RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny

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

Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), the U.S. Representative responsible for introducing the Cyber Intelligence Security Protection Act to Congress, said that President Obama will sign the bill if it passes the Senate, despite an earlier White House promise to veto.

"[I]f we can get a bill on information-sharing to the president's desk, he'll sign it. I do believe that," Rogers said Monday after a panel discussion. CISPA passed the House of Representatives in April, and is expected to go before the Senate for a vote in late June or July.

In April, Obama's advisers released a statement that condemned CISPA for the exact reasons most privacy advocates have: that under the guise of protecting the country from cyber attacks, the bill would allow companies to share a wealth of otherwise private user information with the government, with little recourse for users.

However, as the Daily Dot noted in May, one of Obama's top advisers on cybersecurity, Howard Schmidt, retired a month after that statement's release. Schmidt was openly against CISPA, and he likely played a key role in shaping the White House's stance on the bill.

The White House has expressed a favorable stance to another cybersecurity bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which critics say violate citizens' privacy in ways similar to CISPA.

Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who introduced that bill to the Senate, has warned his colleagues that unless they vote on it by July, it likely won't pass.

Rogers also said that he thought CISPA could pass the Senate, but that Lieberman's bill couldn't. Lieberman has promised to retire in January and has said that passing a cybersecurity bill before then is his highest priority.

Once the "dust settles," Rogers predicted, Obama's only option to enforce U.S. cybersecurity will be to sign CISPA

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.

April 19, 2013
Source: Minds.com

Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva, the Boston bombing suspect's mother, thinks this whole thing is a set up.

Business Insider says: Tsarnaeva said that Tamerlan Tsarnaev got involved in "religious politics" five years ago, and that the FBI had previously contacted her about her son's activities.

She says:

"He was controlled by the FBI, like for three, five years," she said. "They knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions and what sites on the Internet he was going [to], they used to come...and talk to me...they were telling me that he was really a serious leader and they were afraid of him."
"How could this happen?...They were controlling every step of him, and they are telling today that this is a terrorist attack," she added.

Further she says:

"FBI, they were scared of my oldest son, they always told me that he's a leader...they are afraid of him because, you know, he is a leader, he talks about Islam a lot."

"They were talking to my son, and they called me officially and they told me that my son is an excellent boy and they have no problem with him," she added. "At the same time, they were telling me that...he is getting information on really extremists...sites, so they were very, very afraid of him. So that's why I think that this is a setup."

Busines Insider further says: "Tamerlan, 26, died Thursday night in a shootout with Boston Police. A manhunt is still underway for Tsarnaeva's younger son, Dzhoker, 19."

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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

Failure to sign agreement at ITU conference stops governments having greater powers to control phone calls and data

Friday 14 December 2012

A proposed global telecoms treaty that would give national governments control of the internet has been blocked by the US and key western and African nations. They said they are "not able to sign the agreement in its current form" at the end of a International Telecoms Union (ITU) conference in Dubai.

The proposals, coming after two weeks of complex negotiation, would have given individual governments greater powers to control international phone calls and data traffic, but were opposed as the conference had seemed to be drawing to a close late on Thursday.

The move seems to safeguard the role of the internet as an unregulated, international service that runs on top of telecoms systems free of direct interference by national governments.

The US was first to declare its opposition to the draft treaty. "It is with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that I have to announce that the United States must communicate that it is unable to sign the agreement in its current form," Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation, told the conference, after what had looked like a final draft was approved.

"The internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN regulation. We candidly cannot support an ITU Treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance."

The US was joined in its opposition by the UK, Canada, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Qatar and Sweden. All said they would not sign the proposed final text, meaning that although a number of other countries will sign it, the treaty cannot be effectively implemented.

"In the end, the ITU and the conference chair, having backed themselves to the edge of a cliff, dared governments to push them off," commented Kieren McCarthy, who runs the internet consultancy dot-nxt. "They duly did."

But Access Now, a lobbying group against ITU oversight of the internet, said that "despite all of the assurances of the ITU secretariat that the WCIT wouldn't discuss internet governance, the final treaty text contains a resolution that explicitly 'instructs the [ITU] secretary-general to take the necessary steps for the ITU to play and active and constructive role in... the internet.'" It urged governments not to sign it.

The ITU is a UN organisation responsible for coordinating telecoms use around the world. The conference was meant to update international treaties which have not evolved since 1988, before the introduction of the internet.

But the conference has been the source of huge controversy because the ITU has been accused of seeking to take control of the internet, and negotiating behind closed doors. Google has mounted a vociferous campaign against conference proposals that would have meant that content providers could be charged for sending data and which would have given national governments more control of how the internet works. Instead, lobbyists have said the treaties should simply not mention the internet at all because it is a service that runs atop telecoms systems.

But a bloc led by Russia, with China and the United Arab Emirates - where the conference is being held - said the internet should be part of the treaties because it travels over telecoms networks. A Russia-driven vote late on Wednesday seemed to push to include the internet in a resolution - a move the US disagreed with.

The failure to reach accord could mean that there will be regional differences in internet efficacy. "Maybe in the future we could come to a fragmented internet," Andrey Mukhanov, of Russia's Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, told the Reuters news agency. "That would be negative for all, and I hope our American and European colleagues come to a constructive position."

The US and Europe have indicated that they instead want private companies to drive internet standards.

McCarthy, who has published ITU planning documents that would otherwise have been kept out of sight on dot-nxt's website, criticised the conduct of the meeting: "attendees were stunned to find a conference style and approach stuck in the 1970s," he said.

Writing on the dot-nxt site, he said: "A constant stream of information was available only in downloadable Word documents; disagreement was dealt with by increasingly small, closed groups of key government officials; voting was carried out by delegates physically raising large yellow paddles, and counted by staff who walked around the room; meetings ran until the early hours of the morning, and "consensus by exhaustion" was the only fall-back position."

Attempts by the ITU to encourage the US to sign the proposed treaty by removing clauses - such as one that would give individual countries rights over website addresses - failed

Collectivists exploit mass shooting to demonize their political adversaries

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
December 17, 2012

The finger of blame for Friday's Sandy Hook school massacre has been firmly pointed at gun owners since the very first moments after the tragedy became public, but an additional scapegoat has now been identified - preppers.

"The mother of Adam Lanza, the gunman who killed 20 children and six adults in one of America's worst ever school massacres, was a "survivalist" preparing for economic and social collapse, it has emerged," reports the London Independent.

Lanza used three of his mother's guns to carry out the shooting. Marsha Lanza underwent rigorous background checks and waiting periods before she was allowed to purchase the firearms.

It is now being implied that because Marsha Lanza was "self-reliant," had readied herself for an "economic collapse," and was proficient with firearms, that this rubbed off on her son and was a driving force behind the massacre.

The obvious inference being made is that anyone who buys storable food, owns firearms and is knowledgeable about societal and economic threats is potentially a mass murderer who needs to be watched very carefully, which is a meme that has already been making the rounds in recent months.

Because Marsha Lanza owned ten guns this means she somehow "stockpiled weapons" as part of her "paranoid" fantasies about doomsday.

It's particularly cynical that Marsha Lanza's lifestyle is being subtly blamed for the murder of 20 children given that she was the very first victim of Adam Lanza's rampage.

Yahoo 7 News reports that, "Investigators are turning towards Nancy Lanza's supposed identification as a survivalist," as one of the contributing factors towards the shooting.

The stabbing of 23 children over in China last week is also being fed into the talking point, with reports that the killer Min Yongjun was "psychologically affected" by doomsday predictions.

How long is it before the establishment begins to parrot the line that preppers are suffering from a "psychological disorder" and need to be prevented by law from owning guns?

Preppers are a prime target for the establishment because they represent the polar opposite of collectivists. With increasing numbers of Americans becoming self-sufficient, a system that draws its power from overly dependent people is naturally inclined to demonize preppers.

So-called "doomsday preppers" have come under increasing scrutiny in recent months.

In early November, 46-year-old Terry Porter became a target for undercover police in Maryland as a result of a neighbor telling cops that he had guns, had made anti-Obama statements, and was a "prepper". After cops uncovered a 20-year-old drug conviction, Porter was raided by 150 heavily armed police and arrested.

We have previously documented the fact that so-called "preppers," who given the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy should be being lauded by the authorities as a good example to other Americans, are now being treated as terrorists.

Flyers aimed at Military Surplus stores produced under the auspices of the FBI's Communities Against Terrorism project earlier this year characterized bulk buying of food - a staple of prepper behavior - as a potential terrorist activity.

Earlier this year we also reported on the case of David Sarti, who was featured in National Geographic's Doomsday Preppers show. Sarti visited his doctor complaining of chest pains, only to have the doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alert authorities, before Sarti was declared "mentally defective" and put on an FBI list that stripped him of his second amendment rights

Mike Adams
Natural News
December 15, 2012

The national media is ablaze today with coverage of the tragic elementary school shooting in Newtown, CT, where 27 people have reportedly been killed, including 18 children.

As always, when violent shootings take place, honest journalists are forced to ask the question: "Does this fit the pattern of other staged shootings?"

One of the most important red flags of a staged shooting is a second gunman, indicating the shooting was coordinated and planned. There are often mind control elements at work in many of these shootings. The Aurora "Batman" shooter James Holmes, for example, was a graduate student actually working on mind control technologies funded by the U.S. government. There were also chemical mind control elements linked to Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter of Congresswomen Giffords in Arizona in 2011.

According to multiple eyewitness reports from Aurora, Colorado, including at least one caught on camera by mainstream media news reports in Colorado, James Holmes did not operate alone. There was a second shooter involved. But the media quickly eliminated any mention of a second shooter from its coverage, resorting to the typical cover story of a "lone gunman."

Today, the exact same thing is happening with the Newton, CT school shooting.

Eyewitness reports of a second shooter now being "scrubbed" from the news
As the story of this shooting was first breaking, the news was reporting a second gunman.

FoxNews reported that this second gunman was "led out of the woods by officers" and then questioned. The original source of this report was the Connecticut Post.

A local CBS affiliate was also reporting the existence of a second gunman and said "Police believe there may be a second gunman and are looking for a red or maroon van with its back window blown out..."

ABC News also originally reported, "A second gunman is apparently at large. Car-to-car searches are underway."

A local CT CBS affiliate was also reporting, "CBS News reports that a potential second shooter is in custody and that SWAT is now investigating the home of the suspect. A witness tells WFSB-TV that a second man was taken out of the woods in handcuffs wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants and telling parents on the scene, ‘I did not do it.'"

But the more recent stories being put out by the media are scrubbing any mention of a second gunman and going with the "lone gunman" explanation, which holds about as much water as the "lone gunman" explanation of the JFK assassination.

"A lone gunman killed 27 people at an elementary school here, including 18 children, in a terrifying early Friday morning shooting spree," reports USA Today. It makes no mention whatsoever of a second gunman.

NBC News is also now chiming in with the "lone gunman" version of the story, eliminating any mention of a second gunman from its coverage of the tragic event.

Another story authored by NBC News carries the title, "26 dead after lone gunman assaults Connecticut elementary school." Once again, no mention of a second gunman as reported by eyewitnesses.

When key elements of the story keeps changing, something is fishy

Journalists are trained to ask questions, and one of the questions I have right now is: Why was the second gunman suddenly dropped from media coverage after the first few hours of this story developing?

And why is there always a second gunman in these recent mass shootings that seem to be engineered to maximize emotional shock value due to the sheer horror of all the innocent deaths?

This story is continuing to develop, and we'll keep asking questions here on Natural News. Our hearts and prayers go out to the children and families impacted by this violent tragedy. Given the terrible loss of life that has taken place here, shouldn't we all seek to get to the bottom of WHY these shootings all seem to fit a common pattern of multiple mind-controlled shooters followed by an almost immediate media cover-up of the facts?

For the sake of those children who were killed today, I want to get to the bottom of this and expose the REAL story, for the purpose of stopping this violence from targeting yet more innocents in the future.

December 6, 2012

Source: The Tenth Amendment Center

A bill condemning detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act and blocking any state cooperation with federal agents attempting to detain people in Michigan without due process unanimously passed the Michigan House Wednesday.

HB5768 declares, "no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on official state duty shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act..."

It passed 107-0.

Bill sponsor Rep. Tom McMillin was jubilant after the vote.

"My bill opposing NDAA's indefinite detention, and taking away due process, and prohibiting the Michigan government from participating passed the House today. On to the State Senate," he said.

A large coalition of grassroots activists spanning the political spectrum, including the Tenth Amendment Center, supported the bill and lobbied for its passage.

"There has been a lot of debate about the Feinstein amendment recently passed in the U.S. Senate. Will it really protect Americans from indefinite detention? Or is the language too broad? State actions like the one taken in Michigan today protect people no matter what they come up with in D.C.," Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said. "Even if the Feinstein amendment sticks, it still expressly claims congressional power to pass legislation to detain people on U.S. soil. It is the duty of state legislatures to interpose and stop the progress of evil. And what can be more evil than government-sanctioned kidnapping? Don't let caterwauling in D.C. distract you. Keep pressing your state lawmakers to take action."

By David Kravet
12.03.12

There's a lot of sky-is-falling doomsday predictions about the World Conference on International Telecommunications, which opens Monday in Dubai with some 190-plus nations discussing the global internet's future.

That's because much of the accompanying proposals from the global community have been kept under lock and key, although some of the positions of nations have been leaked and published online.

The idea behind the meetings is to update the International Telecommunications Regulations governed by the International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations agency known as the ITU, that is responsible for global communication technologies.

But the outcome of the two-week session isn't likely to make much change, as no proposal will be accepted if not agreed to by all nations. And the biggest fear - that the session will lead to net censorship - has already come to pass.

"Member States already have the right, as stated in Article 34 of the Constitution of ITU, to block any private telecommunications that appear ‘dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency.' The treaty regulations cannot override the Constitution," said Hamadoun Touré, the ITU Secretary-General.

Emma Llanso, a policy attorney with the Center for Democracy & Technology, said proposals by various governments to treat internet connections like the telephone system are cause for concern regarding privacy and the unfettered, free flow of information.

But there is no "doomsday" internet kill switch scenario, she said.

"There's not going to be some kind of doomsday scenario that there's a treaty that makes the internet go dark," Llanso said. "What we're seeing is governments putting forward visions of the internet and having discussions."

The last time the International Telecommunication Regulations global treaty was considered was in 1988. But technology has changed dramatically in the past 25 years.

On the table for discussion are spectrum and technology standards to improve global interoperability and efficiency. Cybersecurity, spam and data retention are also on the table.

Brett Solomon, executive director of Access, a digital rights group, is livid that the debate will be done largely in secret, with limited input from stakeholders.

"The ITU and its member states have attempted to respond to our criticisms and other challenges about the WCIT, but they fail to address the critical flaw: It's a closed, government-controlled agency that should not be making decisions about internet policy," he said. "Such decisions necessarily require the participation of governments and the private sector and civil society."

The United States is battling plans to treat the internet like the telephone when it comes to transmission agreements. Some European and Middle Eastern members are calling for so-called termination fees, in which networks where a web session begins must pay the routing cost for the session's destination - like phone companies work with phone calls.

"That model, in general, lends itself to fewer providers, higher prices, slower take-up of internet, slower economic growth," said Terry Kramer, the head of the U.S. delegation.

Llanso said termination fees, which would obviously be paid for by consumers, also opens the door to more internet monitoring.

"You can also read it as a campaign," she said, "to make all internet communication more traceable and more trackable, invading users' privacy."

Friday, 30 November 201
Houston Free Thinkers

At first glance it looked like the 2013 version National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) did more to protect Americans against indefinite detention. We and several other news organizations reported as much yesterday.

But on closer examination the new NDAA actually makes it EASIER to detain citizens indefinitely.

Here's the added clause in question:

"Nothing in the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights."

Yesterday we focused on the line "nothing ... shall be construed to deny ... any constitutional Rights ..."

But today we offer another interpretation from Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the group of journalists and activists suing the government over the 2012 NDAA.

Afran explained that the new provision gives U.S. citizens a right to go to civilian (i.e. Article III) court based on "any [applicable] constitutional rights," but since there are are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-americans-indefinite-detention2012-11#ixzz2DkQe8qSk

Nov 29, 2012 WASHINGTON, D.C.

This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment No. 3018 to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, which protects the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to indefinite detention and the right to a trial by jury.

The amendment passed, 67-29.

Moments before the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to again voice his support for the amendment and inspire his colleagues to do the same.
TRANSCRIPT:

I want to congratulate my colleagues on -- even though they appear to sometimes have disdain to the trial by jury, to now appear to be supporting the right to trial by jury. And I congratulate them on their conversion. I think they're still a little bit confused on Hamdi.

Hamdi had to do with the citizen fighting overseas and nothing to do with the citizen here. I have great confidence that the Supreme Court, given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to trial by jury whether they were appointed by Ronald Reagan or President Obama. So we'll have that fight on another day. I will say, though, that our oath of office says that we will defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.

I met with cadets this week and they asked me about, 'what is the freedom we fight for?' The freedom we fight for is the Bill of Rights, it is the Constitution. If we have careless disregard for the Constitution, what are we fighting for?

I will tell you since I know this record of this debate will be widely read, that I want to make former objection to the crazy bastards standard. I don't really think that if we're going to have a crazy bastard standard that we shouldn't have a right to trial by jury, because if we're going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sakes - would you not want if you're a crazy bastard to have a right to trial by jury?

I think this is a very serious debate and should not be made frivolous. This is an ancient right that we have defended for 800 years, for goodness sakes. To say that habeas is due process is absurd. It's the beginning of due process. If you don't have a right to trial by jury, you do not have due process. You do not have a Constitution. What are you fighting against and for if you throw the Constitution out? If you throw the Sixth Amendment out? It's in the body of our Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. It's in every constitution in the United States. For goodness sakes, the trial by jury has been a long-standing and ancient and noble right. For goodness sakes, let's not scrap it now.

I will accept victory today. I hope we will win victory and reaffirm the right to trial by jury, but let's don't play any games with any aspect and really believe that any Supreme Court in the United States, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, is going to say that an American citizen does not have a right to trial by jury.

Health care reform is a hot topic today, as it has been for much of America's history. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned in 1787 that medical freedom needed to be included in the American Constitution. Without this protection, Rush warned that the medical establishment would naturally progress - as many of mankind's institutions do - into an oppressive dictatorship. His words, echoing from over 200 years ago, ring strikingly true today:

Benjamin Rush, Founding Father ."The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. ... Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers."

The spirit of managerial scientific control that drives this beast is summarized in the words of Frederick Taylor, a pioneer in "scientific management." As Taylor stated in 1907, "Too great liberty results in a large number of people going wrong who would be right if they had been forced into good habits." This spirit of quasi-altruistic scientific control begins to fade away towards the higher ranks of the system, however.

The potential for medical tyranny that Benjamin Rush perceived over 200 years ago crystallized when the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations transformed the American medical establishment in the early 20th Century. They strove to create a system of schooling to manufacture a predictable, rule following group of professionals to enforce the establishment regulations. Additionally, tax exempt foundations - through their grant making power - are able to mold the idea-sphere from which medical research emerges, or is suppressed.

The dictatorial health care model as expressed by "obamacare" is being implemented as part of a larger global program. The World Health Organization announced recently that it hopes to implement - via a U.N. resolution - "universal health coverage" across the globe in fulfillment of its Millennium Development Goals. The Rockefeller Foundation is working with WHO in the project. "There is a global movement towards UHC (Universal Health Care) and it is gathering momentum," said Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation.

If you don't want the kind of care that the allopathic establishment prescribes, be prepared to face the consequences.

A Minnesota mother was recently brought to court over refusing chemotherapy for her 8 year old daughter. A doctor apparently reported her to CPS. She was "...ordered into court and told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah."

Another case involved a Pennsylvania mother who declined to vaccinate her child, resulting in a visit from CPS.

A 2009 case in which a 13 year old boy's parents refused chemo resulted in a judgement of "medical neglect," denying the right of his parents to refuse treatment on religious grounds.

The bottom line is this: Even if the medical establishment had our best interests at heart, what happens when their science is wrong? What happens when it is skewed in favor of the corporations that are closely aligned with them? What kind of damage is done when it is universally enforced? Benjamin Rush foresaw this danger, and it is time to face it for the reality it has become.

The Giant Currency Superstorm That Is Coming To The Shores Of America When The Dollar Dies

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Nov 28, 2012

By recklessly printing, borrowing and spending money, our authorities are absolutely shredding confidence in the U.S. dollar. The rest of the world is watching this nonsense, and at some point they are going to give up on the U.S. dollar and throw their hands up in the air. When that happens, it is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the U.S. economy. Right now, we export a lot of our inflation. Each year, we buy far more from the rest of the world than they buy from us, and so the rest of the world ends up with giant piles of U.S. dollars. This works out pretty well for them, because the U.S. dollar is the primary reserve currency of the world and is used in international trade far more than any other currency is. Back in 1999, the percentage of foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars peaked at 71 percent, and since then it has slid back to62.2 percent. But that is still an overwhelming amount. We can print, borrow and spend like crazy because the rest of the world is there to soak up our excess dollars because they need them to trade with one another. But what will happen someday if the rest of the world decides to reject the U.S. dollar? At that point we would see a tsunami of U.S. dollars come flooding back to this country. Just take a moment and think of the worst superstorm that you can possibly imagine, and then replace every drop of rain with a dollar bill. The giant currency superstorm that will eventually hit this nation will be far worse than that.

Most Americans don't realize that there are far more dollars in use in the rest of the world than in the United States itself. The following is from a scholarly article by Linda Goldberg...

The dollar is a major form of cash currency around the world. The majority of dollar banknotes are estimated to be held outside the US. More than 70% of hundred-dollar notes and nearly 60% of twenty- and fifty-dollar notes are held abroad, while two-thirds of all US banknotes have been in circulation outside the country since 1990

For decades we have been exporting gigantic quantities of our currency.

So what would happen if that process suddenly reversed and massive piles of dollars started coming back into the country?

It is frightening to think about.

Well, I guess the key is to get the rest of the world to continue to have confidence in the U.S. dollar so that will never happen, right?

Unfortunately, there are lots of signs that the rest of the world is accelerating their move away from the U.S. dollar.

For example, it was recently announced that the BRICS countries are developing their own version of the World Bank...

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bloc has begun planning its own development bank and a new bailout fund which would be created by pooling together an estimated $240 billion in foreign exchange reserves, according to diplomatic sources. To get a sense of how significant the proposed fund would be, the fund would be larger than the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 150 countries, according to Russia and India Report.

And as I noted in a previous article, over the past few years there have been a whole host of new international currency agreements that encourage the use of national currencies over the U.S. dollar. Will this movement soon become a stampede away from the U.S. dollar?

That is a very important question.

But you don't hear anything about this in the U.S. media and our politicians are not talking about this at all.

Meanwhile, our "leaders" seem to be doing everything that they can to destroy confidence in the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve is printing money like there is no tomorrow, and the federal government continues to run up trillion dollar deficits year after year.

They do not seem to understand that they are systematically destroying the U.S. financial system.

Other world leaders get it. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin once said the following...

"Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."
Wow.

Why can't most of our politicians see how destructive debt is?

What the federal government continues to do is absolutely insane. The national debt increased by more than 24 billion dollars on the day after Thanksgiving this year. But utter disaster has not struck yet, and most Americans are not really that concerned about the debt. So things just keep rolling along.

And of course our national debt of $16,309,738,056,362.44 is nothing when compared to the future liabilities that our federal government is facing. Just check out what a recent article in the Wall Street Journal had to say about all this...

The actual liabilities of the federal government-including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits-already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Other economists paint an even gloomier picture. According to economist Niall Ferguson, the U.S. government is facing future unfunded liabilities of 238 trillion dollars.

So where are we going to get all that money?

Well, why don't we just print more money than ever before so that the U.S. government can borrow and spend more money than ever before?

Don't laugh. That is actually what some of the top economists in the country are actually recommending.

The most famous economic journalist in the entire country, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, is boldly proclaiming that the solution to all of our problems is to print, borrow and spend a lot more money. He insists that there is no reason to fear that the giant mountain of debt that we are accumulating will someday collapse the system...

For we have our own currency - and almost all of our debt, both private and public, is denominated in dollars. So our government, unlike the Greek government, literally can't run out of money. After all, it can print the stuff. So there's almost no risk that America will default on its debt - I'd say no risk at all if it weren't for the possibility that Republicans would once again try to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling.

But if the U.S. government prints money to pay its bills, won't that lead to inflation? No, not if the economy is still depressed.

Now, it's true that investors might start to expect higher inflation some years down the road. They might also push down the value of the dollar. Both of these things, however, would actually help rather than hurt the U.S. economy right now: expected inflation would discourage corporations and families from sitting on cash, while a weaker dollar would make our exports more competitive.

Of course what he is prescribing is complete and utter madness.

