authored with Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) a report on the progress of the establishment of the nationwide spread of the fusion centers. The press release announcing the report reveals the pair's support for a program that dismantles federalism and accelerates the militarization of local police and the consolidation of control of those departments to the federal government.

The McCaul-King report states:

Fusion centers serve as hubs of strategic analysis and information sharing where Federal, State, and local agencies are all represented in one location. State and local crime data is coordinated, gathered and reviewed to determine if there is any potential connection to terrorist activity. In addition, Federal terrorism-related information is shared with State and local law enforcement.
Seems the congressmen should be reminded of the fact that there is not a single syllable of the Constitution authorizing any such federal participation in law enforcement. If the power isn't granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then authority over that area remains with the states and the people as described in the Tenth Amendment.

Remarkably, McCaul and King lament the fact that the chain of fusion centers isn't growing quickly enough and the DHS isn't getting adequate access to all that information.

The report adds:

The Committee's review concludes that the Network is not functioning as cohesively as it should be and fusion centers are facing numerous challenges that prevent the Network from realizing its full potential to help secure the homeland.

Of course, there couldn't be a piece of federal police and surveillance program propaganda without reminding citizens that all this deprivation of their rights is for their safety. As if to say, if the federal government doesn't take control of your local police department and keep all citizens under surveillance, the terrorists will strike again.

The representatives' zeal for constructing local outposts of the central surveillance headquarters is not surprising. Self-serving bureaucrats inside the U.S. government are tirelessly trying to obliterate local police forces answerable to local citizens and promote the consolidation movement as a step toward federalization of law enforcement. These proponents of regional and national police forces desire nothing less than the eradication of all local police departments and sheriffs' offices, the surrender of state and municipal sovereignty, and the conversion of police into federal security agents sworn not to protect and to serve their neighbors, but to protect the prerogatives of politicians.

Take for example the information contained in a White Paper presented in 2012 to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In that report, the DHS is encouraged to embark on an "evolving mission" away from its ostensible purpose of fighting terrorism, toward becoming the administrator of an enormous domestic intelligence agency resulting from an integration of the country's local and state law-enforcement agencies.

This report was written by the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group, co-chaired by former DHS chief Michael Chertoff. The blueprint promoted in the White Paper pushes Congress toward green-lighting the growth of DHS and the dissolution of local police and sheriffs.

The organization described in the paper, entitled "Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission," is reminiscent of more draconian governments. For example, one section of the report calls for a transition in the mission of DHS away from protecting the country from the "terrorism" of foreign militants and toward "more specific homeward focused areas." Additional sections of the report lay out the plans for building a DHS/police hybrid agency that can monitor Americans in any town and prevent threats from fellow citizens.
In order to achieve their ultimate aim, the globalists demand that DHS or some other federal agency take control of the personnel decisions currently made by local police chiefs and county sheriffs. "As the threat grows more localized," the report claims, "the federal government's need to train, and even staff, local agencies, such as major city police departments, will grow." Put another way: The federal government will run your local police department and sheriff's office.
The establishment of fusion centers is a key component of this plan. The following information is taken from a fact sheet on fusion centers posted on the DHS website:

A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.

A description of the functioning of these incubators for the forthcoming federal police force is also provided on the DHS site:

State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as primary focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners.... Fusion centers conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing, assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism.

The literature promoting the acceptance of fusion centers lists several ways the new federal agency will impose its will on the formerly autonomous and accountable police chief or county sheriff.

Last year, The New American described the likely procedure:

First, the feds will decide where and when to deploy local police department personnel. The chief, if he still exists, will be no more than a functionary required to make sure that the orders of the federal government are carried out. More likely than not, these new missions, in addition to preventing crime in the city or county, will engage in the collection of information about and apprehension of those local citizens identified by a committee in Washington as posing a threat to national security. Consider the revelation in 2009 that Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a document entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalism and Recruitment," which listed war veterans, anti-abortion activists, small-government advocates, and those concerned about immigration as terrorist risks.

Second, DHS (or whichever one of the federal agencies eventually takes over law-enforcement duties) will train new recruits. Policies, procedures, and purposes will not reflect traditional (and constitutional) goals of law enforcement, but will be tailored to training officers to perform those duties associated with the new, national emphasis of the force, with a slant toward federalism.
Finally, funds for this conversion from local police department to outpost of the federal law-enforcement agency will be provided by the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. This carrot will be tied to the stick of federal control.

The speed and success of the Department of Homeland Security's plan to string together a powerful net of surveillance-focused fusion centers in all the country's police departments is evident in the following statement at the Homeland Security Policy Institute's meeting made by Thomas Kirk, director of the West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center:

"In all law enforcement, I've never seen anything like that," he said. "Most of the time when I call another fusion center director, they know my voice."

Federal Reserve Whistleblower Tells America The REAL Reason For Quantitative Easing 

November 13, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: Economic Collapse

A banker named Andrew Huszar that helped manage the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing program during 2009 and 2010 is publicly apologizing for what he has done. He says that quantitative easing has accomplished next to nothing for the average person on the street. Instead, he says that it has been "the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time." And of course the cold, hard economic numbers support what Huszar is saying. The percentage of working age Americans with a job has not improved at all during the quantitative easing era, and median household income has actually steadily declined during that time frame. Meanwhile, U.S. stock prices have doubled overall, and the stock prices of the big Wall Street banks have tripled. So who benefits from quantitative easing? It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, and now Andrew Huszar is blowing the whistle on the whole thing.

From 2009 to 2010, Huszar was responsible for managing the Fed's purchase of approximately $1.25 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities. At the time, he thought that it was a dream job, but now he is apologizing to the rest of the country for what happened...

I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.

When the first round of quantitative easing ended, Huszar says that it was incredibly obvious that QE had done very little to benefit average Americans but that it had been "an absolute coup for Wall Street"...

Trading for the first round of QE ended on March 31, 2010. The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank's bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn't just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They'd also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed's QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009, and 2010 was starting off in much the same way.

You'd think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE. Think again. Only a few months later-after a 14% drop in the U.S. stock market and renewed weakening in the banking sector-the Fed announced a new round of bond buying: QE2. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, immediately called the decision "clueless."

That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street.

Of course the fact that the Fed cannot think independently from Wall Street should not be a surprise to any of my regular readers. As I have written about repeatedly, the Federal Reserve was created by the Wall Street bankers for the benefit of the Wall Street bankers. When the Federal Reserve serves the interests of Wall Street, it is simply doing what it was designed to do. And according to Huszar, quantitative easing has been one giant "subsidy" for Wall Street banks...

Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.

But Huszar is certainly not the only one on Wall Street that acknowledges these things. For example, just check out what billionaire hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller told CNBC about quantitative easing...

"This is fantastic for every rich person," he said Thursday, a day after the Fed's stunning decision to delay tightening its monetary policy. "This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever."

"Who owns assets-the rich, the billionaires. You think Warren Buffett hates this stuff? You think I hate this stuff? I had a very good day yesterday."

Druckenmiller, whose net worth is estimated at more than $2 billion, said that the implication of the Fed's policy is that the rich will spend their wealth and create jobs-essentially betting on "trickle-down economics."

"I mean, maybe this trickle-down monetary policy that gives money to billionaires and hopefully we go spend it is going to work," he said. "But it hasn't worked for five years."
And Donald Trump said essentially the same thing when he made the following statement on CNBC about quantitative easing...

"People like me will benefit from this."

The American people are still being told that quantitative easing is "economic stimulus" which will make the lives of average Americans better.

That is a flat out lie and the folks over at the Federal Reserve know this.
In fact, a very interesting study conducted for the Bank of England shows that quantitative easing actually increases the gap between the wealthy and the poor...

It said that the Bank of England's policies of quantitative easing - similar to the Fed's - had benefited mainly the wealthy.

Specifically, it said that its QE program had boosted the value of stocks and bonds by 26 percent, or about $970 billion. It said that about 40 percent of those gains went to the richest 5 percent of British households.

Many said the BOE's easing added to social anger and unrest. Dhaval Joshi, of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it."

And this is exactly what has happened in the United States as well.

U.S. stocks have risen 108% while Barack Obama has been in the White House.
And who owns stocks?

The wealthy do. In fact, 82 percent of all individually held stocks are owned by the wealthiest 5 percent of all Americans.

Meanwhile, things have continued to get even tougher for ordinary Americans.

While Obama has been in the White House, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has declined from 60.6% to 58.3%, median household income has declined for five years in a row, and poverty has been absolutely exploding.

But the fact that it has been very good for Wall Street while doing essentially nothing for ordinary Americans is not the biggest problem with quantitative easing.

The biggest problem with quantitative easing is that it is destroying worldwide faith in the U.S. dollar and in the U.S. financial system.

The rest of the world is watching the Fed go crazy, and they are beginning to openly wonder why they should continue to use the U.S. dollar as the de facto reserve currency of the planet.
Right now, most global trade involves the use of U.S. dollars. In fact, far more U.S. dollars are actually used outside of the United States than are used inside the country. This creates a tremendous demand for U.S. dollars around the planet, and it keeps the value of the U.S. dollar at a level that is far higher than it otherwise would be.

If the rest of the world decides to start moving away from the U.S. dollar (and this is already starting to happen), then the demand for the U.S. dollar will fall and we will not be able to import oil from the Middle East and cheap plastic trinkets from China so inexpensively anymore.
In addition, major exporting nations such as China and Saudi Arabia end up with giant piles of U.S. dollars due to their trading activities. Instead of just sitting on all of that cash, they tend to reinvest much of it back into U.S. Treasury securities. This increases demand for U.S. debt and drives down interest rates.

If the Federal Reserve continues to wildly create money out of thin air with no end in sight, the rest of the world may decide to stop lending us trillions of dollars at ultra-low interest rates.
When we get to that point, it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the U.S. economy and the U.S. financial system. If you doubt this, just read this article.

The only way that the game can continue is for the rest of the world to continue to be irrational and to continue to ignore the reckless behavior of the Federal Reserve.

We desperately need the rest of the planet "to ignore the man behind the curtain". We desperately need them to keep using our dollars that are rapidly being devalued and to keep loaning us money at rates that are far below the real rate of inflation.

If the rest of the globe starts behaving rationally at some point, and they eventually will, then the game will be over.

Let us hope and pray that we still have a bit more time until that happens.

US Airspace To Crawl With 7,500 Drones In 5 Years

Zero Hedge
November 10, 2013

The chief of the Federal Aviation Administration predicted Thursday that U.S. airspace could be crowded with as many as 7,500 commercial drones within the next five years. As The Washington Times reports, Michael Huerta said his agency would set up six sites across the country to test drone operators and, in an effort to balance privacy/safety with anarchic airspace drone pollution, he added, "we must fulfill those obligations in a thoughtful, careful manner that ensures safety and promotes economic growth, " as dangerous incidents involving drones have already taken place...

Although they are expected to be used for peaceful purposes such as firefighting and weather tracking - it's causing a lot of concern, as Huerta warns "we need to be responsive to public concerns about privacy."

You'll never notice it from the ground, but the skies above the US are crowded with roughly five thousand planes at any given moment. The daily total of movements, is up to a whopping 90,000. And dangerous incidents involving drones have already taken place there

Within the next five years, after appropriate regulations are introduced, whole 7,500 small UAVs will be operating in US airspace, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said at an aerospace news conference in Washington on Thursday.

Huerta outlined the ultimate goal of the American drone industry: global leadership that could enable the US to set standards for the industry worldwide.

"We recognize that the expanding use of unmanned aircraft presents great opportunities, but it's also true that integrating these aircraft presents significant challenges,"

Huerta shared some interesting statistics on who is using drones in the US the most. He mentioned that apart from synoptics, environmental specialists and educational institutions, there are about 80 law enforcement agencies that operate small size surveillance drones, with the FAA granting each of them public use waivers on a case-by-case basis.

"If we're going to take full advantage of the benefits that we're talking about from these technologies, we need to be responsive to public concerns about privacy," Huerta said.
Reportedly, not only the FAA, but also Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of justice are taking part in a multi-agency group that has also released a comprehensive plan accelerating integration of UAVs into US national airspace. All data gathered by the six test sites will go straight to that interagency group, Huerta said.

And focused on privacy...

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems, the leading trade group for the nation's private-sector drone operators, estimated this year that the commercial drone industry will create more than 100,000 jobs and generate more than $82 billion in economic impact over the next 10 years - if the government moves quickly to establish workable operating regulations and safeguards.
The impending boom has raised concerns among privacy advocates about how and where drones might be used to collect data. The FAA is requiring future test sites to develop privacy plans and make them available to the public. The policy also requires test site operators to disclose how data will be obtained and used.

"Make no mistake about it, privacy is an extremely important issue and it is something that the public has a significant interest and concern over and we need to recognize as an industry that if we are going to take full advantage of the benefits that we are talking about for these technologies we need to be responsive to the public's concerns about privacy," Mr. Huerta said.

Is America Being Deliberately Pushed Toward Civil War? 

November 8, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: Brandon Smith of Alt-Market

In 2009, Jim Rickards, a lawyer, investment banker and adviser on capital markets to the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, participated in a secret war game sponsored by the Pentagon at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). The game's objective was to simulate and explore the potential outcomes and effects of a global financial war. At the end of the war game, the Pentagon concluded that the U.S. dollar was at extreme risk of devaluation and collapse in the near term, triggered either by a default of the U.S. Treasury and the dumping of bonds by foreign investors or by hyperinflation by the private Federal Reserve. 

These revelations, later exposed by Rickards, were interesting not because they were "new" or "shocking." Rather, they were interesting because many of us in the field of alternative economics had ALREADY predicted the same outcome for the American financial system years before the APL decided to entertain the notion. At least, that is what the public record indicates. 

The idea that our government has indeed run economic collapse scenarios, found the United States in mortal danger, and done absolutely nothing to fix the problem is bad enough. I have my doubts, however, that the Pentagon or partnered private think tanks like the RAND Corporation did not run scenarios on dollar collapse long before 2009. In fact, I believe there is much evidence to suggest that the military industrial complex has not only been aware of the fiscal weaknesses of the U.S. system for decades, but they have also been actively engaged in exploiting those weaknesses in order to manipulate the American public with fears of cultural catastrophe. 

History teaches us that most economic crisis events are followed or preceded immediately by international or domestic conflict. War is the looming shadow behind nearly all fiscal disasters. I suspect that numerous corporate think tanks and the Department Of Defense are perfectly aware of this relationship and have war gamed such events as well. Internal strife and civil war are often natural side effects of economic despair within any population.

Has a second civil war been "gamed" by our government? And are Americans being swindled into fighting and killing each other while the banksters who created the mess observe at their leisure, waiting until the dust settles to return to the scene and collect their prize? Here are some examples of how both sides of the false left/right paradigm are being goaded into turning on each other.

Conservatives: Taunting The Resting Lion

Conservatives, especially Constitutional conservatives, are the warrior class of American society. The average conservative is far more likely to own a firearm, have extensive tactical training with that firearm, have military experience and have less psychological fear of conflict; and he is more apt to take independent physical action in the face of an immediate threat. Constitutional conservatives are also more likely to fight based on principal and heritage, rather than personal gain, and less likely to get wrapped up in the madness of mob activity.

What's the greatest weakness of conservatives? It's their tendency to entertain leadership by men who claim exceptional warrior status, even if those men are not necessarily honorable.
Constitutional conservatives are the most substantial existing threat to the establishment hierarchy because, unlike dissenting groups of the past, we know exactly who the guiding hand is behind economic and social calamity. In response, the overall conservative culture has come under relentless attack by the establishment using the Administration of Barack Obama as a middleman. The goal, I believe, is to misdirect conservative rage toward the Democratic left and away from the elites. The actions of the White House have become so absurd and so openly hostile as of late that I can only surmise that this is a deliberate strategy to lure conservatives into ill-conceived retaliation against a puppet government, rather than the men behind the curtain.

Department of Defense propaganda briefings with military personnel have been exposed. These briefings train current serving soldiers to view Tea Party conservatives and even Christian organizations as "dangerous extremists." Reports from sources within Fort Hood and Fort Shelby confirm this trend.

The DOD has denied some of the allegations or claimed that it has "corrected" the problem; however, Judicial Watch has obtained official training documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that affirm that extremist profiling is an integral part of these military briefings. The documents also cite none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a primary resource for the training classes. The SPLC is nothing more than an outsourced propaganda wing for the DHS that attacks Constitutional organizations and associates them with terrorist and racist groups on a regular basis. (Check pages 32-33.)

This indoctrination program has accelerated since January 2013, after Professor Arie Perliger, a member of a West Point think tank called Combating Terrorism Center (and according to the sparse biographical information available, a man with NO previous U.S. military experience), published and circulated a report called "Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far Right" at West Point. The report classified "far right extremists" as "domestic enemies" who commonly "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government , believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional right." The profile goes on to list supporting belief in "civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government" as the dastardly traits of evil extremists.
Soldiers have been told that associating with "far right extremist groups" could be used as grounds for court-martial. A general purge of associated symbolism has ensued, including new orders handed down to Navy SEALs that demand that operators remove the "Don't Tread On Me" Navy Jack patch from their uniforms.

The indoctrination of the military also follows on the heels of a massive media campaign to demonize Constitutional conservatives who fought against Obamacare in the latest debt ceiling debate as "domestic enemies" and "terrorists." I documented this in my recent article "Are Constitutional Conservatives Really the Boogeyman?"

Obama and his ilk have been caught red-handed in numerous conspiracies, including Fast and Furious, which shipped American arms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And how about the exposure of the IRS using its bureaucracy as a weapon to harass Tea Party organizations and activists? And what about Benghazi, Libya, the terrorist attack that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to happen, if they didn't directly order it to happen? And let's not forget about the Edward Snowden revelations, which finally made Americans understand that mass surveillance of our population is a constant reality.

To add icing to the cake, a new book called Double Down, which chronicles the Obama campaign of 2012, quotes personal aides to the President who relate that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when discussing his use of drone strikes, bragged that he was "really good at killing people."

Now, my question is, why would the Obama Administration make so many "mistakes," attack conservatives with such a lack of subtlety, and attempt to openly propagandize rank-and-file soldiers, many of whom identify with conservative values? Is it all just insane hubris, or is he serving his handlers by trying to purposely create a volatile response?
Liberals: Taking Away The Cookie Jar

Many on the so-called "left" are socially oriented and find solace in the functions of the group, rather than individualism. They seek safety in administration, centralization and government welfare. Wealth is frowned upon, while "redistribution" of wealth is cheered. They see government as necessary to the daily survival of the nation, and they work to expand Federal influence into all facets of life. Some liberals do this out of a desire to elevate the poverty-stricken and ensure certain educational standards. However, they tend to ignore the homogenizing effect this strategy has on society, making everyone equally destitute and equally stupid. Their faith in government subsidies also makes them vulnerable to funding cuts and reductions in entitlements. The left normally fights only when their standard of living and comfort to which they have grown accustomed plummets below a certain threshold, and mob methods are usually their fallback form of retaliation.

Austerity cuts, which the mainstream media calls the "sequester," are beginning to take effect. But, they are being applied in areas that are clearly meant to create the most public anger. Reductions in welfare programs are also being implemented in a way that will certainly agitate average left-leaning citizens. The debt debate itself revolved around those who want the government to spend within its means versus those who want the government to spend even more on welfare programs no matter the consequence. The loss of subsidies is at bottom the greatest fear of the left.

A sudden and inexplicable shutdown of electronic benefit transfer cards (EBT cards or food stamps) occurred in more than 17 States while the debt debate just happened to be climaxing. This month, cuts to existing food stamp funds have taken effect, and food pantries across the country are scrambling against a sharp spike in demand.

Remember, about 50 million Americans are currently dependent on EBT welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. The response to the relatively short EBT shutdown last month was outright fury. Imagine the response in the event of a long-term shutdown, or if extraneous cuts were to occur? And where would that anger be directed? Since the entire debt debacle has been blamed on the Tea Party, I suspect conservatives will be the main target of welfare mobs.
The left, once just as opposed to government stimulus and banker bailouts as the right, is now unwittingly throwing its support behind infinite stimulus in order to cement the continued existence of precious Federal handouts. The issue of Obamacare has utterly blinded liberals to fiscal responsibility. Universal healthcare, perhaps the ultimate Federal handout, is a prize too titillating for them to ignore. Democrats will now go to incredible lengths to defend the Obama White House regardless of past crimes.

They are willing to ignore his offenses against the 4th Amendment and personal privacy. They are willing to look past his offenses against the 1st Amendment, including the Constitutional right to trial by jury for all Americans, and Obama's secret war against the free speech of whistle-blowers. They are willing to shrug off his endless warmongering in the Mideast, his attempts to foment new war in Syria and Iran, and his support for predator drone strikes in sovereign nations causing severe civilian collateral damage. They are willing to forget Snowden, mass surveillance and executive assassination lists - all for Obamacare.

And the saddest thing of all? It is likely that Obamacare was never meant to be successful in the first place.

Does anyone really believe that the White House, with billions of dollars at its disposal, could not get a website off the ground if it really wanted to? Does anyone really believe that Obama would launch the crowning jewel of his Presidency without making certain that it was fully operational, unless this was part of a greater scheme? And how about his promise that pre-existing health care plans would not be destroyed by Obamacare mandates? Over 900,000 people in the state of California alone are about to lose their health care insurance due to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Why would Obama go back on such a vital pledge unless he WANTED to piss off constituents?

Already, liberal websites and forums across the blogosphere are abuzz with talk of sabotage of the Obamacare website by "the radical right" and the diabolical Koch Brothers (liberals had no idea who they were a year ago, but now, they the go to scapegoat for everything). Once again, conservatives are presented as the culprits behind all the left's troubles.

As I have stated in the past, Obamacare is designed to fail. The government has no capacity to fund it, and never will. Its only conceivable purpose is to further divide the country and excite both sides of the false paradigm into attacking each other as the reason the system is failing, when both sides should be questioning whether the current system should exist at all.
As the situation stands today, at least 50 million welfare recipients and who knows how many others exist as a resource pool for the establishment to be used to wreak havoc on the rest of us. All they have to do is take away the cookie jar.

Who Would Win?

Who would prevail in a second American civil war? Tactically speaking, conservatives have the upper hand and are far better prepared. Food rioters wouldn't last beyond three to six weeks as starvation takes its toll, and mindless mobs would not last long against seasoned riflemen. The military, though suffering purges by the White House, still contains numerous conservatives within its ranks. Outside influences, including NATO or the United Nations, are a possibility. There are numerous factors to consider. But I would point out that the most dangerous adversary Constitutional conservatives face is not the left, Obama, or a Federal government gone rogue. Rather, our greatest adversary is ourselves.

If lured into a left/right civil war, would most conservatives be able to see beyond the veil and recognize that the fight is not about Obama, or the Left, or tyrannical government alone? Could we be co-opted by devious influences disguised as friends and compatriots? Will we end up following neocon salesmen and military elites who materialize out of the woodwork at the last minute to "lead us to victory" while actually leading us towards globalization with a slightly different face?

If a civil conflict has been war gamed by the establishment, you can bet they have contingency plans regardless of which side attains the upper hand. In the end, if we do not make the fight about the bankers and globalists, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the Council On Foreign Relations, etc., then everyone loses. Who wins in a new American civil war? If we become blinded by the trespasses of a certain White House jester, only the globalists will win.
 

11 Signs of a False Flag


Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
Thursday, November 7, 2013


Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking. At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.

Indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms - domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.

For instance, the chemical weapons attack which took place inside Syria in August, 2013 serve as an example of a foreign false flag designed to whip up American fervor for war, on the platform of Responsibility to Protect similar to the Gulf of Tonkin.

Domestically speaking, a large-scale false flag such as 9/11, can be used to whip up both a massive public support for war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional procedure, and constitutional/human rights. Economic false flags may take the form of manufactured "government shutdowns" or "government defaults" designed to create a demand for austerity or other pro-Wall Street solutions. Lastly, smaller-scale domestic false flags such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, often involve the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state.

There are, of course, many different versions of false flag attacks and none fit into a tightly crafted classification beyond the generalized term "false flag." As stated above, some false flags may indeed embrace an element of each of the different versions listed previously both in terms of methodology and purpose.

With that in mind, it is also true that, while massive false flag attacks are always a possibility, it has been the small-scale false flags coming in the form of "shooters" (most often of the "lone gunmen" variety), that have been used most effectively by the ruling class and its mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. While the scale of the attacks have diminished, their frequency has rapidly increased.

However, due to a growing competent alternative media and researching community, as fast as the false flag attacks are launched, a volley of deconstructions of the official narratives are being provided. While many criticisms of the official version of events are wildly incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are capable outlets and researchers who are able to expose the false flag for what it is. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness as of late and why it continues to do so.

Because the false flag attack is designed to instill fear, panic, and a guided response from the general public, it is important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented. However, we cannot simply be consumed by attempting to expose and deconstruct every false flag attack that comes our way. We cannot ignore the greater issues, the winnable battles, and the demands we must be making simply to expose each and every false flag. We cannot ignore the forest fire to extinguish the occasional burning bush. The false flag, after all, is only the symptom of the disease.

For that reason, it is important to enable the general public to recognize the false flag itself, not simply the questionable elements of a particular false flag which will soon be overtaken by a new one. We must train both ourselves and the public to recognize the signs of the false flag when it happens and thus render the attack neutral.

The following is a list of some of the most common elements of the false flag attack which should immediately be looked at in the event of some other incident that pulls at the heartstrings and emotions of the general public.

1. High Profile Event: The first question to ask would be "Is this a high profile incident?" The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the major factor such as the case in Sandy Hook Elementary School, a nationally unimportant location but a horrific act that made national news nonetheless. The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of location or the act, if the media picks up the story and runs it simultaneously on all major mainstream channels, the incident can be considered a "high profile event."

2. Changing Stories: In informed researching circles, it is well-known that the information that comes out shortly after the event is usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence of confusion related to panicked reports coming from eyewitnesses and the like. However, the information coming out early on has not yet been subjected to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story becomes molded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either directed the attack at the higher levels or at least have connections with those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets report the event.

For instance, in times of false flag attacks, the initial reports may point to 5 gunmen. Very shortly after, reports may only mention two. Only a few hours after the attack, however, all references to more than one gunmen are removed entirely, with only the "lone gunman" story remaining. Any other mention of additional gunmen after this point is ridiculed as "conspiracy theory."

3. Simultaneous Drills: One hallmark of the false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the actual attack. Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of events that takes place during the real life attack . These drills have been present on large scale false flags such as 9/11 as well as smaller scale attacks like the Aurora shooting.

For instance, as Webster Tarpley documents in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA, at least 46 drills were underway in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These 46 drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11 in some way or other. Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same times and locations.

Although one reason may take precedence over the other depending on the nature and purpose of the operation drills are used by false flag operators for at least two reasons. One such purpose is the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill as a cloak to plan the attack or even "go live" when it comes time to launch the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the military/intelligence agency's tight chain of command structure and need-to-know basis. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training exercise. This deniability continues all the way through to the actual "going live" of the drill. After the completion of the false flag attack, Coincidence Theory is used to explain away the tragic results.

4. Cui Bono? The most important question to ask immediately after any high profile incident is "cui bono?" or "Who benefits?" If one is able to see a clear benefit to any government, corporation, or bank, then the observer becomes capable of seeing through the false flag attack immediately. Many of these questions can be answered by taking a closer look at the behavior of these organizations prior to the attack and shortly thereafter.

For instance, the presence of legislation which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which is quickly passed (or at least heavily pushed) afterwards is one clue that the conveniently timed attack was actually a false flag. Patriot Act style legislation was actually written before 9/11 but stood little chance of passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the blessing of the American people.

Returning to 9/11, it is a fact that a number of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle Eastern countries. After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling class of the United States and the American public followed right along.

After the Underwear Bombing, we saw the rollout of the TSA full-body scanners, a technology which would not have been readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign. However, the scanners had been purchased one year earlier by a firm owned by Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security.

Likewise, in terms of the LAX shooting, TSA purchased 3.5 million dollars worth of ammunition in August. Yet, in August, TSA was not an armed agency. After the LAX shooting, however, talk has turned to arming the agency, thus indicating possible foreknowledge on the part of someone higher up in the governmental structure.

Of course, the same can be said for the explosion of crazed lone-gunman shooting sprees that took place all across the United States amid propaganda pushes for increased gun control measures.

5. Unanswered Questions: Another hallmark of the false flag operation is relatively obvious - the presence of unanswered questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, the motive and so on. Although the media narrative that takes shape soon after the attack will ignore these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers are able to think for themselves and focus only on the information. An example of such questions would be Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of additional shooters at Aurora and Sandy Hook.

6. Case is quickly closed: Once an acceptable patsy and cover story is chosen by the media, all other opinions and questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy, if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted in a largely secret or shadowy proceeding. In most cases, the suspect is killed in the process or shortly after the fact thus negating any first hand contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very soon after the event.

7. Suspects' Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other Intelligence Agencies: One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad).[5] Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.

In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.

8. Convenient Scapegoat: One clue leading an informed observer to suspect a false flag attack is the existence of the convenient scapegoat. Any false flag operation will have a carefully crafted narrative complete with a group of individuals set up for demonization. The OKC bombing had McVeigh and thus, "right-wing extremists" and "militias." On 9/11, the group was Muslims. In many of the domestic shooting sprees, the demonization was set for gun owners. With the recent LAX shooting, the "perpetrator" was an "anti-government conspiracy theorist." In the instance of the false flag, a readily identified pasty will exhibit all or most of the aspects of the group and social demographic set to be demonized.

9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties: One clue suggesting a false flag is that, immediately after the attack and after the perpetrators have been "identified" by "officials" and the media, corporate media outlets begin not only demonizing the demographic group to which the "perpetrator" belongs, but begins promoting "solutions" in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening again. This narrative will always involve the erosion of liberties, the greater implementation of a police state, a specific economic policy, or a march to war.