At some point this con game is going to collapse and the rest of the world is going to say a big, fat, resounding "NO" to the U.S. dollar.

Why should they continue to use a currency that is becoming extremely unstable and that is constantly being manipulated?

And when the rest of the world rejects the U.S. dollar, the value of the dollar will drop like a rock because there will be far less global demand for it.

In addition, if the rest of the world is not using the U.S. dollar for trade any longer, other nations will cease to soak up our excess currency and huge mountains of our currency that are floating around out there will start flooding back to our shores.

At that point we will be looking at inflation unlike anything we have ever seen before. The era of cheap imports will be over and we will pay far more for everything from oil to the foreign-made plastic trinkets that we buy at Wal-Mart.

Most Americans don't even know what a "reserve currency" is, but when the U.S. dollar loses reserve currency status it is going to unleash a nightmare that most economists cannot even imagine.

So enjoy this holiday season while you can. There are still lots and lots of cheap imports filling the shelves of our stores.

Once the coming giant currency superstorm strikes, we will dearly wish for the good old days of 2012.

Yes, the U.S. dollar is alive and ticking for now. But at the pace that our authorities are abusing it, I would not say that things are looking good for a long and healthy lifespan.

Not that Romney would have been any better, of course

Mike Adams
Natural News
Nov 7, 2012

As of this writing, it looks like Obama has a lock on the electoral college victory, although it simultaneously appears he has lost the popular vote to Romney.

What does an Obama re-election mean for the next four years in America? Now that he's in his second and last term, of course, Obama no longer needs to restrain his actions according to popularity. He can simply unleash any desirable executive order and rule by decree, bypassing Congress as he has frequently promised to do.

This puts America in a very dangerous situation, given Obama's well-demonstrated desire to destroy freedom and liberty in America. Remember: Obama is anti health freedom, anti food freedom, anti GMO labeling, anti medical freedom and anti farm freedom. He's the one who issued an executive order claiming government ownership over all farms and farm equipment, in case you forgot that little fact.

He's also the guy who just recently issued an executive order merging Homeland Security with local corporate entities to grant the executive branch of government a power monopoly over the nation, bypassing the courts and Congress. You probably haven't even heard about that one, because he secretly signed it during Hurricane Sandy.

Given Obama's atrocious track record on freedom during his first four years in the White House, here are my top 10 predictions for the next four (if America even lasts that long before ripping itself apart):

#1) Huge expansion of TSA and the surveillance state

Watch for TSA to expand its occupation of America by setting up checkpoints on roadways, sporting events, malls and "surprise" locations. Expect to see TSA agents become even more belligerent and lawless as they ramp up their sexual molestation of innocent victims.

#2) Expansion of secret arrests of American citizens

Obama secretly signed the NDAA, legalizing the secret arrests of U.S. citizens while denying them due process. Obama also authorized secret "kill lists" that claim to authorize the U.S. government to assassinate targeted individuals.

With his re-election in place, expect Obama to start issuing a mass of "kill orders" that will even start targeting political opponents.

#3) Acceleration of national debt blowout and endless fiat currency creation

Under Obama, the national debt experienced a massive blowout where Obama added trillions of dollars to the existing debt: www.USdebtclock.org

Right now, Obama is overseeing a trillion dollars a year in additional debt - an amount that simply cannot be sustained without running smack into a financial catastrophe. It now appears that financial collapse it going to occur under Obama, not Romney.

#4) Rapid expansion of GMOs and USDA collusion

Monsanto and the biotech corporations have thrived under the Obama administration thanks to USDA collusion and scientific fraud.

Over the next four years, expect GMOs to dominate the U.S. food supply while the Obama White House rejects any effort to try to label GMOs on a national basis.

#5) Increasingly dictatorial government health care

Obamacare will grow like a cancer, pushing Americans into mandatory vaccinations that inject children with mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum.

Look for the Obama administration to wage even more wars against raw milk freedom, farm freedom and food freedom, all while requiring yet more foods to be pasteurized or fumigated under the guise of "food safety."

#6) Immediate surge in sales of guns and ammo

Obama has promised to try to destroy the Second Amendment and deny Americans the liberty to own firearms. With his re-election, expect to see a massive surge in gun sales as more people attempt to stock up in anticipation of gun bans (or government gun confiscation).

#7) Accelerated erosion of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties

Under Obama, civil rights, human rights and the Bill of Rights will be rapidly eroded. This goes hand in hand with the cancerous growth of government. As government expands its power and confiscates more economic resources, it simultaneously destroys individual liberties and due process.

This isn't to say that Romney would have been any better, of course. Both candidates were philosophically invested in the rapid expansion of Big Government.

#8) Continued destruction and looting of the U.S. economy

Under Obama, the financial looting of the U.S. economy by the global bankster elite will continue. The same would have been true with Romney, by the way.

Under Obama, America's unemployment rate will continue to head skyward, entitlements will be expanded, and the USA will be plunged into a tyrannical welfare state dominated by mindless zombies who have no cognitive grasp of reality.

#9) A "giant sucking sound" of employers leaving America

Ross Perot was right! That "giant sucking sound" is the sound of employers leaving America in droves, hiring offshore workers instead of creating jobs in the USA. And why? Because employers can't afford to pay Obamacare mandates and still stay competitive in the global marketplace.

#10) Stepped-up attacks on veterans and preppers

Returning U.S. veterans will continue to be vilified by the Obama administration, to the point where even more veterans will be arrested as "terrorists" for engaging in fundamental preparedness strategies such as storing food, water, medicine and ammo.

Watch for the liberal media to join the White House in painting veterans as "dangerous" individuals needing psychiatric medications. Never mind the fact that the media owes preppers a huge apology in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

There's A Huge Plan In The Works To Give The UN Control Of The Internet

Rob Lever, Agence France Presse
Oct. 29, 2012,

It is expected to be the mother of all cyber diplomatic battles.

When delegates gather in Dubai in December for an obscure UN agency meeting, fighting is expected to be intense over proposals to rewrite global telecom rules to effectively give the United Nations control over the Internet.

Russia, China and other countries back a move to place the Internet under the authority of the International Telecommunications Union, a UN agency that sets technical standards for global phone calls.

U.S. officials say placing the Internet under U.N. control would undermine the freewheeling nature of cyberspace, which promotes open commerce and free expression, and could give a green light for some countries to crack down on dissidents.

Observers say a number of authoritarian states will back the move, and that the major Western nations will oppose it, meaning the developing world could make a difference.

"The most likely outcome is a tie, and if that happens there won't be any dramatic changes, although that could change if the developing countries make a big push," said James Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"But there is a lot of discontent with how the Internet is governed and the US will have to deal with that at some point."

Lewis said there was still an overwhelming perception that the US owns and manages the Internet. Opponents have a "powerful argument" to create a global authority to manage the Internet, Lewis said, but "we need to find some way to accommodate national laws in a way that doesn't sacrifice human rights."

Terry Kramer, the special US envoy for the talks, has expressed Washington's position opposing proposals by Russia, China and others to expand the ITU's authority to regulate the Internet.

"The Internet has grown precisely because it has not been micro-managed or owned by any government or multinational organization," Kramer told a recent forum.

"There is no Internet central office. Its openness and decentralization are its strengths."

The head of the ITU, Hamadoun Toure, said his agency has "the depth of experience that comes from being the world's longest established intergovernmental organization."

Toure wrote in the British newspaper The Guardian that any change in regulation should "express the common will of ITU's major stakeholders" and "find win-win solutions that will act as a positive catalyst."

But Harold Feld of the US-based non-government group Public Knowledge said any new rules could have devastating consequences.

"These proposals, from the Russian Federation and several Arab states, would for the first time explicitly embrace the concept that governments have a right to control online communications and disrupt Internet access services," Feld said on a blog post.

"This would reverse the trend of the last few years increasingly finding that such actions violate fundamental human rights."

Paul Rohmeyer, who follows cybersecurity at the Stevens Institute of Technology, pointed to a "sense of anxiety" about the meeting in part because of a lack of transparency.

He said it was unclear why the ITU is being considered for a role in the Internet.

"The ITU historically has been a standards-setting body and its roots are in the telecom industry. I'm not familiar with anything they've done that's had an impact on the Internet today," Rohmeyer told AFP.

And the analyst noted that the significance of extending "governance" of the Internet to the ITU remains unclear.

Some observers point out that the ITU hired a Russian security firm to investigate the Flame virus, which sparked concerns about the dangers in cyberspace and the need for better cybersecurity cooperation.

Rohmeyer said it was unclear whether a conspiracy was at hand, but that "the suggestion that the Internet is a dangerous place could be used to justify greater controls."

Observers are also troubled by a proposal by European telecom operators seeking to shift the cost of communication from the receiving party to the sender. This could mean huge costs for US Internet giants like Facebook and Google.

"This would create a new revenue stream for corrupt, autocratic regimes and raise the cost of accessing international websites and information on the Internet," said Eli Dourado of George Mason University.

Milton Mueller, a professor of information studies at Syracuse University who specializes in Internet governance, said most of the concerns are being blown out of proportion.

Mueller said the ITU "already recognizes the sovereign right of nations to restrict communications into and out of the country."

"What gets lost in the confusion over content regulation is that the real motive of most of the reactionary governments is to protect themselves from economic competition caused by telecom liberalization and deregulation, of which the Internet is only one part," he said.

By Alex Thomas
theintelhub.com
October 27, 2012

An independent website that has a real-time sensor network from over 28 sensors placed in rural areas across the United States has recorded the strongest HAARP readings in the projects history.

The readings, in and around the New England area, are literally off the charts and lend credence to other claims that Hurricane Sandy is possibly being engineered to cause massive destruction.

Screen shot of the readings taken by HaarpStatus.com

In a Facebook post, the HAARP monitoring website posted this startling description above the photo of the readings:

Strongest readings in the history of this project have peaked. A never before seen white-shade indicates that a value higher than 10 on the

1-10 scale has been indicated. It has no color assigned!

HaarpStatus has finally come to a bullseye over what looks like Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Current projections at NOAA say Hurricane Sandy will hit New Jersey. Our status numbers disagree. The storm is being steered toward the higher concentration numbers.

Truly remarkable numbers and it is one to archive because this may never be seen again in a very long time.

A post on theWeatherSpace.com also reported on the readings from HAARP Status and confirmed that these readings have, until now, been unheard of.

The article noted that while the National Weather Service is claiming that the hurricane is set to hit New Jersey, HAARP Status is predicting landfall in New England. (which is where the off the chart HAARP patterns has been recorded.)

"I've never seen it that white before," said TheWeatherSpace.com Senior Meteorologist Kevin Martin.

"They indicate the white means higher than their values can hold so whatever it is is a bad signals."

Regardless of where the hurricane actually hits, these readings seem to indicate that some sort of engineering of the storm has taken place whether or not it was to push the storm into the country or away from it remains up to the reader to decide.

Interestingly, this remarkable info comes as many in the alternative media have speculated whether or not Sandy was being engineered in order to somehow disrupt the elections.

The fact that this storm could very well knock out power throughout the east coast, therefore completely and totally disrupting the election as a way to somehow keep Obama in power, is detailed meticulously.

This is a very important point when you consider that we now apparently have off the chart HAARP readings throughout the east coast.

The obvious hope is that the storm will decrease in strength as it moves closer to the United States and this may very well happen but the fact remains that weather modification is a 100% real, declassified FACT and ignoring its possibility would be outright

United Nations report calls for Internet surveillance, saying lack of "internationally agreed framework for retention of data" is a problem, as are open Wi-Fi networks in airports, cafes, and libraries.

by Declan McCullagh
October 22, 2012

The United Nations is calling for more surveillance of Internet users, saying it would help to investigate and prosecute terrorists.

A 148-page report (PDF) released today titled "The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes" warns that terrorists are using social networks and other sharing sites including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Dropbox, to spread "propaganda."

"Potential terrorists use advanced communications technology often involving the Internet to reach a worldwide audience with relative anonymity and at a low cost," said Yury Fedotov, executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

The report, released at a conference in Vienna convened by UNODC, concludes that "one of the major problems confronting all law enforcement agencies is the lack of an internationally agreed framework for retention of data held by ISPs." Europe, but not the U.S. or most other nations, has enacted a mandatory data-retention law.

That echoes the U.S. Department of Justice's lobbying efforts aimed at convincing Congress to require Internet service providers to keep track of their customers -- in case police want to review those logs in the future. Privacy groups mounted a campaign earlier this year against the legislation, which has already been approved by a House committee.

The report, however, indicates it would be desirable for certain Web sites -- such as instant-messaging services and VoIP providers like Skype -- to keep records of "communication over the Internet such as chat room postings." That goes beyond what the proposed U.S. legislation, which targets only broadband and wireless providers, would cover.

Other excerpts from the UN report address:

Open Wi-Fi networks: "Requiring registration for the use of Wi-Fi networks or cybercafes could provide an important data source for criminal investigations... There is some doubt about the utility of targeting such measures at Internet cafes only when other forms of public Internet access (e.g. airports, libraries and public Wi-Fi hotspots) offer criminals (including terrorists) the same access opportunities and are unregulated."

Cell phone tracking: "Location data is also important when used by law enforcement to exclude suspects from crime scenes and to verify alibis."

Terror video games: "Video footage of violent acts of terrorism or video games developed by terrorist organizations that simulate acts of terrorism and encourage the user to engage in role-play, by acting the part of a virtual terrorist."

Paying companies for surveillance: "It is therefore desirable that Governments provide a clear legal basis for the obligations placed on private sector parties, including... how the cost of providing such capabilities is to be met."

Today's U.N. report was produced in collaboration with the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, which counts the World Bank, Interpol, the World Health Organization, and the International Monetary Fund as members.

October 16, 2012
Source: All Africa

Report gathered by this paper has revealed that Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf's interest in hosting in Liberia a base for the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) appears to have had more to do with protecting the George Soros and Rothschild mining operations in West Africa than in championing stability and human rights.

George Soros is a Hungarian-American business magnate, investor, philosopher and philanthropist. The 82- year-old is the chairman of Soros Fund Management, and also the chairman of the Open Society Institute.

HE IS THE NEW YORK HEDGE FUND MANAGER AND ONE OF THE MOS

Since the mid-1980s in particular, he has used his immense influence to help reconfigure the political landscapes of several countries around the world-in some cases playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government for years, even decades. Vis à vis the United States, a strong case can be made for the claim that Soros today affects American politics and culture more profoundly than any other living person.

The report, which was published online nearly a year now, indicates that for the sole purpose of protecting the George Soros and Rothschild mining operations in West Africa, President Johnson-Sirleaf and her friend Leymah Gbowee received two Nobel gold medals to help the Rothschild/Soros team control all the gold metal," adding, "A little gold for all the gold."

The report divulges that: "As with so many international constructs that started out with good intentions, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, like the International Olympic Committee, has become contrivances for global corporations," adding that: "It is now clear that the decision by the Nobel committee to award the Nobel Peace Prize to two Liberian women, along with a female Yemeni human rights campaigner, was to engage in a bit of influence-peddling in mineral resource-rich West Africa while also attempting to recognize the "Arab Spring" democracy movement."

The report avers that, While the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Yemeni human rights activist seems appropriate, considering the work she has done to oust Yemen's brutal dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh from power, the awarding of the Peace Prize gold medals to Liberian President Johnson-Sirleaf and Liberian human rights activist Leymah Gbowee, just before the Liberian presidential election in 2011, appears to be a blatant act of trying to influence the outcome of the election and rewarding the Liberian leader for her support for the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

"In addition to being Africa's first elected female head of state, the report adds, "Sirleaf also has the distinction of being the only African head of state to offer AFRICOM a base of operations and headquarters in Africa - Liberia."

According to the report, "Sirleaf's invitation to AFRICOM was unsettling to many Liberians who are cognizant of Liberia's past as a colony founded by freed slaves from the United States and run for decades by a series of American-Liberian dictators who acted as virtual proxies for Washington and the Firestone Rubber Corporation."

The report maintains that President Johnson-Sirleaf was implicated in supporting Liberia's brutal dictator, Charles Taylor, in a report issued in 2009 by the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), but she rejected the TRC report and also reneged on her promise to serve only one term as president.

Winston Tubman, the nephew of Liberia's long-serving President William Tubman and who ran against then candidate Johnson-Sirleaf, the report indicates, "questioned the timing of the Nobel Committee's awarding of the peace prize to his opponent, only a few days before the October 11 election," adding that "It is also noteworthy that after the announcement of this year's Nobel awards, Gbowee, the other Liberian peace prize awardee, endorsed Sirleaf's re-election."

"Sirleaf, a Harvard graduate, has long been a darling of George Soros's "human rights" and "civil society" contrivances, including the Open Society Institute and Foundation," says the report. The report states that: "On September 9, 2008, WMR reported: "Soros is a close friend of Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a former Vice President of Equator Bank in Washington, DC. Equator was later bought by HSBC, which, not surprisingly is a financial partner of Soros."

"Soros has much more of an interest in Liberia and surrounding countries - including Ivory Coast, which saw French troops fight troops loyal to ousted president Laurent Gbagbo to install a Rothschild/Soros-run World Bank veteran, Alassane Ouattara and his French Zionist wife, into power - than promoting "civil society," the report adds.

The report unveils that: "Liberia is a nexus for gold mining and Soros's senior partner, Nathaniel Rothschild, is, according to WMR's sources, buying up all the world's gold mines in anticipation of the collapse of several world currencies, including the euro and the dollar."

"Rothschild and Soros, through Rothschild-controlled Newmont Mining Corporation, along with other Rothschild-controlled companies like Vallar and Glencore, are currently moving in to buy up gold mining companies and mining operations in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Peru, Ghana, Guinea, Canada, Namibia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Sierra Leone, and Liberia," the report among others stated.

When the 2nd Vice Presidential Press Secretary of President Johnson-Sirleaf, Mr. Christopher Sele was Monday 8 October 2012 contacted via cell phone for the Liberian leader's reaction to the report, an unidentified individual believed to be a staff member of the office of the Presidential Press Secretary, answered the call and stated that he [Mr. Sele] was upstairs, but promised that Mr. Sele would immediately return the call. However, neither did the unidentified staff nor Mr. Sele return the call up to press time.

Everything is rigged - health, politics, finance and more - but here's how to beat the system

Mike Adams
Natural News
Oct 11, 2012

I've been pondering this topic for weeks, trying to find the words to communicate the full impact of this realization to which we are all increasingly awakening. Everything is rigged... the stock market, the news, the food, your taxes, public schools, the health care system, and on and on. Even Lance Armstrong's cycling victories were all apparently rigged (with doping), we're now finding out.

But what do I mean by "rigged" specifically? All these systems and industries are rigged to cheat you, to suppress you, and ultimately to suppress your human potential.

Think about it. The sick-care system is intentionally engineered to give you cancer, keep you sick, and keep you locked into a medical system that enriches powerful corporations while sacrificing human life.

The financial system is rigged to quietly steal the value of your money through endless monetary creation also known as "quantitative easing." The more money the Fed prints, the less valuable the money you worked so hard to earn is left remaining.

The political system is utterly rigged to give you the illusion of choice while parading in front of you two puppets of different skin colors who both serve the same masters (the banksters).

The food system is rigged with GMOs that actually poison you while spreading genetic pollution across farms and fields everywhere.

The news is utterly and comprehensively rigged, and this was highlighted yet again by former CNN star reporter Amber Lyon who just went public with scathing accusations about how CNN allowed foreign terror regimes to actually BUY positive coverage on CNN's broadcasts! This story is absolutely astonishing, and the very best interview of Amber Lyon exposing all this was conducted by Alex Jones and is found on YouTube.com. (Must-see video.) See Amber Lyon's website at: http://www.amberlyonlive.com

The justice system is ridiculously rigged. A woman was arrested a few weeks ago and charged with a felony crime for drawing on the sidewalk with chalk. Meanwhile, absolute evil-minded criminals like Jon Corzine and Eric Holder go free with no prosecution whatsoever. The criminals run free while the innocent are persecuted.

"Science" is largely rigged. Science journals are all dominated by Big Pharma advertising money, and nearly all the so-called science you see in the news anymore is just a regurgitation of fabricated research from corporate science whores who have sold their integrity for a paycheck. Much of the effort behind "science" today is spent reinforcing a monopoly over medicine by pushing deadly vaccines while disparaging healing plants and nutrients.

Government regulators are completely rigged. The FDA looks out primarily for the interests of Monsanto and drug companies, not the safety of the American people. The USDA is completely beholden to the biotech industry and the meat factory giants, routinely betraying Americans with its decisions.

Private property is rigged. Thanks to unconstitutional property taxes, you never really "own" your land. Instead, you lease it from the government. Don't believe me? Try not paying property taxes and see what happens. Your property will soon be seized at gunpoint and taken over by the government.

Even WAR is completely rigged. Wars are started with false flag attacks engineered by the imperialist USA, then all the reporting on war is completely censored to shield the American public from the truth of how horrifying it really is. The entire experience of war is sanitized, processed, homogenized... just like the processed cow's milk you're (hopefully not) drinking.

How do you beat a rigged system? Don't play!

With all these systems rigged against you, how do you stand a chance of getting ahead? As every Vegas gambler knows deep down, the only way to beat the house is to not play against the house. Don't play their game, in other words.

Instead of sending your children to government-run indoctrination centers known as public schools, home school them.

Instead of watching cable news propaganda, turn off the TV and get your news from independent online media like Natural News or one of our fan sites such as Natural News tracker.

Instead of being victimized by toxic GMO food, buy organic and avoid the GMOs.

Instead of falling for vaccines and prescription drugs, say NO to vaccines and dangerous drugs. Turn to nutrition and superfoods instead!

Instead of putting all your savings and investments in the fiat currency known as the dollar, diversify your holdings into precious metals, non-U.S. currencies, farm land and other stores of real value.

Instead of voting for the next presidential puppet, simply don't vote for any president! The mere act of voting for a presidential candidate legitimizes the corrupt system. (Yes, it's definitely important to vote for local candidates and ballot measures like Proposition 37 in California.)

The point of all this is that you can't beat a rigged system. That's why it's rigged, of course: to make sure you never come out on top. So stop playing in the rigged system! The house always wins, didn't you know? That's how casinos make money, and it's how nearly everything else works, too.

Levels of awakening

The path to true freedom begins with recognizing just how completely all the systems are rigged against you. Only from there can you withdraw your consent from all the rigged systems that are insidiously working to keep you sick, suppressed, impoverished and ignorant.

From there, focus your power and your effort inward, asking self-empowering questions like how can I become better informed and educated? How can I gain new skills? How can I improve my health and set myself free from the medical enslavement system? In time, these questions will transform to more broad questions such as: How can I contribute something meaningful to the world? What can I do to serve in the defense of life and truth?

These are levels of awareness / awakening. I describe them like this:

Level 0 - "Zombie"
This is the default level of total ignorance at which 90% of the population operates. They have no clue about anything that matters such as how fiat currency systems operate, natural cures for cancer, the true dangers of vaccines, how television manipulates their behavior and so on. (These people are often experts in sports and TV sitcoms, however.)

Level 1 - "Awakened"
This level is achieved when a person realizes something along the lines of "Hey, I'm living in a dream world. I'm being told lies at every turn. What is real? How can I know what is real?" This is where people start asking questions.

Level 2 - "Informed"
A level 2 person is someone who has taught themselves a significant amount of real history and the way the world really works. This person will have knowledge of politics, psychology, world history, economics, natural health, the natural world (water, ecosystems, soils, etc.), basic anatomy, basic science and so on. Not even 1% of the population today qualifies as level 2. Most people operate in a state of wild ignorance of the world around them.

Level 3 - "Mastery"
A level 3 person not only understands a great deal about the real world around them, they have also grasped ways to navigate through that world with great accomplishment and influence. They are innovators, creators and often communicators. Financial achievement is not the purpose here. Rather, it is achieving relevance in a world largely populated by utterly irrelevant people.

Level 4 - "Enlightenment"
This level is only achieved by those of the highest dedication to spiritual awakening. You would typically only find this level of understanding in people who pursue a lifetime practice of prayer, or transcendental meditation, or a similar spiritual practice. At this level of awareness, individuals become withdrawn from the material world and really have no interest in interacting with individuals of lower levels of awareness. Far less than one in a million human beings will ever achieve level 4 "Enlightenment."

Just to review these levels again, here are some of the keywords and concepts that typically relate to people of each level:

Level 0 - "Zombie" - Football, sports scores, TV sitcoms, processed junk food, vaccinations, playing the lotto, following doctors' orders, submitting to apparent authority, going along with the status quo.

Level 1 - "Awakened" - Asks questions. Reads ingredients on foods. Questions their doctor. Watches documentaries instead of sports. Attempts to assess information and think rationally. Questions false authority.