Simply put, the media promotes the PROBLEM, allows for and guides the REACTION, and then provides the pre-determined SOLUTION.

10. Government Begins to "Take Action" Against the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative: After a healthy dose of propaganda from mainstream media outlets regurgitating the terror of the attack, the perpetrator, and the police state solutions, the Government then begins to take action. Political speeches are given in order to capitalize on the fear and anger felt by the public and in order to reinforce the idea that government is there to act as protector. Political solutions are then offered as bills, executive orders, or political mandates whether it is the curtailment of the 4th Amendment, gun control, or military strikes on a foreign country.

11. Clues in pop media: Pop media clues, more accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.

Conclusion

Although it is extremely important to educate the general public as to the nature and purpose of false flags, education cannot be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time.

Creating a culture in which the general public is able to recognize the false flag attack as it is happening, without the need for a massive push by alternative media sources, researchers, or activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in corralling the force of the people toward true action or, at the very least, creating a culture in which that force cannot be corralled by the ruling class.

While false flag attacks must be addressed, we must not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted off a path of political action, mass mobilization, and the making of real attainable demands

GMO labeling initiative 522 has failed, proving once again that corporate money can buy food secrecy

Mike Adams
Natural News
November 6, 2013

As of this writing, Washington state I-522 looks to have narrowly failed at the ballot box..
At 11:00pm last night, the "no" votes were winning by approximately 55% to 44%. Mail-in votes reportedly have not been counted yet, but unless a radical change appears in the final votes, I-522 will go down in history as yet another example of corporate money buying out the voters through a campaign of lies and deception.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America and most of the big-name food companies proved in this campaign that they are willing to operate a criminal conspiracy to cheat, lie and intentionally misinform voters. At stake is their continued way of doing business: SECRECY coupled with consumer ignorance.

In an honest election, I-522 would have easily passed

The last thing these companies want is for consumers to realize they're buying poison. That's why they plowed tens of millions of dollars into their disinfo campaign, hoping they could trick enough voters into not understanding what they were voting for. In an honest election that wasn't primarily determined by money, I-522 would pass in a landslide, but in this election, much like Prop 37, corporate money allowed these companies to essentially buy their way to a ballot box victory that keeps consumers ignorant.

The Yes on 522 campaign ran a valiant campaign, and had voters not been deceived by the corporate-funded opposition, the ballot measure would have unquestionably passed. No person in their right mind would want LESS transparency on what's in the foods we buy and consume. Every intelligent person, if allowed due consideration on the subject, will naturally conclude that the right to know what's in our food is a fundamental human right.

The failure of 522 also shows that democracy itself doesn't work when a tidal wave of corporate money is allowed to influence election outcomes. And that's the way nearly all elections work, isn't it? So even though we can all talk about the idealistic goal of "the People" being in charge of legislation, in reality the corporations have now seized so much power in America that even when the informed masses want to codify fundamental human rights into law, it cannot be readily achieved.

GMO labeling will never be won with money

After back-to-back failures of Prop 37 and I-522, I think it's time we all realized we will never win this issue with money. As much as we all gave money to this campaign (and Dr. Bronner's gave the most, I believe), the junk food manufacturers of this nation were able to spend almost twenty times more.

Selling the public toxic beverages and junk foods made with cheap "junk" ingredients is highly profitable, of course, so these companies have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around like caged gorillas flinging excrement.

If we hope to ever see GMO labeling mandated in any state in America, victory is going to have to be achieved through "guerilla activism" methods that go far outside the box of "spending money on ads."

I'm not criticizing the 522 campaign directors, by the way. They did a fantastic job. But the playbook they are working from is based on rules of conventional campaigning, not guerilla campaigning.

It's much like the American colonists in the War of Independence who realized they would be slaughtered if they did battle with the occupying British by adhering to rigid formations. Man for man (and dollar for dollar), you can't beat the establishment. What you need to invoke is asymmetrical warfare tactics such as guerilla warfare where colonists would hide in the bushes and ambush high-ranking British officers, thereby cutting off the leadership and causing disarray among the enemy ranks.

Don't misunderstand my metaphor here: I am not suggesting anyone actually ambush and kill CEOs of junk food companies. This is merely an illustration of the fact that going head to head (dollar for dollar) with Pepsico, Coca-Cola and Monsanto is never going to result in victory for GMO labeling activists.

There are far more clever ways to multiply your efforts and make the actions of one person more impactful than millions of dollars in expenditures by the opposition.
Take off the kid gloves and go for the throat

We also have to realize that the GMO labeling opposition will never play by the rules. They routinely engage in dirty tricks and even criminal behavior in order to achieve their goals at any cost. I am not suggesting that we stoop to their level and start breaking the law to achieve victory, but we do have to take a far more aggressive stance that directly accuses the opposition of mass deception, mass poisoning and causing a potential ecological disaster.
See, the problem with the campaigns for GMO labeling so far is that they are too polite. They are run by nice people who play by nice rules. Those are great people to have as friends and neighbors, but they are not the kind of scrapping, no-holds-barred warriors that are needed to defeat such as slithering, slippery enemy.

The opposition to GMO labeling is a cabal of mafia-style criminal rogues who continue to achieve their dark victories by breaking all the rules and playing dirty. To beat them at that game, you have to take off the kid gloves and go for their throats.

If anybody in the GMO labeling activism world wants to know how to do that, contact me so we can set up a face-to-face meeting. In the mean time, know that I am already working on an asymmetrical P.R. warfare strategy that will be unleashed next year right here on Natural News.
Because the real story here - and I'm not going to fully explain this until later - is that the very weapons needed to defeat these evil corporations are sitting right there on the shelves of every grocery store across America. They have handed us the tools of their own defeat
.

The Global Corporatocracy is Almost Fully Operational

November 3, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: Testosterone Pit

2013 is proving to be a hectic year for corporate lobbyists and free trade advocates, as they frantically flit, like busy bees pollinating succulent orchids, from one global free trade conference to another. And at long last, it seems that their hard work appears to be paying off.

In the last month alone world leaders from 12 countries, including the U.S., Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Mexico, pledged to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by the end of the year. On the other side of the globe, meanwhile, Europe has signed a sweeping free trade agreement with Canada. And what's more, despite all the furore over allegations of NSA and GCHQ spying on European national leaders, most EU member states are determined to ensure that the fallout from the scandal does not derail ongoing talks for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a treaty that would effectively knit together countries with nearly half the world's GDP into a massive free-trade zone.

Indeed, the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already suggested that it may be necessary to temporarily suspend negotiations - not out of concern for joining in partnership with a nation whose recent actions have betrayed every possible notion of mutual trust, but rather out of fear that continued negotiations in the current climate could feed anti-free trade sentiment:

"If such events continue, and more news comes out, I fear that those who are against the free trade agreement in principle will become the majority," said Schulz during last week's EU summit. "My advice is to stop for a moment and discuss how we can avoid such a development."
All of which begs the question: why all the sudden newfound enthusiasm for more free trade? Even more important, why all the secrecy? Why are our leaders desperately reconfiguring the legal super structures of global trade without either consulting their respective voting constituencies or even divulging what is actually up for grabs in the negotiations?

After all, even by official estimates (which, let's face it, tend to have a strong upward bias) the economic benefits of the trade treaties will be negligible, at best. In the case of the TPIP, the EU and the U.S. can expect to eventually (perhaps after as long as ten years) receive a 100 billion euro boost to their respective GDPs. It's the sort of money that, once upon a time, may have sounded impressive or even meant something. But not any more, not since the Fed and the Bank of England led the world's central banking community on the biggest money printing binge in recorded history.

Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific region the TPP is forecast to open up massive new opportunities for businesses both large and small, as new trade networks are forged between some of the world's fastest growing economies.

However, while the potential benefits of the new trade agreement are supposed to be huge, they cannot as yet be divulged to the public. As U.S. trade representative Ron Kirk recently told Reuters, it's just too early in negotiations to release a draft text to allow more public input. But that's not to say "there will [not] be a time, once we have agreed on the text, that we may - as we have with other agreements - be able to release that."

The message could not be clearer: to paraphrase the late, great Bill Hicks, go back to bed America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Your governments are in control.

The Real Agenda

As for the few insomniacs who remain fully awake, the real end game in this new age of "free" trade (or otherwise put, corporate protectionism) is becoming clearer and clearer. According to Andrew Gavin Marshall, these new agreements have little to do with actual "trade," and everything to do with expanding the rights and powers of large corporations:
Corporations have become powerful economic and political entities - competing in size and wealth with the world's largest national economies - and thus have taken on a distinctly ‘cosmopolitical' nature.

According to a ranking published by Global Trends, 58 percent of the world's biggest 150 economic entities in 2012 were corporations. They include oil, natural gas and mining majors, banks and insurance firms, telecommunications giants, supermarket behemoths, car manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.

The highest ranked company on the list, Royal Dutch Shell, recorded 2012 revenues that exceeded the GDPs of 171 countries, making it the 26th largest economic entity in the world. It ranks ahead of Argentina and Taiwan, despite employing only 90,000 people. Indeed, the combined revenues of the five biggest oil companies (Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Sinopec and China National Petroleum) were the equivalent of 2.9 percent of global GDP in 2012.
Should we be at all surprised that these massively bloated private corporations still want more for themselves and, by extension, less for us? After all, perpetual profit and revenues growth are their raison d'être; it's what makes their sociopathic hearts tick.

"Acting through industry associations, lobby groups, think tanks and foundations, cosmopolitical corporations are engineering large projects aimed at transnational economic and political consolidation of power... into their hands," writes Marshall. "With the construction of ‘a European-American free-trade zone' as ‘an ambitious project,' we are witnessing the advancement of a new and unprecedented global project of transatlantic corporate colonization."

At the root of this model is the basic notion that corporate profits and investor returns must at all times supercede all concerns about public interest. As such, as Open Democracy has pointed out, investor-state dispute settlements under TTIP would empower EU and US-based corporations to engage in litigious wars of attrition to limit the power of governments on both sides of the Atlantic:

Thousands of EU and US companies have affiliates across the Atlantic; under TTIP they could make investor-state claims via these affiliates in order to compel their own governments to refrain from regulations they dislike.

In the sickest of ironies, as a growing number of countries are questioning and even abandoning global investor-state arbitration precisely because of negative impacts against the public interest, powerful corporate lobby groups in both the EU and the US - including the European employers' federation BusinessEurope, the US Chamber of Commerce, AmCham EU, and the Transatlantic Business Council - are pressuring for the inclusion of investor-state arbitration in TTIP.

And as you and I know, they'll get what they want!

The Final Push

Just as with the signing of NAFTA and the creation of the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, to later become the World Trade Organisation (WTO), there will be no public consultation whatsoever on the potential ramifications of the treaties.

And for good reason. For just as the late Sir James Goldsmith warned about GATT, NAFTA and the merging of sovereign European nations into the EU in this eerily prophetic interview with Charlie Rose in 1994, their enforcement will lead to the destruction of millions of middle class jobs and the obliteration of traditional agriculture (as happened in Mexico) and local businesses. And who in their right mind - apart from, of course, our corporate masters and their political servants - would ever vote for that?

However, the new generation of trade treaties goes far beyond what was envisaged for NAFTA and GATT. What they ultimately seek is to transfer what little remains of our national sovereignty to the headquarters of the world's largest multinational conglomerates. In short, it is the ultimate coup de grâce of the ultimate coup d'état. Not a single shot will be fired, yet almost all power will be seized and transferred into private hands - and all of it facilitated by our elected representatives who, by signing these treaties, will be permanently abdicating their responsibilities to represent and protect the interests of their voting constituencies.

For example, as a recent leak of part of the TPP document has shown, the new rules would limit how governments regulate such public services as utilities, transportation, healthcare and education, including restricting policies meant to ensure broad or universal access to those essential needs.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. As Alternet reports, the new treaty would also:

• Grant copyright protection for corporate-created content for a stunning 120 years! It would also transform internet service providers into a private, Big Brother police force, empowered to monitor our "user activity," arbitrarily take down our content, and cut off our access to the internet.

• Give Big Pharma more years of monopoly pricing on each of their patents empower them to block distribution of cheaper generic drugs.

• Strip governments of their authority to regulate exports of oil or natural gas to any TPP nation. This would create an explosion of the destructive fracking process across the globe, for energy giants could export fracked gas from and to any member nation without any governmental review of the environmental and economic impacts on local communities - or on our respective national interests.

• Prohibit transaction taxes (such as the proposed Robin Hood Tax) that would tax speculators who have repeatedly triggered financial crises and economic crashes around the world. It would also restrict "firewall" reforms that separate consumer banking from risky investment banking, as well as provide an escape from national rules that would limit the size of "too-big-to-fail" behemoths.

These are merely a sample of the proposals that have made it into the public eye - thanks purely to the actions of a brave (or as the Obama administration would have it, terrorist) whistle-blower. Who's to say what else is being planned behind our backs and in the conference rooms of some of the world's most luxurious hotels?

What is clear, though, is that the global corporatocracy is almost fully operational. The clock is ticking down and unless the people of nations across the East and the West, the North and the South, begin to wise up to the acts of their elected governments, it will soon be too late. The new regime will be enshrined into law and a new kind of dystopia, bearing a disturbing likeness to the inverted totalitarianism foreseen by Sheldon Wolin, will be all around us, in every direction as far as Big Brother's omniscient eye can see. By Don Quijones.

Whatever you might read in the news these days, it's not all doom and gloom in Spain. For a certain segment of the population, albeit quite a small one, life has never been better. They include Rodrigo Rato, the man who many blame for the biggest bankruptcy in Spanish history
 

Obama stops NSA spying on IMF and World Bank

October 31, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: RT

International Monetary Fund Headquarters in Washington, DC.
US President Barack Obama has called on the National Security Agency to halt spying on the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in conjunction with a review of surveillance activities, Reuters reported.

A US official told the news agency that President Obama curbed the spying within the last few weeks, around the same time he told the NSA to stop eavesdropping on the United Nations headquarters.

The NSA's surveillance of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington was previously unknown based on the classified nature of such programs.

Responding to Reuters, a top Obama administration official said, "the United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the headquarters of the World Bank or IMF in Washington." However, the official would not say whether the NSA had spied on the entities in the past.

The IMF and World Bank would not comment, nor would spokespersons from the NSA or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Top officials with US intelligence agencies have admitted economic espionage in the past, but a former senior US intelligence official said the Obama administration has put more effort than previous administrations into gathering economic data. 

Upon entering the White House, Obama began receiving a new "Economic Intelligence Brief" from the Central Intelligence Agency, in addition to regular updates of international security assessments via the President's Daily Brief.

The supposed reason for the change at the time - according to Leon Panetta, Obama's first CIA director - was to understand activity surrounding the global economic crisis.

The move to curtail spying on the economic organizations followed steady revelations that began in June - supplied by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden - of NSA surveillance programs targeting foreign governments and institutions, as well as international and domestic citizens.

Obama also in the past few weeks ordered the NSA to stop tapping the UN headquarters in New York amid the review of electronic surveillance programs, Reuters reported Wednesday, again citing official sources.

"The United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the United Nations headquarters in New York," a senior Obama administration official told Reuters.
Sources would not say whether Washington is continuing to monitor UN diplomats elsewhere in the world.

72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered "Potential Terrorists" In Official Government Documents

Blacklisted News

October 28, 2013
Source: Michael Snyder, Guest Post

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner? Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order? Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the "end times" or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a "potential terrorist" according to official U.S. government documents. At one time, the term "terrorist" was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term "terrorist" is being applied to large groups of American citizens. And if you are a "terrorist", that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as "potential terrorists", please don't take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be "extremists" and "potential terrorists" in official U.S. government documents.

1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"

2. Those that advocate for states' rights

3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"

4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"

5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"

6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"

7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable"

8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"

9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"

10. "Anti-Gay"

11. "Anti-Immigrant"

12. "Anti-Muslim"

13. "The Patriot Movement"

14. "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'"

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"

23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"

30. Anyone that "complains about bias"

31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"

32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"

33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"

34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"

35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"

36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"

37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"

38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"

39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"

40. "Militia or unorganized militia"

41. "General right-wing extremist"

42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"

44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"

45. Those that are "anti-global"

46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"

47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"

48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"

49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national ‘way of life' is under attack"

50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"

51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"

52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"

53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"

54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"

55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"

56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"

57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"

58. "Rightwing extremists"

59. "Returning veterans"

60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"

61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"

62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"

63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"

64. "Anti-abortion activists"

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")

71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered "problems" that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history. You can now be considered a "potential terrorist" just because of your religious or political beliefs. Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

Please pray for the United States of America. We definitely need it.

Obama's Homeland Security pick defended surveillance at summer conference in Aspen


by Andrew Travers, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Monday, October 28, 2013.

At this past summer's Aspen Security Forum, Jeh Johnson - President Obama's choice for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security - defended the government's controversial surveillance and data-mining programs, while taking a hard line on whistleblowers who leak information to the press.

The July forum brings present and former government officials to the Aspen Institute campus, including leaders from the White House and intelligence community, along with journalists and members of Congress.

Johnson, former top attorney for the Department of Defense, sat on a panel that included National Security Agency (NSA) general counsel Raj De and American Civil Liberties Union director Anthony Romero. Titled "Counterterrorism, National Security, and the Rule of Law," the discussion focused largely on then-recent revelations of the government's classified PRISM surveillance program, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Romero and Johnson butted heads over Snowden's leaks and the legality of PRISM. When Romero praised Snowden for bringing the program to light, saying "I think he did this country a service," Johnson countered, "I think it is a bad public message for us to send to people who decide to take the law into their own hands that they're doing a public service."

Romero argued that Snowden's revelations of the program sparked a public debate that was not possible while the government kept programs, like its widespread collection of Americans' phone records, secret.

"Our democracy, regardless of whether you think he broke the law, and our country is better as a result of the revelations," Romero said.

"That's anarchy," Johnson responded.

He also advocated criminal prosecutions of leakers.

"We don't necessarily need to think about changing national security policy in reaction to one criminal act, I think we need to deal with that person in the criminal justice system," he said.

Johnson argued that the program is legal and constitutional, noting it was cleared by the executive and legislative branches, and is regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. He said collecting phone data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because there is no expectation of privacy in the data itself - tapping the calls, he said, would be unconstitutional without probable cause.

"The reality is that the NSA surveillance program is probably the most regulated national security program we have," he said.

The panel's moderator, NBC News' Mike Isikoff, asked Johnson about the U.S. drone program, which expanded while Johnson was general counsel for the Department of Defense. Johnson was quoted in a book last year, saying, "If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession," after watching video of a drone strike killing citizens in Yemen. On the panel, he said drones are less likely to kill civilians than other tactics.

"The good news, to the extent there is any in our conflict, is that with our modern technology, collateral damage is minimized," he said.

President Obama earlier last week announced his intention to nominate Johnson as Homeland Security secretary, succeeding Janet Napolitano.

Liberal verses Conservative?

There is no such thing. The left and Right paradigm is BOGUS. The Democrats are just as controlled by the New World Order as the Repubilcans are. John Kerry, a distant cousin of George W. Bush is a member of the secret society of Skull and Bones(AKA The Order of Death) along with the last three generations of Bush males (Prescott, George, and George W.) Bill Clinton, architect of the first WTC attack in 1993 as well as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, is a member of the CFR and Bohemian Grove and is a close personal friend of George H.W. Bush. All Gore is a CFR member. Even the revered Jimmy Carter is a member of the evil Trilateral Commission and was David Rockefeller's golden boy. It was the Carter Administration that first began funding and training terrorist organizations around the world. Both parties are controlled at the top by globalist traitors dedicated to establishing a world dictatorship and enslaving humanity. They tell you that it is your duty as an American to vote. That is only a tactic to ensure your enslavement. FYI, David Rockefeller and his right hand man Zbigniew Brzezinski have a new golden boy puppet. His name is Barack Obama.

-Col. South

As Commander in Chief of RIOT, it is my duty to inform my readers that we do not advocate or condone violence against the government. We are peace loving people, looking for peaceful solutions in the fight to restore the Republic of the United States. These following passeges can easily be taken to mean the opposite. However, we realize that violent resistance is what the globalists want us to engage in. They expect it. They are ready for us. A trap has been set. Don't fall into it. Do, however, be ready when they come for you. The following passages have been added to document the anger felt and expressed by awake and concerned citizens on the former United States.

- Col. South

The New World Order Resistance Manifesto

We, the people of the world denounce your claim of ownership of the world for it is through fraud, deception and usury that you have made yourself the rulers of humankind. You have committed every evil in your goal for world hegemony and have become drunk with the blood of the innocents.

No longer shall we sit idly by allowing your agenda to stay hidden behind the veil. We shall unite with a common purpose and with a common goal to spread the knowledge of your tyranny across the globe and to demand justice until the world is free from the slavery and perdition you have created on this earth.

The Patriot's Code of Conduct

Article I

I am an American, fighting for the freedoms which guard MY country and way of life. I am prepared to give my life in defense of the fundamental principles that are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Article II

I will fight without regard to rule or regulation. My enemy does not fight fair, so it is fair that I fight just the same. I will never surrender of my own free will. I will never surrender to tyranny or oppression. If I do not have the means to resist, I will never stop acquiring the means to which I may resist. In this end, I will be the best example that I can for other patriots. I will honor myself with these actions until I am free or dead.

Article III

If I am captured or oppressed, I will resist by all means, my imagination will be my only limitation. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from my enemy.

Article IV

If I become a prisoner of tyranny, I will keep faith with my fellow patriots. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to other patriots. I will take command of myself and will independently back up other patriots in any way I see fit, even through temporary groupings with other patriots. At all times I will remain a free-thinking individual.

Article V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of tyranny, I will give my name and state of citizenship. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to America's Bill of Rights or harmful to other Patriots or OUR DUTY to protect OUR republic.

Article VI

I will never forget that I am an American dedicated to the principles which make my country free. I will trust in myself and hope other Patriots will return our republic with or without me.

 OATH OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER

   By James Stewart Kelley

Upon my sacred honor I shall fight to the death to remain free. No one shall govern me. I shall submit to no authority. There is no question in this matter. I shall always refuse to obey. I shall face my enemy squarely when he attacks. I shall counter attack when he rests.I shall press the battle and when the time comes that I face my final departure, I shall take my enemy with me, for he is a creature without mercy and he deserves none. 

 

A Blunt warning to our Government and our Military:

In our nation of 300 million people, there are at least 95 million lawful gun owners. Those 95 million guns owners lawfully possess 212 million firearms.

Even if the government recalled ALL military members from around the entire world, they would have a force of only about two million.

95 million gun owners versus 2 million troops. I think we all know how this would turn out: the government would be slaughtered.

In fact, if only ten percent of the 95 million gun owners had guts enough to fight, we would still outnumber the military almost 3:1.

We The People of the United States aren't the least bit worried about government tanks and planes, those tools are useless in guerilla warfare. Want proof? Iraq! The U.S. government is getting its ass kicked over there. Government wouldn't last a week.


Found on a bathroom wall somewhere in the U.S.A.

You've taken over my mind. You've raped my thoughts with your image viruses then sold me fake cures for your own disease. Your words and pictures scream orders at me like angry prison wardens. When I cover my ears, your voices echo in my head. I hate you. When I see your billboards, your talk shows, your rock concerts and your factories, when I see the work of your twisted libidos, I want to kill you. I want to set fires, plant bombs, derail trains. I want to smash your buildings and tear at your bodies until the skin of my hands is worn to the bone. I am filled with a rage that burns my eyes.

I don't want to feel this way. You have done this to me. These feelings are the fruits of your multi-billion dollar sowing. And I am not alone. There are others like me out here. Every suicide, every madman, every man and woman who gets a gun and just starts shooting -- these are your illegitimate children. They don't all know what they are doing. All they know is hate for the invisible walls which you have raised around them, hate for the narrow path you have tried to make them walk. And the innocent pay in blood for your negligence.

Remember this: My mind is big. The more you try to push me down and make me small, the greater the pressure inside me becomes. The greater the pressure, the greater the chance of an explosion. There was once a time when I felt love, but now I feel only hate and anger, and fear at what I might do. And you can tell me to "BE HAPPY," but I know that you really mean "BE QUIET".

Believe me, I want to be happy. You stand in my way.

POLICE STATE

A police state exixts when federal and state political and police mechanisms:

1. Shut down media coverage after they steal an election

2.Serve the central government instead of serving the citizens.

3. Enforce the policies of the central government instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds

4. Spy on and intimidate citizens

ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS NOW EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES!

In a free society, police agencies respond to evidence of planned and actual criminal activity.

Police officers in a free society keep the peace: they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate.

In a free society, police do not investigate citizen's attitudes toward the central goverrnment, only their actions.

Citizen dissent is lawful in a free society and police agencies do not investigate citizen's attitudes toward the criminal justice apparatus.

THOSE CONDITIONS NO LONGER EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES!

 

IMF Pushes Plan to Plunder Global Wealth

October 24, 2013
Blacklisted News
Source: thenewamerican.com

A controversial report released this month by the International Monetary Fund outlines schemes to have big-spending governments with out-of-control debts plunder humanity's wealth using a mix of much higher taxes and outright confiscation. The goal: Prop up Big Government. Because people and their assets are generally mobile, the radical IMF document, dubbed "Taxing Times," also proposes measures to prevent them from escaping before they can be fleeced. Of course, the real problems - debt-based fiat currency, lawless bank bailouts, and a cartel-run monetary system - are virtually ignored.

Pointing to absurd and rising levels of government debt, as well as increasing income inequality, the IMF document suggests there are few remaining options for desperate policymakers to explore. Two that are mentioned include "repudiating public debt" - in other words, defaulting on government bonds - or "inflating it away" by having privately owned central banks conjure even more gargantuan amounts of fiat currency into existence at interest. Both of those plots, of course, would still represent a massive transfer of wealth.

However, even though it hides behind the passive voice, the IMF preference for dealing with the debt problems appears to be simply confiscating the wealth more directly. "The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a capital levy, a one-off tax on private wealth, as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability," the report claims. "The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible, and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair)."

Reducing government debt ratios to "pre-crisis levels" seen at the end of 2007 - before the multi-trillion-dollar banker bailouts and ramping up of the lawless currency printing at central banks - will require "sizeable" tax rates, the IMF continues. Citing a sample of 15 euro-area nations, the report claims that all households with positive net wealth - anyone with more assets than debt, in essence - would have to surrender about 10 percent of it. Because many people who lived responsibly and saved would try to avoid the looting of their wealth, drastic measures must be considered to stop them.

"There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I and in Germany and Japan after World War II," the IMF report notes. "This experience suggests that more notable than any loss of credibility was a simple failure to achieve debt reduction, largely because the delay in introduction gave space for extensive avoidance and capital flight, in turn spurring inflation [sic]."

By proposing the outright confiscation of middle-class wealth, analysts say the IMF is essentially acknowledging that simply looting "the rich" will not be enough to even restore government debt to "sustainable" levels. Still, the non-establishment "rich" would face by far the most ferocious assaults on their assets under the schemes outlined in the radical IMF report, which was promptly celebrated by Big Government-supporting politicians.

Noting that financial wealth and people are mobile, the document suggests that there "may be a case" for confiscating varying amounts of wealth using various means - all depending on how easy it would be for people to protect the assets in question from legalized looting. "Substantial progress likely requires enhanced international cooperation to make it harder for the very well-off to evade taxation by placing funds elsewhere," the report says matter-of-factly.

Taxes on the "rich" of around 60 percent to 70 percent, according to the IMF, would likely be the rate at which the most plunder could be extracted for desperate governments. "A revenue-maximizing approach to taxing the rich effectively puts a weight of zero on their well-being," the report explains, calling that notion "contentious." "If one attaches less weight to those with the highest incomes, the vote would be to increase the top marginal rate."

Private companies that try to reduce their already-crushing tax burdens using "tax planning schemes," as the report calls them, are also in the IMF crosshairs for increased wealth confiscation. In a section headlined "Tricks of the Trade," for example, the document blasts business efforts to provide services directly from "low-tax jurisdictions" as "abusive."

In essence, the IMF and other taxpayer-funded international institutions hope to see a stronger global regulatory regime to ensure maximum wealth extraction via corporate taxation, too. "The chance to review international tax architecture seems to come about once a century; the fundamental issues should not be ducked," the report argues.

The devastating consequences of squandering ever-greater amounts of productive capital on government programs, of course, are largely overlooked. Meanwhile, the unspoken assumption underpinning the radical ideas is essentially that companies exist to produce wealth for governments to spend - rather than value for shareholders and consumers as has traditionally been the case.

Looking past the bureaucratic language, the IMF caveats, its effort to hide behind the passive voice, and the thinly disguised attempt to make the heist sound palatable to the public because not everyone would be fleeced just yet, the message becomes clear. What the IMF is really saying is that the proposed massive confiscation of wealth must be adopted quickly and quietly - before people have a chance escape it.

Among other schemes discussed in the report is "harmonizing" taxes across jurisdictions, a longtime globalist goal pushed by more than a few establishment-run international institutions. To ensure that governments can extract as much wealth as possible from the productive sector of the economy, more cooperation between them is supposedly needed to eliminate tax competition among jurisdictions. After all, if one government sets lower tax rates to attract businesses and capital, other regimes are being deprived of what the IMF appears to believe is rightfully theirs to seize.

While the report has largely escaped the attention of the establishment media, analysts who dug into it were shocked. "It may all sound far-fetched to you now, and most people will still cling on to the idea that ‘they wouldn't do such a thing'," noted Raul Meijer in an analysis posted on Market Oracle, suggesting that the Cyprus heist would likely serve as a "blueprint" for future looting - as EU officials promised. "But that the IMF proposes it at all, and so openly, suggests that they might, if only they can figure out how."

Writing in Forbes, meanwhile, Competitive Enterprise Institute Fellow Bill Frezza highlighted three major takeaways from the report. The first point is that IMF economists understand that even if 100 percent of assets belonging to the "1 percent" were expropriated, there would not be enough to fund today's governments. "That means that all households with positive net wealth - everyone with retirement savings or home equity - would have their assets plundered under the IMF's formulation," Frezza explained.

The second major takeaway, he continued, is that such a "repudiation of private property" would still not be enough to pay off the debts of Western governments or to fund their budgets going forward. Instead, it would merely "restore debt sustainability," as the IMF put it, allowing governments to keep borrowing until the next crisis strikes - "for which stronger measures will be required, of course."

Lastly, Frezza explained, if the political class fails to "muster the courage to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery," the only alternatives offered by the IMF were debt repudiation or hyperinflation. "Structural reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are nowhere to be seen," he added.

Concluding, Frezza painted a dire picture of what the future may hold if the would-be looters are not restrained. "Yes, this is where the bankruptcy of the modern entitlement state is taking us - capital controls and exit restrictions so the proverbial four wolves and a lamb can vote on what's for dinner," he wrote. "That's the only way to keep citizens worried about ending up on the menu from voting with their feet."

In another devastating analysis of the latest IMF report, which was released in mid-October, Ryan Bourne, head of economic research at the Centre for Policy Studies, blasted it for being filled with "left wing" ideas. "The IMF is playing with fire by giving intellectual backing to punitive taxation," he said. "Underlying these policies is an ideological assumption that wealth is a collective resource, with governments the benevolent seekers of the common good, whose ability to provide services is undermined by an eroding tax base.... These policies should be anathema to anyone valuing individual freedom, growth and long-term fiscal responsibility."
For IMF boss Christine Lagarde, however, what the would-be global wealth confiscators are demanding is simply part of formulating a "just" fiscal policy. "It's clearly something finance ministers are interested in, it's something that is necessary for the right balance of public finances," the former French finance boss was quoted as saying during a panel discussion this month. "There are lot[s] of wasted opportunities."

Of course, the IMF report glosses over the fact that the overwhelming majority of policy changes among advanced economies in recent years went in the direction of tax increases. It also ignored the screaming gorilla in the room: the flawed monetary system and the ludicrous government spending spree at the root of the financial crisis and the ongoing economic problems plaguing the world.

There may be good explanations for that. Despite receiving generous taxpayer-funded salaries and perks, for example, IMF bureaucrats do not pay the exorbitant income taxes they are demanding for everyone else. Meanwhile, the controversial global institution has already been playing a key role in recent heists - with the confiscation of people's savings in Cyprus among the most stunning examples.

Even more important, perhaps, is the fact that the IMF is being openly groomed to serve as a global central bank in charge of a planetary currency. It already issues the proto-global currency known as Special Drawing Rights, but the establishment has much bigger plans in mind, as The New American magazine has documented extensively. If liberty, prosperity, and national sovereignty are to be preserved, the radical looting schemes advanced by the IMF and other planetary institutions must be resisted in favor of real reforms.


Celente Warns: The Collapse of 2014: "If You Don't Have Your Money In Your Pocket It's Not Yours"

Mac Slavo
SHTFplan.com
October 23, 2013

If there's one thing that should be clear, it's that nothing the government or their banking partners have done to solve the economic crisis has been for your benefit. They've enriched themselves, yet again, on the backs of the American people.

All the while, they've told us that everything is getting better. But anyone who's paying attention know that nothing of the sort has happened.

We continue to shed jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people are still losing their homes. Personal debt is rapidly approaching 2007 levels. The U.S. government has borrowed more money than what we can ever hope to repay.

We are still in the middle of it and it's only going to get worse.

If you think it's over, that they saved us and we're out of the woods, then you've got a lot of pain coming your way.

And if you think you still have plenty of time to prepare, that it's decades or years away, you'd better think again.

Trend forecaster Gerald Celente predicted the collapse of 2008 in remarkable fashion. And now he's warning of a similar crisis to come next year.

There's fear and hysteria running through the entire global financial community, because as everybody knows all they did was postpone the inevitable.

[They're going to] turn more of America into Slavelandia as well, where people can get those part-time jobs, have no insurance, no benefits, and not enough money to live on, and they'll have to go on food stamps and other assistance...

I'm saying to everybody out there, If you don't have your money in your pocket it's not yours.

Any self-respecting adult that hears McConnel, Reid, Boehner, Ryan, one after another, and buys this baloney... they deserve what they get.

And as for the international scene... the whole thing is collapsing.

That's our forecast.

We are saying that by the second quarter of 2014, we expect the bottom to fall out... or something to divert our attention as it falls out.

It's the militarization of the United States... because of the grand scheme. And that is, these people may be stupid - the people running government - but they're very shrewd. And they know... that there's no way to solve these economic problems.

The mayhem that went on at Walmart when people couldn't cash in their food stamps.

Multiply that by tens of millions. Multiply that by a breakdown in society.

Look what they did in Boston. To me that was a test. They closed down a hundred square miles... to hunt for a 19-year old kid.

Look at America's most feared criminal of this last year. A 19-year old kids, Snowden, and Bradley Manning. Now there's three faces of disaster you never want to meet in a dark alley.

So, you can see how this society is being controlled because they don't want anyone to get out of line.

Watch Gerald Celente and Alex Jones discuss the coming trends and our future:
Make no mistake. It's coming.

And when it hits, it'll make the crisis of 2008 look like a picnic.

We survived that one, barely, but it took trillions of dollars just to stabilize, not fix, the system.

This time around, our creditors and the people as a whole may well lose confidence. And once that is lost, look out, because as Gerald Celente notes, the happenings at Walmart when the EBT system crashed were just a prelude.

Imagine that next time around it happens to not just EBT cards, but ATM's and bank accounts, or that the U.S. dollar itself crashes to such an extent that it is no longer feasible as a mechanism of exchange.

In such a scenario you can fully expect disruptions to food supplies and the normal flow of commerce.

The only saving grace you'll have are the physical assets in your possession - your arable land, long-term food stores, gold and silver, and the post-collapse labor skills you've developed.

The time to prepare is now or you may well experience the horrific effects to come

New DHS Sec Johnson Signifies Push For a Civilian Army

October 19, 2013
Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism

President Obama has named Jeh Charles Johnson as the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Obama told the audience at the Rose Garden that Johnson has "been there in the Situation Room, at the table in moments of decision."

The president said: "Jeh also knows that meeting these threats demands cooperation and coordination across our government. He's been there in the Situation Room at the table in moments of decision, working with leaders from a host of agencies to make sure everyone is rowing in the same direction. And he's respected across our government as a team player, somebody who knows how to get folks who don't always agree to work towards a common goal."

Because the "task" of counterterrorism is so great, Obama chose Johnson to continue Janet Napolitano's "important work".

With Johnson designing the legal framework for the Obama administrations various policies that justify criminal actions, Obama promised more transparency within his "national security team".
As a graduate from Columbia Law School (CLS), Johnson has focused his legal career at American civil and criminal trials.

Johnson comes from an interesting family. His grandfather was part of a League of Nations (LoN), the pre-cursor to the United Nations, mission to Liberia in the 1930s.
The LoN was tasked with encouraging collective action by the global community with the establishment of an arbitration council and the power to initiate economic and military sanctions that were determined to be aggressive.

The Covenant of the LoN reads: "In order to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations."
Johnson has served as the assistant to the US Attorney in the Southern District and general counsel of the Air Force by former president William Clinton.

Johnson was special counsel to the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004.

For the presidential campaign of Obama, Johnson was the foreign policy adviser and member of Obama's national finance committee.

In 2012, Johnson was the general counsel for the Department of Defense (DoD) after nomination by Obama.

In this role, Johnson was an integral architect of the legal policies of our counterterrorism initiatives.

Part of this scheme, Johnson pressured for the continued support of the Military Commissions Act of 2009 and worked with Army General Carter Ham on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy when its validity was questioned.

Johnson assisted in the propaganda war during the release of classified documents known as the Afghan War Diary .

In 2011, Johnson attempted to distort the memory of civil rights activist, Martin Luther King (MLK) by suggesting in a speech that MLK would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Johnson told the audience that the Afghan and Iraq wars were instances of the US being a global Good Samaritan.

Later that year, Johnson spoke at a conference at the Heritage Foundation (HF), stating the challenges of creating a "civilian law enforcement in this country."

In 2012, Johnson defended the use of targeted killings while speaking to students at Yale Law School.

Johnson also said: "There is risk in permitting and expecting the U.S. military to extend its powerful reach into areas traditionally reserved for civilian law enforcement in this country. The military should not and cannot be the only answer."

Apologist for Assassination of Americans to Be Named as New Homeland Security Chief

Washington's Blog
October 18, 2013

USA Today reports:

President Obama plans to nominate former Pentagon attorney Jeh Johnson as the next secretary of homeland security, officials said Thursday.

Johnson is a supporter of assassinations ... even against American citizens..

AP noted in 2011:

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson ... said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

The New York Times noted:

"Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives," said Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, in a speech at Yale Law School.

Still, Mr. Johnson invoked a lawsuit filed by Mr. Awlaki's father before the killing that had sought an injunction against targeting his son, citing with approval a district judge's decision to dismiss the case and saying that targeting decisions are not suited to court review because they must be made quickly and based on fast-evolving intelligence.

"The legal point is important because, in fact, over the last 10 years Al Qaeda has not only become more decentralized, it has also, for the most part, migrated away from Afghanistan to other places where it can find safe haven," Mr. Johnson said.

This is particularly concerning since the U.S. wants to expand the assassination program to cover"ASSOCIATES of ASSOCIATES" of Al Qaeda ... and blurs the lines between bad guys and average Americans. This violates a little thing called the Fifth Amendment.

The Washington Post points out:

[A senior administration official] added that Johnson was "responsible for the prior legal review and approval of every military operation approved by the president and secretary of defense" during Obama's first term.

That presumably includes supporting Al Qaeda in Libya.

Wikipedia notes more unsavory aspects of Johnson's background:

As General Counsel of the Defense Department, Johnson was a major player in certain key priorities of the Obama Administration, and he is considered one of the legal architects of the U.S. military's current counterterrorism policies.

In August, 2010, Johnson was part of the public dialogue over the Wikileaks release of classified Pentagon documents known as the Afghan War Diary or The War Logs. "The Department of Defense will not negotiate some ‘minimized' or ‘sanitized' version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. government classified documents," he wrote in a letter to Timothy J. Matusheski, a lawyer representing the online whistle-blowing organization pro bono. In August 2012, Johnson also wrote to the former Navy seal who authored the book "No Easy Day" and warned him of his material breach of his non-disclosure agreements with the Department of Defense.

In January 2011, Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite King's outspoken opposition to American interventionism during his lifetime.... Jeremy Scahill called Johnson's remarks "one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use of Martin Luther King Jr. I've ever seen," while Justin Elliott of Salon.com argued that based on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War, he would likely have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen.

In a February 2011, speech to the New York City Bar Association, Johnson "acknowledged the concerns raised" about the detention of alleged WikiLeaks sourcePrivate Bradley Manning and "stated that he had personally traveled to Quantico to conduct an investigation." Human rights attorney and journalist Scott Horton wrote that "Johnson was remarkably unforthcoming about what he discovered and what conclusions he drew from his visit

The Coming Food Stamp Riots

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
October 17, 2013

It may not happen this month, or even this year, but food stamp riots are coming to America. In fact, we got a small preview of the coming food stamp riots this past weekend when a "temporary system failure" caused food stamp cards to stop working in 17 U.S. states. Within hours, there were "mini-riots" at Wal-Marts and other retailers that rely heavily on food stamp users. So what would happen if food stamp benefits were cut off or reduced for an extended period of time? As you will see below, if Congress had not pushed through a "deal", the USDA would have started cutting off food stamp benefits on November 1st.

Considering the fact that 47 million Americans are on food stamps and more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government, that could have sparked massive rioting. So the good news is that the coming food stamp riots will probably not happen in November. The bad news is that the "deal" in Congress only delays the political fighting until after Christmas. In just a few months we will be dealing with a potential "government shutdown" and a debt ceiling deadline once again.

Most Americans have no idea what almost just happened. According to Reuters, the state of North Carolina had already cut off some welfare benefits for the month of November...
North Carolina has become the first state to cut off welfare benefits to poor residents in the wake of the partial federal government shutdown, ordering a halt to processing November applications until a deal is reached to end the federal standstill.

More than 20,000 people - most of them children - receive monthly benefits aimed at helping them buy food and other basic supplies through North Carolina's welfare program, called Work First, which is fully funded by the federal government. Recipients must reapply each month.
And as Mac Slavo recently detailed, the USDA was already planning to cut off food stamp assistance to millions of Americans on November 1st...

We say next month because the USDA, which oversees the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), has just issued an order to SNAP agency directors calling for their respective States to implement an emergency contingency program because of government funding issues. In a letter obtained by the Crossroads Urban Center food pantry, the USDA is directing state agencies to, "delay their November issuance files and delay transmission to State Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) vendors until further notice."

What this means is that should Congress fail to increase the debt ceiling this week, come November there will literally be millions of people in the United States who will have exactly zero dollars transferred to their EBT cards.

What will happen to the nearly 50 million people who depend on these benefits to survive?
In fact, there have been quite a few news reports that have confirmed this...

In Utah, Fox News 13 in Salt Lake City reported that a local provider recently received a letter from the USDA sticking to the November 1 cut-off date.

"This is going to create a huge hardship for the people we serve here in our food pantry," Bill Tibbits, Associate Director at Crossroads Urban Center, told Fox News 13.

"What this means [is] if there's not a deal, if Congress doesn't reach a deal to get federal government back up and running, in Utah about 100,000 families won't get food stamp benefit," added Tibbits.

The USDA letter says in part, "in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are directing states to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to state electronic benefit transfer vendors until further notice."

So what would have happened if tens of millions of Americans suddenly had their food stamp benefits cut off without warning?

Well, what happened last weekend can give us a few clues. Just check out what happened at one Wal-Mart in Mississippi...

Customers staged a disturbance then walked out of a Mississippi Walmart store with groceries that hadn't been paid for Saturday night after a computer glitch left them unable to use their food stamp cards.

People in 17 states found themselves unable to buy groceries with their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cards after a routine check by vendor Xerox Corp. resulted in a temporary system failure.

Shortly after the mini-riot, managers decided to temporarily close the store, citing customer safety.

Due to this technical glitch, many parents were left wondering how they were going to feed their families. If this is the kind of anger that is unleashed over a single failed trip to the grocery store, what would we see if this kind of thing went on for an extended period of time?
At some Wal-Mart stores down in Louisiana, EBT cards were not showing any limits on Saturday night, and within two hours many store shelves in the grocery section were completely cleared of merchandise...

Shelves in Walmart stores in Springhill and Mansfield, LA were reportedly cleared Saturday night, when the stores allowed purchases on EBT cards even though they were not showing limits.
The chaos that followed ultimately required intervention from local police, and left behind numerous carts filled to overflowing, apparently abandoned when the glitch-spurred shopping frenzy ended.

Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd confirms they were called in to help the employees at Walmart because there were so many people clearing off the shelves. He says Walmart was so packed, "It was worse than any black Friday" that he's ever seen.

Sadly, this was only a very small preview of the massive food stamp riots that are eventually coming to America. I like how Mike Adams explained what we are likely to see in the future...
Why does any of this matter? Because this is exactly the same way these people will behave when the federal government goes into default and nearly 50 million EBT cards stop working nationwide.

Fifty million. Consider that for a moment. Most of those 50 million people live in high-density cities. Many are proud owners of Obama phones, Obama food stamps, Obama unemployment checks and Obama subsidized housing. They have absolutely no clue that the government upon which they wholly depend to put food on the table is teetering on the verge of permanent collapse. (Seriously, they cannot conceive of the idea of government "running out of money" because they do not understand where money comes from.) Because of this distorted belief, they do not prepare for any future events other than more Obama handouts. Their entire "preparedness" plan is to vote for Democrats, because that's who they know will give them the most handouts. And they will always win the popular vote, too, because any politician promising to restore responsible fiscal spending to the government by cutting programs will be viciously accused of being "mean" or involved in "hating poor people." So the government handouts will only ratchet higher and higher, ensnaring more and more people, until the entire system is unsustainable and collapses under its own weight.

When that system of dependence fails, those who depend on it will panic in mere hours. As proof of this, consider the fact that this mass looting of Wal-Mart stores happened in less than three hoursafter the Saturday EBT card glitch struck. Police had to be called in to prevent the situation from getting completely out of control, and it was offline for only part of one day.
Now imagine what will happen when EBT cards go offline for 24, 48 or even 72 hours. And imagine it happening in every U.S. city simultaneously.

Of course not all Americans would go wild when food stamp benefits are cut off.
Other Americans express their desperation in other ways. According to Bloomberg, an increasing number of people are starting to sell hair, breast milk and their own eggs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet...

Hair, breast milk and eggs are doubling as automated teller machines for some cash-strapped Americans such as April Hare.

Out of work for more than two years and facing eviction from her home, Hare recalled Louisa May Alcott's 19th-century novel and took to her computer.

"I was just trying to find ways to make money, and I remembered Jo from ‘Little Women,' and she sold her hair," the 35-year-old from Atlanta said. "I've always had lots of hair, but this is the first time I've actually had the idea to sell it because I'm in a really tight jam right now."
The mother of two posted pictures of her 18-inch auburn mane on www.buyandsellhair.com, asking at least $1,000 and receiving responses within hours. Hare, who also considered selling her breast milk, joins others exploring unconventional ways to make ends meet as the four-year-old economic expansion struggles to invigorate the labor market and stimulate incomes.
We have moved into a time when things are becoming increasingly unstable and when people are becoming increasingly desperate.

In an attempt to keep order, the authorities will become increasingly forceful in the years ahead. At this point, many law enforcement officers already believe that there is very little that they cannot do to exert their "authority" over the rest of us. Just check out video of a drunk off-duty police officer "arresting" a woman that refused to go out on a date with him right here. Sadly, this type of behavior is becoming way too common these days.

And it looks like major financial institutions are getting ready for the chaos that is eventually coming as well. In fact, according to an article by Paul Joseph Watson, Chase Bank is now placing a limit on cash withdrawals and is banning business customers from sending wire transfers out of the country...

Chase Bank has moved to limit cash withdrawals while banning business customers from sending international wire transfers from November 17 onwards, prompting speculation that the bank is preparing for a looming financial crisis in the United States by imposing capital controls.
Numerous business customers with Chase BusinessSelect Checking and Chase BusinessClassic accounts have received letters over the past week informing them that cash activity (both deposits and withdrawals) will be limited to a $50,000 total per statement cycle from November 17 onwards.

Fortunately, the chaos that would have been unleashed if Congress had not made a deal has now been delayed for a few months.

But by kicking the can down the road, our politicians continue to make our long-term problems even worse. Either we are going to have tremendous pain now, or we are going to have even worse pain later. Peter Schiff explained the choice that we are facing this way...
If Republicans were to inexplicably prevail, and the federal government were to cut spending so that its expenditures matched its tax revenues (a truly radical idea) the country's financial mess would be laid bare. The government would have to weigh the relative costs and benefits of making interest payments on Treasury debt (primarily to foreign creditors) or to trim entitlements promised to U.S. citizens. But those are choices we will have to make sooner or later anyway. In fact we should have dealt with these issues years ago. But generations of mechanistic debt ceiling increases have allowed us to perpetually kick the can down the road. What could possibly be gained by doing it again, particularly if it is done with no commitment to change course?

The Democrats' argument that America needs to pay its bills is just hollow rhetoric. Paying off one's Visa bill with a new and bigger MasterCard bill can't be considered a legitimate payment of debt. At best it is a transfer. But in the government's case, it doesn't even qualify as that. Treasury debt is primarily bought by the Fed, foreign central banks, and major financial institutions. None of that will change with a debt ceiling increase. We will just go to the same people for greater quantities. So it's like paying off your Visa card with a bigger Visa card.
We are living on borrowed time that has been purchased by stealing money from future generations.

We are literally destroying the future in order to make the present more palatable.
But whether it is this year, or next year or the year after that, at some point we are going to experience the pain that results from decades of incredibly foolish decisions.
I hope that you are getting ready.

Increasing Data Collection and Surveillance in the North American Homeland

October 16, 2013
Blacklisted News

Source: Dana Gabriel, Op-Ed

Some of the corporate interests that are steering the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border integration agenda are not quite satisfied with its progress so far and they would like the implementation process to be accelerated. The bilateral initiative which was launched almost two years ago promotes a shared vision for perimeter security. It seeks to improve information sharing between security agencies. Under the agreement, both countries are moving towards a coordinated entry/exit system and are developing a harmonized cargo security strategy. In addition, the U.S. and Canada are strengthening integrated cross-border intelligence sharing and law enforcement operations. Canada's own electronic eavesdropping agency is also working hand and hand with the NSA. They are both increasing data collection and surveillance in the North American Homeland.

Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt gave a speech at the Association of Canadian Port Authorities annual conference in August. She stated that, "Ensuring the security of our transportation systems is key to strengthening the Canada-U.S. trade relationship. To build prosperity through trade, businesses and governments on both sides of our shared border must have confidence that our transportation systems will work together to meet our mutual security needs. That is why Canada and the United States are working closely together to implement the Beyond the Border Action Plan." While she didn't reference the Maritime Commerce Resilience Project by name, Raitt acknowledged that the U.S. and Canada are, "developing a joint cross-border approach to help maritime commerce recover faster after a major disruption." This would include a significant natural disaster or terrorist attack that impacts North America. She also mentioned a pilot program underway at the Port of Prince Rupert which is part of efforts to harmonize the cargo screening process between the U.S. and Canada. Both countries continue to advance this agenda through the Integrated Cargo Security Strategy, a key component of the Beyond the Border deal.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is an influential organization that lobbies the government on behalf of Canada's largest corporations. Throughout the years, they have tirelessly pushed for deeper continental integration. In a letter sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, John Manley, President and CEO of the CCCE lays out what some of the Conservative Party's priorities should be in the next session of parliament. As far as the North American partnership goes, the CCCE called on Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to further strengthen and renew their trilateral relationship. This includes forging a North American energy advantage through projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline which it noted was, "An essential step is the development of a comprehensive strategy to expand and enhance cross-border energy infrastructure." The CCCE's letter to Prime Minister Harper also stressed that, "The Canada-U.S. Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation initiatives that you helped launch two years ago hold much promise, although so far tangible benefits have been few and far between." In other words, big business who have to most to gain from these agreements want to speed up the whole process of North American integration.

At the end of June, the Department of Homeland Security and the Canada Border Services Agency began Phase II of the Entry/Exit System, a commitment of the Beyond the Border action plan. The project builds on Phase I which involved collecting and exchanging biographic information at four selected land border crossings. Phase II has been expanded to include the exchange of biographic entry data collected from third-country nationals and permanent residents of Canada and the U. S. at all common ports of entry. In 2014, they will also start sharing biometric information at the border. Both countries are moving closer to fully implementing a biometric entry and exit data system. They are laying the groundwork for the creation of a North American biometric ID card. The U.S. and Canada are further merging databases and are expanding surveillance and intelligence gathering activities.

On July 12, Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester chaired the hearing, Protecting our Northern Border: Enhancing Collaboration and Building Local Partnerships. The meeting emphasized how, "Securing such an expansive border requires a multi-faceted approach. In addition to a smart and effective deployment of technology and manpower, we must also be doing everything we can to ensure federal, local, state and Canadian partners are working very closely and collaboratively." It also described other, "opportunities for collaboration and cost-sharing, including stronger partnerships between agencies, local officials, tribes and the private sector." Before the hearings took place, Senator Tester talked to the CBC about the prospect of deploying a high-tech cable sensor along the U.S.-Canada border. This would include the installation of the Blue Rose in-ground perimeter defense security system. The low-level surveillance radar is based on fibre optic technology which is used, "to detect sound and vibration transmitted by intruders such as people walking or running and moving vehicles near the sensor." The increased militarization of the northern border is forcing Canada to further comply with U.S.-style security measures.

A controversial U.S.-Canada cross-border law enforcement initiative which is essentially a land based version of the Shiprider program has been delayed due to legal ramifications. Under the Beyond the Border perimeter security plan, the Next Generation pilot project which would create integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations was scheduled to be launched in the summer of 2012. According to an RCMP memo, the U.S. is demanding that its agents taking part in the bilateral undertaking be exempt from Canadian law. This has raised serious concerns about transparency, accountability and responsibility. It is yet another attempt by the U.S. to chip away at Canadian sovereignty. An article by Michael Harris warned that, "Once you give the U.S a platform to carry weapons and perform investigative duties inside our country, how far will they push the next envelope?" The pilot project is part of the process of further acclimating U.S. policing activities in Canada. As part of a North American security perimeter, both countries continue to expand the nature and scope of joint law enforcement operations, along with intelligence collection and sharing.

An example on how North America is being increasingly viewed a single entity occurred several months back during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein displayed a map that was designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) which showed domestic and global terror activity that it has allegedly helped disrupt. When it came to North America, the diagram identified Canada and Mexico as part of the U.S. Homeland. While the move garnered a lot of speculation, RT pointed out, "Whatever the reason for the NSA's creation of the Homeland, the spy agency has already been condemned for failing to respect the sovereignty of other nations through its extensive data-collection efforts." The NSA is also working in close partnership with Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC). An article from Global Research explained that, "the two organizations have integrated personnel-i.e. swap personnel to improve seamless collaboration. They also share Internet surveillance programs." It went on to say that the NSA, "shares information on Canadians' communications with Canada's national security apparatus in exchange for information that CSEC gathers on Americans."

The never ending war on terrorism is being used to justify the huge police state security apparatus being assembled. This includes the militarization of the northern border and the creation of a North American security perimeter. In the name of national security, there has been a steady erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights in both the U.S. and Canada. Our freedoms are under assault. The amount of information being collected and shared on all aspects of our daily lives has expanded and is being stored in massive databases. Sweeping new surveillance powers targeting terrorists and other criminals are being increasingly turned against those who are critical of government policy. There is a concerted effort to demonize political opponents, activists, protesters and other peaceful groups. We are witnessing the criminalization of dissent where those who oppose the government's agenda are being labelled as terrorists and a threat to security


Oxford, MA Passes Anti-NDAA Resolution, Prohibits "targeted killing"

Monday, October 14, 2013
Activist Post

Just two days after Albany, NY unanimously passed, 11-0, the strongest Anti-NDAA resolution in the United States, the people of Oxford, MA passed the Oxford Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution by a near unanimous margin. This resolution blocks the detention provisions under the 2012 NDAA and the law of war, including the indefinite detention and "targeted killing" of any person, in the City of Oxford.

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011. The 2012 NDAA declares the United States to be a battlefield in the war on terror and Sections 1021 & 1022 authorize the indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of all persons, including American citizens, accused by the President of undefined "support" for terrorist activity or commission of a ‘belligerent act". This violates multiple provisions of the US Constitution, in addition to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments.

People Against the NDAA (PANDA), a national, nonpartisan, grassroots organization founded in January 2012, is committed to reversing the NDAA's unconstitutional authorizations with activism to affect policy at the state and local government level. PANDA started in Bowling Green, OH and has since expanded into over 30 state teams nationwide.

The tide is now turning against the NDAA's detention provisions. Oxford's Resolution states:
"...it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to:

a. arrest or capture any person in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States, with the intent of "detention under the law of war," or

b. actually subject a person in Oxford, to "disposition under the law of war," or

c. subject any person to targeted killing in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States;..."

Unlike in most cities across the country, several Massachusetts towns, including Oxford, have "Town Meetings" where the citizens vote on issues instead of elected officials. Each issue requires a percentage of signatures to get it on the meeting agenda, but once it is on the agenda, the citizens of that town directly decide on the issue.

When the Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution of Oxford came up for a vote, Oxford residents did what most elected officials don't have the courage to do, and voted 95% in favor of the resolution. Marla Zeneski, the Oxford resident who sponsored the resolution, along with the support of Worcester Tea Party Co-Founder Ken Mandile and PANDA Massachusetts, said:

It took a long time and a big effort to gather these signatures due to the way our town is laid out as there is no single 'common' location where people of Oxford gather. But we persevered and I am so happy with the outcome! We are the first town in MA to pass this very important Resolution.

Matching, and with more clarity than, Albany's resolution 80.21.93 just three days ago, this resolution makes it crystal clear that the "law of war," and anything associated with it under Section 1021 (c) of the 2012 NDAA or otherwise, is unlawful to implement by any person...which includes everyone from international police forces (such as INTERPOL) and Federal agents to local and state police.

Benjamin Selecky, Team Leader for PANDA Massachusetts, praised the resolution and the efforts of local activists:
Special thanks to everyone that helped Take Back the Town of Oxford. It was a team effort, and everyone's contribution was critical to accomplishing the mission. As we celebrate the victory, let us not lose sight of the long road ahead of us. There is work that still needs to be done, but together, we will restore constitutional governance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Unlike the Liberty Preservation Acts introduced and/or passed in several states, including Virginia and California, the Restoring Constitutional Governance Act/Resolution prohibits any person, local, state, federal, or international, from utilizing the powers of the "law of war" under the 2012 NDAA or any similar law or authority, in any city, county, or state.

Albany, NY. Oxford, MA. Two cities, just two days apart. The momentum is growing, and real change is now on our side.

Will your city be next?

Take back your Town NOW: http://pandaunite.org/takeback/

Donate to keep this campaign going: https://pandaunite.org/donate.php

America is only a Republic...if we can keep it.

Contact:
Dan Johnson
Founder, PANDA
People Against the NDAA
http://www.pandaunite.org

Coexist with Monsanto or destroy it? Follow the organic money.

Jon Rappoport
Activist Post
Monday, October 14, 2013

Let's stop screwing around and go to the heart of the matter. Whether the public campaign against Monsanto takes the form of GMO-labeling or putting millions of people in the street protesting against an evil corporation...

Depends on who has the money and what they're willing to use it for.

I'm talking about the billion-dollar natural health industry.