Level 2 - "Informed" - Reads books. Explores alternative information. Invests in self-education. Participates in activism. Seeks to make changes in the world around them. Speaks out with friends. Challenges people's beliefs. Reflects on their own beliefs and is capable of adaptation.

Level 3 - "Mastery" - Has great influence. Creates things. Innovates. Provides solutions. Invents new things. No television. No vaccines. No junk food. Has a very long-term perspective. Understands the "big picture." Seeks to help others. Has compassion for living things. Recognizes the web of life on our planet.

Level 4 - "Enlightenment" - Realizes the great illusion of life. Embraces immortality of consciousness and the human spirit. Expresses compassion for others but not intervention. Never seeks to "change" others, only to invite them to expand their awareness. Recognizes interconnectedness of all life systems. Sees the human life experience in a humorous light. Is able to tap into higher consciousness. Rarely seeks fame and not interested in financial success. Often abandons all material wealth.

Remember: The rigged systems in place today want to suppress your rise from Level 0 to Level 4. They wish to keep you as dumbed-down as possible so that you never become fully aware of what's really happening around you. Only by refusing to participate in those systems do you have a real opportunity to move up the levels and achieve the only thing that really matters: High-level consciousness.

If you'd like to learn more on this subject, check out my related website www.DivinityNow.com

Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy

October 5, 2012
By Jurriaan Maessen
Explosivereports.com

On October 2nd a retired demographer at the World Bank admitted that vaccination campaigns are an integral part of the World Bank's population policies. John F. May, the Bank's leading demographer from 1992 to 2012, told the French web journal Sens Public (and in turn transcribed by the think-tank May works for) that vaccination campaigns, especially in so-called "high-fertility countries", are means to achieve population reduction in those countries. May:

"The means used to implement population policies are "policy levers" or targeted actions such as vaccination campaigns or family planning to change certain key variables."

Defining "population policy" as "a set of interventions implemented by government officials to better manage demographic variables and to try to attune population changes (number, structure by age and breakdown) to the country's development aspirations", May continues to explain that the World Bank is taking up the lead role in achieving general population reduction.

It is not the first time that World Bank officials boast about their willingness to implement strict population control policies in the Third World. In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using "sterilization vans" and "camps" to facilitate its sterilization policies for the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing the bank's population policies with "drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.":

"Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.", the report states.

Some of those steps are now being taken.

A study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology in May of 2011 concluded that "nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates." (page 8).

After an in-depth study into the effects of vaccine-coverage in relation to mortality rates among infants, the authors Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman came to this disturbing conclusion and advised that "a closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential."- but naively concluded that "All nations-rich and poor, advanced and developing-have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals."

The authors cannot be expected to know that, actually, that the desired goals are exactly being achieved. Their final point is significant in this regard, that they obviously were not working on the notion that vaccines were harmful and obviously drew their final conclusions on the basis of the idea that the increase in high mortality rates among infants were unintended. The opposite is the case. The World Health Organization, the World Bank, The UN environmental department, the UN Population Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and all the other arms of the creature we call the scientific dictatorship are closing in on all of humanity with mass-scale vaccination programmes and genetically engineered food.

Where the mantra used to be "to combat global warming, we need a one world government", now it sounds something along the lines of "when we wish to eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers, by the way." Any pretext will do. More recently it were oceans in need that prompted the World Bank to initiate a global "alliance". The same argument can of course be applied and is being applied to every other possible calamity.

Following this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to pretexts under which global population control can be sold. Want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. The scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.

Under the guidance of Ban Ki-moon's top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé's Pejman Rohani and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology of infectious diseases. They write that the "poverty trap may (...) be broken by improving health conditions of the population."

The question that arises, of course, is how to improve "health conditions". In another study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:

""(...) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases."

Earlier that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well... eradicate humans.

"We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud", Bonds writes.

"(...) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction."

"This model", Bond continues, "is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time."

If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:

"Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?"

The answer to that question is given by Bill Gates in 2010 when he promoted using vaccines to lower the population by 10 to 15%:

Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mas-scale fertility reduction. The religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.

It wasn't the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:

"We're in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth's processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle," he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development."

"We don't necessarily need diplomats around the table", Sachs continued. "We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process."

What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He stated in an Economist publication in 2000:

"The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish."

I don't have to remind readers that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and developed vaccines designed to reduce your fertility, and intended to distribute these vaccines on a mass-scale.

In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns, Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:

"We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it."

As Paul Joseph Watson reported in his September 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change to Poverty, the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is moving forward is undergoing a transformation. The focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to "reduce fertility." Global government, in other words, to facilitate global scientific

Central Bankers Inflate Fiat While Plans for One World Currency Are
Finalized

Susanne Posel
October 2, 2012

According to Deutsche Bank analysts Daniel Brebner and Xiao Fu, gold is "not really a commodity at all." Berbner and Fu explain: "While it is included in the commodities basket it is in fact a medium of exchange and one that is officially recognized (if not publically used as such). We see gold as an officially recognized form of money for one primary reason: it is widely held by most of the world's larger central banks as a component of reserves."

Gold is deemed "good money" and fiat currency is represented as "bad money" because the central banking cartels confuse the worth of paper over precious metals to keep the populace in the dark as to currency value to claim a monopoly over worth and circulation as well as hoard precious metals for consumption purposes.

Berbner and Fu further elaborate that: "Fiat currencies physically have no use other than that which is prescribed to them by government and accepted by the public. That fiat currencies cost little to produce is of a secondary concern and we believe, quite irrelevant to the primary purpose."

This month, the Vatican has announced their support of a new global bank. They have endorsed the UN's endeavor toward global governance over all fiat currency - as long as they are anointed to participate in the sovereign powers of such an institution.

The Vatican believes that the Bible imbues them with "super authority" over any emerging global financial system. This may explain how they have been used as a shell bank for JPMorgan Chase and other private banking corporations as a money laundering house. These actions by the lackeys for the central banking cartels have evaded persecution and criminal retribution amid mysterious deaths such as Cardinal Paul Marcinkus in 2009 in Arizona after being involved with money laundering for international criminal syndicates.

Having the current incarnation of a global over-reaching religion that pacifies millions of people worldwide on the board of directors of a world bank that controls all fiat currency would be advantageous for the global Elite, as well as the papal bankers.

Propaganda supporting a one world currency pervades the mainstream. Paul Solman, correspondent for the PBS NewsHour purveys the positive propaganda of one world currency by asserting that: "Ah, the dream: one world, one economy, one currency - and, of course, one global political system . . . a common currency means a common economic policy . . ."
Likewise, The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a group of technocrats that represent 420 banking cartels and financing houses have joined the cry for a one world currency.

Charles Dallara, managing director of the IIF, said: "A core group of the world's leading economies need to come together and hammer out an understanding. The narrowly focused unilateral and bilateral policy actions seen in recent months - including many proposed and actual measures on trade, currency intervention and monetary policy - have contributed to worsening underlying macroeconomic imbalances. They have also led to growing protectionist pressures as countries scramble for export markets as a source of growth."

In May, The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has issued a report that proposes that the current system of world currencies and capital rules that govern the world's economy need to be altered in order to stabilize our economic crisis.

UNCTAD wants to see the BRICs countries, known as the non-aligned nations, considered surplus nations, cut their imbalances, thereby taking the financial burden off of the UK and US as upholding the global reserve currency. A global monetary system that replaces the US dollar as the global reserve currency will accomplish this goal.

The UN proposes a complete overhaul. In the report "Adapting the International Monetary System to Face 21st Century Challenges", they call for "more intense debate on and reforms to the international monetary system imply that the current system is unable to respond appropriately and adequately to challenges that have appeared, or become more acute, in recent years. This paper focuses on four such challenges: ensuring an orderly exit from global imbalances, facilitating more complementary adjustments between surplus and deficit countries without recessionary impacts, better supporting international trade by reducing currency volatility and better providing development and climate finance. After describing them, it proposes reforms to enable the international monetary system to better respond to these challenges."

They recommend movement toward a global currency that will replace all current currencies. Revaluation will be accessed and the worth of money would redistribute with oversight of the IMF, WTO and ultimately the UN.

In April, at the BRICs summit in New Delhi, the leaders in attendance discussed how to move away from the US dollar as the global reserve currency. Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, explained: "One of the priorities of BRICs for the years to come should be the strengthening and key role of the UN's Security Council in maintaining international peace and security. And also ensuring that the UN is not used as a cover for regime change and unilateral actions to resolve conflict situations."

BRICs surmised that a "basket currency" could allow non-aligned countries to trade with each other without the fears that the central banks and their fiat currency entail. This would serve as an alternative to the US dollar and the Euro. It would empower other nations to rise up economically.

In a stance against the US dollar, BRICs countries have already begun to trade amongst themselves using approved currencies that are backed by precious metals. The IMF and World Bank are alarmed by this move and highly disapprove of it.

At the same time, China was stock piling gold to back-up their fiat currency. The purpose is to secure their country's future by converting fiat to exchangeable currency, as well as use it as a leveraging tool to assist failing nations as insurance for a favor at a later date.

Subversively, the Obama administration made investing in America easier for China. China was able to buy 35% of any auction of US Treasury bonds. This was achieved through proxy. By the intent of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed), China may have been broken financially through inflation brought on by the Fed.

Because Bernanke values the US dollar, he knows ahead of time what he will have to pay and can set up the perfect situation to make sure he pays what he wants.

Inflation is a direct result of the actions by the Fed. They print fiat US dollars in excess of the available monies and flood the monetary system. This drives prices higher because it takes more US dollars to equal the amount of a US dollar. Currently, the US dollar is sitting at a worth of $03.8 cents.

At a Senate Budget Committee meeting in April, Bernanke used fear to coerce lawmakers on Capitol Hill. He stated: "Sustained high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private investment and increase our debt to foreigners, with adverse long-run effects on US output, incomes, and standards of living. Moreover, diminishing investor confidence that deficits will be brought under control would ultimately lead to sharply rising interest rates on government debt and, potentially, to broader financial turmoil. In a vicious circle, high and rising interest rates would cause debt-service payments on the federal debt to grow even faster, resulting in further increases in the debt-to-GDP ratio and making fiscal adjustment all the more difficult."

Just this past week, Bernanke announced QE3, an indefinite purchasing of mortgage-backed securities at $40 billion per month which will devastate the US dollar's value through infinite printing of fiat and a "regressive redistribution program".

The central bankers are intentionally destroying the US dollar because out of the ashes, they have planned a global fiat that will eventually replace all fiat across the globe.

Sen. Lieberman Urges President Obama to Sign Executive Order to Take Over the Internet

September 27, 2012
By Lone Star Watchdog

It is more and more brazen everyday. The political establishment hates our free speech. They hate the fact they no longer have a monopoly on the flow of information nor control the news anymore. The internet and alternative media now dominates the information war. They are losing the Public relations battle where a good majority of the American people have lost faith in the government and now see them as a threat to our freedom and security as a nation.

Even the political elite Zbigneiw Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton stated we have lost the information war. That is because the internet has bypassed the main stream dinosaur media. The major news outlets and newspapers have been losing viewers and readers because they are seen as a propaganda arm. They are losing revenue and are on the verge of collapse because they cannot compete with the alternative media.

The former Democrat and now Independent Senator from Connecticut Joseph Lieberman who is a Israeli duel citizen wants war with Iran. Sen Lieberman is the head Chairmen of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee wants the President to sign the Executive Order to take over the Internet. The White House has sent a five page draft out to certain members of congress. Since the Authoritarians in Congress could not get Internet bills like SOPA and CISPA passed because they kill free speech to pass the Legislation process.

The Government, the mainstream media and the Neo-Con radio has been exposed colluding together to keep people believing in a false paradigm. Rush Limbaugh has been caught having phony phone calls into his radio show to the Media staging an incidents to see an agenda is being blown wide open as a hoax. They cannot sell the war with Iran or Syria. The reason we are in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been discredited. The tactic of false flag attacks has been uncovered. The false left-right, Republican-Democrat and Liberal-Conservative two party system paradigm is falling apart.

Lets make taking over the internet an election loser like gun control. Touch our guns and the internet. They are out of office. The authoritarians in Washington need to be removed from power. They have shown their true colors, they hate freedom, the hate the right to keep and bear arms. The government taking over the internet show they hate our free speech the most. Freedom of speech will prevail regardless how hard they try to silence us by censoring the Internet.

Our Bill of Rights and the Internet belongs to the people, it is not the governments. Do not lose heart, we are winning to fight for freedom. This tyranny is in the final death throws of an empire collapsing. They are desperate and panicking. The internet will stay free and always be free.

LRAD Sonic Weapons To Be Deployed "Throughout" America For Crises

Devices commonly used by police to quell civil unrest, disperse protests

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 27, 2012

The U.S. Air National Guard has purchased half a million dollars worth of portable LRAD acoustic systems, which are commonly used by police to quell protests and civil unrest, ensuring that the sonic weapons will be deployed "throughout" America during upcoming national emergencies and other crises.

LRAD Corporation has received an order worth $550,00 from the Air National Guard to ship LRAD 100X devices this quarter.

"With this order, LRAD systems will be in use by every major force of the Department of Defense," Tom Brown, president and CEO of LRAD told Government Security News. "The Air National Guard will be deploying the LRAD 100X systems throughout the country to support and assist civil authorities in the event of severe natural or man-made disasters. LRAD systems have proven highly effective in communicating warnings, instructions and commands over wide areas before, during, and in the aftermath of catastrophes."

As well as being powerful communication devices, LRADs emit piercing sounds that amount to nothing less than auditory torture, and serve to disperse people from geographical areas, breaking up demonstrations and other gatherings.

Larger versions of the LRAD, previously used against Somali pirates and insurgents in Afghanistan, are increasingly being deployed inside America. In 2009, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department deployed an LRAD against people going to a town hall meeting.

The largest version of the LRAD is routinely used to break up "unlawful assemblies" at protests of global summits,including at the 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh, during which an LRAD was used to terrify local residents who weren't even involved in the protest.

The LRAD 100X is weather proof, able to be heard clearly at distances of 600 meters and is 20 to 30 decibels louder than a standard bullhorn. The sound which the device is capable of emitting to disperse people is both a tool of torture and psychological warfare. Despite being described as "non-lethal," the most powerful versions of the device can kill under certain conditions.

Studies have found that the type of sound waves emitted by the sonic weapon can cause epileptic seizures, long term problems affecting brain tissue, as well as cardiovascular and central nervous system damage in humans.

As we have previously highlighted, preparations on behalf of law enforcement bodies, the federal government and branches of the military for domestic disorder have been ongoing.

The Department of Homeland Security has purchased over 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months alone.

Last year, DHS chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the "shelter" and "processing" of large numbers of people.

The U.S. Army has also been preparing for domestic disorder.

A recently leaked US Army Military Police training manual for "Civil Disturbance Operations" outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

U.S. troops are also being provided with new state of the art headgear in order to carry out "homeland security operations."

Back in 2008 the Washington Post reported how 20,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq would be stationed inside America under Northcom for purposes of "domestic security" from September 2011 onwards.

Northcom officials were forced to subsequently issue a denial after the Army Times initially reported that the troops would be used to deal "with civil unrest and crowd control."

Watch a clip of a larger version of the LRAD dispersing protesters at the 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh, the first time the device was used inside the United States.

New Attack on 2nd Amendment: Obama Says Substance Abusers Cannot Own Firearms

Susanne Posel
September 13, 2012

The Obama Administration through the Justice Department has given the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the authority to "seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses." In effect: those who are convicted of crimes involving alcohol and/or substance abusers will have their right to bear arms revoked.

By misuse of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, constitutional rights can be circumvented while the owner of the property will have it taken without recourse.

In 2010, the Department of Justice published that document entitled, "Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism" wherein the definition of "constitutionalist" is reworked to reflect a "generic term for members of the ‘patriot' movement. It is now often used to refer to members of the sovereign citizen or common law court movement. Sometimes the word ‘constitutionalist' is also used."

This document attempts to down play the term New World Order by explaining it as a term "used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism." This ideal is "targeted by right-wing extremists" as bad yet those types are afraid that "Jewish people ultimately [will] control the world."

The FBI surmises that "Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign' from the United States. As a result, they believe they don't have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement" and that these citizens are a domestic terror threat.

Last month, Brian Loftus, member of Oathkeepers, was unduly harassed for purchasing "a few boxes of ammunition."

Former US Marine Brandon Raub was indefinitely detained in a VA psychiatric hospital for speaking out against the US government on Facebook.

Raub's attorney, John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, has stated that he is receiving correspondence from people across America that report that US veterans are being detained in psychiatric hospitals for speaking out against the US government.

Because of the Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism, the US government is coming after US veterans; decrying them as domestic terrorists, extremists and white supremacists.

In July of this year, Obama vowed to "curb violence in American cities, including reasonable restrictions on gun ownership."

As a Senator, Obama supported and pushed for anti-gun legislation. He admonished Congress back then as being "slow to act" on the issues he felt were an imperative.

During the Fast and Furious scandal it was revealed that the ATF was exposed in emails to have been part of the covert operation that was designed to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3" that would require gun shops and owners to report sales of multiple gun sales to individuals.

In the speech to the National Urban League, Obama eluded to the US government defining and declaring who is mentally stable enough to have the right to gun ownership.

Psychiatric doctors have seen money in the words of Obama and are rallying to claim that supporting the 2nd Amendment is tantamount to having a mental disorder.

Some psychiatrists are asserting that there needs to be a national healthcare approach to the issue of allowing the 2nd Amendment to stand.

Propaganda studies into gun ownership claim that alcohol abuse causes the likelihood of gun-related violence to rise, according to Dr. Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine at the Prevention Research Program.

Banning assault weapons would control the amount of rounds a person could shoot, while the police officers would still be allowed to tout automatic pistols. By restricting gun sales to include minor misdemeanors as well as convicted felons, 40% of gun sales would be curbed. And with the classification of gun support as a mental disorder, more control could be placed on who ultimately can own a gun.

Undercover Austin police officers aided Houston Occupy protesters

September 5, 2012
Houston Chronicle

The bushy-haired, bearded protester called "Butch" didn't say much during the Occupy Austin planning sessions. Instead, he took members aside and pressed them to turn to more aggressive tactics, not a surprising strategy for a national grass-roots movement that has spawned hundreds of arrests.

It turns out that Butch, however, wasn't some wild-eyed activist intent on bringing down the top "1 percent." He was actually Austin police detective Shannon Dowell, working undercover with two other officers who had infiltrated the Austin branch of the protest movement.

"One of the things Shannon especially was doing, he would pull people aside from the general conversation and say debating isn't really the answer. We need to escalate the tactics and move to action," said Austin protester Ronnie Garza. "That's the kind of character we're dealing with."

Garza and six others now face trial on felony charges in Harris County after Houston police arrested him and 19 protesters on Dec. 12 as they tried to block an entrance to the Port of Houston during an Occupy demonstration.

State District Judge Joan Campbell lectured prosecutors during a Wednesday pretrial hearing for Garza about not disclosing the police officers' roles in the case and is now reviewing a large stack of Austin police emails delivered to her court by an Austin assistant city attorney.

Garza and the six other protesters at the December demonstration used "lock boxes," also called "dragon sleeves," to lock their arms inside tubes made of PVC pipe, a tactic designed to prevent authorities from easily removing the restraints while clearing protesters. Detective Dowell purchased and constructed the lock boxes, prosecutors now acknowledge.

'Clearly Brady material'

His role in making the devices is a key element in the case against Garza because prosecutors contend that he and other protesters were in possession of a criminal instrument during the protest, which carries a felony charge. Houston fire officials removed the lock boxes from the protesters after their arrest, using a tent to conceal the operation from the news media and protesters who were filming the event.

Campbell delayed Wednesday's hearing until Sept. 25, when she will rule on whether the undercover police files contain information favorable to Garza that prosecutors must share with the defense, as required by the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Brady vs. Maryland.

But prosecutors told the judge they had no idea the Austin Police Department evidently planted an officer in the movement, until defense attorneys subpoenaed him.

"Had we realized that an undercover officer was involved" and had participated in the construction of the dragon sleeves, "that is clearly Brady material," Harris County prosecutor Colleen Barnett said in an interview after the hearing. "Had we known that, we would have turned it over to the defense."

Chief defends officers

Attorney Glen Gladden, who represents Garza pro bono, said his office received an anonymous tip that Dowell had attended a dinner party and bragged about his undercover work with young protesters in Houston.

"I believe he is a government provocateur," Gladden said. "I didn't find out from the DA's office or the police. I found out because Dowell was bragging to the wrong people about setting these kids up, and they tipped us off. It was his big mouth that got him down here."

Austin Assistant Police Chief Sean Mannix attended the hearing and later defended his officers' conduct.

"I have no reason to believe they behaved improperly," said Mannix, who declined to comment on the mission of the undercover officers.

Campbell also expressed concern about the apparent failure of Austin police to inform the Houston Police Department about its ongoing undercover investigation before the arrests at the port. The judge questioned the safety of HPD officers and the public, citing a scenario where a bomb could have been assembled by the undercover agents and handed over to protesters.

Randall Kallinen, a longtime Houston civil rights attorney, is defending port protester Eric Marquez, who has not been able to make bail because he has a pending theft case in Dallas County.

"It's quite incredible that these Austin police officers would do this stuff, but this has been happening in other cities where agent provocateurs are shutting down protests by showing up in menacing clothing, throwing rocks and doing other disrupting tactics," Kallinen said.

Story completely ignores DHS purchase of 1.4 billion bullets

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Associated Press has launched a whitewash of the recent controversy which saw numerous different branches of the federal government purchase large quantities of ammunition, focusing on the Social Security Administration's purchase of 174,000 bullets while completely ignoring a far larger purchase by the DHS which totaled over 1.4 billion bullets.

In a story entitled Social Security buys 174,000 hollow-point bullets; Internet bursts with conspiracy theories, which was carried by dozens of major newspapers, the AP quotes an Infowars.com story from last month which reported on the SSA's purchase of 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets scheduled to be delivered to 41 locations across the country.

"It's not outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest," we wrote, making reference to a Department of Homeland Security drill earlier this year called Operation Shield, which included turning the entrance of a Florida Social Security office into a checkpoint manned by Federal Protective Service officers armed with semiautomatic rifles.

The AP whitewash fails to mention the DHS exercise, which was geared towards protecting the Social Security office in the event of civil unrest.

According to the AP, "The episode illustrates what can happen when a seemingly salacious tidbit gets amplified and embellished on the Internet," making reference to a Jay Leno skit in which the comedian asked, "What senior citizens are they worried about? I mean, who's going to storm the building?"

However, the larger issue is the fact that the AP story attempts to build a strawman argument by focusing only the SSA's purchase of bullets and completely omitting the far more alarming fact that DHS has purchased over 1.4 billion - that's BILLION with a B - bullets in the past few months alone.

Back in March, Homeland Security put out a solicitation for 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

Although the ammo purchases are ostensibly earmarked for training purposes, the DHS has been reticent to clarify why such an unusually large amount of rounds are necessary and why such powerful bullets are required merely for training drills.

This has led to speculation that the purchases are connected to confirmed preparations for civil unrest in the United States, a claim bolstered by the DHS' purchase of riot gear.

The DHS also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go' lights.

The Associated Press' efforts to portray concern over huge and unprecedented levels of ammunition buys on behalf of the federal government, most notably by the DHS which the AP article refuses to acknowledge, as merely paranoia by Internet conspiracy theorists, is a lazy attempt to downplay the very real preparations for civil unrest that we have documented on numerous occasions over the last five years.

Fusion Center and Police State Ready for DNC Dog and Pony Show

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 3, 2012

Despite a scary FBI bulletin warning that anarchists would use IEDs to create murder and mayhem at the RNC, nothing happened. Police vastly outnumbered protesters and the show went on without a hitch.

The DNC in Charlotte will more than likely be a repeat of the RNC in Tampa, but that hasn't stopped the feds from squandering millions of your hard-earned dollars on a high-tech communications center that is more accurately described as a fusion center.

The Multi-Agency Communication Center is "essentially the guts of the U.S. government - or at least the parts that matter when there's a big, big problem," the Charlotte Observer reported on Saturday. "Fifty-plus agencies have representatives at the center starting Sunday, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Secret Service."

Charlotte cops, the National Guard, "military personnel," and "little-known agencies like the White House Military Office and the Chemical Biological Incidents Response Force" are also on hand just in case anarchists or al-Qaeda bad guys get any funny ideas about interrupting Obama's dog and pony show or threatening "the community, dignitaries and event participants," incidents described as "eventualities" by the government.

If the government has learned anything from past experience, such "eventualities" are a remote possibility inside Charlotte's 100-square block security zone. Most terrorist plots in the United States are hatched by the FBI and government infiltrated anarchist groups are not interested in blowing up bridges with IEDS, as the FBI absurdly claimed prior to the RNC, but usually smash bank windows and trash the local McDonald's.