If companies like Whole Foods, Stonyfield, Dr. Bronner's, Lundberg, and the big-time nutritional-supplement outfits want to bankroll a popular and very visible uprising against Monsanto, they have the dollars to do it. And they have the PR people to ignite it.

If they decide they don't really want to co-exist with Monsanto and GMOs, they could start funding something a lot hotter and more effective than GMO-labeling ballot measures.

But that's not in their playbook. They don't have the stomach and courage for it. They don't want to get their hands dirty.

So they go for GMO labeling, the ballot measures, coexistence with Monsanto, the lite version of a campaign.

It's a lot easier. It doesn't risk everything that goes with taking on Monsanto directly.

"Hey, we're all really nice people. Don't get nasty. Monsanto is terribly misguided, so let the consumer know what he's buying and let him make up his mind..."

Suppose, in the 1960s, we had this: "The Vietnam War isn't really evil, we don't want to promote a few million outraged Americans going out on the streets, so let's just have a ballot measure...I buy Vietnam or I don't buy Vietnam...and then people can decide whether to support the war..."

Last May, two million people in 436 cities across the world protested against Monsanto. So far this weekend, it's 250,000 people in 50 countries. That's a drop in the bucket.

Those demonstrations could expand by millions, with some major PR dollars behind them. Organic dollars.

Here's a quick piece of personal history that gives you a parallel to what's happening now with Monsanto.

Back in 1994, I took an active part in what was called the Health Freedom movement. The campaign was bankrolled by a few nutritional-supplement companies.

The objective, from their point of view, was passing a federal law that would protect them from the bad guy. The bad guy was the FDA. The FDA was going after supplements, threatening to close off consumers' access to the full range of products.

My position was: okay, pass a law, but that isn't going to stop the FDA. We have to attack it with the truth, from every possible angle, as a rogue federal agency committing major crimes. We have to put the Agency on the defensive, back on its heels. We have to make it scramble. We have to make this a very public war.

The nutritional companies and their toadies said no. They were the equivalent of the GMO-labeling funders of today. They wanted a nice neat solution, after which they would withdraw their dollars and go home.

And so a bill was passed into law (DSHEA), and the FDA has continued, in various ways, to go after nutritional-supplement companies, saddling them with red tape...accusing them of marketing unreliable products...harassing them.

Meanwhile, the FDA approves medical drugs for public consumption, drugs that, by conservative estimates, kill 106,000 people in the US every year. The supplements kill no one.

Sure, pass GMO-labeling measures, but that's not the real answer. The thing is, the people who are funding these measures are basically putting all their money into the ballot campaigns-all the money they intend to contribute.

For them, it IS an either-or situation. Pass ballot measures, or launch an all-out attack on Monsanto. They've made their choice.

They SAY they believe they can sell GMO labeling to the public. They SAY that's all they can sell, because the public is too ignorant to go for anything else.

That's a very convenient position. It automatically excludes a real rebellion against the evil corporation, Monsanto.

"Well, you see, educating people to understand why GMOs are dangerous to health and how Monsanto is destroying the sanctity of the food supply...that's too much. We can't achieve that."

I don't buy it.

Everything looks bleak until you take action. In other words, we're looking at a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The CEOs of these natural-health companies would turn pale at the prospect of going after Monsanto directly. It's fear.

They opt for the ballot measures. They assure us that this is the only option. They stage their own version of reality and defend it with "rational" assertions.

It's a con.

Take on Monsanto...directly? Take out ads exposing Monsanto? Promote a million people in Washington DC Mall on a Saturday afternoon? Reveal the names of the Congressmen who are defending Monsanto? File new lawsuits against Monsanto? Put small farmers on television who are being harassed and driven out of business by Monsanto? Show the American people the faces of the men and women who spend their lives growing food for us, and listen to what they have to say? Bring the outrage to a boil? Expose (gasp) Obama as the number-one supporter of Monsanto in the nation? Name the people he's appointed to protect Monsanto? TELL THE TRUTH?

Oh my God! Run for the hills!

No no no no!

Let's have a ballot measure. For labeling. Let's calm down. Let's be nice. Let's coexist. Let's play together in the sandbox, even if the sandbox is polluted with GMOs. Easy does it. Relax.

Take a deep breath. The cosmic glob Goo-Goo is with us, and all will be well. He instructs us thus:

"Less energy. Less action. Less outrage. Less imagination. Less truth."

Thank you, Goo-Goo. Thank you.

Your serene bullshit will sustain us in the days to come.

Obamacare sign-up crash: what's really behind it?

Jon Rappoport
October 11, 2013

It's easy to say the government always screws things up and, therefore, the crash of its Obamacare sign-up system is merely another example of gross incompetence.

But this is shortsighted. White House officials knew, months ago, the online site was an unmitigated disaster, and yet they let the train continue speeding down the track to its inevitable crackup.

To understand this, we need to go back to the opening salvo in the Obamacare drama.
To his advisors' shock and surprise, Obama, taking office in 2009, announced that his first big move was going to be national health insurance.

His people assumed jobs would be the top priority. The nation was clamoring for a solution. People were out of work. Banks were foreclosing on homes. Families were in peril.
How could the President misread the national mood so badly? National health insurance? Now? Where the hell did that come from?

The 1993 track record of earlier efforts, headed by Hillary Clinton and her buffoon of a consultant, Ira Magaziner, had run aground, failed miserably, and stirred up considerable animosity.

Obama was going to lead with this again? Bring on a storm of contentious clashes in the Congress, the press, and the nation at large?

What was he thinking?

He wasn't. A super-ambitious campaign on this issue had to come from somewhere else. Obama's high-flying humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the man was acting as an agent of change. An agent.

He was taking dictation.

And sure enough, he sank the country in a hostile grinding debate that persists to this day. Meanwhile, the economy and jobs went begging.

When the Obamacare bill finally passed, without anyone reading it, and when subsequent arm-twisting led the Supreme Court to call the individual mandate a tax (a transparently preposterous strategy), thus clearing the way for implementation, amid loud cries of fraud, there remained another opportunity for promoting disaster:

A system for enrollment that wouldn't work, that would crash, that would look like a bevy of drunken idiots ($634 million richer) had put it together with scotch tape and a random number generator.

At a much high level of op, Obamacare was always invented chaos.

It was intended to be.

The target was America itself. As in destabilization.

This is a strategy as old as the hills.

In this case, the people in charge, behind the scenes, are Globalists (think Rockefeller, for starters). For over a hundred years, their objective has been the takedown of the United States, one of the strongest holdouts against a planetary management system, in which, ultimately, national borders are erased and individual countries cease to exist.

In 1971, David Rockefeller's intellectual consigliere, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: "...[the] nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."

Achieving such a goal, however, is not simply a matter of standing back and watching evolution take it course. It involves torpedoing major institutions, regardless of how well or poorly they are serving the public interest.

In other words: promote chaos at every possible opportunity.

The extreme oddness of choosing national health insurance as the first planned shot out of the White House, in 2009, was, at the most important level, an exercise in stirring the national pot with a multi-blade fan engine.

Chaos has several aims; among them: raising the level of frustration; dividing the populace; engendering heating conflicts; demoralizing citizens; producing a sense of helplessness; and rendering large numbers of people into a state of surrender and passivity.

It is a prelude to a New Order. A more heartless and repressive Order.

Obamacare is just one example among hundreds.

Operation Chaos has been targeting the United States for well over a hundred years.
Of the dozen or so possible first steps of a Presidency, Obama chose the one that would produce the most discord.

Because US presidents rarely mention Globalism and its tentacles and plans and organizations, it is assumed the issue isn't of high importance.

But since the closing days of World War 2, (and, actually, much earlier), when members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tapped to write the blueprint for the United Nations, when the outline of the Marshall Plan was drafted, when the first serious meetings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were set in stone, every American President has looked the other way, when Globalism has reared its head.

That's FDR all the way through to Obama.

And during that 70-year period, ops small, medium, and large have been launched to weaken the United States and entangle it in the Globalist framework.

For the two terms of Obama's Presidency, national health insurance was chosen as a bare electric wire, to shock, stimulate, and magnify dormant hostilities throughout the country.
To the Globalists, the respective merits and flaws in a national healthcare system are of absolutely no concern. It is simply one more opportunity to "crash the system" and produce a hole in the fabric of national life.

For these men, the issue of Obamacare "has legs." They will squeeze more out of it, for their own purposes, in the months and years ahead.

Mired in the quite serious and real pros and cons of a national health plan, people will miss the bigger picture and pass by it without a glance of recognition.

The manipulators don't pick trivial issues. Distraction requires presenting people with forceful conflicts.

It requires the belief that events are what they seem and the motives behind them are clear and on the surface.

Jon Rappoport


Ex-Treasury Official: Obama Could Use Debt Crisis to Seize Total Power

President could declare national emergency, pass executive order

October 10, 2013

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts warns that President Barack Obama could use the debt ceiling crisis to seize total power, by declaring a national emergency and passing an executive order in the name of preventing an economic collapse.

With the government still in shut down over the failure to pass a spending bill, the U.S. faces an October 17 deadline to raise the nation's debt ceiling, which currently stands at almost $17 trillion dollars.

According to Roberts, there is a chance that Obama could exploit the disastrous consequences of a default to push for dictatorial control.

Roberts says that one of two scenarios will happen if Congress fails to make a temporary deal with the White House to raise the debt ceiling.

Either the Federal Reserve would simply lend the Treasury the money, similar to how they propped up foreign banks with at least $16 trillion in bailout funds, or Obama would "declare a ‘national catastrophe' and simply assume the leadership of the government."

"This would mean that the President, on his own authority, could raise the debt ceiling. So, either of those two events would happen if it looked like no deal was forthcoming from the Congress. It could be that President Obama, or others in the Executive Branch, are planning to use this crisis to invoke that Executive Order," Roberts told KingWorldNews.

This would essentially render the US Congress a ceremonial body with no power and turn Obama into a Caesar-like figure.

"Generally when democratically regimes fail you end up with a Caesar, and a shutdown is of course the epitome of a democratic failure. So this would give President Obama all of the justification for exercising the Executive Order so that the President can rule independently of Congress and the courts," said Roberts.

Despite his warning, Roberts still thinks that lawmakers are likely to cut a short term deal to raise the debt ceiling, if only to preserve the power of Congress.

"Congress would not want a presidential directive to be implemented that subordinates their position and possibly eliminates their meaningful participation in governance," writes Roberts.
House Republican leaders will meet the President later today in order to thrash out a short term agreement after Obama said he was open to the idea of a temporary deal


Dem Congresswoman Suggests "Martial Law" to End Government Shutdown

Sheila Jackson Lee uses obscure language to characterize clean resolution

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 9, 2013

Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee used obscure language to characterize the push for a clean resolution which would end the government shutdown, labeling it a form of "martial law."

Advocating for the passage of a clean continuing resolution that would, at least temporarily, end the current standoff in Washington and reopen the government, Lee said there were enough members of Congress who would vote for the resolution.

"It's something called a continuing resolution, but it's a bill that you put on the floor that has been passed already by Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate....that we could vote on today," said Lee, adding, "We have martial law - what that means - and my colleagues know what it means - is that you can put a bill on in just minutes."

The term "martial law" in a legislative context is somewhat obscure but it has been used before to define lawmakers' ability to "fast track" bills without going through the usual congressional process.

However, Lee's insistence that a Senate-approved resolution to fund the federal government be fast-tracked via "martial law" appears to conflict with Article I, Section 7, Clause I of the Constitution, which states, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."

This clause was included by the founders to ensure that decisions related to the power of the purse reside with the legislative body which is closest to the American people.

The last time martial law was mentioned by a member of Congress was back in 2008 when Rep. Brad Sherman revealed how lawmakers were threatened with "martial law in America" by then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson if they rejected the TARP bailout package


D.C. Cops Running Drill on Same Day as Capitol Shooting

First responders participated in drill to "perfect their skills"

Adan Salazar
Oct. 3, 2013

A joint training exercise ending today, in addition to barricades and checkpoints placed at the White House, may have played a role in the horrific police execution of a woman today at the nation's capitol.

According to a report featured on Army.mil, this is the last day federal, state, local and municipal agencies will be testing "interagency operability during a crisis impacting the District of Columbia," as part of a joint exercise known as Capital Shield 14.

"Capital Shield 2014 is a joint training exercise in the National Capital Region, or NCR, that runs from Sept. 30 thru Oct. 3, and is hosted by the Joint Force Headquarters - National Capital Region," the army's report says. The NCR includes Washington, D.C.'s metropolitan area.
The drill "also trains and prepares the Department of Defense to provide defense support to civil authorities and employ appropriate force protection measures as requested," force protection measures necessary to protect the homeland like those employed today in the brutal shooting of the 34-year-old dental hygienist.

The ongoing drill might be one reason first responders were in a heightened state of alert when they shot the panicked mother at least 12 times, who was likely just lost in a maze of government shutdown and joint training exercise barricades and checkpoints.
According to the Washington Post, the woman ran "into a security checkpoint at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. The driver went about 20 yards, B.J. Campbell said, before rapidly turning the car around at the concrete security barriers."

The fact the woman, reportedly Miriam Carey from Stamford, Conn., was not armed didn't stop media from reporting there were "shots exchanged" at the Capitol, nor did it stop officers from responding with lethal force, nor did it stop D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier from saying the officers "acted heroically."

One can only hope Capital Shield 2014 trains law enforcement to react in a better manner than they did today, where a 20-car police chase could barely catch a lone woman in a car who we are learning had a "history of mental health issues


Continued shutdown, paralyzed politicians reveal just how close the U.S. govt. is to total collapse

Mike Adams
Natural News
October 3, 2013

Anyone looking for evidence of the impending total failure of the U.S. government need look no further than the shenanigans taking place right now in Washington D.C.

To summarize:

• As the nation hurtles toward an inevitable debt collapse, the Obama administration insists the answer is to pile on more debt by raising the debt ceiling. Anyone who disagrees with this is being characterized an "anarchist."

• Unless the debt ceiling is raised, the U.S. Treasury will default on hundreds of billions of dollars in debt obligations in less than a month. Such a default would absolutely wreck the credit worthiness of the USA, causing the future debt burden to start wildly multiplying in a runaway mathematical blowout that can only end in financial collapse.

• Obamacare, a broken system of coerced, unconstitutional health insurance mandates, is already causing widespread economic disaster across the country as tens of millions of people are losing their jobs, having their hours cut, or seeing their company-sponsored health plans cancelled. But the socialist philosophy of Obamacare is so central to the political left that they are viciously defending it at all costs. If Obamacare fails, the socialist fantasies of the left go down the drain with it, and they can't let that happen... not even if it means medically bankrupting millions of Americans thanks to the outrageously high costs of health insurance everyone is now forced to buy.

• As political leverage in all this, the federal government is supposedly "shut down," but the IRS is still collecting money, the TSA is still groping travelers at the airport, and billions of dollars in government waste is still accruing each week. To make the shut down appear worse, the Obama administration erected tall barriers around World War II veterans' memorials, desperately attempting to dramatize the shut down while blaming the Republicans. (This also shows the utter disrespect for American veterans who fought for the very freedoms Obama seems to enjoy destroying at every opportunity.)

• The mainstream media, ever the pathetic defenders of failed "hope and change" rhetoric, is still running interference for the Obama administration, pretending that all this is the fault of Republicans and that somehow Democrats had no part in any of it. The very idea that Republicans might want to negotiate a mutual agreement rather than bowing down to the destructive wrath of Obamacare is heavily and repeatedly criticized by the media. How dare you want to negotiate! Peasants don't negotiate with kings! They bow down and kiss feet!
You are watching the slow-motion collapse of the U.S. government

What you are witnessing here is the utter failure of the U.S. federal government - a failure that may portend an even more sobering failure soon to come.

This is a government that has:

• Run out of money
• Run out of credibility
• Run out of ideas
• Run out of trust from the People
• Run out of excuses for its utter abandonment of law, justice and the will of the People

Maybe it's time that We the People ran them all out of Washington, eh? It's certainly clear to the American people at this point that virtually no one in Washington represents their interests anymore... the exceptions being a very small number of stoic defenders of fundamental freedom like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. For their efforts to stand firm against the government steamrolling the entire economy into oblivion, they are being called "anarchists" by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, an all-out wretched apologist for endless, cancerous growth of the institution of government.

What happens if 25 million federal paychecks suddenly stop?

As I'm watching all this, I can't help but wonder just how much more the American people are going to take before they fill the streets in protest. Or, even worse, what happens if the so-called "desperate measures" now being invoked by the Treasury can't hold out long enough and the entire system goes into financial default?

What happens in just one week across America if all the people dependent on government don't receive their paychecks? Imagine: 25 million full-time and part-time federal employees suddenly waking up and realizing there is no paycheck; there is no retirement; there is no free health care and there is no "faith and credit of the United States government."

I could tell you almost exactly what's going to happen when that day comes, but you probably wouldn't believe it anyway, so I'll save that explanation for when the time is right. But I will give you the hint (wink wink) that you'd better brush up on reading www.SurvivalBlog.com and buy everything ever written by James Wesley Rawles, because unless an unprecedented holy miracle occurs that defies the laws of economics, there is no saving the U.S. government from its own financial destruction.

If the U.S. government were a hospital patient, you'd pull the plug out of sheer mercy
The only real question is how long it will take for the People to finally lose sufficient faith in this failed government to actually pull the plug and shut it down permanently. If you think of the U.S. government as a hospital patient, it's being kept alive with an artificial lung, an IV feeding tube, a cocktail of toxic blood thinners and a bedside defibrillator. The crash cart is on standby and the heart monitor is showing a failing pulse headed towards flatline.

The Fed stands ready with a syringe full of adrenaline (labeled "Quantitative Easing"), but the patient has already been injected fifty-seven times, and no one knows how much more the patient's heart can handle before exploding.

At some point, it's all such a horrifying wreck that you just pull the plug and pray for the suffering to end. That's where I believe America is ultimately headed: a collapse, a rebirth, and hopefully a new era of abundance without the onerous burden and interference of a government gone insane.

Obamacare Is Another Private Sector Rip-Off Of Americans

Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
October 2, 2013

The government of the "world's only superpower," the "exceptional," the "indispensable" country, claims to know what is best for Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, China, indeed for the entire world. However, the "indispensable" country cannot even govern itself, much less the world over which the "superpower" desires hegemony. The government of the "world's only superpower" has shut itself down.

The government has shut itself down, because it cannot deal with the budget deficit and mounting public debt caused by twelve years of wars, by financial deregulation that allows "banks too big to fail" to loot the taxpayers, and by the loss of jobs, GDP, and tax base that jobs offshoring forced by Wall Street caused.

The Republicans are using the fight over the limit on new public debt to block Obamacare. The Republicans are right to oppose Obamacare, but they are opposing Obamacare largely for ideological reasons when there are very good sound reasons to oppose Obamacare.

Last February 3, I posted on this website a column, "Obamacare: A Deception," written by an expert on the subject. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/02/03/obamacare-a-primer/
When Republicans for ideological reasons blocked a single-payer health system like the rest of the developed world has and, indeed, even some developing countries have, the Obama regime, needing a victory, went to the insurance companies and told them to come up with a health care plan that the insurance lobby could get passed by Congress. Obamacare was written by the private insurance industry with the goal of raising its profits with 50 million mandated new customers.

Obamacare works for the insurance companies, but not for the uninsured. The cost of using Obamacare is prohibitive for those who most need the health coverage. The cost of the premiums net of the government subsidy is large. It amounts to a substantial pay cut for people struggling to pay their bills. In addition to the premium cost, it is prohibitive for hard pressed Americans to use the policies because of the deductibles and co-pays. For the very poor, who are thrown into Medicaid systems, any assets they might have, such as a home, are subject to confiscation to cover their Medicaid bills. The only people other than the insurance companies who benefit from Obamacare are the down and out who are devoid of all assets.

This might prove to be a growing percentage of Americans. On September 19 the New York Times on the front page of the business section reported what I have reported for years: that real median family incomes in the US are where they were a quarter of a century ago. In other words, in a quarter of a century there has been no income growth for the median American family.

In 2013 payroll employment is below where it was six years ago. During 2013 most of the new jobs, barely sufficient to stay even with population growth and insufficient to recover the job loss from the recession, have been part-time jobs that do not provide any discretionary income with which to drive a consumer economy.

Obamacare has resulted in the health insurance companies, who thought that they would be living in high profits from the mandated health coverage, being outsmarted by employers, who have reduced their full-time workers to part-time in order to avoid Omamacare's requirement to provide health coverage to those employees who work 30 hours a week or more.

Employers can get away with this, because jobs are hard to find. The lack of employment opportunities results in Americans with engineering degrees working as retail sales clerks and as shelf stockers in Walmart and Home Depot. Despite the abundance of unemployed and under-employed American technical and engineering workers, the large corporations lobby Congress for more H-1B visas to bring in lowly paid foreigners with the argument that there is a shortage of qualified Americans for technical work.

As I have pointed out so many times, if there were a shortage of engineering and technical workers, salaries would be rising, not falling.

For millions of employees, Obamacare means cut hours and less take home pay plus out-of-pocket expenses to purchase an Obamacare health policy. For most people covered by Obamacare, this is a lose-lose situation.

It is also a lose-loss situation for the vast majority of the young. Most young people, unless they have jobs that provide health coverage, do without it, because the chances of the young having heart attacks, cancer, and other serious health problems is low.
Obamacare, however, requires the healthy young to pay premiums for coverage or to pay a penalty to the IRS.

In my day this might not have been a problem. However, today there are few jobs for the young that pay enough to have an independent existence. The monthly payroll jobs reports do not show well-paying jobs. The Labor Department's projections of future jobs are not jobs that pay well. For the youth, it seems that the penalty is less than the premium, so youthful penalties paid out of waitress and bartender tips will subsidize the unusable Obamacare health policies for the poor adults who are not thrown into Medicare, which confiscates their assets, if any.
Obamacare benefits only two classes of people. It benefits employers who drop their employees working hours below the hours specified for Obamacare coverage, and it benefits the insurance companies or the IRS who collect the premiums and penalties.

Many of the people who pay the premiums won't be able to use the policies because of co-pays and deductions.

The very poor with no assets might receive health care if they reside in states that accept the Medicaid provisions of Obamacare.

In 21st century America, the few people who have experienced income gains are the executives and shareholders of firms who offshored their production for US markets, Wall Street which makes bets covered by the Federal Reserve, and the military-security complex which has been enriched by the neoconservatives' wars.

Every other American has lost.

Government ‘Shut Down' Doesn't Prevent Opening of $2 Billion NSA Spy Center

Snooping on Americans; business as usual

Paul Joseph Watson
October 1, 2013

The so-called "government shut down" and the furloughing of thousands of non-essential federal employees has not prevented the opening of a $2 billion dollar NSA spy center in Utah which will snoop on Americans' private emails, Google searches and phone calls.
As we highlighted yesterday, the shut down will only affect the tiny amount of services government provides that Americans actually like.

Rest assured, TSA grope downs, VIPR checkpoints, drone attacks, SWAT team raids, tax collection, torturing terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, arming jihadists in Syria and running guns to Mexican drug dealers will all continue unimpeded - as will NSA domestic spying.

Although the NSA itself refuses to confirm it, to all intents and purposes the agency's mammoth new spy center in Bluffdale, Utah "may be open already," according to the Denver Post.
"The facility is expected this fall to quietly begin sucking in massive amounts of information for the intelligence community and storing it in the cavernous buildings in Bluffdale, Utah, according to NSA officials - and it could be open now even as the agency faces scrutiny over efforts to collect data on Americans domestically," writes Thomas Burr.

An NSA spokesperson said back in July that the center would be open by the "end of the fiscal year," i.e., the end of September. The fact that lawmakers have failed to agree on legislation that will fund the government from today onwards isn't an issue for the agency.

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines also recently acknowledged that the center, which covers 1 million square feet of space, is ready for each machine to be switched on. The center will hold 1 trillion terabytes of data. To put that in context, all of the books ever written in any language would need just 400 terabytes.

The facility is set to collect "complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails-parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital "pocket litter," according to Wired.

It will be filled with supercomputers that can run one thousand trillion calculations per second as part of a data mining process that seeks to identify suspects "before they commit a crime or associate with terror suspects," state of the art pre-crime technology that puts the movie Minority Report to shame.

While the center itself will not analyze the data (it only has 200 employees), the information will be scrutinized "at other federal facilities by personnel who can remotely access the information stored in Bluffdale," reports the Salt Lake Tribune.
The NSA "has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008," according to a recent Washington Post report.

The most recent example of domestic snooping emerged only yesterday, when it was reported that the NSA, "is storing the online metadata of millions of internet users for up to a year, regardless of whether or not they are persons of interest to the agency." The New York Times also reported that the NSA was exploiting such data to create, "sophisticated graphs of some Americans' social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information."

This year's series of revelations about the NSA's corrupt practices on behalf of whistleblower Edward Snowden did not prompt the federal agency to become more transparent about its activities in Bluffdale.

Forget visiting the facility, despite your tax dollars paying for it, you're not even allowed to drive into the car park. Even local officials were barred from a ceremony earlier this year to mark the project's completion. Reporters were also not welcome.

"A few Utah dignitaries have received tours. Most of them have been reticent to discuss what they saw there," reports the Salt Lake Tribune.

They're Lying to You: Appropriations and "Shutdown" Lies

Thomas R. Eddlem
New American
September 30, 2013

As Democrats and Republicans squabble over federal funding and a partial shutdown of the federal government looms, many in the press are mindlessly parroting Democratic Party's talking points about the shutdown. But what's the reality? Following are three false claims regarding the looming shutdown, and why they are lies.

False claim #1: Republicans are shutting down the government.

"So far, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have refused to move forward.... The House Republicans are so concerned with appeasing the tea party that they've threatened a government shutdown or worse unless I gut or repeal the Affordable Care Act."
- President Barack Obama, press conference, September 27

Why it's a lie: The House Republicans have twice passed bills to fund nearly all the functions of the federal government through December 15. Congress must fund appropriations for nearly all federal programs each year by the time the fiscal year begins on October 1, or the programs will face shutdown. But the President and Democratic Senate have threatened to veto the House-approved spending unless the House passes a bill that also includes funding for ObamaCare. The White House and Senate Democrats do not object to any spending that is in the House bill, they are only objecting to funding that's not in the bill. The reality is that President Obama is holding the federal government - and federal employees' paychecks - hostage in order to extort more funding from the House.

False claim #2: Republicans must fund ObamaCare because it's the law.

"That's not really the American form of government. You [Host David Gregory] outlined the American form of government. The test by which we submit any new legislation and it's submitted, the President signs it, and it's reviewed by the courts. It's the law."
- Chris Matthews, on Republican strategy to defund ObamaCare, on Meet the Press, September 29

Why it's a lie: While it is true that Congress enacted ObamaCare in 2010, the original bill contained zero funding. The original ObamaCare law was not self-funded, and funding of ObamaCare is what's at issue in Washington today. ObamaCare requires new appropriations spending each year, as Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution requires that "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." Generally, this means annual spending bills passed by Congress, though in some rare instances Congress passes spending for more than a year.

The Congress has complete discretion about whether to fund - or not fund - the programs it sets up under law, and Congress defunds laws all the time - such as pork barrel purchases for the military weapons systems that are never funded. In fact, Congress is doing precisely the same thing right now under the sequester law, to the utter silence of Democratic Party mouthpieces like Chris Matthews. And no one argues that these are inappropriate uses of Congress' discretion of what to fund.

Regarding ObamaCare, there's a stronger case to deny funding than most pork barrel military weapons projects. President Obama proposed the law with a price tag of $900 billion over 10 years, but the Congressional Budget Office recently projected that costs would be roughly double the price estimated by Congress at the time it was passed into law.

False claim #3: House Republicans are bluffing, and President Obama holds all the aces in the budget debate.

"They said, "Yeah, we negotiate with everybody and we don't like where it came out. We want our way. It's our way or the highway. And if you don't do it, we'll shut the government down." I think there are times when you have to call people's bluff."
- Former President Bill Clinton, on Republican claims, to George Stephanopoulos in This Week, September 29

Why it's a lie: Republicans hold a constitutional royal-straight-flush on funding, as they control a majority of the House of Representatives. Under the constitutional appropriations process, funding for just about all programs ends automatically every year. Thus, funding for all programs must pass the House of Representatives every year or the programs will die. Therefore, House Republicans an absolute, veto-proof constitutional stop on spending.

Democratic Party talking points for the past year are that the GOP House has voted 30- or 40-odd times to defund Obamacare, to no effect. The reality is that House Republicans don't need to vote at all to defund Obamacare; they simply need to avoid passing a bill to fund the program and it will die.

When Bill Clinton told George Stephanopoulos that Obama should "call people's bluff," Clinton was projecting from experience. Clinton bluffed against Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich's royal-straight-flush back in 1996 with the same pair of deuces which today Obama holds, and the GOP folded its winning hand. Look for the same likely outcome this time. The real bluff may be that the GOP is pretending to have a spine, and it's not there.

The reality is that the GOP-controlled House of Representatives has been the lifeblood of ObamaCare thus far, always granting it full funding up until this point. If the GOP finds its spine, Republicans will have to convince the American people that true compromise must not be based upon what is absent from a bill, but instead on what is in a bill. In short, Republicans need to embrace constitutional "reductive compromise" and reject the White House extortion strategy, initiating a compromise strategy that involves only spending money that is agreed upon by both parties


Not even a government shutdown can stop Obamacare now

Program falls under mandatory funding exempt from shutdown

BY RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
THURSDAY, SEP 26, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans pulling on the budget thread can't neatly unravel President Barack Obama's health care law.

A partial government shutdown next week would leave the major parts of the law in place and rolling along, according to former Democratic and Republican budget officials, as well as the Obama administration itself. Health care markets for the uninsured would open as scheduled on Tuesday.

Deleting the money to implement the law, the GOP's dream scenario, would indeed cripple Obamacare. But that's much less likely to happen than a government shutdown. Obama wouldn't allow the ruin of his hard-fought namesake legislation.

Part of the reason a shutdown wouldn't stop the health care law is that government doesn't grind to a halt. National defense, law enforcement, air traffic control and other activities involving the safety of human life and the protection of property continue.

Ditto for big entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, whose "mandatory" funding does not have to be renewed annually by Congress. The Affordable Care Act is the newest addition to that club of budget heavyweights.

The employees who administer such programs may also be considered essential. During the Clinton-era shutdowns, Social Security brought back nearly 50,000 employees to handle claims work after initially giving them furloughs.

"Many of the core parts of the health care law are funded through mandatory appropriations and wouldn't be affected," Gary Cohen, the Health and Human Services Department official overseeing the health care rollout, told reporters this week.

Translation: Obamacare's good to go.

That's pretty much how a former top GOP congressional budget expert sees it too. "A government shutdown, absent any legislation, does not fundamentally alter the Affordable Care Act," said Bill Hoagland, now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, an advocacy group that's trying to bridge the political divide in Washington.

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, concurs. "As a policy matter, it won't succeed in stopping Obamacare," he said of a government shutdown. "We have put much of the government on cruise control."

The main benefits of the health care law - tax credits and expanded Medicaid - are mandatory spending and cannot be unwound through an annual funding bill for government operations. As for implementation money, much of it was provided under the law itself. Core functions such as operating call centers and building online systems are being handled by private contractors, not government employees. When money has run short, the administration has been able to divert unspent funds in other accounts.

In a report for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the Congressional Research Service concluded it's likely the administration would continue to rely on alternative sources of implementation funding in the event of a shutdown.

So why are some Republicans prepared to go through with it? They're betting that the public will blame Obama for being stubborn, although polls don't bear that out. GOP party elders in the Senate are calling it a foolhardy strategy.

Defunding the 3-year-old health care law and thus preventing its full implementation, as the House has voted to do, would be a different story.

"If you take away the money, the rest of the law isn't going to work," said Paul Van de Water, a former top official of the Congressional Budget Office, currently with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for the poor. Without subsidies to help the uninsured, the law's requirement that virtually all Americans get coverage would be unreasonable.

But over the past three years, the many and varied requirements of the Affordable Care Act have become part of the way the government does business. Reversing course is not impossible, but it could be excruciating.

It would be messy because a host of mandates, taxes and regulations would remain on the books, and Medicare payment systems could get jumbled up.

Would insurers still be required to cover people with health problems? What about taxes that are already being collected and Medicare cuts that have gone through? Most employers still would have to cover dependent children of their workers up to age 26 and provide birth control free of charge as preventive care.

"It is chaotic," said Van de Water. "Legally, how that mess gets resolved, I wouldn't hazard a guess."


Victory: Senate to Kill Monsanto Protection Act Amid Outrage

Anthony Gucciardi
September 25, 2013

This unprecedented move shows the true power of the anti-GMO, anti-Monsanto movement, and how elected officials are now being forced to side with the concerned population over the money-spewing Monsanto. After all, it was Monsanto who purchased its way into the initial Senate spending bill legislation via a rider dubbed the ‘Monsanto Protection Act' through Senator Roy Blunt.

Officially labeled the Farmer Assurance Provision under Sec. 735 of the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill, Senator Blunt was conveniently given over $64,000 by Monsanto before he handed the biotech corporation the ability to write its own legislation for the Monsanto Protection Act. And as I told you back in March here on the frontlines of anti-GMO activism, the financial payload dished out by Monsanto was enough to secure a major victory for corporations over both the public and even the federal government.

It was last March that Obama signed the initial Senate spending bill into law, subsequently bringing the Monsanto Protection Act rider into legal validity as well. But the rider only extended until September 30th of this year, and it was up to Monsanto to pull another slippery legislative trick out of their sleeves in order to pass a Monsanto Protection Act 2.0 renewal. Once again, however, Monsanto executives underestimated the power of the alternative news community and the intelligence of those who do not want to eat contaminated food.

And as a result, Senators are being forced to respond in a big way. As one Senator put it:
"That provision will be gone," said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told Politico.
There is even discussion of how the Monsanto Protection Act came to exist in the first place, and more importantly how we can hold the politicians responsible.

"Short-term appropriations bills are not an excuse for Congress to grandfather in bad policy," said Colin O'Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety.
Once again, we have achieved a major victory in the fight against Monsanto and GMOs at large. As information on the subject continues to spread like intellectual wildfire, Monsanto's days as a food supply hog consistently dwindle

Kenyan Bloodbath: Reaping the "Benefits" of US AFRICOM Collaboration

Tony Cartalucci
September 23, 2013

At face value, and how the Western media is attempting to portray it, the Westgate Mall siege in Kenya's capital city of Nairobi appears to be yet another senseless terrorist attack by the "religious fanatics" of Al Qaeda's Somalia franchise, Al Shabaab. Already, both Kenyan and Western politicians, as well as editorials across the Western media, are attempting to use the attack as a pretext to launch a military campaign against neighboring Somalia, while fueling anti-Muslim sentiment across profoundly ignorant audiences in the West.
A telling op-ed in USA Today titled, "Nairobi mall attack strikes against all of us: Column" states in its subtitle that:

As on 9/11, terrorists are waging a war on our modern, democratic way of life. Today, we are all Kenyans.

The op-ed continues by stating:

Just as important: The fight is not just a Kenyan, or African, fight. Somalia could be the new Afghanistan. A lawless, fundamentalist Somalia could incubate a Somali Osama bin Laden and new attacks on the USA, just as Afghanistan protected and nurtured bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And:

After the Nairobi attack, the message should be "We Are All Kenyans." Not just in our sympathy. But also in going all out to prevent another terrorist attack.
Leaving Somalia to al-Shabab is not an option.
Kenya: Proxy for US Aggression in Africa
What the USA Today op-ed fails to mention, even as it alludes to impending military intervention in Somalia, is that Kenya has already participated in military operations against its northern neighbor, including a full-scale military invasion complete with US and French military support in 2011. In the UK Independent's October 2011 article, "Somali invasion backed by West, says Kenya," it was reported that:

Kenya has confirmed that Western allies have joined its war on Islamic militants al-Shabaab despite denials from the US and France that they are involved in fighting in southern Somalia. Foreign military forces have carried out air strikes and a naval bombardment close to the militant stronghold of Kismayo, a Kenyan army spokesman said yesterday.

"There are certainly other actors in this theatre carrying out other attacks," said Kenya's Major Emmanuel Chirchir.

The Kenyan invasion has already caused a major rift between Somalia's interim prime minister and president, who yesterday condemned the presence of foreign troops inside his country.
While the US attempted to deny any role in the invasion, it has admittedly carried out periodic airstrikes and drone strikes across Somalia, as reported by the BBC's 2012 article, "Somalia air strike ‘kills foreign al-Shabab militants':"

The US military, which has a base in neighbouring Djibouti, has previously carried out drone strikes in Somalia.

It has also launched air strikes against alleged al-Qaeda militants in the country.
Before using Kenya as a proxy for US aggression in Africa, and amidst two decades of unilateral, covert military operations, the US had backed two Ethiopian invasions into Somalia. The first US-backed invasion, under then US President George Bush, was carried out in 2006. USA Today reported in its 2007 article, "U.S. support key to Ethiopia's invasion," that:

The United States has quietly poured weapons and military advisers into Ethiopia, whose recent invasion of Somalia opened a new front in the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
The second US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, under US President Barack Obama, was carried out in 2011 - coordinated with Kenya's 2011 US-French-backed extraterritorial adventure into Somali territory. The UK Independent's December 2011 article, "UN-backed invasion of Somalia spirals into chaos," reported that:

Kenya's invasion of Somalia, hailed by the West and the UN Security Council, was meant to deliver a knockout blow to the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab. Instead it has pulled Somalia's regional rival Ethiopia back into the country, stirred up the warlords and rekindled popular support for fundamentalists whose willingness to let Somalis starve rather than receive foreign aid had left them widely hated.

It was in fact this US-backed military invasion that served as the alleged motivation of the Al Shabaab terrorists who attacked Kenya's Westgate Mall this week.

The Same Terrorists the US is Arming in Syria are Killing Civilians in Kenya
Beginning in 2011, geopolitical analysts warned that US, British and French intervention in Libya would create a terror emirate that would unleash a tidal wave of militant destabilization across Northern Africa and beyond. From Mali to Kenya, and as far as Syria, violence directly linked to the militants and the aid and weapons they received from the West in Libya, have now been felt.

Truly NATO's intervention in Libya has been a resounding success. Not only has the West managed to revive the terrorist LIFG organization Qaddafi had been fighting successfully for decades, but now "international institutions" have a casus belli spreading across the whole of North Africa, into the Middle East and beyond as NATO weapons and Western cash enable LIFG fighters to battle as far as Syria in the east and Mali to the west. The wave of terror unleashed and the predictable "pretexts" it will provide, has now swept into Kenya.

Shortly after NATO's intervention in Libya, it was Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a US State Department listed terror organization (listed #38), that played a central role in the invasion of northern Mali, which provided the pretext for French military intervention and occupation. AQIM of course, was merged with Al Qaeda's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the ground troops used in NATO's regime change operation in Libya starting in 2011. In a 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report and a 2011 CTC report, "Are Islamist Extremists Fighting Among Libya's Rebels?," AQIM is specifically mentioned as working closely with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The latter report admits:

There have also been reports during the past few years of a handful of Libyans who have traveled to Algeria to train with al-Qa`ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), although these reports are unconfirmed. AQIM has sought to capitalize on the situation in Libya
Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar would elaborate in an Asia Times piece titled, "How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli," that:

"Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda's number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same - and Belhaj was/is its emir. "
"Belhaj," referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into racist genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion's epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous "Terror-Emirate." Belhaj's latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called "Free Syrian Army," again, under the auspices of NATO support.

The torrent of militants and weapons flowing from Libya into Syria to support Western-backed regime change against the Syrian government has been extensively documented over the last 2+ years.

In November 2011, the Telegraph in their article, "Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group," would report:

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there."

Another Telegraph article, "Libya's new rulers offer weapons to Syrian rebels," would admit
Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya's new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad's regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested "assistance" from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
"There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see."

Later that month, some 600 Libyan terrorists would be reported to have entered Syria to begin combat operations and as recently as last month, CNN, whose Ivan Watson accompanied terrorists over the Turkish-Syrian border and into Aleppo, revealed that indeed foreign fighters were amongst the militants, particularly Libyans. It was admitted that:

Meanwhile, residents of the village where the Syrian Falcons were headquartered said there were fighters of several North African nationalities also serving with the brigade's ranks.
A volunteer Libyan fighter has also told CNN he intends to travel from Turkey to Syria within days to add a "platoon" of Libyan fighters to armed movement.

CNN also added:

On Wednesday, CNN's crew met a Libyan fighter who had crossed into Syria from Turkey with four other Libyans. The fighter wore full camouflage and was carrying a Kalashnikov rifle. He said more Libyan fighters were on the way.

The foreign fighters, some of them are clearly drawn because they see this as ... a jihad. So this is a magnet for jihadists who see this as a fight for Sunni Muslims.
CNN's reports provide bookends to 2011′s admissions that large numbers of Libyan terrorists flush with NATO cash and weapons had headed to Syria, with notorious terrorist LIFG commanders making the arrangements.

Al Shabaab - Al Qaeda's Somali franchise - is also directly linked to AQIM and the myriad of other Al Qaeda extremist subsidiaries, including Libya's LIFG, and the more recently christened Al Nusra front in Syria. The BBC in its 2012 report titled, "Africa's Islamist militants ‘co-ordinate efforts'," stated:

Three of Africa's largest militant Islamist groups are trying to co-ordinate their efforts, the head of the US Africa Command has warned.

Gen Carter Ham said in particular North African al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) was probably sharing explosives and funds with Nigeria's Boko Haram.
Speaking in Washington, he said the separatist movement in northern Mali had provided AQIM with a "safe haven".

Somalia's al-Shabab was the other "most dangerous" group, he said.

This cooperation between AQIM, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab has been clearly bolstered by the immense influx of NATO-provided cash and weapons flowing into Libya first to overthrow the Libyan government, then to be shipped to Syria to overthrow the government there. NATO's assistance in expanding Al Qaeda's operational capacity in North Africa can only be helping terrorists like those behind the Kenya Westgate Mall siege carry out cross-border operations of this scale.

Despite attempts by the West to provide other explanations as to where Al Qaeda is receiving its funds, manpower, and arsenal to carry out global campaigns, it is clear that it is a product of state-sponsorship - states like the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and others.

Indeed, Al Shabaab's attack in Kenya is abhorrent, unjustifiable terrorism - however, what Kenyans and the world as a whole must remember, is who armed them, who continuously props them up, provides them entire nations (Libya) as safe havens, and swells their ranks and armories with billions in cash and thousands of tons of weaponry at a time in war zones like Syria.

Al Shabaab's continued existence, along with its counterparts AQIM across Northern Africa, LIFG in Libya, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Al Nusra in Syria, is due entirely to both covert and overt Western military and financial backing. The blood of Kenya's innocent are on the hands of those within the Kenyan government willfully serving as a proxy for US aggression across Africa, and those across the West using Al Qaeda as a geopolitical tool to achieve their global objectives.
Al Qaeda: The Perfect Pretext to Invade, The Perfect Mercenary Army to Covertly Wage War
Al Qaeda, for the West, serves as the ultimate geopolitical tool. It can be used as a pretext to invade, as well as a nearly inexhaustible mercenary army to carry out ruthless terrorist campaigns and even full-scale war as seen in Syria and Libya, to achieve Western objectives. Additionally, the omnipresent, nebulous nature of Al Qaeda serves as justification to strip away the rights and liberties of people at home, across Western civilization - perpetuating a climate of fear within which the seeds of very profitable war can be sown and continuously reaped.
How profitable? A Harvard's Kennedy School research paper titled, "The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan," places the total expenditures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alone somewhere between 4-6 trillion dollars. That isn't 4-6 trillion dollars that went into a black hole. That is 4-6 trillion dollars that went to the Fortune 500 corporations that engineered and sold these conflicts to the American public in the first place.

The Washington Post in its recent article, "Americans are tweeting about ‘Syria' almost as much as ‘twerking' - sometimes more," celebrated the general public's ignorance regarding geopolitics.

It stated:

The fact that more people are discuss twerking than Syria is not necessarily bad news. They share, as Floating Sheep notes, "little in common apart from recent media attention": One is a pop culture phenomenon (both more fun and more accessible to a wider swath of the population) and one is a tragic, complicated news event halfway around the world (critically important, but not very fun - particularly on a platform many use for recreation).

It continued by claiming:

Of course, even if you polled all 300 million Americans on their relative interest in twerking and Syria, twerking would probably win - and that's okay, too. There are many justifiable reasons why an individual or a population wouldn't care about foreign news - things like a lack of education and limited access to computers or newspapers.

It is this " lack of education" that the Washington Post's editorial board and the special interests that steer it, claim is "okay too," that allows these special interests to continue to use Al Qaeda both as the ultimate villain and to swell the ranks of its inexhaustible global "freedom fighters."
The aforementioned USA Today editorial seeking to exploit the latest tragedy in Kenya also warned:

The Nairobi shopping mall attack is heartbreaking. The stories could so easily be American stories.

For the real interests driving and solely benefiting from Al Qaeda's campaign of global terror, should they decide these stories need to be "American," they will be, unless we rectify the "lack of education" these special interests have carefully cultivated and reassuringly claim is "okay."


Federal Reserve Says "No Tapering;" Gives Global Elite More Time to Finalize New Global Financial Structure

September 20, 2013
Source: Freedom Outpost

It appears to all be going down hill very fast...even with no tapering by the Fed

In September of 2012, the Federal Reserve began Quantitative Easing 3 (QE3), which means they buy $85 billion dollars worth of bonds every month. Why? Because the Global Elite is using the financial resources of the United States to bail out European banks. Isn't that swell?

The Fed decided to continue buying $85 billion worth of bonds each month...

This week, there were two days worth of meetings with Bernanke and others involved in the financial end of things. Because of this, stocks and commodities went up and down, but mainly down (commodities) because no one knew what was going to happen. If Bernanke had opted to begin "tapering" QE3 by buying fewer bonds, that would have meant potential hyperinflation or even a real depression. By deciding not to start tapering, things are holding.
What's next? We wait to see what the Fed decides in October. If nothing changes then, we'll wait and see what happens in November.

The undeniable reality is this though: eventually, everything will come crashing down. The economies here and abroad are being artificially propped up by the Fed's printing press, issuing more money and more money out of thin air.

Suffice it to say that the Global Elite (or GE) have done everything they can to loot one country after another. It's what they do and how members have amassed such fortunes. They have an obscene amount of money and with it, nearly absolute power and you know what they say about that. We've seen this in Egypt, Libya, Russia, and elsewhere and now the same GE is trying their darnedest to get into Syria. I believe they will eventually succeed.
Michael S. Coffman has written a book called "Plundered." In it, he outlines what has been going on behind the scenes for generations. I happen to believe that Satan has used and continues to use people who make up the Global Elite in order to bring about a new world order. It has been happening before our eyes for generations and seems to be ramping up to bring about the final goal.

What we are seeing in the world is the attempt by the GE to throw a ton of paper money at a problem that cannot be solved in such a way. But ultimately, what can we expect in the financial realm? Coffman states, "There is another reason for the herculean efforts to paper over the global financial crisis. A new global financial architecture has been underway since the mid-1990s and it may not be ready yet for implementation." Coffman's point is simple. The GE has been building a new financial system that may not be completely viable yet, so they are stalling for time. This new system was referred to as New International Financial Architecture (IFA) by the UN in a report from 1999.

Coffman also notes, "The IFA is designed to overcome the failings of a single, global financial/trade structure like the WTO [World Trade Organization] - by using regional institutions patterned after the European Union, but with much stronger central control. G.W. Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership of North American (SPP) in 2005 was an initial effort to do just that. Tagged the North American Union (NAU) by critics, strong opposition caused the effort to fail by the end of Bush's term." Obama has been "continuing the dialogue with Canada and Mexico, albeit on a much lower key."

Another piece of information we gain from "Plundered" is found in the fact that many have a difficult time believing that something like the Global Elite exists at all. "Most Americans have a tough time believing there has been an agenda to shift the republican constitutional basis of government in the United States into a socialist government based on plundering inherent with the Rousseau model. Even harder to believe is that those behind this agenda may be deliberately sabotaging the economies of the Western world and funding radical nongovernmental (NGO) organizations to destabilize America to bring about her destruction."

The real problem of GE's goals deal with a centralized banking system. "[T]he International Monetary Fund (IMF) would be restructured so that it would increasingly serve as 'a world central bank.' A world central bank 'would require, in particular, the surrender of more economic autonomy and powers of intervention in national policies than countries are willing to accept at present'."

Ultimately, a one-world banking system is being developed, in which all "regions" of the world will participate. This means that national sovereignty will be a thing of the past. Even though regions will exist, one system will oversee all of it, as

Washington Gunman Recently Told Cops He Was Being Bombarded By Microwave Signals That Kept Him Awake At Night

9-17-2013

Six weeks before going on a killing spree at the Washington Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis told Rhode Island police that he was being followed by individuals who were using a "microwave machine" to send vibrations into his body that kept him from falling asleep, according to a bizarre police report.

On August 7, Alexis summoned Newport cops to a Marriott hotel where he was staying. During a 6:30 AM interview, the 34-year-old--who said he was a "naval contractor" who traveled often--told officers that voices were harassing him through a hotel wall, adding that he was fearful he could be harmed.

Alexis explained to police that he had previously gotten into an argument prior to boarding a plane in Virginia, and believed that the person with whom he quarreled had dispatched three individuals "to follow him and keep him awake by talking to him and sending vibrations into his body." While he had not seen these individuals, Alexis said he "believes they are two black males and a black female."

While Newport cops have confirmed that Alexis is the subject of their report, his name has been redacted from the document.

Additionally, Alexis claimed that the voices had forced him to flee two prior hotels, one of which was on Naval Station Newport (where Alexis was apparently set to do contracting work). Alexis refused to tell cops what the voices were saying to him "through the walls, floor and ceiling."

The unknown individuals, Alexis said, were using "some sort of microwave machine" to send vibrations into his body. Alexis assured cops that he did not have a history of mental illness in his family or any sort of prior "mental episode."

A Newport patrolman advised Alexis to "stay away from the individuals that are following him" and notify police "if they attempt to make contact with him."

Alarmed by Alexis's behavior--and concerned about possible "Naval Base implications"--a Newport police sergeant faxed a copy of the department's report to naval station police. A Navy cop--whose name is redacted from the Newport Police Department report--advised that they "would follow up on this subject and determine if he is in fact, a naval contractor."


Crazed "Black Out" Navy Yard Shooter Suspect Alexis Had Secret Government Clearance

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 16, 2013

The suspected Navy Yard gunman shot dead by cops earlier today had a secret government clearance despite the fact he was arrested in Seattle in 2004 after shooting out the tires of a car during an angry "blackout."

According to a police report, Aaron Alexis didn't remember the incident until about an hour later.
Alexis was also arrested in 2010 for shooting into a neighbor's apartment in Fort Worth, Texas. He had previously confronted the neighbor for making too much noise. The woman said she believed the shooting was intentional.

Despite these incidents, the alleged shooter was permitted a secret government clearance and was hired as a civilian contractor with a military-issued ID card.

"He did have a secret clearance. And he did have a CAC (common access card)," Thomas Hoshko, CEO of The Experts Inc, a company servicing the Navy Marine Corps Intranet as a subcontractor, told Reuters.

"We had just recently re-hired him. Another background investigation was re-run and cleared through the defense security service in July 2013," Hoshko said.
Hoshko said Alexis' "secret" security clearance dated back to 2007, several years after the Seattle incident.

It is not explained how the former Navy reservist received a secret defense security clearance after the 2010 shooting incident.

Active shooter, multiple victims at US Navy Yard in Washington

September 16, 2013
Source: RT

Seven people, including two police officers, have become victims in the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard in Southeast DC, local media report, as the shooter reportedly barricaded himself inside one of the building's rooms.

DC Police say they have received reports that multiple people have been shot, according to CBS.

Police spokesman Officer Anthony Clay confirmed at least one person has been shot, but said that that person's condition was not immediately available. FOX 5 DC later reported that at least five people have been shot at the Navy Yard.

The police say that at least three, possibly four, people were shot, with all of them being in critical condition, the Washington Post reports.

The DC Fire Fights wrote on Twitter than a policeman is down as more shots were fired at the Navy Yard. According to the police radio, the officer received two wounds on the leg and was removed from the scene.

The shooting happened reported inside the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters (NAVSEA) building, the Navy said in a statement. It's the largest of the Navy's five system commands. It engineers, builds, buys and maintains ships, submarines and combat systems that meet the Fleet's current and future operational requirements.

Search for the shooter is underway. Police and FBI are involved in the manhunt. Fire and emergency crews are also responding to the scene. A "shelter in place" order has been issued for Navy Yard personnel, the Navy said.

The Navy says about 3,000 people work in the building

More on this story as it developes.


Continuity of Agenda: Syria Catastrophe Engineered Under Bush, Executed Verbatim Under Obama

The rise of Al Qaeda in Syria and the predictable bloodbath that followed is the documented work of US, Israel, & Saudi Arabia.

Tony Cartalucci
Activist Post

Tens of thousands of deaths, devastated cities, and the scattering of terrified Syrian minorities add up to a catastrophe that has unfolded in Syria over the last 2 years. International organizations including the UN call it the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century, and despite this, have put little effort into tracking down the actual genesis of the conflict, the key players perpetuating the violence, and in prescribing the obvious solutions to this conflict. With a recent initiative by Russia and Syria blunting the West's pro-war drive, Western propagandists have attempted to reassert their crumbling narrative regarding the conflict, past, present, and future.

The Genesis of Syria's Conflict

We are told by Western politicians and Western media houses that the conflict in Syria began with a spontaneous "peaceful," "pro-democracy" uprising influenced by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. We are told that these peaceful protests were brutally crushed by the Syrian government and resulted in the militarization of the so-called "opposition."

This is a verified lie.

In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that [emphasis added]:

"US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years [starting in 2009] to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments."The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) "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." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."

Not only were the protests in Syria planned, funded, and directed by the US State Department, years before the so-called "Arab Spring" began, but so were the alleged protests that "triggered" events in Syria - namely similarly engineered protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and the violent US-led subversion carried out in Libya.

What's more disturbing is that the US-engineered "protests" were not designed to overthrow targeted governments, but instead to serve as a smokescreen for similarly pre-planned armed subversion. As early as 2007, under then President George Bush, the arming, funding, and otherwise supporting of sectarian extremists across the Middle East to undermine Lebanon, Syria, and Iran was put into motion.

Admissions by administration officials, intelligence agents, and the very militant groups the US was funding and preparing for armed subversion in 2007 were documented in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's New Yorker extensive 9-page report, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" In it he would state clearly that:

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

Six years later, it could not be more obvious that indeed, militants aligned to Al Qaeda have been armed, equipped, and unleashed in an unprecedented wave of US-Saudi-Israeli state-sponsored terrorism against Syria and neighboring Lebanon. With safe havens in NATO-member Turkey, US-occupied Jordan, and pouring in from Saudi-friendly regions of Lebanon, it could not be clearer who is behind the rise and perpetuation of Al Qaeda in Syria.

And even in Hersh's 2007 report, "The Redirection," it is made clear that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia had already begun financing and preparing the sectarian extremist "Muslim Brotherhood" in Syria for the upcoming sectarian bloodbath the West had on the drawing board. Hersh would report:

"[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be "the ones to talk to," Jumblatt said."

The article would continue by explaining how already in 2007 US and Saudi backing had begun benefiting the Brotherhood:


There is evidence that the Administration's redirection strategy has already benefited the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, "The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement." He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front's members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.
And yet today, the West feigns ignorance to what they claim is the inexplicable, unfortunate, "unforeseeable" rise and perpetuation of Al Qaeda and their defacto political arm, the sectarian Muslim Brotherhood.

Who's Behind Al Qaeda in Syria

Al Qaeda in Syria constitutes the summation of the so-called "opposition." Despite rhetoric of the contrary, all credible reports actually citing evidence, including sources from across the West, have determined that Al Qaeda is the "opposition."

The New York Times would literally proclaim in their April 2013 article, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," that:

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
The West has admitted throughout the conflict that it, along with its regional axis, including Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, have been funneling in hundreds of millions of dollars, equipment, and thousands of tons of arms at a time to militants operating in and along Syria's borders.

In the Telegraph's March 2013 article titled, "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it is reported:

It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November
The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.

The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria's neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came "from several other European countries including Britain", without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.

British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.

The New York Times in their March 2013 article titled, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria's opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

And now, the US fully admits that the CIA and US State Department are openly arming, funding, and equipping fighters in Syria. The Washington Post's September 2013 article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," admits:
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear - a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria's civil war.
Clearly, based on previous admissions, claiming this is a "major escalation" is a verifiable lie. The US has already sent the total summation of material support to terrorists operating in Syria over the past 2-3 years it could possibly muster - recent admissions are solely for public consumption. The failure of this material support to turn the tide in the fighting is precisely what triggered the recent fabrications of chemical weapons use in Syria and the subsequent, Iraq-esque attempt to justify direct US military intervention.

One must wonder, how if the US has been funding "moderate rebel groups," to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and arming them with thousands of tons of weaponry at a time, has Al Qaeda still emerged as the prominent militant group inside Syria? How has Al Qaeda managed to raise the funds and execute this unprecedented logistical feat of a multinational invasion of Syria if the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar are solely funding "moderates?" Bake sales and carpooling?

Clearly there were never any "moderates." And just as was plotted under Bush in 2007, extremists - Al Qaeda extremists - were intentionally armed, funded, and funneled into Syria to destabilize the nation through a sectarian bloodbath starting in 2011 under the Obama administration and callously portrayed as a "pro-democracy" uprising "brutally crushed" by the "evil Assad regime."

The US' direct, premeditated support of sectarian extremists starting in 2007 and continuing up to and including today, not only solves the "mystery" of Al Qaeda's perpetuation in Syria, it also exposes the fraud of Western democracy - where two diametrically opposed presidents carried out a singular geopolitical agenda, merely behind the cover of their respective rhetorical right/left political platforms. The American people were never really given a choice despite the illusion of "elections" and "political representation."

Israel's Role: The Silent Accomplice and Unilateral Warmonger

Perhaps the most dangerous, and yet-to-be-played card in the West's hand, is Israel. Israel poses as a silent observer of the Syrian conflict - taking military action unilaterally in what it tenuously claims is preemptive "self-defense." In reality, it is part of a joint US-Saudi-Israeli axis that has sought to undermine and overthrow Syria and Iran since at least 2007.

Israel is playing a very specific role to keep it isolated from the West and its Arab partners in the region for as long as possible - both to lend extremist forces operating in and around Syria legitimacy they otherwise would not have with overt Israeli backing, as well as to portray Israel as the "victim" of staged or intentionally provoked attacks from within Syria, Lebanon and even Iran. Such "victimization" would allow Israel to retaliate and give Western nations desperately needed justification to also intervene and save their failed proxy war.

This is not mere speculation, but rather a conclusion based on documented policy papers produced by the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution, one of many think-tanks engineering US-Saudi-Israeli policy.

One such policy paper, the 2009 Brookings "Which Path to Persia?" report, explicitly states the compartmentalized role Israel would serve in planned subversion and aggression versus Iran and how Israel could offer the West a "foot in the door" to wider military intervention in the region.

It states [emphasis added]:

"...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.) " - page 84-85, Which Path to Persia?, Brookings Institution.

And:

"Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.
However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion)." - page 91, Which Path to Persia?, Brookings Institution.

Similar calls to use Israel, and its regional partner, NATO-member Turkey, to conduct similar provocations versus Syria have been made by Brookings more recently in a report titled, "Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution."