Despite this, the Air Force is ready "to intercept mysterious planes straying into Charlotte's restricted airspace." Let's hope they do a better job at this then they did on September 11, 2001.

No, the fusion center set-up in Charlotte is not about terrorism. It is about monitoring and neutralizing any opposition that manages to get a foothold inside the sprawling police state zone surrounding the DNC. If the RNC is any indication, though, protests will at best be minimum with negligible coverage by the corporate media as it instead fawningly focuses on Obama and his DNC co-conspirators and cronies.

On Sunday, a March on Wall Street South in Charlotte "drew only a fraction of the turnout organizers were expecting and was as free of mayhem as protests a week earlier outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa. The march had been planned as the centerpiece of the week's protests," reports the Huffington Post.

The lightly attended march was sponsored by the usual suspects, including socialists and the foundation funded and controlled pranksters at Code Pink.

Like the RNC, the establishment's expensive shindig in Charlotte provides a venue to show off the police state in all its authoritarian glory. In addition to thousands of cops from multiple jurisdictions, National Guard troops, and a $50 million grant from you, the American tax payer, to make sure nothing untoward occurs (like meaningful protest), the event will feature TSA goons doing their grope-down thing and the Fourth Amendment will become a quaint relic of the past as cops search everybody and everything at their discretion.

The DNC will feature the police state at its finest. It is another beta test for things to come after the next gaggle of grocery clerks and script readers head for Congress and the White House and the economy finally and irrevocably crashes.

The Manufactured US Veteran Threat Against Obama That Will Justify Martial Law

Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
August 23, 2012

Forget about al-Qaeda and state-sponsored radicalized Muslims, the newest Boogeyman that the US government wants the American public to fear are our own US veterans.

The US Armed Forces are preparing to fight what they call "rahowa" or racial holy war. They claim that white supremacists are joining the military to infiltrate and overthrow what is referred to as the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG). Academics are proposing that the infiltration scheme includes white supremacists hiding their ties to neo-Nazi groups is secret in order to get passed screeners when applying for the armed forces in recruitment offices.

In reality, there is a great deal of former and current soldiers who have realized that our government has been takeover by the global Elite who are the front for the Zionist Movement that have been working in the shadows to instill global governance.

The mainstream media are using the false flag attack on the Sikh Temple because the patsy, Wade Michael Page was a US veteran who was purported to have ties to white supremacy groups according to the FBI-sponsored Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The Pentagon has banned military involvement in any group they deem a threat to the agenda of the US government. Author Matt Kennard has written about how the US military would recruit members of supremacy groups when they could not fill in their ranks by normal means with what was called a "moral waiver".

The SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are working with the military to train soldiers on how to spot extremists in their ranks. These "watchdog groups" point out that some soldiers have tattoos that could be construed as racist.

We can look back at assassination attempts on Obama and see a pattern. They all have been US veterans who were somehow tied to white supremacy groups. This sets the stage for what could be the biggest false flag since 9/11.

Anton Caluori, resident of Federal Way in Washington State, was arrested by the Secret Service who were assisted by paramilitary police, for making threats against President Barack Obama. Caluori showed police his handgun when they came to his door.

Caluori was a US veteran with an impeccable record. His mother told the MSM that her son has a legal permit for a handgun and that he had never done anything wrong before.

A neighbor who refused to be identified also remarked that Caluori was a quiet man who never bothered anyone; however he was being taken to a psychiatric hospital to be evaluated.

Another arbitrary witness claimed that Caluori was wearing an "ammunition belt like Rambo" when he met with the police.
The mainstream media is painting a picture of a man who threatened the police with his firearm. Cathy Schrock, representative for the Federal Way police department said: "The shotgun was coming up to point in the direction of the agents. The two officers were able to close in and take control of the weapon before anyone was harmed."

Curiously, the FBI says Caluori sent a threatening email to the FBI's general email address, according to Emily Langlie, US attorney spokesperson. The details of the email are being kept secret; however Langlie believes that it was a clear threat to kill Obama.

Brian Leary, Secret Service spokesperson in Washington, DC, said that Caluori assaulted one of the police officers that came to arrest him. Leary goes on to say that the email Caluori allegedly sent was "alarming".

According to Schorck, the police who accompanied the Secret Service claim that Caluori had improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in his apartment. The bomb squad was called to the scene. Although no explosives were found, the police continued to tout that they believed it was a viable threat.

This latest threat against Obama has justified the previous fears of possible assassination attempts by white supremacist groups who are upset about having an African-American president. Although Congress passed legislation in 1994 stating that US Presidents would not have Secret Service protection during their lifetime, Obama has had federal agency protection in anticipation of an assassination attempt. Despite the fact that the majority of the "threats" have been negative commentary criticizing Obama's presidency, the Obama administration is convinced that a white supremacist will become a viable threat to Obama's life.

In 2008, Shawn Robert Adolf and Tharin Robert Gartwell were arrested in Denver, Colorado for allegedly stating racist views against the Obama during a meth binge. The two men had rifles, sniper scopes and were reported to be focused on killing Obama before he could become the Democratic Presidential nominee.

That same year, a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina was arrested after having made known his supposed intentions to kidnap Obama and "inflict harm" while being in possession of a military grade sniper rifle.

In the MSM, a story about a Washington, DC police officer that made a threat against the First Lady to fellow officers surfaced, yet just as quickly disappeared. Over breakfast, the officer allegedly said he would shoot Michelle Obama, the showed a picture of a gun he'd use on his cellular phone. Although the officer was not identified the idea was placed into the social meme. And it follows the plans cited by the DHS informant and lends credibility to his story.

In 2010, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis published a report entitled Rightwing Extremism , wherein domestic extremists, particularly white supremacists, were proposed to be the newest and most dangerous threat to the US since al-Qaeda.

Stated in the report, the DHS admitted that they had "no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

The DHS wanted to instill the idea that veterans were being recruited to become "right-wing extremists" upon returned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Janet Napolitano intimated that military veterans could become instruments of domestic terror. When Napolitano's comments were met with public distain, the DHS amended their assertion that extremist groups were highly-marked; but rather it was a lone wolf type that would carry out the biggest act of domestic terrorism.

A DHS whistleblower states that there is a planned false flag attack that will involve a staged assassination attempt on Obama linked to a white supremacist that will incite a race war. Because of the violence, the US government will have to implement martial law to control the population.

The DHS informant stated: "The DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that ‘a civil war' is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it."

Jacob Rothschild, John Paulson And George Soros Are All Betting That Financial Disaster Is Coming

August 21, 2012
Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse

Are you willing to bet against three of the wealthiest men in the entire world? Jacob Rothschild recently bet approximately 200 million dollars that the euro will go down.

Billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson made somewhere around 20 billion dollars betting against the U.S. housing market during the last financial crisis, and now he has made huge bets that the euro will go down and that the price of gold will go up. And as I wrote about in my last article, George Soros put approximately 130 million more dollars into gold last quarter. So will the euro plummet like a rock? Will the price of gold absolutely soar? Well, if a massive financial disaster does occur both of those two things are likely to happen. The European economy is becoming more unstable with each passing day, and investors all over the globe are looking for safe places to put their money. The mainstream media keeps telling us that everything is going to be okay, but the global elite are sending us a much, much different message by their actions. Certainly Rothschild, Paulson and Soros know about things happening in the financial world that the rest of us don't. The fact that they are all behaving in a consistent manner right now should be alarming for all of us.Let's start with Jacob Rothschild. Apparently he believes that the euro is headed for quite a tumble. You know the euro is in deep water when a doyen of the banking industry, Lord Jacob Rothschild takes a £130 million ($200 million) bet against it.

Okay, but the euro has already been falling dramatically. In mid-2011, the EUR/USD was above the 1.40 mark, and right now it is at about 1.23.

Does it really have that much more that it can fall?

If the eurozone ends up breaking apart it sure does.

If there is a Greek default, or if Germany leaves the euro, or if a new currency comes along to replace the euro those currently betting against it will end up looking like geniuses.

Another big name in the financial world that is betting against the euro right now is John Paulson. The following is from a recent Der Spiegel article....

One of these warriors is John Paulson. The hedge fund manager once made billions by betting on a collapse of the American real estate market. Not surprisingly, the financial world sat up and took notice when Paulson, who is now widely despised in America as a crisis profiteer, announced in the spring that he would bet on a collapse of the euro.

And as I noted in my last article, Paulson has also been putting billions of dollars into gold.

So just what are Rothschild and Paulson anticipating?

Could we be on the verge of a massive financial collapse in Europe?

According to the Der Spiegel article mentioned above, a lot of investors seem to be preparing for such a possibility right now....

Banks, companies and investors are preparing themselves for a collapse of the euro. Cross-border bank lending is falling, asset managers are shunning Europe and money is flowing into German real estate and bonds. The euro remains stable against the dollar because America has debt problems too. But unlike the euro, the dollar's structure isn't in doubt.

The financial world is starting to wake up to the fact that the globe is absolutely drowning in debt and it is not really good to be holding fiat currencies when a debt crisis erupts.

When men like John Paulson and George Soros start pouring huge amounts of money into gold, it is time to start becoming alarmed about the state of the global financial system.

The amount of money that these men are investing in gold is staggering....

There was also news last week in an SEC filing that both George Soros and John Paulson had increased their investment in SPDR Gold Trust, the world's largest publicly traded physical gold exchange traded fund (ETF).

Mr Soros upped his stake in the ETF to 884,400 shares from 319,550 and Mr Paulson bought 4.53m shares, bringing his stake to 21.3m.

At the current price of about $156 a share, these are new investments of about $88m of Mr Soros' cash and more than $700m from Mr Paulson's funds. These are significant positions.

And the central banks of the world are certainly buying gold at an unprecedented rate as well. According to the World Gold Council, the central banks of the world added 157.5 metric tons of gold last quarter. That was the biggest move into gold by the central banks of the globe that we have seen in modern financial history.

But that might just be the beginning.

According to a recent Marketwatch article, there are persistent rumors that China has plans to buy thousands of metric tons of gold....

Within the gold market, there is unconfirmed speculation that China plans to buy up to at least 5,000 to 6,000 metric tons of gold and that it will start to buy during this year, according to Kevin Kerr, president of Kerr Trading International.

If China buys this much gold, that would exceed annual, global production of gold, he said. "We do not have enough gold for China to buy that much, and it will take China time to purchase this amount of gold."

So what comes next?

Nobody is quite sure.

Another major financial crisis could erupt in Europe at any moment.

A major war in the Middle East could start literally at any time.

Renowned investor Jim Rogers believes that things are really going to get "bad after the next election".

Others believe that the action could start even sooner than that.

The truth is that even though we have not seen a "Lehman Brothers moment" yet, things in Europe just continue to get progressively worse. The following is from a recent article by Mark E. Grant....

Whether you turn your attention to Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal or even Ireland; it is getting worse. Nowhere on the Continent are things improving and even in France and Germany the financial strains are beginning to show. It is not a question of Euro-bear or Euro-bull; it is just the numbers as they come rolling out month after month.

There is a growing realization in Europe that the euro simply does not work. Italy is absolutely drowning in debt, the Spanish economy has basically descended into a depression, and Greece has been experiencing depression-like conditions for years at this point.

The euro is doomed. The only question is who is going to blink first.

Nobody wants to be the first to leave the euro. There are rumblings that it could actually be Finland that leaves the euro first, and that would please Germany just fine because they don't want to look like the bad guys in all of this.

But that doesn't mean that Germany won't eventually pull the trigger if nobody else does. The German public is sick and tired of bailing out the weak sisters of southern Europe, and at this point it looks like it would take perpetual bailouts just to keep the euro together.

And recently there have been lots of little signs that Germany is starting to move slowly toward the exit doors.

In fact, I found it quite interesting that a giant euro sculpture was recently removed from the Frankfurt International Airport....

A massive € sculpture (identical to the one in front of the European Central Bank) was dismantled and removed from the Frankfurt International Airport in Germany Thursday.

The official explanation is ‘the plastic parts are getting weak after 11 years and the terminal needed the space‘.

Does € sculpture's removal from the Frankfurt Airport indicate Germany is preparing for a surprise return to the Deutsche Mark?

Sure that might just be a coincidence, but it also could be a harbinger of things to come.

Sadly, most average people living in North America and Europe have absolutely no idea what is coming. Most of them just want to be able to get up in the morning and go to work and pay the bills and take care of their families.

Unfortunately, millions upon millions of those hard working individuals are in for a very rude awakening.

A lot of people are about to have their current lifestyles totally turned upside down.

But it doesn't have to be all bad.

In fact, I found it very interesting to read about how some young people are responding to the depression in Greece....

In the spring of 2010, just as the Greek government was embarking on some of its harshest austerity measures, 29-year-old Apostolos Sianos packed in his well-paid job as a website designer, gave up his Athens apartment and walked away from modern civilisation.

In the foothills of Mount Telaithrion on the Greek island of Evia, Mr Sianos and three other like-minded Athenians set up an eco-community.

The idea was to live in an entirely sustainable way, free from the ties of money and cut off from the national electricity grid.

The group sleeps communally in yurts they have built themselves, they grow their own food and exchange the surplus in the nearest village for any necessities they cannot produce.

I think there is a lesson to be learned there.

When the system fails, it is going to be important to be able to live independently of the system.

Governments and big banks all over the world have been rapidly preparing for the coming financial collapse.

Perhaps the rest of us should be too.

If you can believe it, 77 percent of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck at least some of the time.

If another major economic crisis comes along, many of those people are going to be totally wiped out.

And there are already signs that the U.S. economy is basically on life support at this point.

Just look at the velocity of money.

In an economy that is growing and healthy, money tends to circulate very, very quickly.

But when an economy is sick, money tends to circulate very slowly.

And that is exactly what is happening right now. In fact, the velocity of money is currently at the lowest level in modern U.S. history....

For much more discussion on this, please check out this article.

This is exactly what happened back in the 1930s. The velocity of money absolutely plummeted. When people are scared, credit is tight and times are hard, money does not exchange hands as rapidly.

But this is just the beginning.

What we are experiencing right now is rip-roaring prosperity compared to what is coming.

Jacob Rothschild, John Paulson and George Soros are preparing themselves for the tremendous chaos that is coming.

Are you getting prepared?

Startling Evidence That Central Banks And Wall Street Insiders Are Rapidly Preparing For Something BIG

August 17, 2012
Source: Michael Snyder, BLN Contributing Writer

If you want to figure out what is going to happen next in the financial markets, carefully watch what the insiders are doing. Those that are "connected" have access to far better sources of information than the rest of us have, and if they hear that something big is coming up they will often make very significant moves with their money in anticipation of what is about to happen. Right now, Wall Street insiders and central banks all around the globe are making some very unusual moves. In fact, they appear to be rapidly preparing for something really big. So exactly what are they up to? In a previous article entitled "Are The Government And The Big Banks Quietly Preparing For An Imminent Financial Collapse?", I speculated that they may be preparing for a financial meltdown of some sort. As I noted in that article, more than 600 banking executives have resigned from their positions over the past 12 months, and I have been personally told that a substantial number of Wall Street bankers have been shopping for "prepper properties" this summer. But now even more evidence has emerged that quiet preparations are being made for an imminent financial collapse. That doesn't guarantee that something will happen or won't happen. Like any good detective, we are gathering clues and trying to figure out what the evidence is telling us.

Why Is George Soros Selling So Much Stock And Buying So Much Gold?

I am certainly not a fan of George Soros. He has funneled millions upon millions of dollars into organizations that are trying to take America in the exact wrong direction.

However, I do recognize that he is extremely well connected in the financial world. Soros is almost always ahead of the curve on financial matters, and if something big is going to go down George Soros is probably going to know about it ahead of time.

That is why it is very alarming that he has dumped all of his banking stocks and that he is massively hoarding gold. The following is from shtfplan.com....

In a harbinger of what may be coming our way in the Fall of 2012, billionaire financier George Soros has sold all of his equity positions in major financial stocks according to a 13-F report filedwith the SEC for the quarter ending June 30, 2012.

Soros, who manages funds through various accounts in the US and the Cayman Islands, has reportedly unloaded over one million shares of stock in financial companies and banks that include Citigroup (420,000 shares), JP Morgan (701,400 shares) and Goldman Sachs (120,000 shares). The total value of the stock sales amounts to nearly $50 million.

What's equally as interesting as his sale of major financials is where Soros has shifted his money. At the same time he was selling bank stocks, he was acquiring some 884,000 shares (approx. $130 million) of Gold via the SPDR Gold Trust.

Why would you dump over a million shares of stock in major banks and purchase more than 100 million dollars worth of gold?

Well, it would make perfect sense if you believed that a collapse of the financial system was about to happen.

Earlier this year, George Soros told the following to Newsweek....

"I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I've experienced in my career," Soros tells Newsweek. "We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system."

It looks like he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Perhaps even more disturbing is what he believes is coming after the financial collapse....

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. "Yes, yes, yes," he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. "It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States."

That doesn't sound good.

George Soros has told us what he believes is going to happen, and now he is making moves with his money that indicate that he is convinced that it is actually about to start happening.

But he is not the only one that has been busy accumulating gold.

Billionaire John Paulson (the one that made 20 billion dollars on the subprime mortgage meltdown) has been buying gold like crazy and his company now "has 44 percent of its $24 billion fund exposed to bullion."

So why are Soros and Paulson buying up so much gold?

Central Banks Are Also Hoarding Gold

According to the World Gold Council, the amount of gold bought by the central banks of the world absolutely soared during the second quarter of 2012. The 157.5 metric tons of gold bought by the central banks of the world last quarter was an increase of 62.9 percent from the first quarter of 2012 and a 137.9 percent increase from the second quarter of 2011.

Prior to 2009, the central banks of the world had been net sellers of gold for about two decades. But now that has totally changed, and last quarter central banks stocked up on gold in quantities that we have not seen before....

At 157.5 metric tons, gold buying among central banks came in at its highest quarterly level since the sector became a net buyer of the precious metal in the second quarter of 2009, data in the organization's quarterly Gold Demand Trends report show.

So why have the central banks of the world become such gold bugs?

Is there something they aren't telling us?

Rampant Insider Selling

Wall Street insiders have been dumping a whole lot of stock this year.

In my previous article, I linked to a CNN article from back in April....

First quarter earnings have been decent, if not spectacular. And many corporate executives are issuing cautiously optimistic guidance for the rest of the year.

But while insiders' lips are saying one thing, their wallets are saying another. The level of insider selling among S&P 500 (SPX) companies is the highest in nearly 10 years. That is not good.

A lot of insiders appear to be getting out at the top of the market while the getting is still good.

Other insiders appear to be bailing out before the bottom falls out from beneath them.

Just check out what has been happening to Facebook stock. It hit another new record low on Thursday as insiders dumped stock. The following is from a CNN article....

Facebook's life as a public company has been a nightmare from day one, and the pain continued on Thursday as some company insiders got their first chance to dump shares.

Facebook stock hit a new intra-day low of $19.69 Thursday morning, and ended the day 6.3% lower at $19.87.

Sadly, Facebook has now lost close to half of its value since the IPO.

Will Facebook end up being the poster child for the irrational stock market bubble that we have seen over the past couple of years?

Overall, retail investors have been very busy pulling money out of stocks in recent weeks.

The following are the net inflows to equity funds over the past five weeks (in millions of dollars) according to ICI....

7/11/2012: -537

7/18/2012: 637

7/25/2012: -2,999

8/1/2012: -6,866

8/8/2012: -3,684

According to the figures above, more than 10 billion dollars has been pulled out of equity funds over the past two weeks alone.

So does this mean anything?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

But it is very interesting and it bears watching.

Why Does The U.S. Government Need So Much Ammunition?

In my previous article, I also noted that the U.S. government appears to be very rapidly making preparations for something really big.

This week, it was revealed that the Social Security Administration plans to buy 174,000 hollow point bullets which will be delivered to 41 different locations all over America.

Now why in the world does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 bullets?

And why do they need hollow point bullets? Those bullets are designed to cause as much damage to internal organs as possible.

But of course this is only the latest in a series of very large purchases of ammunition by U.S. government agencies. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

Now why in the world would the government need over a billion rounds of ammunition?

If it was the U.S. military I could understand this. You can burn through a whole lot of ammunition fighting wars.

But this makes no sense - unless they believe that big trouble is coming.

Personally, I wouldn't blame them for getting prepared. Our economy continues to fall apart and there are signs of social decay everywhere around us.

The American people are more frustrated and more angry than at any other time in modern history. This upcoming election is only going to cause Americans to become even more angry and even more divided.

All it would take is just the right "spark" to cause this country to erupt.

It could be the upcoming election.

It could be the collapse of the financial system.

Or it might be something else.

But the conditions are definitely there for it to happen.

Unfortunately, the American public is never told to prepare because authorities never want "to panic" the general population.

We are always the last to know, and that stinks.

So don't wait for someone to come on the television and announce that a crisis is happening.

If you wait that long, it will be too late.

Instead, open up your eyes and think for yourself.

We all need to work hard to get prepared for the coming crisis while we still can.

As you can see, Wall Street insiders, the U.S. government and the central banks of the world are busy getting prepared.

Don't put your head in the sand.

The warning signs are there and time is running out

The U.S. government's coming war with the American people

Insane quantities of govt. ammo purchases point to only one purpose

Mike Adams
Natural News
August 15, 2012

At the same time politicians in Washington are openly talking about banning online ammo sales to American citizens, the government itself is arming to the teeth.

And not in a military sense, either: The Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling insane quantities of anti-personnel "hollow-point" ammo of all calibers, including #00 tactical shotgun ammo, anti-personnel pistol rounds and match-grade .308 sniper rounds. As the DHS fights no foreign wars and only has jurisdiction in the United States, the only purpose of this ammo can be for use against the American people.

The most recent DHS solicitation contract is seeking massive quantities of anti-personnel ammunition for the "DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRNG CTR." The PDF document showing this is available at:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=500096e56b0d8362d91e93cf105309c3

We have made a backup copy on NaturalNews at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/DHS_ammo_buy.pdf

There's good coverage of this story, by the way, at:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-to-purchase-another-750-million-round...

As you can see for yourself, this DHS contract requests huge quantities of all the following ammunition (and much more):

• Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
• Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
• 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
• Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
• Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62×39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.

This is on top of the massive 450 million .40 S&W hollow point rounds the DHS has already requisitioned (http://www.naturalnews.com/035649_DHS_ammunition_domestic_war.html).

The only rational conclusion: DHS is training a domestic army for war with the American people

There is only one rational conclusion to all this: The Department of Homeland Security is training a domestic army - an army of pedophiles, perverts, child porn distributors and drug dealers - to wage a shooting war with the American people.

I have warned about the rise of the Nazi-like power of the DHS (http://www.naturalnews.com/035607_government_checkpoints_Martial_Law....), and now we're seeing the result of a runaway power grab that will, before very long, be used to engage in mass shootings of American protestors.

What protestors, you ask? The protestors who will take to the streets immediately following the collapse of the global banking fraud, of course. And if that's new information to you, you need to get ahead of the curve on real-time history in the making. The global banking cartel is based on a pyramid of total financial fraud, and it's going to come crashing down within the next 24 months, according to some estimates (see Keiser, below). Imagine Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs all bankrupt, their stock worth zero. Suffocated under endless trillions of fraudulent derivatives. That's what's coming, it seems, and if you want the hard-hitting analysis of this situation, listen to this recent interview between Max Keiser and Alex Jones entitled, "We're in A Financial Holocaust"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/max-keiser-were-in-a-financial-holocaust....

Ron Paul warns about all this in his own video released on May 10, 2012, which describes the coming financial collapse and martial law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVKcB_PSdb8

I also highly recommend this interview between James Wesley Rawles and Alex Jones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STfEPWB6MJs

The U.S. government clearly sees the writing on the wall. What lays ahead for America is a day of unbearable reckoning. The financial collapse will wipe out savings accounts, pensions, investment funds and equities of the working class, all across the nation. Imagine bank accounts being reset to zero, "bank holidays" enforced at gunpoint. That will unleash a wave of violent protests, social chaos and even talk of revolution. The government will almost certainly respond with a declaration of Martial Law, the rolling out of highway checkpoints, and before long, the use of live ammo on unruly protesters.

What is about to unfold in America will make the Kent State incident of 1970 look like a peace rally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)

As the government stockpiles ammo, so do the citizens

What's happening behind the scenes in America right now is a massive armament build-up of epic proportions. The government itself is arming to the teeth, but at the same time, sales of guns and ammo to private citizens have smashed through all historical records. Ammunition prices are rising steadily and rifles, handguns and shotguns are out of stock everywhere. Gun manufacturers are running double and triple shifts in their own factories, trying to keep up with demand, and some have simply cancelled all new orders for the next few months until they get caught up.

I've even noticed myself getting caught up in the rush. Every time there's another shooting in the USA, people like Obama, Bloomberg and Schumer call for gun restrictions, and I find myself immediately buying another firearm. Why? Because people want what they perceive will soon be unavailable. It's basic human psychology. That's why many gun shops in the USA credit Obama as being "salesperson of the year." Nobody has caused more guns to be sold to more U.S. citizens than President Obama. His power to cause citizens to arm themselves at breakneck speed is legendary. Every time he opens his mouth, it seems, citizens flood the gun shops with cash at the ready.

The result of all this is a massive nationwide escalation of firepower, and the potential for serious conflict on the issue of liberty versus government power. The government, of course, wants to control everything and turn citizens into obedient minions. Many citizens have a problem with that, and they demand a restoration of Constitutional liberties (which have been stripped away by nearly everyone in Washington, including Bush, Obama and yes, even the new VP candidate Paul Ryan, who voted for the NDAA). (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html)

At this point, my personal belief is that we're sadly already past the point of no return. I see the very high possibility of the U.S. government engaging in a shooting war with the U.S. population within the next 24 months. Obviously, my wish is that no such acts of violence take place, but history has shown that when the population wakes up and realizes how royally they've all been ripped off, deceived and enslaved, it results in a spontaneous outburst of rage against the system. History has shown this is the stuff of revolutions, and revolutions are rarely peaceful.

My advice to NaturalNews readers? As I've said for years, don't join in angry protests because from here forward, they are likely to be very, very violent. We are going to see literal blood in the streets, and I don't want you anywhere near that.

Hunker down at your home, farm or apartment. Defend yourself, support the effort to keep the peace in your local community, and at every opportunity work to de-escalate violence and seek the restoration of liberty through peaceful means. Fight with words, not guns, wherever possible.

Are The Government And The Big Banks Quietly Preparing For An Imminent Financial Collapse?

August 13, 2012

By Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse

Something really strange appears to be happening. All over the globe, governments and big banks are acting as if they are anticipating an imminent financial collapse. Unfortunately, we are not privy to the quiet conversations that are taking place in corporate boardrooms and in the halls of power in places such as Washington D.C. and London, so all we can do is try to make sense of all the clues that are all around us. Of course it is completely possible to misinterpret these clues, but sticking our heads in the sand is not going to do any good either. Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government has been secretly directing five of the biggest banks in America "to develop plans for staving off collapse" for the last two years. By itself, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. But when you add that piece to the dozens of other clues of imminent financial collapse, a very troubling picture begins to emerge. Over the past 12 months, hundreds of banking executives have been resigning, corporate insiders have been selling off enormous amounts of stock, and I have been personally told that a significant number of Wall Street bankers have been shopping for "prepper properties" in rural communities this summer. Meanwhile, there have been reports that the U.S. government has been stockpiling food and ammunition, and Barack Obama has been signing a whole bunch of executive orders that would potentially be implemented in the event of a major meltdown of society. So what does all of this mean? It could mean something or it could mean nothing. What we do know is that a financial collapse is coming at some point. Over the past 40 years, the total amount of all debt in the United States has grown from about 2 trillion dollars to nearly 55 trillion dollars. That is a recipe for financial armageddon, and it is inevitable that this gigantic bubble of debt is going to burst at some point.

In normal times, the U.S. government does not tell major banks to "develop plans for staving off collapse".

But according to a recent Reuters article, that is apparently exactly what has been happening....

U.S. regulators directed five of the country's biggest banks, including Bank of America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc, to develop plans for staving off collapse if they faced serious problems, emphasizing that the banks could not count on government help.

The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the "living wills" the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that only five really big banks got such a warning?

And why keep it secret from the American public?

Does the federal government actually expect such a collapse to happen?

If federal officials do expect a financial collapse to occur, they would not be the only ones. An increasing number of very respected economists are speaking about the coming financial collapse as if there is a certain inevitability about it.

For example, check out the following quote from a recent Money Morning article....

Richard Duncan, formerly of the World Bank and chief economist at Blackhorse Asset Mgmt., says America's $16 trillion federal debt has escalated into a "death spiral," as he told CNBC.

And it could result in a depression so severe that he doesn't "think our civilization could survive it."

A former World Bank executive is warning that our civilization might not survive what is coming?

That is pretty chilling.

Economist Nouriel Roubini says that he believes that the coming crisis will be even worse than 2008....

"Worse because like 2008 you will have an economic and financial crisis but unlike 2008, you are running out of policy bullets. In 2008, you could cut rates; do QE1, QE2; you could do fiscal stimulus; you could backstop/ringfence/guarantee banks and everybody else. Today, more QEs are becoming less and less effective because the problems are of solvency not liquidity. Fiscal deficits are already so large and you cannot bail out the banks because 1) there is a political opposition to it; and 2) governments are near-insolvent - they cannot bailout themselves let alone their banks.The problem is that we are running out of policy rabbits to pull out of the hat!"

Across the pond, many European officials are echoing similar sentiments.

What Nigel Farage told King World News the other day is very ominous....

Today MEP (Member European Parliament) Nigel Farage spoke with King World News about what he described as the possibility of, "a really dramatic banking collapse." Farage also warned that central planners want to enslave and imprison people inside of a ‘New Order,' and he described the situation as "horrifying."

The situation in Europe continues to get worse and worse. The authorities in Europe have come out with "solution" after "solution", and yet unemployment continues to skyrocket and economic conditions in the EU have deteriorated very steadily over the past 12 months.

If all of that was not bad enough, there are an increasing number of indications that Germany is actually considering leaving the euro.

Needless to say, that would be a complete and total disaster for the rest of the eurozone.

Of course there are any number of ways that the financial crisis in Europe could potentially play out.

But all of the realistic scenarios would be very bad for the global economy.

Meanwhile, our resources are dwindling, war in the Middle East could erupt at any moment and our planet is becoming increasingly unstable. The following is from a recent article by Paul B. Farrell on Marketwatch.com....

Fasten your seat belts, soon we'll all be shocked out of denial. Some unpredictable black swan. A global wake-up call will trigger the Pentagon's prediction in Fortune a decade ago at the launch of the Iraq War: "By 2020 ... an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies is emerging ... warfare defining human life."

It is almost as if a "perfect storm" is brewing.

Of course the historic drought that is ravaging food production in the United States this summer is not helping matters either. Another summer or two like this one and we could be looking at a return of Dust Bowl conditions.

Anyone that is watching what is going on in the world and is not concerned at all about what is happening is simply being delusional.

Recently, a "team of scientists, economists, and geopolitical analysts" examined the current state of the global economic system and the conclusions they reached were absolutely staggering....

One member of this team, Chris Martenson, a pathologist and former VP of a Fortune 300 company, explains their findings:

"We found an identical pattern in our debt, total credit market, and money supply that guarantees they're going to fail. This pattern is nearly the same as in any pyramid scheme, one that escalates exponentially fast before it collapses. Governments around the globe are chiefly responsible.

"And what's really disturbing about these findings is that the pattern isn't limited to our economy. We found the same catastrophic pattern in our energy, food, and water systems as well."

According to Martenson: "These systems could all implode at the same time. Food, water, energy, money. Everything."

Hmmmm - it sounds like they have been reading The Economic Collapse Blog.

The truth is that a massive worldwide financial collapse is coming.

It is inevitable, and it is going to be extremely painful

Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

RT.com

August 8, 2012

The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge's ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to "pass constitutional muster" and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama's attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn't be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it.

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest's injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president's authority to hold a terrorism suspect "without trial, until the end of the hostilities" is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later.

"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote in her 68-page ruling. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

At the time Just Forrest made her injunction, attorney Carl Mayer told RT on behalf of the plaintiffs that, although he expected the White House to appeal, "It may not be in their best interest."

"[T]here are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law that they ought to just say, ‘We're not going to appeal,'" Mayer said. "The NDAA cannot be used to pick up Americans in a proverbial black van or in any other way that the administration might decide to try to get people into the military justice system. It means that the government is foreclosed now from engaging in this type of action against the civil liberties of Americans."

The original plaintiffs, who include Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges, have asked Just Forrest to make her injunction permanent. Oral arguments in the case are expected to begin this week.

Psy-Op Specialist Gunman in Sikh Shooting Frames Veterans, Constitutionalist and 9/11 Truthers

Susanne Posel Infowars.com

August 7, 2012

Domestic terrorism has come to light with the Sikh shooting. The US government is not only coming after the 2nd Amendment, but now framing US Army veterans in a false flag operation where extremists are the new threat.

Mainstream media (MSM) are pushing the gunman's background as an Army veteran who "may have been a white supremacist" with a "9/11 tattoo". US investigators are saying that the suspect shot by police, Wade Michael Page, was a psychological operations specialist from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Page was trained in parachute deployment and had a good conduct record while also receiving the National Defense Service Medal.

Page's work as a psy-op specialist would have consisted of analysis, development and distribution of intelligence used to coerce the general population for a specific and desired psychological effect. While some MSM reports are claiming that psy-ops are reserved for foreign nations, it is clear that the US military conduct them on Americans routinely.

The US government's definition of a psychological operation is an "integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own. Also called IO."

Greg Haanstad, First Assistant US Attorney in Milwaukee was the official who identified the killed shooter as Page. The description is that Page was a "frustrated neo-Nazi" who led a white supremacy band claims the Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC). Page is also a native from Colorado.

The SPLC states that Page, supposed front man for the white supremacist rock band, "also attempted to purchase goods from the neo-Nazi National Alliance, then America's most important hate group."

The National Alliance has a history with the FBI. One of its leaders worked for the federal agency with original order to infiltrate the organization.

More misleading reports point to the gunman being a radical , while he only have traffic tickets on his criminal record.

Even police , prior to any knowledge from proper investigations, are touting that the lone gunman was assumed to "belong to a hate group or some other violent group."

In April, members of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Muller, warning about this exact type of incident and requesting that the FBI monitor Sikh temples.

Joseph Crowley, House Representative who wrote the letter to Holder and Muller said that Sikh-Americans could be targets for "hate crimes" because of the Sikh's "distinct identity and common misperceptions with respect to their attire and appearance" saying that this group is often erroneously believed to be "affiliated with extremists and were somehow responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks."

The point is to shift the social meme in one direction, ignore the initial and eye witness reports that contradict the official story, and move forward with the narrative that veterans and ultimately gun owners and constitutionalists are dangerous.

The Sikhs are often misperceived by Americans are Islamic extremists, or Muslims who were involved with the 9/11 attacks. While the police only killed one man, it is clear from eye witness reports that there were actually four - white males, dressed in "dark clothing". This description is common of government operations where trained military conduct a mission, then disappear; leaving only the clues they wanted to be discovered.

The Chairman of the Sikh Temple commented that a "few suspicious men were seen on the Temple premises" furthering the fact that eye witnesses saw more than a lone wolf shooter; as the MSM and law enforcement would have us believe.

And other witnesses say that these four men were coordinated, as if carrying out a mission while inside the Sikh temple.

The Milwaukee police and FBI were on the scene; with the police chief announcing that the FBI was conducting the investigation at the crime scene. Since then, the FBI have made it clear that they are claiming this shooting as a domestic terrorist plot against the Sikhs with DHS intelligence leading officials to this most likely theory.

The latest shooting, coinciding with the Batman shooting, is creating a national narrative about gun control and planting into the social meme that domestic threats are more likely than the average American thinks.

Interestingly, new gun legislation in Wisconsin allow for concealed weapons to be carried with a permit, as of November 2011.

While budget cuts in Wisconsin state legislator and other state agencies may play a role in justifying the need for more law enforcement, the US government have specialized Marine MPs that can and probably will be deployed to assist the local police - if they have not arrived already.

The Deli Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee has requested of the US government that the prevailing "gun culture" in America be curbed and "expose the conspiracy behind the shooting", in a letter to Nancy Powell, US Ambassador. The DSGMC condemned the shooting as an "inhuman act of killing innocent people" and that the US government needs to make sure that this does not happen again.

The dialogue about gun restriction has not only become a global debate, but as American society is viewed as violent because of our 2nd Amendment rights, we must have those rights taken from us to curb the propensity toward "hate crime" murders.

Obama, speaking about the Sikh and Batman shooting that these two incidents have happened too close together to be coincidental and that Americans should "do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence."

In their own globalist-way, by creating the Problem and encouraging the Reaction, they are hoping for a specific Solution. Two gun-related shootings involving government planted stooge; one more shocking than the other with the hopes of getting the American public to give-up their guns

Internet Giants Combine Forces Creating New Lobby to Control Capitol Hill

July 31, 2012

By Susanne Posel, BLN Contributing Writer

The titans of the Internet, including Google, eBay, Amazon and Facebook, are combining forces under the blanket of a newly formed lobby group that wants to influence lawmakers on how they can manipulate the Internet, as well as how important they truly are.

In September of this year, the lobby groups called the Internet Association, will be based in Washington, DC, and headed by Michael Beckerman, former adviser of the Energy and Commerce Committee within the House of Representatives.

The Internet Association's goal is to control the perspective of elected officials on Internet technologies, their uses and cooperation with various federal agencies. Their website claims they are "dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet."

Beckerman explains:

The Internet isn't just Silicon Valley anymore. The Internet has moved to Main Street. Our top priority is to ensure that elected leaders in Washington understand the profound impacts on the Internet and Internet companies on jobs, economic growth, and freedom.

Through the influence of money and pressure, this lobby seeks to have an over-reaching effect on the Internet as a whole. In conjunction with major corporations in the tech industry, and by remaining focused on subversive control over the internet, the Internet Association will lead the way toward Big Brother becoming a very necessary part of our lives.

Google - Internet monster and collector of information for the National Security Agency (NSA) - announced back in March that they will use a new feature to spy on Android and smartphone customers that will allow background noise to assist Google in identifying location, and therefore track unsuspecting Americans better.

They also altered their privacy policies to better gather intelligence on Internet users. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission gained greater oversight over Google's handling of personal information as part of a settlement reached last year. Google submitted to the agreement after exposing its users email contacts when it launched a now-defunct social networking service called Buzz in 2010.

Internet services, like Skype, have begun working with law enforcement to assist in exposing political dissidents, protesters and other terrorist types identified by the FBI.

Skype has completely opened their online chats and customer information to law enforcement in an effort to conduct surveillance regardless of whether or not a warrant has been obtained.

Since Microsoft purchased Skype in 2011, their willingness to cooperate with federal surveillance initiatives has grown exponentially. Online chats are monitored under the guise of stopping hackers from controlling the Internet.

Microsoft claims to be aware of their role in spying on Americans, and is conducting such surveillance with secrecy while working with local and international law enforcement agencies.

Authorities wanted access to Skype because, they claimed, and that the encryption programs made it hard to track pre-determined terrorists groups, hackers, jihadis, drug lords. Although this is simply a ruse to gain access to Skype conversations that were previously off-limits.

Since Skype has been traditionally used by the same people the FBI claims are dangerous terrorists (those who pay in cash, have tattoos and own guns), their new owners, Microsoft, are more than willing to comply with government agencies to spy on their customers in the name of safety.

Lauren Weinstien, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, explains:

The issue is, to what extent are our communications being purpose-built to make surveillance easy? When you make it easy to do, law enforcement is going to want to use it more and more. If you build it, they will come.'
Mark Gillett, Skype chief development officer, has vehemently denied that they were making their program more surveillance based to assist federal and local agencies in spying on citizens. However they have been making their bandwidth connections stronger so that information can be transferred more readily, as well as proxy interceptions and file transfers.

Skype operates every communication in conjunction with outside agency surveillance requests. Those once-encrypted calls are now open to interpretation by law enforcement.

Facebook has been used by the US government to track of the world's terrorist and terrorism, according to Rose Gottemoeller, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

An ordinary citizen becoming more involved is a great benefit to the US government in their mission to use the false flag of terrorism to sway public opinion. Gottemoeller says using social media as a crowd-sourcing tool is an effective in helping the U.S. and other governments "understand what's going on with a nuclear facility in a certain country, for example, or what's going on with the production of chemicals at a chemical plant."

Gottemoeller envisions utilizing social media users as an effective way to keep atomic bombs out of the hands of terrorists, as well as the control of governments and regimes.

The manipulation of the Internet will only get worse as time goes on; politicians remain cooperative to the powers-that-be, and the people continue to support the technologies that enslave us all. Silently, Big Brother looms over our shoulders, listening, watching and judging us at every turn.

The technology we have grown dependent on will be the chains that bind us to the control grid

The Assault on 2nd Amendment Precursor to Martial Law in America

Susanne Posel

Occupy Corporatism

July 31, 2012

The disinformation mafia at Time magazine says that the phrase "'Guns don't actually kill people' is sometimes a refrain from gun rights advocates when they run low on arguments in a policy discussion."

Concerning the false flag staged attack in Aurora, Colorado, the National Rifle Association is pushing for the right to bear arms and the retention of our 2nd Amendment while the talking heads at CNN want us to believe the globalist's lie that America would be safer if semi-automatic weapons were banned from purchase. In a commentary piece, they say that America's violent culture can be directly blamed on our ability to have guns to protect ourselves. Never does the author of the article mention that the increase in violent films, television shows and music could be a factor in brainwashing average Americans to think enacting violent outbursts would be acceptable.

More attacks on our right to defend ourselves against the tyrannical takeover of our nation by the global Elite and the banking cartels come from Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, who wrongly states that the 2nd Amendment allows the US government to regulate firearms.

Scalia asserts that limiting "assault rifles" is up to the government and they should be outlawed.

In the US Senate, a group of 51 senators threatened to oppose the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State wrote a letter to Obama admitting that the ATT's allocation of international gun control was unacceptable to the US Congress.

The Senators wrote: "We strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure - if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference - that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard."

According to Thomas Countryman, US assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, who supports the ATT remarked: "We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms. But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face."

Victoria Nuland, US Ambassador to the UN released a statement on the US State Department website wherein it was admitted that "the illicit trafficking of conventional arms is an important national security concern for the United States."

While the bureaucracy surrounding the ATT and gun control makes the rounds on Capitol Hill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for the prospect of civil unrest in America.

Secretly, DHS have been taking bid for contractors who can install "aerial remote sensing" which uses light detection and ranging (LIDAR) that would be part of the unmanned drone missions within domestic US territory.

In the US Army Military Police Training manual specified for "Civil Disturbance Operations" the procedures for dealing with civilian riots, gun confiscation and the murder of Americans by US military in the name of continuity of government is outlined under the complete civil unrest scenario.

As well as Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been given the responsibility to protecting federally owned property while preparing for civilian led riots expected in the near future. And part of the preparatory measures was an order of 150 sets of riot gear that was requested to be filled exponentially. The FPS is anticipating that police or military wearing the gear would encounter "blunt force trauma" to the upper torso, as well as potential beatings with "blunt objects".

In June of this year, the US Army requested bids for riot gear, that was answered by A2Z Supply Corp, in which specified equipment was to be delivered to West Point Academy in New York.

In 2008, the report from the Army Times that the US military was reassigning troops arriving home from Afghanistan to serve domestically in homeland patrols which would be used during the necessity of maintaining order during an economic collapse.

The purpose of these patrol units was to aid "with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack" and provide "coordinate defense support of civil authorities" under NORTHCOM and other commands including federal homeland defense efforts.

The use of "nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them" will be part of the control measures, according to 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier.

The US government, under the guise of continuity of government, are preparing for controlling the American public under any circumstances necessary.

While the total disarmament of Americans with the eradication of the 2nd Amendment is part of the plan, it may not be necessary for them to enact their complete lock down of our nation. Currently, armed forces are training their troops to maintain civil order for national security purposes, even if that means firing on American civilians.

This is why the retention of the 2nd Amendment is so important. First they take our right to bear arms. Then they forcibly remove them from us. And at this point the full-blown tyrannical Fascist Dictatorship begins.

Aurora massacre: Several links between James Holmes and US Gov't research

By Wayne Madsen

July 23, 2012

WayneMadsenReport.com

WASHINGTON -- James Holmes, the 24-year old suspect in the mass shooting of Batman "The Dark Knight Rises" movie goers in Aurora, Colorado that left 12 people dead and 58 injured, has had a number of links to U.S. government-funded research centers. Holmes's past association with government research projects has prompted police and federal law enforcement officials to order laboratories and schools with which Holmes has had a past association not to talk to the press about Holmes.

Holmes was one of six recipients of a National Institutes of Health Neuroscience Training Grant at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Denver. Holmes is a graduate of the University of California at Riverside with a Bachelor of Science degree in neuroscience. Although Holmes dropped out of the PhD neuroscience program at Anschutz in June, police evacuated two buildings at the Anschutz center after the massacre at the Aurora movie theater. Holmes reportedly gave a presentation at the Anschutz campus in May on Micro DNA Biomarkers in a class titled "Biological Basis of Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders."

Initial reports of Holmes having an accomplice in the theater shooting have been discounted by the Aurora police. However, no explanation has been given by police why the Anschutz campus buildings were evacuated after Holmes was already in custody in the Arapahoe County jail.

The Anschutz Medical Campus is on the recently de-commissioned site of the U.S. Army's Fitzsimons Army Medical Center and is named after Philip Anschutz, the billionaire Christian fundamentalist oil and railroad tycoon who also owns The Examiner newspaper chain and website and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. The Anschutz Medical Campus was built by a $91 million grant from the Anschutz Foundation.

In 2006, at the age of 18, Holmes served as a research intern at the Salk Institute at the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla. It is noteworthy that for the previous two years before Holmes worked at the Salk Institute, the research center was partnered with the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Columbia University, University of California at San Francisco, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Wake Forest University, and the Mars Company (the manufacturers of Milky Way and Snickers bars) to prevent fatigue in combat troops through the enhanced use of epicatechina, a blood flow-increasing and blood vessel-dilating anti-oxidant flavanol found in cocoa and, particularly, in dark chocolate.

The research was part of a larger DARPA program known as the "Peak Soldier Performance Program," which involved creating brain-machine interfaces for battlefield use, including human-robotic bionics for legs, arms, and eyes. DARPA works closely with the Defense Science Office on projects that include the medical research community. Fitzsimons was at the forefront of DARPA research on the use of brain-connected "neuroprosthetic" limbs forsoldiers amputated or paralyzed in combat.

According to his LinkedIn profile, James Holmes's father, Dr. Robert Holmes, who received a PhD in Statistics in 1981 from the University of California at Berkeley, worked for San Diego-based HNC Software, Inc. from 2000 to 2002. HNC, known as a "neural network" company, and DARPA, beginning in 1998, have worked on developing "cortronic neural networks," which would allow machines to interpret aural and visual stimuli to think like humans. The cortronic concept was developed by HNC Software's chief scientist and co-founder, Robert Hecht-Nielsen. HNC merged with the Minneapolis-based Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO), a computer analysis and decision-making company. Robert Holmes continues to work at FICO.

It has also emerged that Holmes, when he was 20, worked as a camp counselor at Camp Max Straus of the Jewish Big Brothers and Sister of Los Angeles. According to the Jewish Journal, among other tasks, Holmes helped to teach boys between the ages of 7 to 10 archery. In another unusual detail, the car Holmes used to drive to the Aurora movie theater had Tennessee plates. Holmes is originally from San Diego.

James Holmes is the grandson of Lt. Col. Robert Holmes, one of the first Turkish language graduates of the Army Language School, later the Defense Language Institute, in Monterey, California. Graduating from the Turkish language class in 1948, Holmes spent a career in the Army, which likely included more than a few intelligence-related assignments. Typically, U.S. military officers conversant in Turkish served with either the Defense Intelligence Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency at either the U.S. embassy in Ankara or the Consulate General in Istanbul, or both.

Terrence Sejnowski, the Francis Crick Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the director of the Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, in an interview with Cognitive Science Online in 2008, had the following comment about recent studies of the human brain: "Alan Newell [cognitive psychology researcher at the intelligence community-linked RAND Corporation] once said that when AI [artificial intelligence] was founded not enough was known about the brain to be of any help and in the early 1980s, symbol processing was the only game in town. That has changed and we now know a lot about the brain, perhaps more than we need to know [emphasis added]."

More than we need to know!

The links between the younger and elder Holmes and U.S. government research on creating super-soldiers, human brain-machine interfaces, and human-like robots beg the question: "Was James Holmes engaged in a real-life Jason Bourne TREADSTONE project that broke down and resulted in deadly consequences in Aurora, Colorado?" In any event, if the Batman movies are now serving as a newer version of J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye subliminal messaging triggering mechanism, -- Salinger's novel was of interest to a number of American political assassins -- keep in mind that August 10 is the opening date of The Bourne Legacy. It may be wise to skip that film in the theater for a while.

Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged

Mike Adams

Natural News July 21, 2012

James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter who reportedly opened fire at a Batman movie premiere, was a medical student at the University of Colorado, pursuing a PhD in neuroscience, reports ABC News. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/mass-shooting-colorado-movie-theater-14-peop...)