In the report, Brookings describes how Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, combined with Turkey's aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border to the north, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:

"In addition, Israel's intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime's power base and press for Asad's removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria's military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly." - page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Israel then, still maintaining this posture and attempting to distance itself from the current political struggle over Syria may still be planning intentional or even staged provocations. A recent warning from Russia involving a false flag attack carried out by terrorists inside Syria against Israel provides a very plausible scenario that would give Israel rhetorical justification to strike Syria in hopes of starting a wider war involving pre-positioned Western forces now on standby.

American "Exceptionalism:" The rotting fruits of dead empires, Hitler's Germany, and racist British imperialism

In a recent speech made by US President Barack Obama, he claimed that the United States was "exceptional," echoing the delusions of grandeur of corporate-financier interests and the think-tank policy makers in their orbit. "American Exceptionalism," proclaims that the US is somehow different than all other nations, and by inference, better. It gives the United States the ability to circumvent international law it itself has contrived, to do as it wills both within and beyond its borders, because it "knows better" than the rest of the world.

Its standing alone on the issue of Syria, with even the American public rejecting wholly the concept of another war based on clearly fabricated evidence, shows just where the wellspring of "American Exceptionalism" lies - among the corporate financier elite who invented it.

It is a revolting concept that echos the racist imperialism of Britannia and the unhinged belligerence of Nazi Germany, used to justify the violation of human rights through the subjugation by invasion, occupation and wholesale exploitation of other nations. It seeks to justify what evidence, reason, logic, and global consensus has otherwise opposed, and is the last rhetorical resort for a crumbling empire unable to justify its actions any other way.

A nation basing its actions upon the world stage through such justifications is a dangerous one that depends on the illusion of its superiority. As that illusion crumbles, it will seek to reassert it through increasingly desperate and abhorrent mechanisms. This includes false flag attacks to trigger wars where it can justify the flexing of its military might, and thus scare the international community back in line.

With the West pledging to continue the arming and funding of terrorists in Syria, thus jeopardizing the safety of UN inspectors who will eventually attempt to survey, secure, and neutralize Syria's chemical weapons, we can see there is no genuine intent to end the violence in Syria with anything less than regime change in favor of Western interests. The goal was never humanitarian in nature, only the propaganda used to perpetuate the conflict was "humanitarian." A nation that would intentionally create a humanitarian catastrophe to then use as a pretext for further war is a nation exceptional only in regards to the depths of its own depravity. Like their historical predecessors citing "superiority" and "exceptionalism," the interests driving America now are destined for their own ignominious place upon the scrap heap of history. The question is, how much damage will they cause between now and then?

Why Are Obama And Kerry So Desperate To Start A New War?

The rule of zombies

Paul Craig Roberts
September 9, 2013

What is the real agenda?

Why is the Obama Regime so desperate to commit a war crime despite the warnings delivered to the White House Fool two days ago by the most important countries in the world at the G20 Summit?

What powerful interest is pushing the White House Fool to act outside of law, outside the will of the American people, outside the warnings of the world community?

The Obama Regime has admitted, as UK prime minister david cameron had to admit, that no one has any conclusive evidence that the Assad government in Syria used chemical weapons. Nevertheless, Obama has sent the despicable john Kerry out to convince the public and Congress on the basis of videos that Assad used chemical weapons "against his own people."
What the videos show are dead and suffering people. The videos do not show who did it. The Obama Regime's case is nonexistent. It rests on nothing that indicates responsibility. The Obama Regime's case is nothing but an unsubstantiated allegation.

What kind of depraved person would take the world to war based on nothing whatsoever but an unsubstantiated allegation?

The world's two worse liars, Obama and Kerry, say Assad did it, but they admit that they cannot prove it. It is what they want to believe, because they want it to be true. The lie serves their undeclared agenda.

If Obama and Kerry were to tell the public the real reasons they want to attack Syria, they would be removed from office.

The entire world is teetering on a war, the consequences of which are unknown, for no other reason than two people, devoid of all integrity who lack the intelligence and humanity to be in high office, are determined to serve a tiny collection of warmongers consisting of the crazed, murderous Israeli government and their Muslim-hating neoconservative agents, who comprise a fifth column inside the Obama Regime.

The Russian government has given evidence to the UN that conclusively proves that the al-Nusra, al-Qaeda affiliated invaders are responsible for the attack. There is also conclusive proof that the "rebels" have chemical weapons. In addition, a highly regarded journalist has reported, using direct quotes and the names of al-Nusra fighters, that the chemical weapons were given to al-Nusra by Saudi Arabia without proper handling instructions, and that an accidental explosion occurred before al-Nusra could use the Saudi-supplied weapons to frame-up the Assad government.

However the deaths were caused, they are unfortunate, but no more so that the deaths that Obama has caused in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, and Syria. The proven deaths for which Obama is responsible are many times the unproven deaths that Obama attributes without evidence to Assad.

The indisputable fact is that Syrian deaths occur only because Washington initiated the invasion of Syria by external forces similar to the ones that Washington used against Libya. However the deaths occurred, the deaths are the doings of the criminal Obama Regime. Without the criminal Obama Regime seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government, there would be no deaths by chemical weapons or by any other means. This was a war initiated by Washington, Israel, Israel's neoconservative fifth column inside America and the White House, and the captive western media that is bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby.

Assad did not start the war. The Syrian government was attacked by outside forces sent in by Washington and Israel.

Assad has much higher public support in Syria than Obama has in the US, or cameron has in the UK, or hollande has in France, or merkel has in Germany, or netanyahu has in Israel.

The White House Fool keeps repeating his nonsensical statement, as if the Fool is a wound-up talking doll, that Assad's unproven "use of chemical weapons is a threat to global security."
Dear reader, who besides the White House Fool is so unbelievably stupid as to believe that Syria is a threat to world security?

If Syria is a "threat to world security," like Iraq was a "threat to world security," like Iran is alleged to be a "threat to world security," what kind of superpower is the United States? How low does the IQ have to be, how mentally impaired does the public have to be to fall for these absurd hysterical allegations?

Let's turn Obama's claim upon the Fool. Why isn't it a threat to global security for Obama to attack Syria? There is no authority for Obama to attack Syria just because he wants to and just because he has demonized Assad with endless lies and just because Obama is the total puppet of the crazed Israeli government and his neoconservative national security advisor, in effect an Israeli agent, and just because the Ministry of Propaganda, including NPR, repeats every Obama lie as if it were the truth.

Isn't it a threat to international security when a superpower can, acting on a whim, demonize a leader and a country and unleash mass destruction, as the US has done seven times in the past twelve years,? There are millions of innocent but demonized victims of the "indispensable, exceptional USA," the "light unto the world."

Forget about the US media, which is nothing but a propaganda ministry for the Israel Lobby. What the members of Congress and what the American people need to ask Obama is why does the White House only represent the Israel Lobby?

No one supports an attack on Syria but the Israel Lobby.

Why is Obama going to add yet another war crime to Washington's 12-year record? Wasn't it enough to destroy the lives and prospects of millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Egypt? Why kill and destroy the life prospects of yet more millions of people in Syria and other countries into which Obama's war could spread?

Maybe the answer is that Obama, Kerry, and the crazed Netanyahu and his neoconservative fifth column are zombies.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

FEMA Preparing For A Major Event In Region III

August 27, 2013

Following the bread crumb trail of FEMA orders, retired State Senator Sheldon R. Songstad of South Dakota State issued an "Emergency Fema Region 3 Alert!!!," on August 13th.
Region three is comprised of; Washington DC, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Songstad's research turned up some very interesting facts. Each item on its own could go unnoticed, but the collective facts may be worthy of your attention and scrutiny. The U.S. government appears to be preparing for a major event. It appears that this event is being staged for approximately Oct. 1st. Let's look at the numbers and dates.

UN Peacekeepers began training the 4th week of July and will complete their nine week training by October 1st. They are learning English, as well as US weapon systems and Urban Warfare training.

How many troops are training? 386,000 troops!

The Center of Disease Control ordered $11 million worth of antibiotics. Where are they going? FEMA Region lll. When are they due? October 1st. This coupled with the fact that the World Health Organization held an emergency meeting, its second such meeting in its history, to discuss MERS Coronavirus. This is quite unsettling. The WHO determined that a vaccine MUST be in place by October 1st.

Periodic testing of GPS and Communications satellites is normal, but coordinating their testing for the first time, with a testing date of September 29th, is noteworthy.

All DHS agents MUST now qualify with sidearm, shotgun and AR 15's by September 28th. Less lethal qualifications are not mentioned. Has one eye brow raised? The DHS will receive 2800 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAP's) that must be delivered by October 1st.
All National Guard units will complete their annual two week training in riot control and disaster assistance. All units MUST have their training complete by September 30th. However, the Eastern-based Coast Guard units will not be performing their usual training in the Gulf, this year they will be trained in Virginia and Delaware for 10 days beginning September 26th.

Coincidently, the Emergency Broadcast System will begin daily testing beginning on September 25th thru October 2nd. All of this kind of reminds me of the bomb sniffing dogs being trained at the Boston Marathon for the first time ever.

FEMA purchase orders deserve a little attention too. They ordered over $14.2 million for MREs and heater meals and 22 million pouches of emergency water, to be delivered to Region III by October 1st. An additional order of $13.6 million worth of MRE's and heater meals will be delivered to Austin by October 1st.

Our U.S. military will not be permitted leave from September 28th thru November 5th. NORCOMM's yearly training for civil unrest is suspended until September 27th. To be performed in northeast coastal areas. Date for release of QE3 report has been moved to October 16th.
Over 300 school systems will be issued a 3 day emergency kit for each student in September.
The retired Senator's national preparedness research was sparked by a comment Donald Trump made during a recent appearance on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren." Songstad included a video version of his findings with his notice. His video is going viral.
How concerned should we be? Or perhaps the question is....How prepared should we be? Perhaps the answer is......Better prepared than the government.

CIA-Armed And Trained Syrian Rebels "On Way To Battlefield"

September 3, 2013
Source: Zero Hedge

It seems that the reason why Obama has been such a staunch supporter of a Syrian campaign without a land component, is because US-armed and trained Qatari mercenaries, also known elsewhere in the media as "rebels", are about to take to the battlefield (ignoring for a moment prior reports that American, Israeli and other troops have already long operated on Syrian territory). The Telegraph reports that "the first cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators. During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition. Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan."

More:

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.
Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime.

Mr McCain has been a chief critic of the White House's reluctance to become involved in Syria and has long demanded that Mr Obama provide the rebels with arms needed to overthrow the regime.

Still, one can't help but wonder why only 50 people? After all, if the Assad regime is so proficient with chemical weapons, all that would take to wipe out the Syrian version of the A-Team would be one relatively well placed WMD hit. After all, just like in Iraq, they serve WMDs at ever regime-controlled coffee shop, both grande and venti variations, right?

As for the punchline, or what happens after the surgical intervention is over?
"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Lindsey Graham said.

No, just replace it with a pro-Qatari/pro-Syria regime, which just may have a few Al-Qaeda participants in ti, and which like in the case of Egypt, will last about two years top before it too is toppled in a countercoup. What happens then?


Point-By-Point Rebuttal of U.S. Case for War In Syria

Washington's Blog
September 3, 2013


The White House released a 4-page document setting forth its case for use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

Credit: Pete Souza via Flickr

But as shown below, the case is extremely weak (government's claim in quotes, followed by rebuttal evidence).

"A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information."

But McClatchy notes:

Neither Kerry's remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was "a preliminary government assessment."

Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who's now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.

He criticized Kerry as being "sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number" of 1,429, and noted that the number didn't agree with either the British assessment of "at least 350 fatalities" or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and "tens" of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.


"President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people' - creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts," Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of "the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell's speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003."

An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.

Next, the government says:

"In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations."

Reports on the ground are contradictory, with some claiming that the rebels used the chemical weapons. See this and this. Indeed, government officials have admitted that they're not sure who used chemical weapons.

More importantly the U.S. government claimed it had unimpeachable sources regarding Iraq's WMDs ... and that turned out to be wholly fabricated.

"We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin."
Chemical weapons experts are still skeptical. The chain of custody is suspect, given that the U.S. hasn't revealed where the samples came from, and who delivered them to the U.S.

McClatchy reports:

Among chemical weapons experts and other analysts who've closely studied the Syrian battlefield, the main reservation about the U.S. claims is that there's no understanding of the methodology behind the intelligence-gathering. They say that the evidence presented points to the use of some type of chemical agent, but say that there are still questions as to how the evidence was collected, the integrity of the chain of custody of such samples, and which laboratories were involved.

Eliot Higgins, a British chronicler of the Syrian civil war who writes the Brown Moses blog, a widely cited repository of information on the weapons observed on the Syrian battlefield, wrote a detailed post Monday listing photographs and videos that would seem to support U.S. claims that the Assad regime has possession of munitions that could be used to deliver chemical weapons. But he wouldn't make the leap.

On the blog, Higgins asked: "How do we know these are chemical weapons? That's the thing, we don't. As I've said all along, these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It's ultimately up to the U.N. to confirm if chemical weapons were used."

Moreover, Dan Kaszeta - a former Chemical Officer in the United States Army, and one of the foremost experts in chemical and biological weapons - said in a recent interview that there can be false positives for Sarin, especially, when tests are done in the field (pesticides or other chemical agents can trigger a false positive for sarin.)
The bottom lines is that - even though the U.S. has done everything it can to derail a UN weapons inspection - we have to wait to see what the UN tests reveal.

"We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons."

The rebels absolutely had had access to chemical weapons. While the American government claims that the opposition has not used chemical weapons, many other sources - including the United Nations, Haaretz, and Turkish state newspaper Zaman - disagree.

"The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations."
The types of munitions which were apparently used to deliver the chemical weapon attack are an odd,do-it-yourself type of rocket. The rebels could have made these.

"We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.

The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime's frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21."

This is not evidence. This is a conclusory opinion without any support. (To give an analogy, this would be like claiming Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction right before the Iraq war started because he didn't like short people ... without refuting the actual fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs.)

"We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel - including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC - were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin."

American intelligence sources have repeatedly been caught lying. During the run-up to the Iraq war, the government entirely bypassed the normal intelligence-vetting process, so that bogus claims could be trumpeted without the normal checks and balances from conscientious intelligence analysts.

"On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks."

This is an oddly-worded - and carefully crafted - statement. Assad has repeatedly warned that the rebels might steal chemical weapons and use them on civilians. The utilization of gas masks could have been a preventative measure because the Syrian government had received word that the rebels might carry out a chemical attack. More information is necessary.

"Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred - including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack."

The area in which attacks occurred was heavily contested by the both government and the rebels, and both sides were in and out of the area. 90 minutes before the first attack is an eternity when fighting a war on a heavily-contested battlefield ... and could have been plenty of time for rebels to slip in and fire off chemical weapons.

As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting notes:

It's unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?

In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development-the point at which, as Kerry put it, "all hell broke loose in the social media"? Unless there's some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it's very unclear why we should think there's any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.

The government next turns to social media:

"Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events - characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers - were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage."

No one contests that some kind of chemical agent was used. The question is exactly what type of chemical it was and - more importantly - who used it.
Moreover, the rebels were making propaganda videos for years ... and they've gotten more sophisticated recently. More information is needed.

"We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack."

Another conclusory opinion without evidence. More importantly, it is a red herring. No one is saying that the tragic and horrific deaths were faked.
The question is when and where they occurred, and who caused them. For example, one of the world's leading experts on chemical weapons points out that it is difficult to know where the videos were taken:

Zanders, the former EU chemical weapons expert, went even further, arguing thatoutsiders cannot conclude with confidence the extent or geographic location of the chemical weapons attack widely being blamed on the Assad regime.

He singled out the images of victims convulsing in agony that have circulated widely on the Web, including on YouTube.

"You do not know where they were taken," he said. "You do not know when they were taken or even by whom they were taken. Or, whether they [are from] the same incident or from different incidents."

Zanders added: "It doesn't tell me who would be responsible for it. It doesn't tell me where the films were taken. It just tells me that something has happened, somewhere, at some point."
The government then expands on allegedly intercepted intelligence:

"We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations."

The Washington Post points out that alleged intelligence intercepts are "the core of the Obama administration's evidentiary case...." America's war intelligence has been spotty. For example:

• The U.S. Navy's own historians now say that the sinking of the USS Maine - the justification for America's entry into the Spanish-American War - was probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish.

• It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here).
And the U.S. and Israel have admitted that they have carried out false flag deceptions (as have Muslim countries such as Indonesia; but to our knowledge, Syria has never been busted in a false flag.)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting writes:

Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors-which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents-allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

David Swanson notes that American officials mischaracterized the communications to justify the Iraq war:

Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here's what Bob Woodward said about this in his book "Plan of Attack."
"[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of ‘forbidden ammo,' Powell took the interpretation further: ‘Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.' None of this was in the intercept."

[In addition] Powell ... was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.

The government then makes a throw-away argument:

"At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26."

This is another red herring. If the Syrian government believed that the rebels had used chemical weapons on civilians, they may have increased artillery fire to flush out the rebels to prevent further chemical attacks. Again, further information is needed.

"To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government's responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21.As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners."

This sounds impressive at first glance. But Congress members who have seen the classified information - such as Tom Harkin - are not impressed.


US-Israeli False Flag Gas Attack Unravels

August 30, 2013

By William Bowles: Information Clearing House

This is where it all started: The Israeli intelligence front the Debkafile, which is the source of the story that implicated the Assad government and/or its military in the gas attack on East Ghouta and now forms the basis for the war on Syria.


DEBKAfile's military sources affirm that, just as the Assad brothers orchestrated the chemical shell attack on Syrian civilians, so too did Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah set in motion the rocket attack on Israel. - ‘The sarin shells fired on Damascus - by Syrian 4th Division's 155th Brigade - were followed by rockets on Israel and car bombings in Lebanon‘, Debkafile, 24 August 2013

Let's try sum up what we do know:

On the 21 August from a suburb of Damascus, Douma (or Duma) then under ‘rebel' control, two missiles were fired at another ‘rebel' controlled suburb of Damascus called East Ghouta, killing an unknown number of people, including children. It is assumed now that some kind of nerve gas or at least poison gas was used. The New York Times have documented this here, although they've moved some of the locations on the map. In this regard how does the NYT reconcile their take on the source of the missiles with the Mossad version, which makes them artillery shells fired from the mountains in the South ( see the Mossad version below, such as it is). This is confirmed by Pepe Escobar's report of Russian satellite evidence.

Within hours, or even minutes, videos of the alleged effects of the attack were circulating on the Web and without a pause for a breath (let alone any evidence), led by the UK and followed closely by France, they were blaming the Assad government for the attack and pressing for an immediate attack on Syria, with or without authorisation from the UN Security Council.

For more on this see this Wiki, where details on the launch of the two missiles can be found. It's not exactly a coherent presentation as it's an assemblage of links and descriptions, but it looks like the missiles were launched from a Syrian Special Forces base in Douma (or Duma) then occupied by the ‘rebels'.

The ‘Evidence'

For several days, in fact until today, 28 August, there was no evidence offered in the mainstream media that confirmed the allegations made by the US, the UK and France. Then a story released by the Israeli Mossad intelligence service to the German magazine Focus on the 24 August got picked up by the MSM. Today the 28th a report in the London Guardian newspaper tells us that the ‘evidence' was from an Israeli source, specifically the 8200 intelligence unit of the Israeli Defence Forces,


"which specialises in electronic surveillance, intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official said." - The Guardian, 28 August 2013

A more complete article on the Israeli connection can be found in a Times of Israel article dated 27 August:


It was Brun, the IDF's top intelligence analyst, who in April shocked the international community by declaring that the army was quite certain that Assad had used chemical weapons against rebel forces in Syria in March.

This time, too, Israeli military intelligence has reportedly played a key role in providing evidence of Assad's chemical weapons use. On Friday, Israel's Channel 2 reported that the weapons were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, a division under the command of the Syrian president's brother, Maher Assad. The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, the TV report said.

The report did not state the source of its information. But subsequently, Germany's Focus magazine reported that an IDF intelligence unit was listening in on senior Syrian officials when they discussed the chemical attack. According to the Focus report Saturday, a squad specializing in wire-tapping within the IDF's prestigious 8200 intelligence unit intercepted a conversation between high-ranking regime officials regarding the use of chemical agents at the time of the attack. The report, which cited an ex-Mossad official who insisted on remaining anonymous, said the intercepted conversation proved that Assad's regime was responsible for the use of nonconventional weapons.

Giora Inbar, the former head of the IDF's liaison unit in southern Lebanon, said Tuesday that Israeli military intelligence made a priority of intelligence-gathering in Syria, was very well-informed, and was widely trusted. The United States was "aware of" Israel's intelligence on the doings of the Syrian regime, he said in a Channel 2 interview, "and relies upon it." - ‘Israeli intelligence seen as central to US case against Syria‘, Times of Israel (my emph. WB)

Here's a Google translation of the relevant passage from the Focus article:


Mossad: "poison gas missile by Syrian government forces"

According to the findings of Israeli intelligence community, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the gas attack in Damascus. One unit of the Military Intelligence Service Amam, which specializes in wireless spy "Unit 8200″, controlled (tapped?) at the time of the gas attack, the communication of the Syrian army. A former Mossad officer told FOCUS, the analysis has clearly shown that the bombardment with poison gas missiles was made by Syrian government forces. - ‘UN calls on Syria to allow access for poison gas inspectors‘, Focus magazine, 24 August 2013

I think what's apparent here is that Mossad used a device that is quite common when governments/intelligence agencies want to plant a phoney story; release it through a relatively unknown publication and wait for it to be picked up by the MSM. After all, if the ‘crack' 8200 Unit was actually listening in on the 21st August "at the time of the attack" to Syrian Army radio, why didn't they immediately release the information to the world (even as it happened!)? Isn't that what you or I would have done with that kind of war-starting information?

Then there was the panic on Saturday 24 August by the USUK to try and get the UN inspection team's visit to Syria, cancelled. Now what was that all about? The USUK backed it up with talk about it ‘being too late' and that the Assad regime had ‘cleaned up' (this in an area then not controlled by the Syrian government). Too late to find out if hundreds of people had been gassed?


The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the U.N. investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the U.N. as hindering its plans for an attack.

Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the U.N. team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was "systematically destroying evidence". He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access "too late to be credible". - ‘In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe‘, Gareth Porter, IPS, 28 August 2013

In yet another version of the Mossad-inspired story, in the Israeli Tikum Olam we read:


It [Ynet on the 27 August] says that three senior Israeli military-intelligence officers are currently in Washington briefing their U.S. counterparts on the Unit 8200 intercepts. The paper also claims that the primary evidence the west is using on which to base its charges of Syria government responsibility is the IDF secret intercepts. This makes me nervous for several reasons: one, because IDF claims are notoriously unreliable. This brings to mind the Mossad's notoriously biased "evidence" offered regularly to the IAEA to "prove" Iran's intent to develop nuclear weapons. Two, it makes me wonder what Israel's ulterior motives may be in weighing in like this. - German Report That Israel's NSA Affirms Syria Government Responsibility for Chemical Attacks, By Richard Silverstein, Tikum Olam, 26 August 2013

And what of the UN mandate that forbade the inspection team from apportioning blame, should it be able to do that? Everything looks set to fail except the option to bomb.

Why the rush to war?

And ultimately, why the rush to war without even falsified evidence to offer until this late stage? Surely, if on the day of the attack the Israelis had released the information of an alleged gas attack by the Syrian government, it would have given the US and the UN, every (albeit twisted) justification to attack instead of relying on "belief" and "common sense" as Hague and Kerry both asserted?

I never thought I'd see the private intelligence arm of the US state, Stratfor utter the following but I think it's another indication of a false flag plot gone seriously amiss that only an immediate attack on Syria could have masked:


Stratfor's job is to analyze the world as objectively as possible, and the situation in Syria is among the most difficult we have seen. The problem is we really don't know what happened. The general consensus is Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons against his enemies. The problem is trying to figure out why he would do it. He was not losing the civil war. In fact, he had achieved some limited military success recently. He knew that U.S. President Obama had said the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. Yet Assad did it.

Or did he? Could the rebels have staged the attack in order to draw in an attack on al-Assad? Could the pictures have been faked? Could a third party, hoping to bog the United States down in another war, have done it? The answers to these questions are important, because they guide the U.S. and its allies' response. The official explanation could be absolutely true-or not. - Stratfor Email 28 August 2013

No wonder Stratfor is circumspect about the cause of the chemical attack. Worse, it's even doubting the US government when it says, "The official explanation could be absolutely true-or not."

If as Gareth Porter asserts, the US wanted the inspection team canceled because I assume, it didn't want have to bomb them as well the unfortunate Syrians, then it follows that regardless of the evidence, the Empire had planned to rain death and destruction from afar on Syria, and had planned to do so since last year. And then it was presented with the perfect opportunity until those damn UN inspectors got in the way!

Waging war would avoid the embarrassing act of actually finding out what went on and as we know the victor writes the history. By the time cooler heads get to have a look at the facts, it's all ‘history'.

Israeli false-flag in Syria: Trigger for World War III?

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Are the Israelis trying to drag us into World War III?
That is the question being asked by the "patriotic" segments of the US military and intelligence communities - and other military and intelligence communities worldwide.

The Israelis inadvertently revealed their probable complicity in the false-flag chemical attack in Syria by immediately claiming to know who did it. Ever since the Syrian chemical attack story broke, the Israelis have been screaming that Assad crossed Obama's "red line" and demanding US intervention.

But why would the Syrian government, which has recently made big gains against foreign-backed insurgents, shoot itself in the foot by staging a massive chemical weapons attack at the exact moment UN Weapons Inspectors arrived in Damascus? Are we supposed to believe that Assad is suicidally stupid?

Whatever one may say about Assad, he is neither stupid nor suicidal.

To solve this crime - like all other crimes - we must ask who had the means, motive, and opportunity.

Let us begin with motive. Assad had no motive to launch a big chemical attack - and a very strong motive not to.

So who did have a motive? Or, as the Latin phrase has it, cui bono: "Who gains?"

The answer: Israel and its al-Qaeda allies.
Israel and al-Qaeda share the same geo-strategic goal: The destabilization of the Middle East. Both want to destroy currently-existing Arab states, beginning with Syria.

Israel wants to balkanize the Middle East by smashing large countries like Syria into tiny ethnic and sectarian enclaves. This has been core Israeli strategic doctrine at least since the publication of the Oded Yinon plan in the 1970s. The current destabilization of Syria is primarily an Israeli project - part of the destruction of "seven countries in five years" that Gen. Wesley Clark revealed was the neocon plan after 9/11.

Al-Qaeda, like Israel, wants to destroy currently existing Arab states. It says its ultimate goal is a united Islamic world. But the al-Qaeda brand is so unpopular throughout the Arab and Muslim world that the idea of an al-Qaeda-led caliphate is laughable. All al-Qaeda can accomplish is help destroy Muslim countries in service to the Israelis and their Saudi and American puppets.

So Israel and its assets in Saudi Arabia and the US are working together to destabilize Syria - and Egypt, where Israeli puppet al-Sisi has demolished democracy and established a dictatorship far more autocratic and brutal than anything Mubarak ever dreamed of.
The chemical weapons attack in Damascus was obviously a Zionist ploy to drag the US deeper into the Syrian conflict. The Israelis, the world's grand masters at the game of false-flag terrorism, had the means, motive, and opportunity.

We should not forget that the most sophisticated and large scale attacks in Syria to date - bunker-buster mega-bombings and so on - have all been Israeli attacks designed to help the al-Qaeda rebels. Israel has plenty of poison gas, and the proven ability to mount large-scale terrorist attacks and blame its Arab enemies. So any big, sophisticated attack in Syria whose beneficiary is the Israeli-backed al-Qaeda rebels should be considered an Israeli attack until proven otherwise.

The Israelis, as Jeff Gates explains, are masters of game theory. They know that a big chemical weapons attack falsely blamed on Assad is a good bet to trigger a US air attack on Syria. Why? Because the US government, financed by Zionist banksters and penetrated by Zionist agents, never, ever exposes Israeli false flag attacks - even when the victims are American, as in the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty incident, and 9/11.

But the Israelis also know that Russia has drawn its own "red line" in Syria. Russia will not tolerate large-scale Western airstrikes against Syria, and it will not accept Western-imposed regime change.

Russia has already suggested that the Syrian chemical attack is an anti-Assad false flag. China has agreed, pointing out that the claims about Assad's sponsorship of the chemical attack are comparable to Bush's lies about alleged Iraqi WMD in 2003.

Assad himself has said that he will respond to any large-scale Western airstrikes by launching devastating retaliation against Israel. He knows who the real enemy is.

Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon are lining up behind Syria and against Israel. Iranian officials have agreed that Israel would be the "first victim" of any big Western attack on Syria.

"We have strategic weapons and we are capable of responding," Syrian official Khalaf Muftah has been quoted as saying.

So any major anti-Assad Western intervention will produce a hail of bombs falling on Tel Aviv. The entire Middle East (meaning the people, not the governments) will line up to support the countries and non-state actors lobbing those bombs.

Russia will defend Syria; China will at least lend moral and financial support.

The Americans and Europeans, who are dominated by their Zionist lobbies, will find themselves under immense pressure to escalate.

The world risks being dragged into World War III.

Why? Because Israel's shelf-life is expiring, and it is unwilling to "go gently into that good night." The apartheid Zionist state is demographically unsustainable, despised and considered illegitimate by virtually the entire population of the Middle East, and opposed by a growing number of people worldwide. That is why Israeli leaders were crazy enough to risk staging the 9/11 false flag attack: They felt they had nothing to lose by acting, and that their only hope of achieving "Greater Israel" was to trick the West into an all-out war against the enemies of the Zionist state.

But now, a growing number of people around the world are rejecting the official story of 9/11. The inevitable exposure of the truth about 9/11 is a slow-motion earthquake that will bring down the US and Zionist empires.