As part of the attack, Holmes painted his hair red and referred to himself as "The Joker," one of the arch enemies in the DC Comics-inspired Batman movie series. (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/police-14-dead-in-colorado-the...)

According to news reports, this sudden violent rampage was completely out of character for James Holmes, who was described as "shy."

The New York Times is now reporting:

Billy Kromka, a pre-med student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, worked with Mr. Holmes for three months last summer as a research assistant in a lab of at the Anschutz Medical Campus. Mr. Kromka said he was surprised to learn Mr. Holmes was the shooting suspect. "It was just shocking, because there was no way I thought he could have the capacity to do commit an atrocity like this," he said. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html?page...)

"He spent much of his time immersed in the computer, often participating in role-playing online games..."

There is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research and ended up becoming involved at a depth he never anticipated. His actions clearly show a strange detachment from reality, indicating he was not in his right mind. That can only typically be accomplished through drugs, hypnosis or trauma (and sometimes all three).

His behavior doesn't add up

His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of "killing everyone."

Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn't add up.

"Holmes was taken into custody shortly after the shooting, police said, adding he didn't resist when he was arrested," reports a local CBS news affiliate (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/police-14-dead-in-colorado-the...).

"After his arrest, Holmes told police about ‘possible explosives in his residence,' Oates said. When police searched his apartment, they discovered it was booby-trapped and evacuated surrounding buildings, police said. Oates said bomb technicians are determining how to disarm flammable or explosive material in the third-floor apartment. He said police could be there some time."

None of this checks out. If you're a killer bent on causing mayhem, why tell the police about your surprise bomb waiting for them back at your apartment?

Holmes was clearly provided with exotic gear

Continuing from CBS:

"He said pictures from inside the apartment are fairly disturbing and the devices look to be sophisticated, adding the booby-traps were ‘something I've never seen.' One rifle, two handguns, a knife, a bullet proof vest, a ballistic helmet, a gas device, a gas mask, military SWAT clothing and unidentified explosives were also found in Holmes' car, a law enforcement source told CBS News. Oates said Holmes wore a gas mask, a ballistic helmet and vest as well as leg, groin and throat protectors during the shooting."

In other words, this guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment. SWAT clothing, explosives, complex booby-traps... c'mon, this isn't a "lone gunman." This is somebody who was selected for a mission, given equipment to carry it out, then somehow brainwashed into getting it done.

"Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said Holmes' apartment is booby-trapped with a ‘sophisticated' maze of flammable devices. It could take hours or days for authorities to disarm it," reports Yahoo News (http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/suspect-neuroscience-phd-stu...).

This is not your run-of-the-mill crime of passion. It was a carefully planned, heavily funded and technically advanced attack. Who might be behind all this? The FBI, of course, which has a long history of setting up and staging similar attacks, then stopping them right before they happen. See four documented stories on these facts:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035849_domestic_terror_plots_FBI.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/034325_FBI_entrapment_terror_plots.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/033751_FBI_terrorism.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/035757_FBI_terror_plots_false_flag.html

As you soak all this in, remember that the FBI had admitted to setting up terror plots, providing the weapons and gear, staging the location of the bombings and even driving the vehicles to pull it off! This is not a conspiracy theory, it's been admitted by the FBI right out in the open. Even the New York Times openly reports all this in stories like this one:

NYT: Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-help...)

THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years - or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts. But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. ...the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of "inert material," harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving...

Mystery man Holmes has no background

On top of all this, Holmes apparently has no background. "He's not on anybody's radar screen - nothing," said a peace officer in a NYT article. "This guy is somewhat of an enigma. Nobody knows anything about him." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html)

Mr. Holmes's only criminal history is a traffic summons, the authorities said. He earned a bachelor's degree with honors in neuroscience in 2010 from the University of California, Riverside, and was a graduate student in neurosciences at the University of Colorado at Denver's Anschutz Medical Campus... He was currently collecting unemployment...

Question: How does an unemployed medical student afford $20,000 in weapons gear?

If you start to look at the really big picture here, the obvious question arises: How does an unemployed medical student afford all the complex weapons gear, bomb-making gear, "flammable" booby trap devices, ammunition, multiple magazines, bullet-proof vest, groin protection, ballistic helmet, SWAT uniform and all the rest of it?

A decent AR-15 rifle costs $1,000 or more all by itself. The shotgun and handgun might run another $800 total. Spare mags, sights, slings, and so on will run you at least another $1,000 across three firearms. The bullet-proof vest is easily another $800, and the cost of the bomb-making gear is anybody's guess. With all the specialty body gear, ammunition, booby-trap devices and more, I'm guessing this is at least $20,000 in weapons and tactical gear, much of which is very difficult for civilians to get in the first place.

The mere manufacture of an explosive booby-trap device is, all by itself, a felony crime by the way. And remember: "Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said Holmes' apartment is booby-trapped with a ‘sophisticated' maze of flammable devices. It could take hours or days for authorities to disarm it," reported Yahoo News (http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/suspect-neuroscience-phd-stu...).

Question: Where does an unemployed, introverted medical school student get the training to deploy sophisticated booby traps, tactical body armor, weapons systems and more? Certainly not in graduate school!

All this leads to an obvious third party influence over all this. Someone else taught this guy these skills and funded the acquisition of the equipment.

Staged just in time for a vote on the UN small arms treaty?

More and more, this shooting is looking like a deliberate plot staged by the government itself much like Operation Fast and Furious pulled off by the ATF (http://www.naturalnews.com/032934_ATF_illegal_firearms.html) which helped smuggle tens of thousands of guns into Mexico for the purpose of causing "gun violence" in the USA, then blaming the Second Amendment for it.

All this looks like James Holmes completed a "mission" and then calmly ended that mission by surrendering to police and admitting everything. The mission, as we are now learning, was to cause as much terror and mayhem as possible, then to have that multiplied by the national media at exactly the right time leading up the UN vote next week on a global small arms treaty that could result in gun confiscation across America. (http://lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem61.1.html)

Even Forbes.com wrote about this quite extensively, warning readers about the coming gun confiscation effort related to the UN treaty. The story was authored by Larry Bell (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should...) and says the UN treaty could "override our national sovereignty, and in the process, provide license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights."

In other words, this has all the signs of Fast & Furious, Episode II. I wouldn't be surprised to discover someone in Washington was behind it all. After all, there's no quicker way to disarm a nation and take total control over the population than to stage violence, blame it on firearms, then call for leaders to "do something!" Such calls inevitably end up resulting in gun confiscation, and it's never too long after that before government genocide really kicks in like we saw with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and other tyrants.

Governments routinely murder millions

Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)

12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs

8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)

6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)

5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)

2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)

1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)

1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)

1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)

1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)

900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)

800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

See more at:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Death by government:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

http://www.infowars.com/democide-government-killed-over-260-million-i...

A "monopoly of force" in government is far more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter

So yes, James Holmes and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It's horrifying and wrong, but it's nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.

The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it's a government with a "monopoly of force" over the entire population. And that's exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing "monopolies of force" to the governments of the world, shoring up their positions as the only "legitimate" power on the planet.

See this document entitled, "Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF)" policy paper No. 24:

http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Revisiting-the-State-Monopoly-on-the...

As this document reveals, a table entitled "Governance solutions for reasserting the state monopoly on the use of force" lists the options available to governments to re-establish "monopolies of force" against their own people:

• (Re-)establish state monopoly

- Ownership of WMDs

- Safety Inspectorates

• Prohibit business activity

- Justice and Execution

- Deadly Force?

• Regulate/limit activities

- Private defense/security services

- Control of financial transfers

- Export controls

- Transport and infrastructure safety

- Environmental impact

Interestingly, that document also describes "terrorism" in a way that perfectly matches the Aurora, Colorado "Batman" movie theater shooter:

Terrorists aim to spread panic and fear in societies in order to achieve political goals, be they based on left- or right-wing, social-revolutionary, nationalistic or religious ideologies. They are organized in a clandestine way, most often in small groups and cells... Typical tactical means include kidnapping, hostage-taking, sabotage, murder, suicide attacks, vehicle bombs and improvised explosive devices.

A global monopoly of force

This document is a goldmine of information about the globalist agenda to disarm and enslave the population. Check out page 28, which reads:

The legitimate monopoly of force should not be limited to the nation-state but should be based on the local, national, regional and the global levels.

Global Security Governance and the Monopoly of Force

At the global level no monopoly of violence exists. The UN Security Council already has a monopoly power to authorize the use of force at the global level, although the UN was never given the necessary means to exercise this authority, such as the capacity to implement sanctions, a police force and armed forces...

This deficiency in global governance acts as a bottleneck and a barrier to the creation of the democratically legitimized monopoly of violence that is globally required.

This story gets deep, doesn't it? Watch for more analysis here at NaturalNews.com, where we still fight for liberty and justice in a world that's increasingly becoming enslaved

White House Seizes Control of Internet by Executive Order

By Eric Sharp

07/18/2012

In an unprecedented step for executive power, President Obama signed an Executive Order on July 6th that allows the executive branch to seize control of all communications infrastructure in the United States, public and private:

"Without even the faintest toot of a fanfare, President Barack Obama has issued an Executive Order that outlines an extreme level of communications preparedness in case of crisis or emergency, including the ability to take over any communication network, including the internet.

The Order, ‘Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions,' takes many of the US government's existing emergency communications preparations, and codifies the exact responsibilities of the various US secretaries/departments and intelligence agencies. For the most part, the Order is very sensible; basically, no matter what - come hurricanes, earthquakes, or nuclear war - the US government ‘must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions.'"

One can expect governments to plan for all kinds of emergencies- i.e. meteor strikes, wars, uprisings, (etc.). Several continuity plans are already in place. But if this latest executive order sounds unbelievable, then it probably should, because with the stroke of a pen, President Obama has entered America into a new paradigm.

No longer is it enough for Washington to simply use, cooperate with, or listen to private communications. Now the president claims the authority to order all of it seized- as in nationalized under federal control. In a sense, however, this sweeping new order is only somewhat unprecedented, at least in the Bush-Obama era of executive power. Potential seizure of communications infrastructure simply folds into a laundry list of resources that Obama declared authority to seize and manage in another recent Executive Order:

"On March 16th, President Obama signed a new Executive Order which expands upon a prior order issued in 1950 for Disaster Preparedness, and gives the office of the President complete control over all the resources in the United States in times of war or emergency.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order's functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations."

It is troubling how little coverage and scrutiny this event is getting in the mainstream media. Agree with this new policy or not, why aren't Americans even discussing it?

A decade ago Democrats and the antiwar Left let loose a firestorm of criticism over the national security measures of the Bush Administration. Such policies as FISA wiretapping and The Patriot Act were criticized by progressives as not just bad policy, but existential threats to our democratic way of life. Bush, however, merely wanted to listen in on and detain citizens without due process. Obama's administration claims the right of the executive to unilaterally try and execute Americans without due process, and with this new order, the right to actually seize complete control of all communication resources, polices that are arguably far more egregious.

In 2008, many progressives were expecting in the administration of Barack Obama to get a Howard Dean / Ralph Nader / Dennis Kucinich grade progressive presidency, one that would take on Wall Street, scale down Washington's aggressive wars, and restore America's civil liberties. Instead they got a presidency that has not only failed to reverse Bush's precedent-setting expansion of executive power, but actually accelerated it.

As late as 2007, progressive commentators were very concerned about unrestrained executive power. Well-known writer and commentator, Naomi Wolf even wrote a book called The End of America in which she outlined the 10 steps that an open society takes to become a closed society. She cited examples of these steps in practice in the Bush-era United States. Wolf and many in the Occupy community have remained consistent critics of these policies, but where are their progressive allies?

Bush-style conservatives haven't really had much to complain about, but civil liberties oriented conservatives such as Jack Hunter and Rand Paul are alarmed by the actions of the Obama White House. Perhaps the only groups that have remained consistently and vocally skeptical of executive power throughout both the Bush and Obama administrations are libertarians and the far-Left that never accepted Bush nor Obama. Independents, who some works (such as The Declaration of Independents) posit are largely a phenomenon of the Internet age, also have little to be pleased with.

So much of the country is distracted by partisan politics that issues of partisanship dominate the national discussion. Can non-partisans and Independents be the country's conscience because they aren't blinded by this partisanship? Can they lead a serious discussion about executive power?

UN Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) on Small Arms: Gun Grab Gradualism

Thomas R. Eddlem

New American July 17, 2012

The United Nations is polishing up a global Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention that would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms. This treaty - which would also mandate creation of a national collection agency for those guns and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment - has the long-standing and enthusiastic backing of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Hillary Clinton noted as early as October 14, 2009. Clinton boasted that "the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions." Of course, that speech was delivered at the same time the Obama administration was transferring some 2,000 small arms to Mexican drug gangs in the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking scandal.

The State Department website nevertheless absurdly continues to boast that "The United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the ‘gold standard' of export controls for arms transfers."

In view of such obviously false public statements, one may question the sincerity of Obama State Department promises about "redlines" to the UN ATT, which supposedly protect the Second Amendment: "The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law." The Obama State Department also promises "There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT."

So America's Second Amendment rights are safe, right?

Hardly.

The draft of the treaty prepared earlier this year by the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) explains that the treaty is aimed at crime control as well as rogue militias in developing nations:

The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence.

The PrepCom report of February 2012 - despite protestations by the Hillary Clinton's minions - is not limited merely to international transfer of firearms. The draft treaty covers "transfers" as well as imports and exports of firearms:

The international transactions or activities covered by this Treaty include those listed below and defined in Annex A:

(a) Import;

(b) Export;

(c) Transfer...

In this matter, the 2012 conference is merely following the goals of the 2001 UN Programme of Action on small arms, which required national gun registries and collection agencies for those guns once they've been registered. The 2001 Programme of Action requires nations:

To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.

To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons...

The UN is still seeking this kind of broad control over private firearms ownership, and UN General Assembly resolution 66/47, adopted December 2, 2011 in advance of this month's conference that it seeks to ban "The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects." [Emphasis added]

Moreover, the 2012 PrepCom report uses broad bans on any transfer of firearms:

A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that those conventional arms would: Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability.

Some 56 or more U.S. senators have written a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing the UN global gun registry, according to the National Rifle Association. Senatorial opposition began with a July 26, 2011 letter claiming that "the establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter."

The U.S. State Department already has a State Department Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement that could be used as a control agency for domestic controls on firearms transfers.

The State Department policy on Conventional Weapons Destruction suggests: "The proliferation of illicit conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SA/LW), in regions of the world suffering from political instability and violent conflict has proven a major obstacle to peace, economic development, and efforts to rebuild war-torn societies. In places like Afghanistan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Colombia, thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and tens of thousands more displaced by ethnic and civil conflicts perpetuated in large part by easy access to illicit conventional weapons, particularly SA/LW."

Many of the countries listed by State Department officials are the very nations that most need "illicit" small arms to fight back against genocidal governments. "Illicit" is the new globalist jargon for "illegal," though in most instances the sparse "illegal" weapons around the world are the ones that are being used by victims to shoot back against genocidal governments. This is certainly the case in Syria today, where perfectly legal small arms in the hands of the government are crushing a largely disarmed civilian population. It was also recently the case in the genocide in South Sudan, which recently won independence from Sudan - ending the genocide - after using "illicit" small arms in an independence effort.

In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the "illegal" and "illicit" guns would have been those owned by the victims. And in Rwanda, the United Nations helped to facilitate arms deals to the government forces and was complicit in the genocide of some 800,000 innocent Tutsis. Gun control in Rwanda was so effectively implemented - in part with UN "peacekeeper" assistance - that much of the genocide against Tutsis was carried out by Hutu-aligned government forces with machetes - not guns!

Since the UN has traditionally backed genocidal governments over the victims who use "illicit" guns to defend themselves, it's not surprising that human rights violator Iran is one of several regional chairmen of the UN ATT convention.

Occupy Bohemian Grove 2012 Heats Up This Weekend

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Activist Post

If the Bilderberg Group is the geopolitical tentacle of the New World Order, Bohemian Grove is slippery underbelly of occultism that is the ultimate expression of the misanthropy inherent at the highest levels of global elitist thought.

Similar to Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove was flatly denounced as tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense until the alternative media exposed some of their inner workings.

The annual Bohemian Grove retreat is set within a 3,000-acre redwood forest along the Russian River, and is the stage for a weekend of globalist plotting, at the very least, while researchers have revealed it is potentially far more than that. A mock human sacrifice in front of a giant owl representing Moloch forms one of the central ceremonies, as Alex Jones captured in his infiltration video titled Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove.

Beyond that, speculation into all forms of debauchery and depravity have followed the confab since its inception in 1873. One thing is for certain: among all of the private meetings of globalist power brokers, heads of state, and 2,600 major and minor demons in the political and social pantheon of the top puppet masters, this is the one that is the most heavily guarded and secretive about its true nature. Which only means that activists everywhere should be on hand to bring positive energy to Bohemian Grove's dark gathering.

Building on the Occupy Movement and a record turnout for Bilderberg 2012, activists are proving that a turning point in focused and cooperative activism has been reached. Awareness is increasing of who really pulls the strings in global politics and social engineering.

Rather than focus on the false left-right political paradigm, a diverse range of more than 20 groups such as Code Pink, Peace and Justice Center, ANSWER Coalition, Veterans for Peace, Occupied Press/Prensa Ocupada North Bay, Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored, the Bohemian Grove Action Network, The Fukushima Mothers and Cindy Sheehan will be gathering at Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, California beginning today, July 14, from beginning at noon PST.

Activists will kick off a two-week extended protest beginning with an inversion of the bizarre Cremation of Care ritual, which will instead celebrate a desire for justice and peace through a Creation of Care ceremony. According to organizers OccupyBohemianGrove.com:

Just outside the gates of the Bohemian Grove, Kris Welsh will MC the day, and Dennis Bernstein, host of Flashpoints on KPFA/Pacifica radio will broadcast live from the event. Russia Today-TV with Abby Martin will film and John Rees with No-Lies Radio will video-cast the day on the Internet.

Representatives from organizations will speak joining in coalition to create a vast cornucopia of care as a counter to the one-percent elites less than a mile away. In addition to the speakers, the program at the amphitheater will include musical performances by Dave Lippman, Teresa Tudury, Jim Ocean, Scott Gerber, Attila Nagy, Keith Blackstone and the Hubbub Club.
Admission to the Creation of Care is free. It will run from noon to 4 p.m. at the Monte Rio amphitheater, which is located at 9925 Main Street in downtown Monte Rio.

UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs

July 11, 2012

By Alex Newman:New American

RIO DE JANEIRO - The real agenda behind the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development was clear months before the summit began. It had little to do with solving poverty or legitimate environmental concerns. Instead, the UN was hoping to acquire vast new powers to re-shape the world and its people, as evidenced by multiple reports and documents it released ahead of the conference. Of course, the fact that Rio+20 Secretary General Sha Zukang was a Chinese Communist who openly loathes Americans was revealing, too.

Aside from the fairly transparent UN agenda, however, the conference itself offered a great deal of insight into the forces working together against national sovereignty, private property, individual liberty, and economic freedom. Big business was there - mostly begging for more government control and taxpayer money. A wide assortment of tax-funded "non-governmental organizations" - known as NGOs for short - was there, too. Unsurprisingly, they mostly demanded more government control.

Finally, no UN conference would be complete without member governments - a chance for Western powers to mingle with a gaggle of dictators and mass murderers styling themselves "presidents." They found plenty to agree on. In fact, it seemed like all of the so-called "stakeholders" were essentially on the same page: more for them, less for you. The New American (TNA) was also at the summit to bring you the inside stories that the mainstream press largely ignored.

Police State, Green Hypocrisy, Secrecy, & Disorder

Rio+20 was originally touted as the biggest UN summit in history, but analysts later said that probably was not true. Some 50,000 people were supposed to participate, but nowhere near that number actually showed up - several observers even thought that less than 10,000 had attended. Many of the world's most important heads of state and government - Obama, Angela Merkel of Germany, and the U.K.'s David Cameron, for example - also stayed away.

Immediately upon arrival, the most striking phenomenon in Rio was the overt nature of the police state. All over the city, attendees were greeted by armored personnel carriers and assault vehicles, dozens of military helicopters swarming overhead with turrets aimed downward, checkpoints manned by machine gun-wielding Brazilian troops, federal police dressed in futuristic costumes, and much more.

On the first day of the official conference, it took the TNA team more than two hours to cover just a few miles and get into the conference - largely owing to the unimaginable traffic created by "security." The fact that the troops occupying every street corner in the area demanding ID did not know what they were doing certainly did not help matters.

Once inside, the UN again revealed that its inability to run a proper conference - let alone the world - is surpassed only by its zealous ambition to assume ever-greater powers. There were not nearly enough desks for all of the journalists, leading to more than a few heated arguments. Internet cables were also in short supply, and the wireless Internet, when it was actually working, was pathetically slow.

Despite the summit being touted as an effort to increase "sustainability" - a vague term with hundreds of definitions generally understood to mean reduced consumption - the waste evident all throughout the conference was astounding. Every building was running the air-conditioning at full blast with the doors wide open, for example. In some rooms, the AC was so cold that journalists were moving out from under the vents.

Consuming less was apparently only a requirement for the ruled. The world's rulers and their representatives stayed at five-star hotels and lived a lifestyle unimaginable to most of the world - not to mention the millions of destitute Brazilians living in squalor throughout Rio's infamous favela slums. "Saving the world" from humanity at lavish conferences apparently costs a lot of money, and the "dignitaries" had every luxury at their disposal for the job. The total price tag of the summit remains a mystery.

Massive motorcades of gas-guzzling limos transported dictators and mass-murdering gangsters calling themselves "presidents," as well as their oversized entourages, to and from the venue. Meanwhile, other "VVIPs" - the term used by the UN to identify top officials at the summit - landed in carbon dioxide-spewing helicopters.

Apparently some of the dignitary squads squandered even more taxpayer money buying "carbon credits" from their cronies to offset the emissions. But the unsustainable resource-gobbling spectacle was slammed by more than a few critics on both sides of the debate, not to mention poor Brazilians who spoke with TNA, as blatant "green" hypocrisy. Even true "sustainability" believers were shocked.

When the environmental dignitaries left, security did too. At that point, residents of the slums in the area began pouring into the venue to scavenge for the remaining scraps left behind, looting the food court as the few remaining security guards were overwhelmed. The TNA team witnessed part of the commotion before leaving as dozens of favelados, as they're called, ran out from the food court carrying what they could.

The So-called "Stakeholders"

Governments:

Virtually every national government on Earth was represented at Rio+20. Delegates representing mass murderers, communist tyrants, genocidal maniacs, war criminals, Islamic theocracies, and more were all intermingling, supposedly defending the interests of their "citizens" while trying to hammer out an agreement to "save the world." Of course, it does not take much knowledge about the world to understand that at least the vast majority of the regimes present at the table had ulterior motives.

Unlike past conferences, government delegates at Rio+20 were kept in isolation, hiding behind security personnel in their own special pavilion. Organizations and the media were kept out - unless, of course, they could find a government willing to let them in. Even then, they were supposed to take care of business with the delegation that invited them through security and then promptly get out.

Across from the main venue was another large area where governments and dictatorships set up booths to tout their own accomplishments. Seeking press coverage for a panel discussion hosted by the Islamic monarchy ruling Qatar, the TNA team was invited to attend and was picked up in a private car paid for by the regime.

The discussion - mostly on redefining the concept of rights to include things like food, rather than liberties - featured more than a few heavyweights, including UN boss Ban Ki-moon, a socialist former Spanish prime minister, heads of UN agencies, and many others. The AC was blasting there, too, in what was essentially an open-air tent. After chatting briefly with the Qatari ambassador to the UN who happens to be serving as the chief of the UN General Assembly, mostly about why and how he thought the global body should save the world, TNA decided to visit some of the other government booths.

The communist dictatorship ruling over China had a massive setup where interested parties could learn about its supposed leadership on "sustainability" issues, though the regime seems to have toned down its celebration of the reduced "carbon emissions" achieved through its barbaric "one-child" policy. Nobody was available for an interview with TNA, but we did get a "flash drive" containing documents.

The European Union had a big booth, too, where participants were debating the role of regional regimes in the new green-world order. At the American government's booth, the first visible flyer was promoting population control, while another touted USAID programs to achieve global "sustainability." U.S. taxpayers' money also went to hand out coffee - presumably sustainably grown coffee - to anyone who stopped by. It was delicious.

Throughout the three-day summit, government representatives, including some prime ministers and presidents, offered long speeches about sustainability, what they were doing, what should be done, and more. Their faces were broadcast throughout the conference center on huge screens so people could see the dignitaries no matter where they went. But most people were not paying attention anyway.

The Cheerleading "Media"

When Rio+20 boss Zukang announced hundreds of "commitments" by governments and businesses on so-called "sustainability" worth more than half a trillion dollars, much of the audience - supposedly unbiased members of the media - applauded in delight. The bizarre scene offered extraordinary insight into why the one-sided international press coverage of such summits has become so routine.

Rather than asking hard questions about the alleged science or the true agenda, the vast majority of reports being churned out of the Rio+20 media room largely parroted UN claims as if they were gospel. The "significant" UN announcement at the final major summit press conference included few details about the actual agreements or their implications. For the most part, Zukang and other conference speakers simply offered vague generalities about building a "sustainable" world for a "better future," saying governments and businesses around the world had agreed to undertake massive "sustainability" efforts.

"From the very beginning, we have said Rio+20 is about implementation. It is about concrete action. And the commitments that we share with you today demonstrate that governments, the UN system and the nine major groups are committed and serious about implementation," said Zukang, the communist who also heads the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. "The total figure is now 692 registered commitments. Ladies and Gentlemen, this brings the estimated total value of commitments to $513 billion."

That's when most of the supposed journalists at the official press conference applauded and smiled upon hearing Zukang's news. According to critics of the media reaction, they were behaving more like cheerleaders than objective reporters. But unlike past major international environmental summits, most of the press was kept in the dark about the negotiations throughout the final days of the summit - making the applause even more bizarre.

As members of the press celebrated the vague announcements, one Japanese reporter called the behavior "ridiculous." Later on, more than a few analysts blasted the cheering, too. Critics of the shadowy negotiating process itself had even harsher words, slamming the global body's secrecy and the journalists' complacency about it.

The media applause continued after each speaker at the press conference - statements by politicians, bureaucrats, business leaders, and more all received a very warm reception from hundreds of journalists in attendance. When a non-profit foundation leader on the panel announced mandatory "sustainability education" for all Brazilian children enforceable by law, as well as the inclusion of "sustainable development" themes on national standardized tests, the reporters exhibited special delight.

Later that night, when the Rio+20 plenary session finally voted to adopt the highly controversial UN document known as "The Future We Want," the media section at the conference center erupted with applause, cheering, and whistling as if a goal had been scored in a soccer game. When asked on camera by TNA why they were celebrating, some refused to talk, others said they were happy because the summit was over, and still more claimed not to know.

Media outlets known to be especially reliable and relatively effective UN lapdogs - the state-funded BBC, for example - were given special, private areas to work in. They also obtained much greater access to the "VVIPs" in attendance, scoring exclusive interviews to ask soft-ball questions about why even more wasn't being done to save the world.

But despite the VIP treatment for select "media" outlets - in the United States, at least - the lack of press coverage about the summit was deafening. The day after the conference ended, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post included front-page headlines mentioning the conclusion of Rio+20. "It seems the conference did not end as the editors wished," noted Ken Haapala, executive vice president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Of course, most of the journalists celebrating Zukang's announcement at the press conference were almost certainly not aware at the time that no officially "binding" commitments had been foisted on populations by their governments. If they had known, based on discussions TNA had with reporters throughout the summit, they probably would not have been applauding.

Even with the cheerleading media, however, more than a few analysts and critics who spoke with TNA said the world was waking up to the UN's schemes and its failed science - especially in the United States, where opposition to the global agenda is building while the public largely rejects the alarmism being hyped to push it. Scientists, meanwhile, including many who have been affiliated with the UN, are jumping ship in growing numbers as well. And those trends, especially with the rise of the Internet and the alternative media, are likely to continue accelerating.

NGOs Demand Anti-liberty Global "Solutions"

As the summit got started on June 20, a 17-year-old NGO activist gave a speech to the national delegates about how it was their duty to decide the fate of her future and the future of her children. It was a dramatic opening - official dignitaries seemed impressed. Strong agreements and global measures were needed to save the world, she insisted.

Countless so-called NGOs were in attendance, supposedly representing "civil society." Much of the funding for the groups comes from taxpayers, so, unsurprisingly, most of them loudly called for more and more government to stop poverty, environmental problems, gender inequality, class inequality, and innumerable other real and perceived issues affecting the planet.

The Brazilian government helped them along, spending millions of taxpayer dollars to create a "People's Summit." Immediately upon arrival, this reporter was approached by a man wearing a giant condom suit handing out taxpayer-funded condoms from the "Ministry of Health" to the taxpayer-funded activists at the taxpayer-funded "People's Summit." Military helicopters were swarming overhead the whole time.

The TNA team spent several hours perusing the whole area. We spoke to socialists of various persuasions ranging from a representative of the Movement for Socialism, who did not think Latin America's socialist despots were radical enough, to a spokesperson for the "Movement to End Capitalism," who said the group desired reform that was impossible to achieve through politics and that money should be abolished. When asked how it might be accomplished without the existing political system, however, they offered few details.

Many of the "People" at the "People's" summit, despite their overt government backing, saw themselves as rebels. There were dozens - probably hundreds - of natives from the Amazon, too. Most of them were selling trinkets or chanting, but they made for good photo opportunities for the NGOs seeking to advance various causes.

A partially tax-funded Danish artist with "Art in Defense of Humanism" was there as well, presenting a series of exhibits including a decent-sized replica of the Statue of Liberty with the words "Freedom to Pollute" written across it. Another piece he was showing off featured a young pregnant girl on a crucifix, which he said was a protest against the Catholic Church for its opposition to sex education, contraception, pre-marital sex, abortion, and other teachings.

"We must get a lot of tax on oil," he told TNA in an interview, proposing $40 per gallon gasoline without really knowing what to do about the consequences such measures would have on the poor. After boasting of taking money from capitalists to use against them, he also said there was no "right to consume" and the standard of living in the West should decline dramatically - a common sentiment among the "people" at the tax-funded summit.

Greenpeace was at the "People's Summit" as well, offering presentations about mining and logging. The next day, however, we caught up with Icelandic investigative journalist Magnus Gudmundsson, who has studied environmental campaigns and their effects for more than two decades. His take on Greenpeace and other environmental groups was a real eye-opener.

According to Gudmundsson, many of the mega-"Green" groups use blatant deception. One example in particular that he spoke about was an allegedly bogus propaganda video created by Greenpeace purporting to show seal hunters in the far North. The video, he said, citing multiple experts, was staged for the camera. But the tragic effects on the some of the world's most vulnerable people were all too real.

"Communities have been destroyed economically and socially," Gudmundsson explained, pointing to Native American villages in the Arctic that had been completely devastated by "green" deception campaigns. "It brings in a lot of money" for the organizations, he said about the propaganda schemes. But the results are generally horror and destruction for the affected communities. More than 100 people out of less than 1,000 in just one village he visited committed suicide following a deceptive propaganda campaign to stop their traditional seal hunting.

"Communities have suffered incredibly, all in the name of saving the Earth," Gudmundsson told TNA, wondering if Rio+20 was part of the same pattern. "Of course, it has no impact on saving the Earth, but a big impact on their wallets."

Ironically, the vicious anti-seal hunting campaign actually ended up hurting the environment, he noted: The increase in seals caused a drop in the supply of fish, which threw the traditional ecosystem off balance. The local human community was virtually destroyed. And the seals were never even endangered in the first place.

Despite the stories of lies and destruction, however, many of the activists at Rio+20 were no doubt sincere. TNA interviewed some young Brazilians wearing funny-looking pig costumes, for example, who were passionately representing "Rio+Veg." The swine-suit-clad trio was very friendly as they explained the environmental benefits of vegetarianism. However, their mission at the conference - lobbying governments and the UN to curtail meat consumption - was typical of the NGOs' mindset: coercive power must be used to reform and guide humanity.

As the whole conference came to a close, another almost certainly well-intentioned activist spoke to TNA as well. Organizing Partner Kiara Worth representing the UN sustainability commission's Major Group for Children and Youth, was supposed to read a short statement on behalf of so-called "civil society" to the delegates.

But according to the young South African activist, she was told that there was no time - "essentially meaning that civil society has no voice here at the conference," she said, clearly upset, as representatives of governments and assorted dictatorships shuffled by with smiles on their faces. So, instead of reading the speech to the planet's "sustainability" dignitaries, she read it to TNA and answered a few questions.

"If these sheets of paper are our common future, then you have sold our fate and subsidized our common destruction," she said of the final UN agreement, expressing the disappointment many "stakeholders" felt with a document which did not technically mandate anything new. "We have one planet. Our being, our thinking, and our action should not be constrained by national boundaries, but by planetary ones. You failed to liberate yourselves from national and corporate self-interest."

Critics of the UN say the NGO activists present at the international conferences - no matter how sincere or well-intentioned - serve a crucial function under the guise of representing "society." The role of those groups and their criticisms about the UN's alleged failure to do enough help to advance the global institution's agenda, partly by making the sweeping planetary agreements seem moderate by comparison.

This allows the cheerleading media to create a false paradigm for their audiences where the only critics seem to be people who wanted more government, more UN, and more of the global agenda. Then, opponents of the whole agenda itself can be glossed over as the debate is framed in terms of advancing the UN's goals, or, on the other side advancing them even faster to please "civil society."

Opponents of the environmental agenda have called for an end to all taxpayer subsidies for NGOs, calling the government-funded groups "AstroTurf" designed to apply pressure from below and create the impression of popular support for the UN schemes. Of course, not all of the organizations receive public funds, but many do, even amid an economic crisis that has left untold millions completely destitute.

A few NGOs were at Rio+20 actually promoting what seemed to be real solutions to real problems. The Brazilian Association for Sustainable Development (ABIDES), for example, gave a presentation explaining that true sustainability should mean protecting nature while lifting people out of poverty - and it should start at the local level.

"The UN is speaking at a level that is not close to reality," said ABIDES President Everton Carvalho in an interview with TNA, noting that the real issues - increasing food production, developing infrastructure, creating jobs, and promoting economic growth - should be dealt with by locals who understand what is needed. "You have to solve the problems that are real, right now, for us."

Other organizations with representatives at Rio+20 promoting market solutions, economic growth, private property, real science, and individual liberty included the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. However, such groups were a tiny, tiny minority - and they received virtually no establishment-press coverage. The vast majority of NGOs were busy calling on the UN and world governments to expand their powers under the guise of environmentalism, poverty, and more - exactly the opposite of what all available evidence shows can truly alleviate real problems. For those groups, though, the media cameras were always rolling.

Big Business Joins Forces With UN & World Governments

Despite the widely held misconception of Big Business and Big Government as being at odds with each other, many of the world's top corporate chieftains played a central role throughout the UN conference. Many literally begged the global institution and its member governments for new regulations and more economic meddling.

"Businesses like regulation," said General Electric Brazil CEO Adriana Machado during a World Business Council for Sustainable Business panel discussion, without mentioning, of course, how much the U.S.-based side of GE has benefited at taxpayer expense. "Regulation is necessary to show companies who want to get better on how to get there." Apparently the market is just not good enough.

In an interview with TNA, Infosys co-chairman Senapathy "Kris" Gopalakrishnan, who also served as chief of an international coalition of companies known as "Business Action for Sustainable Development," offered similar remarks on joining hands with government. "As we move forward we have to start thinking about some policy framework, including regulations," he said, adding that businesses - which participated at Rio+20 in "record numbers" - should partner with "civil society" and governments to create rules. "It should be a public-private partnership in creating those regulations."

Unilever Global Advocacy Director Thomas Lingard spoke approvingly of so-called "public-private partnerships," too. In fact, he told TNA in an interview, his company is already working through the "Consumer Goods Forum" with some of its top competitors and assorted government agencies to move the "sustainable development" agenda along faster.

"We're very excited that what started out as an industry initiative is now attracting interest from governments to develop into more of a public-private partnership," he explained. The EU's burgeoning anti-carbon regime, meanwhile, is a good start, and Unilever is now "pushing for the tightening of that scheme," he noted.

While Lingard said the final UN agreement should have been stronger with more concrete deadlines, he was still optimistic about increasing the public-sector role in the economy. "We are very interested in governments creating the right frameworks," he said, adding that coercive power could play a greater role in reducing carbon dioxide, among other perceived ills. "We are encouraging governments to go further and to be more ambitious in the policy frameworks they set."

Countless CEOs and corporate leaders spoke of creating an "alliance" between government and enterprise - for "sustainability" purposes, of course. Indeed, there are now close to 10,000 corporations participating in the UN Global Compact, which aims to have businesses submit to the global body's schemes and "catalyze actions in support of broader UN goals."

Big tax-exempt foundations financed by some of the wealthiest people on Earth wholeheartedly agreed with the idea as well. "I think this is a moment of real transformational opportunity, that's why we are here and why we are partnering with the UN Global Compact," said Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin at the Rio+20 Corporate Sustainability Forum. "Turning all this potential into kinetic and life-saving flows of capital will require a concerted effort by governments, by foundations, by large companies and investors committed to developing this space and harnessing it. That is our primary goal."

Mega-companies at the summit - some of which have received massive taxpayer bailouts even in recent years - were actually so enthusiastic about the UN agenda that many of them offered billions for the cause. Bank of America, after receiving some $45 billion directly from American taxpayers, more than $100 billion in government loan guarantees, and even more in bailouts from the Federal Reserve, for example, pledged $50 billion to the agenda over the next decade. Many other top firms made similarly grandiose promises.

Governments and global bureaucrats were very pleased. UN chief Ban Ki-moon, for example, said he was upbeat about "these huge numbers" pouring into "sustainable development," adding that they were "part of a growing global movement for change." Now the global body must keep up the pressure. "Our job now is to create a critical mass, an irresistible momentum," he concluded.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who appeared briefly at Rio+20 to give a speech and pledge billions of taxpayer funds, seemed particularly enthusiastic about prodding the "private" sector to get on board, too. "Sustainability won't happen without business investment," she said. "Governments alone cannot solve all the problems we face ... That's why we are so strongly in favor of partnerships." It seemed like just about everybody at Rio+20 was strongly in favor of partnerships.

So-called "multilateral development banks" - taxpayer-backed transnational institutions working to finance the erosion of national sovereignty while putting populations in perpetual debt for their leaders' extravagant borrowing - pledged around $175 billion for "sustainability" schemes as well. The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank were both among the participants.

"We commit our institutions' support for implementing the sustainable development for all agenda," the banks said in a joint statement, noting that they would help harmonize and build policies around the world to advance the controversial "green" schemes. "We will work together to support global transformation in line with Rio+20 agreements."

Apparently the public-private financing plan, as UN documents revealed before the summit even started, will use coercive power to "encourage" investors and companies into showering more resources on "sustainability" schemes. Everyone will benefit, it seemed - except, of course, the people paying the bills: taxpayers and consumers. Big Business and Big Government, though, will be lining their pockets.

The anti-tax competition "cartel" known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was excited about all of the progress. "Without the private sector it's not going to work," noted OECD Secretary General José-Ángel Gurria. "While governments put up the seed money, the big numbers come from the private sector." Indeed.

One analyst, Ronald Bailey, who covered the summit for the libertarian Reason magazine, described the agenda of many Corporate Sustainability Forum participants as "green crony capitalism" - especially because virtually every panel touted so-called "public-private partnerships" as the way to achieve "sustainability." In recent years especially, Americans have become all too familiar with what Bailey described. Think Solyndra.

Obviously, not every corporate action taken under the guise of "sustainability" is necessarily wrong. Some firms, for example, are simply seeking to reduce costs by lowering water or electricity consumption, which would, in theory, benefit consumers by making production cheaper. However, for most of the businesses at Rio+20, benefiting consumers was - at the very least - not the main objective.

"The reason lots and lots of businesses are in Rio is they're rent-seeking," Copenhagen Business School Professor Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, was quoted as saying. "They're looking for huge potential subsidies for everything they produce."

Other analysts described the open discussions on "collaboration" between business and governments as something even more alarming, pointing to Benito Mussolini's widely quoted definition of fascism: "a merger of state and corporate power." Some observers also used the term "corporatism" to describe the ever-deepening bonds between the private sector and coercive power.

Rio+20: Billions for the Cause, Paid for by You

In all, the Rio+20 summit collected more than half a trillion dollars' worth of so-called "commitments" from governments, big businesses, and other key players. That is more than at any previous UN environmental summit - ever. Unfortunately for taxpayers and consumers, they will be paying the tab, either through higher taxes, higher prices, or a combination of the two.

The conference ended with a final agreement between virtually every national government in the world to continue working toward "sustainability" through "education," population control, less economic freedom, implementation of past treaties, and more centralized power at the global level. Because there were no new binding measures, however, the agenda certainly did not leap forward as fast as the UN and its supporters had hoped.

Still, despite the apparent setbacks, the effort to control the human population - at the global level, with its own wealth, allegedly for its own benefit - is not dead yet. Instead, it slowly marches onward, more quietly now, but with an extra $500 billion in the war chest after Rio+20. All, of course, paid for by the people themselves - much like the extravagant conference.

Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America

"Warning shots will not be fired"

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com July 6, 2012

A newly leaked US Army Military Police training manual for "Civil Disturbance Operations" outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

The document (PDF), which is dated 2006 and was used for a self-learning course at the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan, makes it clear that the operations described in the manual apply to both "CONUS and OCONUS," meaning inside the Continental United States and outside the Continental United States.

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.

The primary function of military assets will be focused around, "breaking up unauthorized gatherings and by patrolling the disturbance area to prevent the commission of lawless acts," states the document, adding, "during operations to restore order, military forces may present a show of force, establish roadblocks, break up crowds, employ crowd control agents, patrol, serve as security forces or reserves, and perform other operations as required."

The manual also describes how prisoners will be processed through temporary internment camps under the guidance of U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Internment/Resettlement Operations, which as we reported earlier this year, outlines how internees would be "re-educated" into developing an "appreciation of U.S. policies" while detained in prison camps inside the United States.

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."

The manual includes lists of weapons to be used against "rioters" or "demonstrators," including "antiriot grenades." It also advises troops to carry their guns in the "safe port arms" stance, a psychological tactic aimed at "making a show of force before rioters." Non-lethal weapons and water cannons are also included.

The document also explains how the military will be involved in spying on and gathering information on dissidents to identify the, "Existence of persons, groups, or organizations which have distinctively threatened or are creating disturbances."

"Crowd control agents" will also be deployed for the purpose of "reducing resistance," states the manual, which also implies that troops will be used to confiscate firearms.

"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.

"Consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores," the manual also states on page 27.

The document emphasizes how troops should make every effort, "to avoid appearing as an alien invading force and to present the image of a restrained and well-disciplined force whose sole purpose is to help to restore law and order with a minimum loss of life and property."

This 115 page manual represents a shocking new insight into how the U.S. military will be used domestically to violently quell unrest in the aftermath of a total economic collapse or other national emergency.

Preparations for using troops to deal with mass civil unrest on U.S. soil have been in the works for years.

Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for "homeland patrols" with one of their roles including helping with "civil unrest and crowd control".

In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of "domestic security" from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom's militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

A report produced that same year by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed "strategic shock."

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell "purposeful domestic resistance".

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border.

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

With many Americans now becoming "pre-revolutionary" as a result of their fury at the Obama administration and equally unpopular lawmakers in Washington, potential civil unrest could spring not just from a poverty-stricken underclass, but also the shrinking middle class.

Perhaps that's why the Department of Homeland Security is increasingly focusing its anti-terror apparatus on white middle class Americans, portraying them as domestic terrorists in a series of PSA videos. In addition, ‘Occupy' protesters are also now being characterized as terrorists.

As U.N. Finalizes Arms Trade Treaty, Opponents Warn of Global Gun Grab

By Patrick Goodenough

July 5, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - Amid energetic lobbying from both sides, the Obama administration is taking part in month-long negotiations at United Nations headquarters aimed at finalizing a conventional arms trade treaty, which supporters say will save millions of lives but opponents fear threatens to restrict Second Amendment rights at home and U.S. arms sales policies abroad.

U.N. bureaucrats insist that the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will have no impact on civilian gun ownership, saying that it will deal only with the arms trade across borders. They also stress that its outcome will not be imposed on any country, noting it will only be binding on countries that ratify it.

In a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the eve of the conference, 130 Republican lawmakers outlined their concerns that the treaty being negotiated could negatively affect U.S. security, foreign policy and economic interests - as well as Americans' constitutional rights.

"The ATT must not accept that free democracies and totalitarian regimes have the same right to conduct arms transfers: this is a dangerous piece of moral equivalence," the letter stated.

"Moreover, the ATT must not impose criteria for determining the permissibility of arms transfers that are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated," it continued, referring in particular to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and Israel.

The lawmakers warned that they would oppose the appropriation or authorization of any taxpayer money to implement a "flawed" treaty.

The Bush administration in 2006 cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations passed a U.N. General Assembly resolution that began the treaty-drafting process, which is now in its final phase in New York. President Obama reversed that position in 2009, backing the initiative but making its support conditional on consensus decision-making.

The "Knotted Gun" sculpture, by Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reutersward, on display at the Visitors' Plaza at U.N. headquarters in New York. (UN Photo by Rick Bajornas)

Alert to the political sensitivity of the issue as the election looms, the administration says it has clear red lines that it will not allow to be crossed.

At home, it says, the Second Amendment must be upheld: "There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law."

Abroad, the U.S. will oppose any provisions that would "unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests," it says.

Further, the administration pledges not to accept a treaty that covers ammunition or explosives, or one that establishes an international enforcement body.

Some of Washington's closest allies differ with at least some of those positions.

For example the British, French, German and Swedish governments in a joint position published this week said, "We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies."

Britain, France and Germany are among the world's top six arms suppliers, along with the United States - the leader by far - as well as China and Russia.

A powerful coalition of non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International and Oxfam says the negotiated treaty must be workable and enforceable, with international reporting of sales and a mechanism for monitoring compliance.

On the issue of consensus, the Control Arms coalition also wants the conference to follow usual U.N. practice, requiring "wide agreement" on a final text but not giving countries veto power.

‘Goal is clear: A robust and legally-binding arms trade treaty'

The month-long negotiating conference got off to a slow start this week after demands by Arab states that the Palestinian Authority be allowed to participate as a voting delegate, citing the precedent set by UNESCO in admitting "Palestine" as a full member nine months ago. After reported boycott threats by the U.S. and Israel, the P.A. was seated as an observer, without voting rights.

In his opening remarks, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said poorly-regulated international arms transfers fuel civil conflicts, destabilized regions, and empowered terrorists and criminal networks.

"Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally-binding arms trade treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence," he said.

One of the key issues under discussion is criteria that should be met when countries decide on selling arms. Any deal that would contribute to war crimes, human rights violations or terrorism should not be authorized, although who would make such determinations remains fuzzy.

If left up to countries themselves, argue proponents of a strong treaty, this would allow Russia, for example, to continue selling arms to Syria since Moscow views the regime's actions against the anti-Assad opposition as lawful.

Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball argued in a recent paper that the treaty must require countries to withhold problematic arms transfers, not merely require them to take any potential risks into account.

On the other hand, global regulation of sales could impact the right of the U.S. to sell arms to allies that have powerful enemies in the international community, such as Israel and Taiwan.

"Washington is the only capital that now sells weapons to Taipei, aiding its defense against Beijing's unprecedented arms buildup," Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes wrote in an op-ed Tuesday. "China would love to cut off those sales."

Also unclear is how arms sales benefiting terrorists would be restricted, given the U.N.'s failure over many years to define terrorism - largely because Arab and Muslim states insist on exclusions for those fighting "foreign occupation."

Less controversial proposed criteria for arms sales include not fostering corruption or harming the economy of the country buying the weapons.

ATT proponents and the U.N. say the initiative will not affect domestic gun ownership, but Second Amendment advocacy groups are adamantly opposed to the treaty, which Gun Owners of America calls "a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to impose radical gun control on America citizens."

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, National Rifle Association vice-president Wayne LaPierre accused Obama of working behind the scenes with the U.N. on a "treaty that could effectively ban or severely restrict civilian ownership of firearms worldwide."

"I've been around long enough to know that the U.N. has little regard for our Constitution and none at all for the Second Amendment," LaPierre said. "But I never thought I'd see the day when an American White House would tolerate a proposal that would literally gut one of our most fundamental freedoms in this country."

Last March Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced legislation prohibiting any funds for negotiating an ATT that would restrict U.S. citizens' Second Amendment rights. The bill has 19 co-sponsors, all Republicans.

Obamacare, the Great Swindle

Mike Adams

Natural News July 2, 2012

Now that Obamacare has been ruled a tax by the U.S. Supreme Court, reality is starting to sink in for all those who emotionally supported it. Promoted as a way to provide either free health care or low-cost health care to the masses, the sobering reality is that under Obamacare, health insurance prices keep rising, not falling. That's no surprise, of course, since the Obamacare legislation was practically written by the health insurance companies, and they sure didn't put their weight behind a sweeping new law that would earn them less profit.

In an era when the so-called "99%" are sick and tired of being exploited by the one percent who control everything, they just handed their medical futures over to precisely the one percent who skillfully monopolize the conventional health care system!

Obamacare is, at every level, a huge victory for the one percent.