So the Zionists are taking another massive gamble. They are hoping that leading the world to the brink of World War III - and possibly over the brink - will save their doomed "Greater Israel" project. A huge war would give the Zionists an excuse to expel non-Jews from historic Palestine, complete the ethnic cleansing that has been ongoing since 1948, and defuse the "demographic bomb." And since the Zionists and their American stooges are losing relative strength each year, the hard-liners want to fight the big war now, while they think they still have an advantage.

The Syrian chemical false-flag appears to be Israel's biggest escalation of the "clash of civilizations" since 9/11. This time, the world must expose the truth rapidly, or risk the destruction of not just millions, but even tens or hundreds of millions of lives.


CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria - There is no Evidence

August 28, 2013
By Tony Cartalucci
Blacklisted News

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West's so-called "evidence" of the latest alleged "chemical attacks" in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government, are fabrications spun up from the West's own dubious intelligence agencies.

The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel's Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria's borders.

Wall Street Journal's article, "U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts," states:
One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad's chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.

Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.
That both Israel and the United States, as far back as 2007 have openly conspired together to overthrow the government of Syria through a carefully engineered sectarian bloodbath, discredits entirely their respective intelligence agencies. This is precisely why an impartial, objective third-party investigation has been called for by the international community and agreed upon by the Syrian government - a third-party investigation the US has now urged to be canceled ahead of its planned military strikes.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.
The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team's safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.

The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally: ...if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.

The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West's proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war - especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.

The populations of the West must likewise consider what benefits they have garnered from the last decade of military conquest their leaders have indulged in. Crumbling economies gutted to feed the preservation of special interests and the growing domestic security apparatuses to keep these interests safe from both domestic and foreign dissent are problems that will only grow more acute.
Outside of the West, in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, leaders must consider a future where Western special interests can invade with impunity, without public support, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary.

US Attempts to Sabotage UN Chemical Weapons Investigation

Decision to attack Syria already made over a year ago

August 27, 2013

Desperate to maintain a narrative that will justify a cruise missile attack on Syria, the Obama administration is seemingly trying everything within its power to sabotage the UN chemical weapons investigation in Syria.
The reason is obvious - the last time the United Nations investigated claims of chemical weapons use in Syria, its inspectors concluded that it was the rebels and not Assad's forces who were likely behind the sarin gas attack.
Eager to avoid a repeat that would completely derail the march to war, the White House in concert with Britain has repeatedly attempted to scupper the UN investigation or render it meaningless.

In the latest example, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that "there wasn't adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission," a clear warning (or a blatant threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely.

It was announced today that inspectors had postponed their work until Wednesday for "safety" reasons.

This warning followed an incident, almost certainly the work of US-backed rebels, where a convoy of UN vehicles was fired upon by a sniper, causing the inspectors to temporarily suspend their work. Rebels have repeatedly acted with hostility against UN workers and peacekeepers, with one FSA group kidnapping 21 peacekeepers back in March.
While discouraging the UN from completing its investigation, the US and Britain have already declared that last week's attack involved the use of chemical weapons and that it was the work of Bashar Al-Assad's forces, despite numerous other examples where rebels have prepared and used chemical weapons themselves.

Even when Syria allowed UN inspectors to enter the affected region, the Obama administration responded that it was "too late," and that the evidence could have been destroyed - so why bother investigating at all?
Washington and Downing Street are preparing to dive headlong into another potentially catastrophic war in the Middle East based on the evidence of a collection of YouTube videos. As in Iraq, it doesn't really matter how flimsy the actual justification is because the decision to attack Syria was already made over a year ago, with a hyped humanitarian crisis being the agreed upon pretext, and the intervening period was merely an exercise in manufacturing a casus belli.

Why is the Obama administration and the British government so keen to prevent or dismiss as irrelevant the UN's investigation?
The only reason is that it would threaten the already agreed upon narrative that Bashar Al-Assad, in complete defiance of any logic, ordered a chemical weapons attack right when UN inspectors were already in the country, timing the attack at the most opportune moment to justify western military intervention.

With western warplanes now already in place in Cyprus, along with a number of warships at sea, the die has been cast and the UN chemical weapons investigation will continue to be sabotaged or simply ignored, lest it turn up evidence that contradicts the rush to war

NSA scandal: the deepest secret of the Ed Snowden operation

Jon Rappoport
June 19, 2013

Everyone wants to see a hero.

When that hero emerges from the shadows and says all the right things, and when he exposes a monolithic monster, he's irresistible.

However, that doesn't automatically make him who he says he is.

That doesn't automatically exempt him from doubts.

Because he's doing the right thing, people quickly make him into a spokesman for their own hopes. If he's finally blasting a hole in the dark enemy's fortress, he has to be accepted at face value. He has to be elevated.

When dealing with the intelligence community and their spooks and methods, this can be a mistake. Deception is the currency of that community. Layers of motives and covert ops are business as usual.

In previous articles, I've raised a number of specific doubts about Ed Snowden.
Here I want to replay four statements Snowden made and examine them.

"When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this [NSA]...over time that awareness of wrongdoing sorts of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you're ignored, the more you're told it's not a problem..."

This statement describes Snowden, an analyst working at NSA, chatting regularly to colleagues about his growing doubts over the morality of NSA spying. This is quite hard to believe.

As Steve Kinney, writing at the Centre for Research on Globalisation points out, Snowden would have raised all sorts of red flags about himself.

If he hadn't been fired outright, he certainly would have come under serious scrutiny, which, at the very least, would have reduced his ability to hack documents out of NSA's most secret recesses.

And yet, Snowden, an analyst, claims he had access to "full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth."

Really?

That stretches doubt far beyond the point of credulity.

Both The Guardian and the Washington Post supposedly vetted Snowden carefully. I'd really like to see the results of that vetting.

"Rosters of everyone working at the NSA [and] the entire intelligence community..." That's untold thousands of people. That's referring to many separate agencies.

Snowden doesn't stop there. He maintains the security of NSA is not just a sieve, it's also thousands of separate hunting parties, undertaken at the whim of any analyst:

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere... I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President..."

Sure. NSA just opens the door to their own analysts, who can, on their own hook, launch spying episodes on anyone in the US. Boom. No operational plans, no coordination. A free-for-all.

"Hey, dig this. Nancy Pelosi was just talking to her hairdresser. I'm going to follow up on her. Think I'll spy on Nancy and her husband, see what they're up to. I'll file reports as I go along..."

"A guy at Los Alamos just wrote to his boss about a new weapons system. Want to see what they're planning?"

Finally, Snowden claimed he could "shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention."

Not just spy on everybody in the US. Snowden asserts he could do that. But he could also make the entire spying apparatus of NSA (and even all other intelligence agencies?) go dark with a few hours of work-and he'd evade notice of his NSA bosses as he performed this herculean task.

No. Ridiculous. The very first thing an agency like NSA does is set up a labyrinth to prevent itself from being taken down.

Consider these four Snowden statements together, back up and think. These are propositions that cast the man into a deep pit of doubt.

Who is he?

What is his mission? Is that mission his own, or is he working for someone who wants to punch a hole in the NSA?

In another article, I've developed the hypothesis thatSnowden is still actually operating for his former bosses at the CIA, long engaged in a turf war with the NSA, are running him in this op.

Snowden didn't steal anything from NSA. He couldn't. People at the CIA could and did steal, and they handed him documents to use in his assigned op.

There are other possible explanations. None of them exonerates the NSA or what it is doing. Let's be clear about that.

But how far would the CIA go in exposing the guts of the NSA? It's clear that these intelligence agencies overlap in their efforts (crimes). Therefore, the CIA would be satisfied to smear the NSA without exposing too much.

If so, Snowden's cache of documents won't "go all the way."

His documents won't yield the longed-for holy grail, though Snowden implies he could unwrap it. I'm talking about the entire interlocking system of US and global surveillance and how it is built.

More than piecemeal exposures about PRISM, US hacks of China, and the G20 meeting in England, an account of the technical "architecture," as John Young of Cryptome rightly calls it, would torpedo the underlying global Surveillance State.

If Snowden can do that, he hasn't shown it so far. Right now, he's put his work in the hands of several journalists, who will dole it out on their own inexplicable timetables.

Why make that move? Why hasn't Snowden put up a dozen sites and laid everything he has on the line? Before those sites could be taken down, the material would have been copied and sent around the world thousands of times.

Snowden has already said he won't endanger specific spies or operations that could actually prevent terrorists' missions.

All right. Then give us everything else. Give us the whole shooting match. Let's see how the watchers have built their edifice.

But so far, Snowden has shown himself to be a different kind of person, someone who makes claims that far exceed his reach.

Read his four statements again. The sub-text is:

I could complain, raise doubts, and criticize NSA openly at work. No one cared. It was a typical office you'd find in any company. It certainly wasn't a super-controlled environment. Things were so loose, I could access the complete map of the entire NSA network. Names, places, operations. On a whim, any analyst could spy on anyone in the US. If I wanted to, I could shut down all of US intelligence in a few hours. Forget the popular image of NSA as a fortress with dozens of layers of protection. Forget the notion that I'd have to be granted elite privilege to all sorts of secret keys to get into the inner sanctum, or that, while navigating my way in, I'd be setting off alarm bells all over the place. It was a piece of cake.

Smear.

"NSA is an open book. A book written by idiots. It cost a trillion dollars, but anyone could waltz in there and read the whole thing. Use a thumb drive, and you can also walk out with the whole thing."

If you set aside Snowden's remarks about his motives, his morality, and his high mission, his explanation falls apart. It makes no sense.

His CIA handlers would now be telling him that. "Hey Ed, tone down the ‘child's-play' angle, okay? You're making it sound too easy. Remember? You're the ‘whiz kid genius.' Yeah, we want to smear NSA, but it's got to be credible. People have to think it took at least some ingenuity to access the most heavily protected data in the world. Get it?"

A common man of the people, serving the greater good, exposing ongoing crimes that threaten the very lifeblood of the Republic? Is Ed Snowden that hero?

Or is he an operator, an agent?

So far, he's made himself seem like the agent.

Executives at the NSA are well aware of this. Sitting down with their counterparts at the CIA, they'd be getting an earful. CIA people would be saying:

"Of course Snowden is our boy. He worked for us in Geneva, and he's working for us now. We told you, after 9/11, we didn't like you clowns at NSA throwing all the blame on CIA for the Trade Center attacks. We didn't like that at all. And in the intervening years, we haven't liked you cutting us out of the spying game. We warned you. So now we've given you a taste of what we can do. We can do more. Either we play ball together, or we'll put NSA in the dumper. Get it?"

Playing ball together. Harmonization.

A sharp reader has just pointed out to me that this is the op behind the op. The fallout from Snowden will be used as the reason for more and better global sharing of spying and surveillance data.

Separate Surveillance States, which already share mountains of data, will come together to coordinate their efforts in an even tighter Surveillance Planet.

The US NSA won't be tolerated as the pompous king of the hill any longer. It will have to play well with others.

After all, Globalism means the whole globe.

And "we're all in this together."

"We" meaning the elites who want to track every move made by every person on Earth, 24/7, in order to predict and control in the new paradise, where the sun rises every day on ...compliance.

That's the takeaway from the Snowden affair. That's why the secret surveillance/spying at the G20 meeting in England was exposed.

"Gentlemen, we're all rational here at the table. This is ridiculous. We're all spying on each other. This can't go on. It's counterproductive. We want to work together. So let's do it. We all want the same thing. A planet under control. The way to achieve that goal is to cooperate. We'll spy on those who need to be spied on: the population of the planet. We'll do it together. The primary violator of cooperation is that cowboy outfit in America, the NSA. They have to be brought into line. They have to learn they're only part of the Whole. Agreed?"

"Agreed."

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com


NSA Document Leak Proves Conspiracy To Create Big Brother Styled World Control System

June 10, 2013
Source: Lee Rogers, Blacklisted News

The Obama regime which was already in the midst of three high profile scandals now has a fourth one to deal with. Top secret documents were recently leaked to the Washington Post and the London Guardian detailing a vast government surveillance program code named PRISM. According to the leaked documents, the program allows the National Security Agency (NSA) back door access to data from the servers of several leading U.S. based Internet and software companies. The documents list companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and Apple as some of the participants in the program. There have also been other reports indicating that the NSA is able to access real-time user data from as many as 50 separate American companies. Under the program, the NSA is able to collect information ranging from e-mails, chats, videos, photographs, VoIP calls and more. Most importantly is the fact that PRISM allows the NSA to obtain this data without having to make individual requests from the service providers or without having to obtain a court order. To say that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures would be a gross understatement. This is actually much more than that. This is a program designed specifically to serve as a Big Brother like control grid and to end privacy as we know it.

The NSA is quickly building a real life version of 1984's Big Brother.
In some ways this is not really a new story. This is just confirmation of what many people involved in the alternative research community have known for years. Going as far back as the 1990s there were reports revealing how Microsoft provided the NSA with back door access to their Windows operating system. Google's cozy relationship with the NSA has also been discussed off and on over the past decade.
There have even been other whistleblowers that have come forward previously detailing a number of unconstitutional and unlawful abuses conducted by the agency. This includes revelations of how the NSA was spying on American service members stationed overseas. The only difference with this is that these newly leaked documents provide definitive details on just how wide reaching the NSA's activities have become.

It is now painfully obvious that James Clapper the Director of National Intelligence when testifying before the Senate this past March blatantly lied when asked by Senator Ron Wyden if the NSA was involved in collecting data from the American people. Clapper flatly denied that the NSA was engaged in these types of domestic surveillance activities. What makes the situation such a joke is that the Obama regime is not focused on the fact that Clapper lied to the Senate which in of itself is unlawful. Instead they have been more focused on determining the source of the leak that exposed these broad abuses of power. This is probably not surprising considering that this is a regime that rewards corruption by promoting people involved in all sorts of questionable activity. The promotion of Susan Rice as Obama's new National Security Advisor is a perfect example of this considering her involvement in spreading bogus Benghazi related talking points. On the other hand, the Obama regime has severely punished a variety of whistleblowers who have dared to expose any wrong doing.

At least the Obama regime won't have to spend much time and energy trying to identify the whistleblower as this person who leaked these documents has already come forward publically. At his own request the Guardian revealed his identity as Edward Snowden a 29-year old Information Technology specialist who has been working at the NSA for different contractors including Booz Allen Hamilton and Dell. Snowden had previously worked at an NSA office in Hawaii but boarded a flight to Hong Kong a few weeks ago where he has stayed since turning over these documents to the media. He expects that he will never set foot on U.S. soil again and may possibly seek political asylum in a country like Iceland. The Guardian interviewed Snowden over several days and has recently posted an interview transcript that provides more detail on the abuses he became aware of and why he decided to come forward as a whistleblower. In the interview Snowden confirms that the NSA has the infrastructure that allows them to intercept almost any type of data that you can imagine from phone records, e-mails to credit cards. He also reveals how the U.S. government is engaged in hacking systems everywhere around the world and how the NSA has consistently lied to Congress about their activities. There is little doubt that Snowden is thus far one of the most important whistleblowers to come along in the 21st century and he will likely face retaliation considering the vast reach and capabilities of the U.S. intelligence community.

Many individuals within the Obama regime including Obama himself have claimed that this type of widespread data collection is needed to fight terrorism and is used for national security purposes. Even if we were to assume that the war on terror is real, this claim is ridiculous and absurd on its face. It would be one thing if they were collecting information based upon a specific criteria identified by legitimate human intelligence. Instead they are collecting indiscriminate amounts of information which makes it much more difficult to analyze and target anything that might indicate a potential threat. If the NSA's goal is really to detect and target terrorism than all they are doing is making their job more difficult by vastly increasing the noise they have to filter through. Either the people running the NSA are incredibly stupid or the goal of this program is to establish the infrastructure necessary to centrally collect data from communications everywhere around the world.

Other evidence to support this notion is the fact that the NSA is building a huge new facility in Utah that is being designed to store an enormous amount of data. A Fox News report indicates that when completed the facility will be able to store billions of terabytes worth of information. It is hard to fathom how the NSA would need this much storage space unless it was being used to collect and store any and all communications.

The Obama regime has tried to justify all of this by saying that PRISM helped stop an alleged New York City subway bomb plot back in 2009. This has been proven to be factually incorrect as regular police work and help from the British were larger factors in stopping the plot. This is assuming you even believe the official story of this terror plot to begin with. The government and more specifically the FBI have manufactured so many fake terror plots that it is difficult to determine fact from fiction at this point. So with this said, there is really no proof that PRISM has even helped to stop any so-called terror plot. They are collecting information simply for the sake of collecting information with no probable cause or reasonable justification.

At this point it is an undeniable fact that the NSA has been illegally collecting information on the American people. For years what has been dismissed as conspiracy theory is now without question a conspiracy fact. It is laughable that Obama and his assorted cronies are even trying to defend this program as a useful tool to fight terrorists. It is more likely that this program is being used to help find people domestically who dislike the government and would potentially fight back against it. A striking similarity to what is depicted in George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984 where political dissidents are identified as thought criminals. A tool the NSA uses called Boundless Informant which counts and categorizes the information they collect shows that more data is actually gathered from domestic sources in the U.S. than from Russia. So based off of this one could argue that the NSA almost seems to view the American people as more of a threat to national security than the Russians.

The three scandals the Obama regime was dealing with prior to this new scandal are all grounds for impeachment and one could easily argue that this one is many times worse than the previous three. Obama should resign in disgrace but being that he's a narcissist who seems unwilling to admit making any mistakes it is highly doubtful he will do this. Obama and the rest of the useful idiots in his regime who have tried to defend and justify this and other criminal programs need to be forcibly removed from office and put on trial. The criminal activity from the Obama regime is so vastly transparent it has become a complete and total joke to anyone who is even remotely paying attention.

Official Story Surrounding Manhunt for Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects Riddled with Inconsistencies

April 19, 2013
Source: Lee Rogers, BlacklistedNews.com

The events related to the Boston Marathon bombings are moving increasingly fast. Yesterday afternoon the FBI posted photos and video of two men that they claimed were connected to the bombings. Curiously enough the FBI said that people should pay attention only to the photos of these two men. This is despite the fact that there was a treasure trove of photos showing several suspicious looking people around the finish line right before the bombs went off. There were military types roaming around the finish line and a number of odd looking individuals carrying backpacks similar to what may have been used to carry the bombs. Thus far there has been no official explanation as to why there were military types roaming around the area of the finish line. There has also been no official explanation as to why there were strange drills and exercises being run in the general area of the Boston Marathon that have been reported by eyewitness accounts. As stated in my previous article pointing the finger at government involvement in these events, these types of drills are typically used as cover for a larger government sponsored terror operation as seen with events like the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London. If the government was more open and honest with what was actually taking place, people wouldn't be asking all of these questions. They are the ones that are fueling speculation and distrust by engaging the public in this manner.

Early this morning one of the suspects named Tamerian Tsarnaev was said to have died after the media reported that the suspects robbed a 7-Eleven convenient store, killed an MIT police officer, injured another transit officer and threw explosive devices as they tried to getaway. According to various media reports he was killed after being run over by a car that the other suspect his brother Dzkokhar Tsarnaev was driving as they tried to flee. There have also been other conflicting reports stating that the dead suspect may have blown himself up with a suicide bomb but at this point it is difficult to if any of these reports are even real. We are also being told that the two suspects are from a Russian area near Chechnya that came to the United States to kill people. If someone didn't know what was going on they would think the stories being reported were from some crazy Hollywood movie instead of real life events.

To be serious, why would these people try to rob a 7-Eleven and create all sorts of havoc knowing that their photo is plastered all over the news media? Not only that but why would these guys stay around the Boston area and decided to rob a store where numerous security cameras are in place? And all of this is happens only hours after the FBI puts out their photos as people of interest in the bombings?

More importantly, where is the video footage of the alleged robbery taking place? Why has that not been released? Right now the media is only showing us a photo of one of the suspects said to be at the Seven Eleven which doesn't even show the suspect carrying anything indicating that they were ready to rob the store. There are just too many holes in this story.

One of the most ridiculous aspects to what is unfolding is that it is now being reported that this Dzkokhar Tsarnaev individual allegedly became an American citizen on September 11th 2012. Are we really supposed to believe this bull shit? It is about as absurd as the young girl Christina Taylor Green who was allegedly killed during the Gabbie Giffords shooting incident that was said to have been born on September 11th 2001. Photos of the same girl only a few years older would emerge proving that the entire narrative surrounding her being killed was a lie. Specifically though, what are the odds that the September 11th date has such significance in all of these different incidents? It reeks of a poorly written movie script in their attempts to invoke the memories of the September 11th attacks with the viewing audience.

Police have ordered a virtual lockdown of the Boston area and surrounding towns in a massive manhunt for the remaining suspect. They've shutdown mass transit service throughout Boston and are asking people to not go out into public areas. In the end it is very likely that when all of this is over the official story will result with both suspects dead. Dead men tell no tales and it will give the public the satisfying conclusion that everyone wants. It almost feels like something out of the 1960s science fiction movie Fahrenheit 451 where the government fakes the death of the main character after he successfully escapes a police manhunt. His death was faked to give the public a proper conclusion.

Another puzzling aspect to this is why the FBI has not released any of the video footage from a security camera that was said to show one of these individuals dropping one of the backpack bombs in place before it exploded? One would think that this would be of particular interest to the public but there's been no transparency with this and other issues related to these events.

An Aunt of the suspects was interviewed by the corporate media and actually stated that she thought her nephews were being setup. She rightfully criticized the FBI for not supplying any real evidence indicating their guilt. She would go on to say that the only information the FBI has provided thus far indicating their potential involvement have been pictures with circles around their faces. Even though corporate media hacks like Anderson Cooper have dismissed her as "crazy" she is actually correct. The FBI hasn't produced any real evidence proving that either of these people were involved in placing the bombs. It is nothing more than empty rhetoric and the corporate media as they always do is just repeating what they are being told by government officials like its the holy gospel. In addition, other family members of the two suspects including their father have been interviewed and most of them couldn't fathom that they would be behind these attacks. The possibility that they have been framed is actually likely considering the lack of evidence presented by the FBI and the absurd story surrounding last night's events.

To top it all off it is comical that the government has been able to justify a complete shutdown of the public transportation system and even a no fly zone in and around the Boston area just to find a single 19 year old. They've even been running around conducting warantless door to door searches across the entire area. There are even reports that police are threatening the media who are trying to cover this story. Why would police be threatening the media? One would think that the police would want the media providing coverage of them getting the supposed bad guy but instead they are acting the exact opposite like they are trying to hide something. It is simply outrageous to see what's happening. Even if you don't believe that there is anything strange with the official story unfolding in the media, it is undeniable that the government has used this situation to justify a militarized police state presence all around Boston. In the days and weeks that follow, it is going to be of great interest to see what sort of garbage agenda the establishment tries to push through.

Boston Marathon Bombing: Who Do They Plan To Blame?

Brandon Smith alt-market.com
April 16, 2013

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief Of Staff to Barack Obama

While many people might immediately dismiss the concept, any student of true and unadulterated history has to eventually admit this fact: Governments exploit crisis. Sometimes, they merely take advantage of the ensuing chaos and aftermath of a disaster they had nothing to do with directly. Other times, they create those disasters themselves in order to engineer social and political opportunity.

In regard to the recent bombing of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and injured at least 140, I have asked "Who do they plan to blame?" The unaware and naïve will state that "They will blame the true culprit behind the attack, of course!" Unfortunately, in the past couple decades I have seen numerous terrorist attacks where the blame was NOT placed on the true culprit, or, the blame was extended to totally uninvolved groups and organizations in order to politicize the event. Governments (especially our government) squeeze each man-made disaster like a ripe papaya until every drop of sweet advantage can be collected. They use our fear and confusion as license to attack a predetermined list of targets that may or may not have had anything to do with the original event. They tell the story in a way that suits their end-line interests, and the last thing they are concerned with is helping the public to "understand". In the end, what average citizens see as an authoritative analysis on the facts from their "loving" leaders is in reality nothing more than an exercise in fantasy.

Now, the thought of persons and institutions within our government being malicious enough to create a terrorist event to be used to manipulate the public towards a certain end tends to bring out furious denial in some Americans. This is because those people with weak characters and an even weaker sense of identity tend to attach their egos to the collective. They live vicariously through the group, or the nation state, so that the State's accomplishments and trials become THEIR accomplishments and trails. To accuse the state of criminality is to accuse them of criminality.

The Boston bombing already has the makings of a subversive and highly exploitable false flag event, and certain undertones remind me of the now exposed Operation Gladio, a false flag program utilized by NATO governments (including the U.S.) for decades which involved multiple bombings and mass shootings of high traffic public areas across Europe that were then falsely blamed on "left-wing terrorists". The operation was exposed in the early 1990's by the Italian government, and then quickly swept into the dust bin of history.

Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a far-right terrorist linked to Gladio and currently serving a life-sentence for the car bomb murder of three policemen stated during sworn testimony on Gladio in March of 2001:

"You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game..."

"The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened..."

The strategy used by NATO was clear - terrorize the common population, target as many innocents as possible in places where they felt most comfortable and at ease, and drive the citizenry into the waiting arms of the establishment. The tactic creates the cancerous spread of public tension because the sense of "distance" from violence is removed. An attack could literally happen anytime, anywhere. A predetermined scapegoat enemy is then presented, completing the circle and galvanizing the people in the direction the establishment desires.

The methods used in Europe to demonize "left-wing" political movements could just as easily be used to demonize what some call "right-wing" political movements here in the U.S. Let's look at some of the facts surrounding the Boston incident so far:

Boston authorities and witnesses on the scene admit that bomb sniffing dogs and roof spotters were employed before the race even began. The local bomb squad was also coincidentally running a "controlled explosion drill" only one mile away from the attack:

http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Spotters-on-Roofs/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx

Participants at the race were told repeatedly not to worry, and that a "training exercise" was taking place. In nearly every major terror attack since 9/11, from the U.S., to the UK and Spain, the government was running "training exercises and drills" fitting the EXACT description of the threat that then suddenly occurred in real life on the same day. Perhaps it is only an overtly reoccurring negative serendipity, but in my view, if the authorities are running a training exercise for a bombing in your town, it might be best to run for the hills before their little war-game becomes real yet again.

Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis also stated that authorities were not aware of any specific threats to the marathon before it began, which means that they are not presenting any claims that they had reason to believe a bombing might take place:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/dozens-people-injured-explosion-boston-marathon-190955311.html

So, just to clarify, the Boston police on the suggestion of...someone, decided to run bomb squad training, bomb sniffing dogs, and rooftop spotters on the exact same day that the Boston Marathon happened to be bombed...just because?

I would add to this conundrum another question - With all those bomb sniffing dogs present, and with multiple devices now found on the scene, how did they not find at least one of the explosive packages before people were killed? Those dogs need to be fired, I suppose...

Along with the immediate strangeness of the attack, the timing is also rather perfect for the establishment.

April 15th is tax day across the nation, and Tax Protest Day sponsored annually by Tea Party organizations across the country also just happened to fall on the 15th this year. On top of this, in Massachusetts, Patriots Day (a civic holiday celebrating the battles of Lexington and Concord) is held on the third Monday of April every year, which just happened to be the 15th this year. Oath Keepers, a constitutional organization often wrongly attacked as a "domestic extremist group" by the DHS and
SPLC, just happened to have a large pro-freedom rally scheduled for the 19th of April at Lexington Green in Massachusetts. Are we starting to get the picture here?

Wash. State Bill Would Make Almost All Gun Owners Criminals

Mikael Thalen
Examiner
February 14, 2013

Washington state Sens. Ed Murray (D), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D) and Adam Kline (D) have introduced new gun control legislation that goes far above and beyond what anyone would consider a simple sales ban.

The bill, S.B. 5737, proposes "banning the sale of assault weapons." According to the legislation, an "assault weapon" is any semiautomatic pistol, pump-action rifle or shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine, with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Any magazine that accepts over 10 rounds itself will also be banned.

Also included in the definition is any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip, a stock of any kind, a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator. The bill also prohibits the manufacturing, possessing, purchasing, selling or transferring of an assault weapons "conversion kit."

In order to continue to possess a so-called assault weapon that was owned before the assumed passing of the legislation, the person must "safely and securely" store the assault weapon and allow the sheriff of the county to, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to "ensure compliance," despite some apparent civil liberties implications related to the Fourth Amendment.

Not to mention the manpower, time and money that would be needed to search tens of thousands of Washington homes; it could prove to be very difficult and possibly divert much needed manpower from conducting actual police duties, especially in light of shrinking police department budgets.

The bill also gives no definition of what "safe and secure" storage consists of. The ownership and storage may only be done on property owned or immediately controlled by that person or while engaged in the "legal use" of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range. The bill does, however, exempt possession rules if the weapon is about to be "permanently relinquished to a law enforcement agency."

Any person who, after the effective date of the section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest or succession must within thirty days either dispose of the weapon or have it permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile. Failure to comply will result in a class C felony.

Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of the state or another state will be exempt. Members of the armed forces of the United States, National Guard and organized services, are exempt when on duty. Also, any federal agent "allowed" to own an assault weapon is exempt as well.

This legislation is similar to a bill introduced by California Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) whose legislation would ban over 120 specifically named firearms.

Others such as President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have come out recently pushing for gun control. Holder gave a stern warning to gun traffickers, despite President Obama and him being involved in Operation Fast & Furious, a program that allowed tens of thousands of firearms to be given to drug cartels that took the lives of countless Mexicans and most notably U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

The program's supposed intent was to track where guns went in Mexico, but government emails leaked to CBS News showed that the intent appeared to be to use the resulting deaths to blame American gun owners and push gun control.

As CISPA Debate Rages Again, Obama Already Using Its Powers

 February 13, 2013
Source: Activist Post

Just like most draconian legislation that politicians try to pass, the government has already been using the illegal powers and hopes to justify its actions with the passage of a new law. See warrantless wiretapping. Other even worse actions, like torture and assassinations of Americans without due process, are simply kept secret because they know a law for it would never be possible.

It was recently announced that the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, will once again be coming for a vote in the United States Congress. Lawmakers cited increased threats from hackers and cyber espionage as the motivation for its reintroduction.

This version of CISPA is reportedly identical to last year's version that easily passed in the House by a count of 248 to 168. Congressman Jared Polis (D-Colo), who voted against the measure, said the law "would waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity."

Other critics have pointed out that CISPA gives Obama a "kill switch" over the Internet in a "national cyberemergency".

CISPA has been roundly criticized by privacy advocates as enshrining the powers of the government to surveil and control the Internet in two overarching ways. First, government can lay claim to protecting "critical infrastructure" under which the Web has now been included. This opens the door for requesting that private companies like Google, Facebook and so far 800 others work openly on the initiative as well.

Both attempts to pass it in the Senate in 2012 narrowly failed with the last vote of 51-47 occurring in November which was closer than its 52-46 August vote.

After its failure, the White House and CISPA co-sponsor Joe Lieberman warned the public that Obama would enact an executive order if lawmakers won't pass the bill.

Although Obama has yet to issue a formal executive order, The Washington Post reported that Presidential Obama signed a secret cybersecurity presidential directive: Presidential Policy Directive 20 essentially giving himself all the power that CISPA seeks to legitimize:

Presidential Policy Directive 20 establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, according to several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record. The president signed it in mid-October.
The new directive is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an "offensive" and a "defensive" action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route. For the first time, the directive explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber-operations to guide officials charged with making often-rapid decisions when confronted with threats.
The reality is that much of CISPA's privacy-shattering policies already are taking place under the FISA Amendments Act which Obama reauthorized for an additional 5 years. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported back in March:

the FAA is the statute Congress passed giving immunity to telecom companies despite their participation in the NSA's massive warrantless wiretapping program, which the New York Times first exposed in 2005. EFF and a host of other civil liberties groups have been involved in litigation challenging the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping for years. (Source)
The extent of warrantless wiretapping and surveillance already being shared between the government and private companies has been exposed by The Washington Post, as well as former NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Thomas Drake, and former AT&T technician Mark Klein.

The Post's investigation revealed such a massive overlap of government and corporate interests that it is already operating free of transparency and oversight. Their findings were appropriately titled, "A hidden world, growing beyond control."

Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. (Source)
Perhaps it is because of the exposure these whistleblowers have given that CISPA aims to go a step further and give corporations the power to prevent hard evidence leaks. As Stephen C. Webster of Rawstory states:

Imagine if Bank of America knew that WikiLeaks had obtained a cache of its internal documents the very instant that transmission was made, and a financial blockade were launched before WikiLeaks could even begin examining the files. Because CISPA words the definition of 'cyber threat intelligence' to include 'theft or misappropriation of private or government information' and 'intellectual property,' that's precisely what's at stake here.
...
After all, who wouldn't want a government minder as a personal bodyguard during travels abroad? By placing the NSA on guard for corporate network security, big tech firms like AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Facebook and Google won't be as hard-pressed by market forces - like rival companies and, yes, even hackers - to innovate their security technologies, leaving the heaviest lifting, and spending, up to Big Brother instead. (Source)
There is no doubt that the apparatus of CISPA is already in effect and it's merely going to be justified through legislation. The Supreme Court refuses to address privacy issues and has effectively shut down all lawsuits aimed at holding accountable those engaging in domestic warrantless wiretapping. And there are many private companies ready to offer their assistance to help track everyone's digital movements and communications.

Increasing coverage of social media was brought to the U.S. government in 2010 by war criminal Raytheon's RIOT search technology which has been called a "Google for spies." Covert eavesdropping of VoIP services like Skype has been introduced by the private sector (including Microsoft) through patents filed as far back as 2007. And massive, largely unknown data mining companies like Axciom which began in 1969 now collects and analyzes 50 trillion data transactions per year.

So CISPA passing or Obama's executive order in the name of cybersecurity is of little practical consequence other than legalizing past privacy violations and offensive state-sponsored cyber attacks by the U.S. government. It won't even make the government's cybersecurity actions transparent, but it certainly will make it transparent that a whole new level of the Internet Security Industrial Complex is taking shape.

House Of Rothschild Hoarding Gold In Face Of Coming Collapse?

January 28, 2013
Source: Jurriaan Maessen, Explosive Reports

A recent appointment of Rothschild as "financial advisor" by the Board of Directors of gold exploration company Spanish Mountain Gold is yet another unmistakable indication that the ancient family is moving the world's gold supply to both "emerging markets" and Central Banks worldwide, strengthening the family's monopoly position when the fiat-based house of cards comes crashing down in the West.

The Board of Directors of the British Columbia based gold exploration companyappointed Rothschild to "review strategic options with the objective of maximizing shareholder value." In July of 2012, Spanish Mountain Gold's CEO Brian Groves boasted already that the excavation in British Colombia is a project worth "several million ounces in gold" and is backed by "an enormous network of connections globally", Groves told Resource Clips.

Indeed, this recent appointment of Rothschild's financial expertise (from centuries worth of experience) has increased the value of this company somewhat, propelling the gold-producing company into newer heights (or depths), depending on what end of the gold bar you find yourself. It also is a sure sign that the family is tightening its grip on gold, in both the excavation, the producing and the trading phase.

In the beginning of this century there were signs that Rothschild was starting to pull back from gold. With the announcement of Lord Jacob Rothschild that his "investment vehicle" RIT Capital Partners "has ridden the rally in gold prices but will now incrementally sell down" many observers were led to believe the ancient house was abandoning the precious stuff. Jacob Rothschild stated in 2011:

"There is I believe a growing awareness of the dangerous position which confronts many countries, particularly those in the developed world. In spite of these concerns, we continue to take advantage of areas that we believe are attractive, but we will remain cautious in terms of the quantum of capital that we allocate".

Already in 2004 Rothschild blew the horn, announcing with a loud voice (that tends to carry far and wide throughout the world's financial community) that the family was withdrawing from its gold-based assets. In April of 2004 theTelegraph reported:

"The investment bank that has chaired the London meetings setting the world gold price since 1919 is quitting the market."

In 2011, an analysis makes clear how and why Rothschild manipulates the price of gold downward:

Despite these earlier indications that Rothschild was backing away from its gold assets (which smell like the calculated diversion techniques of an experienced illusionist), the recent appointment in the Spanish Mountain project is a clear sign that gold is still foremost on the mind of the family, as it has been for many centuries past. These earlier manoeuvrings by Rothschild seem to suggest a consciously constructed effort to bring down the price of gold- with the aim of buying large quantities later on, when the price was especially low. The reason for such a move is explained by Jeff Thomas in February 2012, when he wrote:

"Many economists project that, following the crashes of the Euro and the dollar, a return to gold-backed currencies would appear as a world trend. This is only natural, as the fiat currency concept would have been shown to be the farce that it is."

For this reason, Thomas argued, the hoarding of gold is being done with the aim of redistributing it later on to those nations (or supra-nations, such as the EU and China) the elite have destined to be the future global engines after the old one has been discarded:

"It is entirely possible that all currencies could receive a shake-up, and an entire worldwide system of gold-backed currencies may develop. If this were to occur, the countries that held the largest amounts of gold at that time would be out in front economically."

This indeed seems to be the case. As Edmond de Rothschild's France-based asset management company analyzes for 2013, the so called "emerging markets" are increasingly scooping great chunks of gold from the world's supply:

"It is (...) reassuring to see that physical demand has started the year well with an increase in Chinese and Indian buying. The Chinese are buying before the Lunar New Year while Indians seem to be anticipating higher duties on imported gold. At the same time, central bank buying continues. They bought 536 tonnes in 2012 (+17% on record 2011 levels) or 13% of total demand."

Another document issued by Edmond de Rothschild's "Goldsphere"-enterprise analyzes the global gold-trade, the buyers, the sellers, the winners and the losers. In one of its assessments the global elite recognizes that European nations are reluctant to sell their gold stocks and the current trend is a continuous rover of gold towards the East:

"European countries are in no rush to sell their bullion reserves as they are small in value compared to their debt problems and some of the gold might already have been pledged in collateralised loans."

While all the major strongholds of the elite are being abandoned in the US, new lairs are being set up in China. The document concludes by saying that gold-producing companies and miners are not sufficiently riding the wave of ever-rising gold prices:

"All the recent meetings we have had with gold companies tend to confirm the industry's acceptance that gold mines and gold projects have to be better managed so as to get shareholder returns more in line with the current strong gold price. And some projects have in fact already been postponed or cancelled because of insufficient profitability."

This puts the recent "appointment" of Rothschild by Spanish Mountain Gold somewhat into perspective doesn't it? It seems the ancient House of Rothschild has feigned a retreat from gold in the beginning of this century, only to then snatch it again at a good prize and move it into the East- their future global engine. When Baron Benjamin de Rothschild was asked by Israeli newspaperHaaretz what the family's intentions are in regards to China, he answered unhesitatingly "to increase our focus in that region".

As the elite's engine of control is incrementally deconstructed in the West, the world's gold is gradually moving towards its new engine in the East.

The Fed's Plan B: "We're Going to Kill the Dollar"

January 23, 2013
By Mike Whitney, Information Clearing House

"How do you solve a problem when you're running a 10% fiscal budget deficit? You are not going to get growth without private sector credit demand. The government's idea right now is that we're going to export our way out of this, and when I asked a senior member of the Obama administration last week how are we going to grow exports if we will not allow nominal wage deflation? He said, "We're going to kill the dollar." Kyle Bass interview.

Last week, amid growing rumors of a global currency war, the Fed's balance sheet broke the $3 trillion-mark for the first time in history. According to blogger Sober Look: "For the first time since this program was launched (QE) it is starting to have a material impact on bank reserves ... which spiked last week. 2013 will look quite different from last year. The monetary base will be expanded dramatically as long as the current securities purchases program is in place. ‘Money printing" is in now full swing.'" ("Fed's balance sheet grows above $3 trillion, finally impacting the monetary base", Sober Look)

Take a minute and consider the implications of the Fed's money printing operations in relation to the above quote by market analyst Kyle Bass. Can you see what's happening?

The Fed is acting exactly as one would expect it to act given it's stated intention to increase inflation (currency debasement) while intensifying the class war at the same time.

How is the Fed waging class war, you ask?

Fed chairman Bernanke has been a big supporter of deficit reduction, which is code for slashing public spending. The recent "fiscal cliff" settlement raises taxes immediately on working people by ending the payroll tax holiday. As Bloomberg notes: "Everybody took a two percentage-point pay cut." This is bound to impact consumer spending and confidence which dropped sharply last week. Here's more from Bloomberg:

"Payroll taxes went up. As part of its budget agreement on Jan. 1, Congress agreed to let the tax, used to pay for Social Security benefits, return to its 2010 level of 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent. That reduces the paycheck by about $83 a month for someone who earns $50,000." (Bloomberg)

So all the worker bees (you and me) have less money to spend, which means that there's going to be less activity, higher unemployment and slower growth. This is what all the liberal economists have been warning about for over 3 years, that is, if the government withdraws its fiscal support for the economy by reducing the budget deficits too soon, the economy will slip back into recession.

So what is the Fed doing to counter this slide and to create the illusion that nutcases who preached "austerity is good" were right?

Well, the Fed is buying mortgage-backed securities, right? So the Fed is actually dabbling in fiscal policy, assuming a role that is supposed to be played by the Congress. Now, I realise that the buying of MBS doesn't precisely fit the definition of fiscal policy because the Fed doesn't collect taxes and redistribute the revenue. But it sure doesn't fit the description of monetary policy either, now does it? The Fed is not setting rates to control the flow of credit into the system. No, the Fed is buying stuff; financial assets that provide credit to loan applicants who are purchasing hard assets. That ain't monetary policy, my friend. It is fiscal policy writ large.

The Fed is currently purchasing $45 bil per month in US Treasuries to push down long-term interest rates in order to help the banks sell more mortgages so they can reduce their stockpile of distressed homes.

And, the Fed is buying $40 billion of MBS per month to help the banks clear their books of left-over MBS and to provide funding for the banks to generate new mortgages.

Also, 95% of all new mortgages are financed through Fannie and Freddie. In other words, the government is providing all the money and taking all the risk, while all the profits go to Wall Street.

Let's review:

Fannie and Freddie's policy is designed to help the banks
The Fed's MBS purchasing program is designed to help the banks.
The Fed's QE (UST purchases) policy is designed to help the banks.

Do you see a pattern here? It's all for the banks, which is why Marx was correct when he referred to "political economy" because the economy doesn't operate according to free market principals. It is organized in a way that best achieves the objectives of the constituency that controls the levers of political power.

Now guess which constituency controls those levels of political power presently?

If you guessed "the Wall Street banks", give yourself a pat on the back.

So, what effect is this going to have on policy?

Well, to some extent we already know the answer to that question because-as we pointed out earlier-the policy is shaped to benefit the banks. Even so, an analogy may be helpful to better grasp what's going on.

Let's say you have $5 million that you want to put into manufacturing. In fact, you have decided you want to open your own factory and produce widgets of one kind or another to sell to the public. Eventually, you whittle your options down to two choices; you will either produce a modern line of electric cars to reduce emissions and pave the way for new technologies or you will make hula hoops. So, what's it going to be?

Fortunately, for you, the Fed announces a new program that will provide $45 billion per month "indefinitely" to manufacturers who provide low interest loans to people who want to buy hula hoops.

"Yipee", you say. "I will abandon my plan to save the planet from poisonous greenhouse gases and make my fortune selling hula hoop bonds to the Fed instead."

Isn't this what's happening? None of this has anything to do with lowering unemployment, strengthening the recovery or increasing growth. It's all just a way of funneling money to powerful constituents. And one thing is certain, that if the Fed creates the demand for a product (like MBS), then someone is going to fill that demand whether it helps the broader economy or not.

But if the Fed can buy mortgage bonds, then why can't they buy infrastructure bonds? What's the difference?

The difference is that mortgage bonds boost profits for bankers, whereas infrastructure bonds merely provide jobs for people who need them. In other words, the difference is not between fiscal and monetary, but between the "haves" and the "have nots", which is the same as saying that the Fed's policies are based on class interests. And, that brings back to our original comment by Kyle Bass, who wonders how the US can grow its way out of its present predicament (big budget deficits and weak exports) without more "private sector credit demand"?

Great question. But you can see that Fed chairman Bernanke has already tipped his hand. The Fed is going to keep waving that "$45 billion per month" carrot in front of the banks until they rev-up the credit flywheel and create a new regime of toxic mortgages. (The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule on "Qualified Mortgage", which requires neither a down payment nor credit scores, makes this prospect even more likely.) Bernanke is playing the role that the repo market played before the Crash of '08, that is, the Fed is promising to buy all the complex bonds (MBS) the banks produce off balance sheet to keep money flowing to the banks. It's just like the free market, except there's nothing free about it. It's all fake and Bernanke doesn't care if you know it.

$45 billion per month isn't chump change. It's enough to inflate housing prices, to employ more out-of-work construction workers, to grow the economy, and to save bank balance sheets that are deep in the red. At the same time, the Fed's ballooning balance sheet will put downward pressure on the dollar which will increase exports while lowering real-inflation adjusted wages. Like the man said, "We're going to kill the dollar."

This is the Fed's plan: Bail out the banks, transfer the banks bad bets onto its own balance sheet, hammer the greenback, slash wages (via inflation), boost exports, and pump as much money as possible into the unproductive, overbuilt black hole we call the US housing market.

Of course, President Obama could avoid all this nonsense and just launch a government-funded jobs program that would snap the economy out of its coma, increase demand, and turbo-charge GDP, but that would be way too easy. And probably bad for profits, too.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

DHS Says Gun Owners Are Terrorists

Kurt Nimmo
January 17, 2013

Following Obama's choreographed attack on the Second Amendment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it will join the administration, the Justice Department and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms.

Under the guise of preventing what is largely unpreventable short of disarming the entire country - eliminating "active shooter" situations - DHS boss Janet Napolitano announced on Wednesday she will work to "identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings," in other words, disarming law-abiding gun owners.

The Department of Homeland Security is basically an interior ministry ostensibly created in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Although its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism, it has, since its creation in October of 2001, pursued its real and unstated objective - acting as an internal political police force tasked with undermining and attacking enemies of the ruling elite.

DHS: Global Elite's Secret Political Police

The DHS is not dedicated to preventing "future mass casualty shootings," as Napolitano recently stated, but is assigned the critical task of attacking political enemies considered a threat to the globalist status quo. From lurid fictional claims about "rightwing extremists" to shepherding a national effort to undermine and destroy an idealistic Occupy movement, the DHS has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a political secret police.

The "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" document leaked to the alternative media in 2009 set the stage for demonizing gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in addition to a panoply of other political groups derisively tagged as "rightwing extremist" by the government.

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) also produced a document in 2009 warning about the danger of a purported "Modern Militia Movement," including the likes of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. MIAC and fusion centers around the country coordinated with the DHS to "collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence" on the supposed threat of libertarians and constitutionalists, including Second Amendment advocates. Between 2004 and 2007, the DHS provided $254 million to fusion centers engaged in surveilling Americans considered a terrorist threat by the government.

Earlier this year, the DHS released a report, "Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008," that employed the phrase "extreme right-wing, ethno-nationalist/separatist" to describe individuals and groups it claims pose a domestic terrorist threat.

Conflating liberty issues with racism is a deliberate attempt to further demonize Americans opposed to the policies of the federal government. Designating opposition as racist is a well-tread path taken by the corporate media and Democrats, particularly since the election of Obama.

According to the latest DHS report, "the new ‘terrorists' in this country are the Americans who love liberty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.," writes Pat Shannan. "Second Amendment advocates are at the top of this ‘terrorist' list, but a mere ‘pro-life' bumper sticker might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath."

Pentagon Joins Effort to Target Pro-Second Amendment Movement

More recently, the government enlisted a West Point think tank to produce propaganda detailing the so-called "far right" and warn about white supremacists teaming up with the "anti-federalist movement" to attack political enemies, the government and most notably the police.

The West Point report specifically targets the patriot movement and constitutionalists opposed to a federal government controlled by an international financial oligarchy. These violence-prone terrorists, the report states,

espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement. (Emphasis added.)

The last sentence in the above underscores the purpose of the report generated by the United States Military academy - demonizing libertarians, constitutionalists, and specifically advocates of the Second Amendment as violent terrorists who pose a direct threat to law enforcement. The effort is designed to radicalize the elite's front line - police and first responders - and set them against the "far right."

Establishment Media's Orchestrated Propaganda Campaign

The establishment media's concerted campaign against the Second Amendment has delivered a relentless barrage of polarizing and divisive propaganda in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in December.

CBS Chief Washington Correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, demonstrated the absurd lengths the establishment will go to trash the Constitution and sow fear and dissension of firearm ownership.

Following Obama's speech earlier this week, Schieffer said dismantling the Second Amendment may present a formidable task, but one less daunting than passing civil rights legislation or defeating Nazi Germany in World War II.

Producing a relentless wave of skewed surveys and op-eds in favor of "gun control" and "gun safety" (the latest misleading euphemism) reveals the urgency of the effort to disarm America and render it helpless.

Conclusion: Law-abiding Gun Owners Are the Target, Not al-Qaeda Terrorists

It is now obvious what is going on in the wake of Sandy Hook - the establishment is finally pulling out the last remaining stops in its long envisioned disarmament of the American people in accord with its ultimate plan to usher in a one-world government and financial system. A well-armed and educated populace prevents the global elite from realizing this objective.

In order to realize this required disarmament, supporters and defenders of not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution at large must be branded as renegade terrorists who threaten police. The cynical propaganda effort to pose law enforcement against a growing liberty movement is key to the elite's effort to impose an authoritarian police state on America, a plan that will not be successful if the American people are allowed to possess firearms more potent than 22 caliber bolt-action rifles.

Gun Confiscation Bill Introduced in Congress

IRS credit to citizens who allow government to confiscate their firearms

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2013

On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers "surrender" their guns to the government.

Cited as the "Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act," the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce "gun violence" and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.

The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state governments are now pulling out all stops short of door-to-door confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm the American people.

Strikingly honest language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government's "program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons," in short, a program to disarm the American people.

The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called "assault weapons" that will garner a $2,000 tax credit, including the much demonized Bushmaster AR-15 allegedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013.

The inclusion of the IRS in the government's attempt to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its effort to act as a Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July, we reported on a revelation made by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire up to 16,500 new agents.

American taxpayers must reject such cynical enticements and stand together and support the Second Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.

The latest foray against the Second Amendment and the founding principles of the republic commenced soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15 when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America's "gun culture."

"I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America's gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life," Feinstein said. "I will do another assault weapons ban."

New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in the state. "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option," Cuomo said. He was egged on by notorious gun-grabber advocate and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive actions against the Second Amendment.

On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to "bite the bullet" and restrict the gun rights of Americans following comments by president Obama that he would support draconian legislation aimed at the Second Amendment.

Over the next two weeks, the establishment media launched an intense anti-Second Amendment campaign and produced corporate polls in favor of "common sense" gun bans. Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan Show and a flurry of pro and con pundits and commentators debated the finer points of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms.

On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on national television accompanied by a gaggle of children and pushed the federal government's anti-Second Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a number of unconstitutional executive actions during the performance instructing the government to roll back the Second Amendment.

NY State Senator: Gun Bill Passed In Middle Of Night Turns Law-abiding Citizens Into Criminals."

"Members were forced to vote on a bill they had not read"

Steve Watson
Jan 15, 2013

A New York State Senator has lambasted the passing of what is being called the nation's toughest gun control bill, saying that it was introduced during the middle of the night, and that members were forced to vote on the legislation when they had not even had a chance to read it.

"I simply cannot support a bill that turns law abiding citizens into criminals by creating an entire new category of illegal firearms out of currently legal rifles and shotguns," said Senator Greg Ball in a statement.

"...the last minute push, in the middle of the night without critical public input from sportsmen and taxpayers was outrageous and forced members to vote on a bill they had not read." Ball noted.

The Senator stated that he believed the bill does nothing to address the issue of mental illness, and gave specific examples of cases within his district, which he urged that the legislation would not help to improve in any way.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," the Senator said on the Senate floor, in reference to Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Ball added that he believed the NY Senate was willing to transform law-abiding citizens into criminals "hoping on the front pages that we will be seen as preventing tragedies."

"Good night, I voted no and I only wish I could have done it twice." Ball concluded.

Watch Ball's comments below:

Senator John J. Bonacic, who also opposed the legislation, called it "nothing more than window dressing designed to make people feel secure until the next tragedy strikes - all while criminalizing the actions of otherwise law abiding citizens."

In prepared comments, Bonacic noted " In reading the summary of the legislation provided (my comments below are based on how the legislation has been explained, because the print of the bill has not been shown to Legislators as I write this - 8 PM on January 14), it appears law abiding citizens would become criminals - eligible to be sent to jail, simply by failing to tell the government they own guns they lawfully purchased."

"Equally problematic is the provision in the legislation prohibiting more than seven rounds in a ten round magazine - something irrelevant to a criminal." Bonacic also stated.

"Under the legislation, magazines people now own, which are capable of holding ten rounds (bullets) continue to be legal, but a person may only load seven rounds in them. It strains credibility to believe a criminal bent on a massacre is going to load only seven bullets in a ten round magazine. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, who erroneously load too many bullets in a magazine, would be criminals under the legislation." the Senator concluded.

The bill was debated in closed door meetings, and if adopted by the New York State Assembly it will see enforced limits on magazines, mandatory license renewal for gun owners every five years, stiffer penalties for bringing guns on school property or using a gun to commit a crime and further restrictions on guns that have been termed "assault weapons".

"Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two ‘military rifle' features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip," CBS reports.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family member would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also, Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

Other provisions would see therapists required to report to the State perceived threats of gun violence by "mental health" patients. Those patients could then have their guns confiscated under the law.

Cuomo told reporters, without providing specifics, that the reason the legislation was being pushed through quickly was to avoid a potential run on sales of such weapons.

When the votes were tallied last night, the bill was overwhelmingly approved 43-18.

Senator Patty Ritchie another of the 18 to vote no on the bill, stated "...attempts to restrict legal ownership and possession of firearms from responsible sportsmen - rather than focusing on criminals - will not enhance the safety of our communities, and deprives law-abiding citizens of an important right under the Constitution of the United States."

Senator James L. Seward added "For the first time, New York will be registering rifles and confiscating private property. We will do background checks on the simple purchase of a box of .22 ammo for squirrel hunting or target practice. Someone who puts eight cartridges in his magazine instead of seven will be a felon. Sadly, these extreme, harsh measures won't stop criminals from getting guns and using them for illegal purposes."

"These reactionary laws force new, onerous regulations on those who meticulously obey the law and infringe on Second Amendment rights... further impeding the rights of law-abiding citizens does nothing to confront gun violence." Seward added.

Saying that he believed the Constitution should be "strictly construed in a manner consistent with the intent of our nation's founding fathers," Senator Lee M. Zeldin, who also voted against the bill noted:

"In our Constitution are certain rights which provide the foundation of America's greatness. Its Second Amendment in no uncertain terms guarantees the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Its purpose was not so much about hunting as it was for a deeper and much more important consideration of our founding fathers. The inspiration for this protection rose out of a fundamental mistrust of government."

"Our great nation was founded on the idea that all people have certain inalienable rights. Our founding fathers understood that these rights were not granted by the government and therefore, shall not be removed by it either." Zeldin stated.

The traditional three-day waiting period for a bill's adoption is being waived by the Democrat-controlled Assembly, again citing a need to rush the bill through to avoid a rush on gun purchases. The Assembly is expected to approve the bill today without hesitation, paving the way for similar gun control measures on a national scale.

The president has said he is weighing as many as 19 different gun control measures that he could take without congressional approval, via executive order


Biden Says Obama to Use "Executive Action" to Restrict Second Amendment

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 9, 2013

On Wednesday during a press conference with attorney general Eric Holder, vice president Joe Biden said president Obama is considering taking "executive action" to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

"The president is going to act," said Biden. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

"As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

In other words, according to the Obama administration and the Justice Department, if trashing the Constitution saves one life, it is worth it.

Issuing an executive action, unlike an executive order, does not modify a law. Executive actions, a Obama administration office told NBC News in October, concern "regulation, enforcement, statements of policy... and numerous other things."

Obama, unlike his predecessors, "is not expanding executive power to meet the demands of an external crisis. Instead, he is counteracting a new pattern of partisan behavior - nonstop congressional obstruction - with a new, partisan pattern of his own," Andrew Romano and Daniel Klaidman wrote for Newsweek prior to the election.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told Newsweek Obama will "work with Congress where we can - and then be willing to act where they won't."

Obama has already used executive action to instruct the ATF to conficate guns. In September, Obama's Justice Department gave the ARF authority to "seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses." In other words, the agency now has the power to seize firearms from people not convicted of a crime or even charged with a crime.
In July, as the Fast and Furious scandal unfolded, Obama's Justice Department devised new rules requiring border-state gun dealers to report large purchases of firearms made by individual buyers over short periods of time.


Obama Would Call on Military to Disarm Americans During National Emergency

Army manual provides blueprint for confiscating guns of rioters and dissidents

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 2, 2013

The blueprint for how Americans would be disarmed during a declared civil emergency is contained in an Army manual that outlines a plan to confiscate firearms to prevent them falling into the hands of rioters or dissidents.

Given the imminent introduction of Senator Dianne Feinstein's draconian gun control legislation, which would instantly criminalize millions of gun owners in the United States if passed, concerns that the Obama administration could launch a massive gun confiscation effort have never been greater.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for "Civil Disturbance Operations" (PDF) dating from 2006.

The document outlines how military assets will be used to "help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order" in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of "deadly force" in confronting "dissidents" are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, "Warning shot will not be fired."

"Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of violence," states the document on page 40.

The issue of gun confiscation is also covered in the manual, which makes clear that every effort will be made to prevent "rioters" and "dissidents" from having access to weapons.

"A main consideration in the conduct of civil disturbance operations is to prevent liquor, drugs, weapons, and ammunition from falling into the hands of rioters. Therefore, liquor stores, drug stores, sporting good shops, pawn shops, and hardware stores are main targets for looters and must be kept under close observation by means of foot and motorized patrols. Normally, businesses of this type must be identified in advance and included in emergency plans," states the manual. (Emphasis added.)

The document also instructs soldiers to protect "control force personnel and civilian dignitaries in the disturbed area" from the violent behavior of "radical or extremist elements" by denying access to "armories, arsenals, hardware, and sporting good stores, pawnshops, and gunsmith establishments, or other places where weapons or ammunition are stored. To conserve manpower, consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores and storing them in a central facility."

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns," New Orleans PoliceSuperintendent Eddie Compass declared as he prepared to violate the Second Amendment. The National Guard conducted warrantless house-to-house searches, targeting not just Hurricane-hit areas under the pretext of stopping violent looters, but also high and dry homes that were not even affected by the storm.
Senate Approves Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens in U.S.

December 26, 2012
Source: All Gov.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was used two years ago to allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, has been approved again by the U.S. Senate. This time, however, lawmakers had the chance to add protections for Americans accused of terrorist ties, and decided against it.

A group of Democrats and Republicans pushed for an amendment to the NDAA that would have prohibited the military from detaining American citizens on U.S. soil. But then a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) removed the provision from the bill.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) blasted McCain and others for stripping away the amendment.

"We had protection in this bill. We passed an amendment that specifically said if you were an American citizen or here legally in the country, you would get a trial by jury," Paul said. "It's been removed because they want the ability to hold American citizens without trial in our country. This is so fundamentally wrong and goes against everything we stand for as a country that it can't go unnoticed."

Minus the amendment, the NDAA easily cleared the Senate on a vote of 81-14. It now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.

-Noel Brinkerhoff