A costly new tax on the middle class

By the year 2016, the Obamacare "penalty" tax will reach roughly $2,000 per year for a two-person household. According to Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, 75% of the financial burden of Obamacare's new taxes will fall onto Americans making less than $120,000 a year (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obama...). The great Middle Class, in other words, will bear this new tax more than anyone else.

In effect, what has really happened here is a great swindle: Obama got the middle class to support his legislation by promising it was NOT a tax, and by promising it would LOWER health insurance costs. In reality, however, it RAISES health insurance costs, it IS a tax, and the majority of that tax burden falls squarely on the very same middle-class voters who put Obama into office under false pretenses. That's a swindle, by any definition.

Not surprisingly, this realization doesn't sit well with many middle class taxpayers. While the original emotional appeal of Obamacare was nicely packaged and seductively marketed to the masses, the sobering, post-honeymoon reality slaps us all in the face like a wet fish: Smack! This thing is another huge tax increase on the working class! And on top of that, it gives the IRS scary new powers to pry into our private finances. How did you all think compliance with Obamacare was going to be enforced, anyway? It's going to empower the IRS with even more agents!

Government monopoly for Big Pharma

Even worse than the trillions in new taxes and the IRS spy grid that's now being set up to monitor compliance with Obamacare, there's also the sobering fact that Obamacare never even attempted to give consumers a free choice in their health care providers. There's no coverage of naturopathic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture or nutritional therapies. The entire law is written around - and for - Big Pharma and the conventional "sick care" industry that's best described as a "medical racket."

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't even have a chance to opt out of this corrupt, failed system of patented chemical medications and overpriced surgical procedures. Now, we are forced to hand over our hard-earned money to the very same medical system that we already know is responsible for killing over 750,000 Americans a year. It's called "iatrogenic death," and it means death by health care.

So not only are we being chemically abused and medically enslaved in America, we are now financially forced to pay for the privilege of being raked over the coals by the medical establishment. It makes you wonder... where is the "care" in Obamacare?

But wait, there's more! From this position of being coerced by the government to pay for a system of medicine you don't even want, it's not much of a leap to being coerced to undergo medical procedures you don't want, either.

How Obamacare will lead to mandatory vaccinations for everyone

Forced vaccinations - for adults! - are on the way, friends. And here's why: Once everybody is "in the system" of mandatory health care, we will begin to hear arguments like this:

"Anyone who refuses to get vaccinated against influenza is thereby at risk of being an influenza carrier and infecting other people, thus increasing health care costs for us all. To save money, government must force everyone to get vaccinated!"

It's a false argument, of course, but it will be used to literally line people up at courthouses (with the threat of arrest and jail time) and force them all to be vaccinated against their will.

The same false logic can be used to force people to undergo chemotherapy, take AIDS drugs, undergo coronary bypass surgery or be subjected to almost any medical procedure deemed "necessary" by the government. In the realm of mental health and psychiatry, this opens up a Pandora's Box of exploitation of patients for the purpose of raking in record profits for the criminally-operated psychiatric drug industry.

Such is the inevitable abuse of monopolistic market practices enforced by a corrupt government that serves the interests of its corporate masters: Once the sick care industry has this monopoly and can force everyone to participate, they will exploit that advantage to its fullest profiteering capacity.

Remember: It is the dream of every corporation to dominate the world. Obamacare just gave Big Pharma and the other sick care giants huge monopolistic cheats to pursue precisely that goal.

Sober up, America

In a time when consumers are increasingly demanding transparency, free choice and the ability to shop around for competitive bargains, Obamacare codifies secrecy, mandatory compliance and monopolistic practices.

Maybe it's time to sober up and take an honest look at what Obamacare really is instead of what Obama promised it would be. People bought into the dream, but what they actually received was a monumental swindle.

Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power

Mike Adams

NaturalNews.com June 29, 2012

Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."

Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court

This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it's a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom - a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:

• A new car each year from Detroit, in order to "boost the U.S. auto industry."

• War bonds to "support the war effort."

• A year's supply of vaccines.

• Life insurance from the government's "approved" sources.

• Lawn fertilizer (the "lawn health care mandate").

• Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.

There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court's wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.

Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry

Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.

If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.

If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up "drugs and surgery" medicine, but complementary medicine isn't covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't even opt out!

Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds

That's the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it's only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.

Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents - from any political party - will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don't want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a "tax."

Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have "for your own protection." You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don't want or even need!

America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we'll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765)

The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.

The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent - consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.

Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.

The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.

House Committee Approves Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill

Full vote on transparency bill next month?

Steve Watson

Infowars.com June 28, 2012

The House Oversight Committee approved a bill Wednesday introduced by Congressman Ron Paul that would see a full audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history.

The bipartisan vote was almost completely unanimous in it's favor of Federal Reserve Transparency Act, with no vocal opposition and the legislation will now advance to the floor of the House of Representatives next month.

If it is successful, the bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a top to bottom audit of the Fed's board of governors and 12 regional banks, and reveal details of its private monetary policy deliberations.

The only opposition came from the ranking Democrat on the committee, Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who attempted to introduce an amendment that would prevent the GAO from auditing the Fed's discussions on monetary policy. Cummings withdrew the amendment after Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) noted that it "essentially guts this bill."

Issa noted that "It is long past time for a real audit," and was backed up by Rep. Justin Amash, who highlighted the deficiencies in the current system of monitoring the Federal Reserve's secret actions:

Ron Paul has made an audit of the Fed a long term goal during his time in Congress.

After introducing his original audit the Fed bill in 2009, a watered down version was added to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law signed into law last year. However, much of Paul's bill had been stripped away, and even the Congressman himself voted against the final bill.

However, the bill did allow for a rare one off audit of the Federal Reserve's crisis-response emergency lending programs of 2008. In October of last year, in his role as chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy subcommittee, Paul relished the glimmer of transparency and led the hearing into the GAO's audit.

"More people now are starting to realize that the Fed isn't independent of political independence because indirectly and some times more directly it is involved in political decisions or at least private decisions to serve some political interest." Paul noted during the hearing last year.

Along with Paul, Republicans in attendance argued that the audit should pave the way for regular reviews of the Fed's policies, as well as more complete disclosure of exactly who has received upwards of $27 trillion in bail out funds since 2008.

"Would it be much of a problem if we were doing this every year?" Paul asked.

Although the one time GAO audit was extremely limited in its scope, the report found several instances of conflicts of interest and questionable practices involving Fed officials. It was also revealed that the Fed made $16.1 trillion in secret loans to Wall Street firms at the height of the crisis.

The full audit the Fed bill would repeal specific limitations that were applicable to the previous one off audit of the Fed. Currently, any audits of the Board and Federal reserve banks may not include-

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection.

In order for the legislation to be signed into law, it will have to pass both Chambers of Congress. The Senate version of the bill, introduced by Paul's son Rand (R-KY), has yet to be marked-up for debate.

In an emailed press release this morning, Sen. Paul said:

"Today, I applaud the unanimous passage of Audit the Fed out of committee and commend House leadership for promising a vote on Audit the Fed next month."

"It is important that we get our economy growing again through savings and investment, not more debt and deficit spending. But we can't turn the economy around until we fix the root of the problem: an unaccountable Federal Reserve. A complete and thorough audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington." Sen. Paul continued.

"I have introduced similar legislation in the Senate and will continue to fight on the frontlines of this battle to get Audit the Fed passed through Congress," he added.

Ron Paul has previously highlighted the importance of bringing full Transparency to the Federal Reserve, noting that it would pave the way for a return to sound monetary policy and help mark an end to the practices that have plunged the economy into deep crisis.

"The Federal Reserve behind the scenes has the power to create money out of thin air, I mean it's absolutely bizarre. Never in the history of the world has any one single bank been given the power to create the reserve currency of the world like we have had since 1971. So yes, they can bailout their friends and let the people they don't like fail, and create a trillion dollars or more out of thin air in order to prop up some companies at the expense of others, it's not viable, it makes no sense." Paul urged in a 2010 interview with CNBC.

"When the history of this time is written, people will say ‘how in the world did they believe that a few people in a secret room can decide what interest rates should be, how much the money supply should be, who should fail, what bad assets, what worthless assets the tax payers have to buy?' it's absolutely bizarre, yet the American people right now I think are waking up to it."

UN Receives Agenda 21 Funding from World Governments and Corporations

June 26, 2012

Susanne Posel: BlacklistedNews.com

Governments and private sector corporations have pledged to fund the United Nations' endeavors toward global governance with a generous $513 billion for Agenda 21 project that will restrict the movements of humans, perverse biodiversity and assist the UN in attaining their Millennium Development Goals.

Secretary-General Sha Zukang of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) said that over 692 monetary promises were given to the UN.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was thrilled that so much money had been given to the UN. "These huge numbers give a sense of the scale and growth of investment going into sustainable development. They are part of a growing global movement for change. Our job now is to create a critical mass, an irresistible momentum."

Corporations like PepsiCo, and Virgin's CEO Richard Branson project Carbon War Room are receiving $2 billion from the US government.

Jose-Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development , explained: "Without the private sector it's not going to work. While governments put up the seed money, the big numbers come from the private sector. The private sector is looking at green growth with great interest, seeing it as an opportunity, as jobs, as investment."

Academia and universities in places like Bejing, Sydney, Paris and New York will conduct and fund Agenda 21 projects on mega-city sustainability. Most of the $1 trillion allotted will go to projects in turbine, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy.

Manish Bapna, acting president of the World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington-based environmental research group, said: "There's no doubt that Rio+20 fell short. But it's a mistake to conflate what happened here with what's happening on the ground. You just need to look beyond the walls of the conference to find real-world examples of action."

The Natural Resources Defense Council will target specific commitments concerning environmental advocacy that is intended to coerce the public into making the much needed rally cry for the new sustainable changes to our lives that the global Elite want to implement.

Bjorn Lomborg, professor at Copenhagen Business School, admonishes the follow-through records of governments as "very poor" and says they should be made to follow the recommendations set out at the conference in Rio. Lomborg explains that the UN has turned to corporations to help them.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State supports the incorporation of the Agenda 21 movement. She remarked that "sustainability won't happen without business investment. Governments alone cannot solve all the problems we face, from climate change to persistent poverty to chronic energy shortages. That's why we are so strongly in favor of partnerships."

As far as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is concerned, the money from corporations and governments cannot come at a better time. Ki-moon claims that "words must translate into action" with regard to moving the environmental governance agenda forward.

Ki-moon says that since the first UNCSD, the incremental slide toward total global governance has spawned UN conventions on climate change, biodiversity and desertification, as well as the Agenda 21 blueprint for sustainable development, yet "progress has been too slow - we have not gone far enough down the road. We are now in sight of a historic agreement - the world is waiting to see if words will translate into action, as we know they must."

The Asian Development Bank , one of 8 international development financial institutions have agreed to give the UN $175 billion for sustainable transportation schemes to be built and running within 10 years.

Holger Dalkmann, of the WRI, believe that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically cut by the controlled utilization of sustainable transport to replace private cars to ensure "cleaner air, less congested roads, and safer transportation."

Businesses must be balancing costs with sustainability in order to continue doing business. Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister calls this practice "a false economy" and demands transparency from British corporations.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, says that corporate power must be merged with the UN's sustainable development goals if they are to be successful.

Governments like Russia, the Middle Eastern Nations and Latin America have been ruled as opposing the UN's Agenda 21 policies.

Redirecting cash flow toward under-developed nations in a huge money laundering scheme is what the UN are planning. Endorsing green economies as defined by the UN's standards are being forced upon South African nations right now.

Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University and special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon strongly suggests that: "Those of us who look at this day in, day out know that many poor countries need that kind of help. And it does not do any good to cite large ambitious promises many years out, and then behind the scenes to say ‘we're not going to talk about how they're going to be fulfilled."

Lisa Jackson, administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affirmed that the US is committed to the UN's Agenda 21 and the "green economy" that is required to sustain the scheme.

Brundtland explains that governments should work more closely with the powerful corporations to synergize "our political system, corporations, businesses and people who have economic power influence political decision-makers - that's a fact, and so it's part of the analysis."

The UN is currently fine-tuning their UN climate agreement that will be ushered in at the "next Copenhagen" conference. It is there that the world will see the unveiling of legal force, corporate influence and the march toward global governance called Agenda 21.

Building A "Global Trading Empire": The Merger of NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

by Dana Gabriel

Global Research, June 26, 2012

Both Canada and Mexico have been invited to join the U.S., along with other countries already engaged in negotiations which will deepen trade and economic ties within the Asia-Pacific region. Such a deal would surpass NAFTA in size and scope. The U.S. led talks which have been criticized for their secretive nature, could be used to update aspects of existing trade pacts among member nations. This would provide the perfect opportunity for a backdoor renegotiation of NAFTA without officially having to open it back up.

After expressing interest in joining trade talks back in November 2011, NAFTA partners have been invited to join the U.S. backed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which also includes Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk welcomed both Mexico and Canada into the TPP fold. He noted that, "Mexico has assured the United States that it is prepared to conclude a high-standard agreement that will include issues that were not covered in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." He added, "Inviting Canada to join the TPP negotiations presents a unique opportunity for the United States to build upon this already dynamic trading relationship. Through TPP, we are bringing the relationship with our largest trading partner into the 21st century." A joint statement by the U.S. and Canada acknowledged that, "The TPP presents an opportunity to conclude a high standard agreement that will build on the commitments of NAFTA."

The Council of Canadians which continues to be a vocal opponent of NAFTA and other trade deals that follow the same flawed template, are strongly against Canada's entry into the TPP. Its national chairperson, Maude Barlow warned that this, "could force Canada to change its drug policies, its copyright policies, its environmental and public health rules - all without going through the normal parliamentary process." The organization cautioned how, "TPP negotiations could mean up-front concessions in a number of areas, including intellectual property rights, where the U.S. is making considerable demands on TPP member countries that will undermine access to essential medicines so that its multinational drug firms can increase profits." They also emphasized that, "Supply management, which guarantees fair wages and stable prices for farmers in non-exporting sectors, is too valuable to Canada to sacrifice on a negotiating table." Others have pointed out that it is important as a buy-local program, as well as key to Canada's food security and food sovereignty. The Council of Canadians maintains that, "the TPP is by and large a NAFTA renegotiation but on U.S. President Obama's terms."

Not surprisingly, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an organization that lobbies the government on behalf of the country's largest corporations, welcomed the announcement that Canada has been invited to join the TPP talks. Its President and CEO John Manley stated that, "By signing on to the TPP, the federal government has taken an historic leap toward securing Canada's long-term strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce have also applauded Canada and Mexico's entry into the TPP. Its President and CEO Thomas Donohue argued that, "negotiating the TPP together is an excellent strategic decision for North America." Back in January, the Council of the Americas explained how, "it makes little sense for the United States to enter into potentially significant trade arrangements with countries in the Pacific region without our NAFTA partners." They view the TPP as a "promising vehicle to support the updating of our bilateral and trilateral trading relationships within North America to the high standards of twenty-first century free-trade agreements."

In his article, Will invitation to join TPP talks lead to NAFTA 2.0?, Peter Clark one of Canada's leading international trade strategists concluded that, "A successful TPP would allow NAFTA to essentially be re-opened without the optics of it actually being re-opened." He went on to say, "The business leaders in all three NAFTA countries, as strong supporters of TPP invitations to Canada and Mexico, understand that after nearly 20 years, modernization of NAFTA is needed. For rules of origin, supply chain management and manufacturing integration." Clark stressed that, "All Canadians should be clear about this - TPP is the negotiation of NAFTA 2.0 and it could have major implications for Canada-USA trade relations." Meanwhile, both countries are implementing the Beyond the Border Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan which has been described as the most significant steps forward in U.S.-Canada cooperation since NAFTA. Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute observed how, "The TPP negotiating agenda is at once similar to the bilateral agenda that Canada and the United States are pursuing, and also more ambitious and multilateral."

In May, the TPP held its twelfth round of negotiations with the next set of talks scheduled to take place in San Diego, California from July 2-10. So far, there has been a real lack of transparency, but what is clear is that the TPP seeks to go beyond other trade agreements. According to a leaked text by Public Citizen, it would expand on the investor privileges found in NAFTA, granting corporations more power and further threatening the sovereign rights of member nations. In the meantime, the U.S. continues to spearhead TPP negotiations as a way of countering growing Chinese influence. The door is open for other countries to join which is why it is considered to be a stepping stone to a larger free trade area of the Asia-Pacific and an important part of the international corporate globalization agenda.

Trade deals such as NAFTA and now the TPP are being used to smuggle through a new set of transnational corporate rights, trapping nations in a web of treaties that further trump their own laws. All too often, these agreements fail to deliver on the promise of prosperity and only serve to accelerate the path towards economic enslavement. Globalization has meant sacrificing self-sufficiency and sovereignty for foreign dependency which is a sure path to world government.

Confirmed: US CIA Arming Terrorists in Syria

June 22, 2012

Source: Tony Cartalucci

The New York Times in their article, "C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition," confirms what many have already long known - that the West, led by the US and its Gulf State proxies, have been arming terrorists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, while berating the Syrian government for "violating" a UN mandated ceasefire and for "failing to protect" its population.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been combated by nations across the Arab World to stem the tide of their sectarian extremism, violence, and their targeted erosion of secular nation-states. Ironically, the US which has claimed to have been fighting the forces of sectarian extremism and "terrorism" for over a decade now, have been revealed as the primary enabler of the most violent and extreme terrorist organizations in the world. These include, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Libya, Baluch terrorists in Pakistan, and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) currently based in Iraq and being used as proxies against Iran.

The New York Times claims that, "the C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said," a unsubstantiated claim that was similarly made in Libya before Al Qaeda flags were run up poles in Benghazi by rebels flush with NATO cash and arms used to collapse the government of Muammar Qaddafi. In fact, it is confirmed that Libyan LIFG rebels, led by Al Qaeda commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj, have now made their way by the hundreds to Syria (and here).

Despite months of the US claiming the "international community" sought to end the violence and protect the population of Syria, the New York Times now admits that the US is engaged in supporting a "military campaign" against the Syrian government aimed at increasing "pressure" on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Efforts to impose an arms embargo on Syria is now revealed to be one-sided, aimed at giving rebels an advantage in the prolonged bloodbath with the intent on tipping the balance in favor of Western proxy-forces - not end the violence as soon as possible as claimed by the UN, and in particular, Kofi Annan.

The Times also reported that Turkey has been directly delivering weapons to terrorists operating in Syria - Turkey being a NATO member and implicating NATO as now being directly involved in perpetuating bloodshed in the Middle Eastern nation. For months, Turkey has been allowing terrorists to use its border region as a refuge from which to stage attacks against Syria.

Despite this, however, the so-called "Free Syrian Army," according to the New York Times, consists of only 100 or so small formations made up of "a handful of fighters to a couple of hundred combatants," betraying the narrative that the Syrian government faces a large popular uprising, and revealing that the "Free Syrian Army" is in fact a small collection of mercenaries, foreign fighters, and sectarian extremists, armed, funded, and directed by foreign interests solely to wreak havoc within Syria. It should be noted that these terrorist proxies were organized as early as 2007 by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, specifically to enact regime change and transform Syria into a Western client regime.

As the West's propaganda campaign imploded after a torrent of unsubstantiated claims of "massacres" and "atrocities," all unverified, some in fact being revealed as the work of the West's sectarian proxies themselves, it appears that sidelining Syria in headlines while pursuing a clandestine proxy war is now the tactic of choice for the time being.

For the United States to claim Syria has "failed" to protect it population while simultaneously fueling the very armed conflict it claims it is seeking to end is not only hypocrisy of the highest order, but a crime against world peace - punishable under the Nuremberg precedent.

Data Mining: Big Corporations Are Gathering Every Shred Of Information About You That They Can

...And Selling It For Profit

Michael Snyder: The Economic Collapse

June 22, 2012

When most people think of "Big Brother", they think of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security and other shadowy government agencies. Yes, they are definitely watching you, but so are many big corporations.

In fact, there are some companies that are making tens of millions of dollars by gathering every shred of information about all of us that they can and selling it for profit to anyone willing to pay the price. It is called "data mining", and these data miners want to keep track of literally everything that you do. Most people know that basically everything that we do on the Internet is tracked, but data mining goes far beyond that. When you use a customer rewards card at the supermarket, the data miners know about it. When you pay for a purchase with a credit card or a debit card, the data miners know about it. Every time you buy a prescription drug, that information is sold to someone. Every time you apply for a loan, a whole host of organizations is notified. Information has become an extremely valuable commodity, and thanks to computers and the Internet it is easier to gather information than ever before. But that also means that our personal information is no longer "private", and this trend is only going to get worse in the years ahead.

You have probably never even heard of many of these companies that are making millions of dollars selling your personal information. Acxiom and Epsilon are two of the biggest names in the industry, and most of the time they are selling your information to companies that want to sell you stuff.

Almost every single day, very personal information about you is being bought and sold without your permission and it is all perfectly legal.

A recent article in The Week says the following about Acxiom....

An Arkansas company you've probably never heard of knows more about you than some of your friends, Google, and even the FBI - and it's selling your data

The scale of the information gathering that Acxiom does is absolutely mind blowing. If you can believe it, Acxiom actually keeps track of more than 190 million people inside the United States....

The company fits into a category called database marketing. It started in 1969 as an outfit called Demographics Inc., using phone books and other notably low-tech tools, as well as one computer, to amass information on voters and consumers for direct marketing. Almost 40 years later, Acxiom has detailed entries for more than 190 million people and 126 million households in the U.S., and about 500 million active consumers worldwide. More than 23,000 servers in Conway, just north of Little Rock, collect and analyze more than 50 trillion data ‘transactions' a year.

So what does Acxiom want to know about you?

Everything.

The following is from a recent New York Times article about Acxiom....

IT knows who you are. It knows where you live. It knows what you do.

It peers deeper into American life than the F.B.I. or the I.R.S., or those prying digital eyes at Facebook and Google. If you are an American adult, the odds are that it knows things like your age, race, sex, weight, height, marital status, education level, politics, buying habits, household health worries, vacation dreams - and on and on.

Companies such as Acxiom literally want every shred of information about you that they can possibly get.

Once they gather all that data, Acxiom analyzes it, packages it and sells it to large corporations such as Wells Fargo, HSBC, Toyota, Ford and Macy's.

And being in the "Big Brother business" is very, very profitable.

Acxiom made more than 77 million dollars in profits during their latest fiscal year.

Some members of Congress are very alarmed by all of this. According to U.S. Senator John Kerry, this industry is virtually unregulated....

"There's no code of conduct. There's no standard. There's nothing that safeguards privacy and establishes rules of the road."

So what do big corporations do with all of this data after they purchase it from companies like Acxiom?

Well, for one thing, they use it to try to predict how you will behave. A Daily Beast article gave some examples of how this works....

Predicting people's behavior is becoming big business-and increasingly feasible in an era defined by accessible information. Data crunching by Canadian Tire, for instance, recently enabled the retailer's credit card business to create psychological profiles of its cardholders that were built upon alarmingly precise correlations. Their findings: Cardholders who purchased carbon-monoxide detectors, premium birdseed, and felt pads for the bottoms of their chair legs rarely missed a payment. On the other hand, those who bought cheap motor oil and visited a Montreal pool bar called "Sharx" were a higher risk. "If you show us what you buy, we can tell you who you are, maybe even better than you know yourself," a former Canadian Tire exec said.

I don't know about you, but I find that a bit creepy.

Later on in that same article, how some U.S. companies are using this kind of information was explained....

Other industries have bolstered their bottom lines by predicting how consumers will behave, according to Super Crunchers. UPS predicts when customers are at risk of fleeing to one of its competitors, and then tries to prevent the loss with a telephone call from a salesperson. And with its "Total Rewards" card, Harrah's casinos track everything that players win and lose, in real time, and then analyze their demographic information to calculate their "pain point"-the maximum amount of money they're likely to be willing to lose and still come back to the casino in the future. Players who get too close to their pain point are likely to be offered a free dinner that gets them off the casino floor.

So is all of this data gathering harmless?

Does it simply make our economy more efficient?

Or is there a greater danger here?

At some point could all of our personal information be used for more insidious purposes?

One thing is for sure - this is a trend that is not going away any time soon.

As our society becomes even more integrated through the Internet, data gathering is going to become even more comprehensive.

Eventually these complicated computer algorithms will be able to make very detailed predictions about your future behavior with a very, very high degree of accuracy.

When you add government snooping into the equation, it becomes easy to see why privacy advocates are going crazy these days.

Our society is literally being transformed into a technological monitoring grid. Virtually everything we do is monitored, tracked and recorded in some way.

If we are not very careful, eventually we could end up living in a society that is much more oppressive than anything George Orwell ever dreamed of.

Is a Military Drone Base Coming to Your Hometown?

By Lee Ferran

Jun 18, 2012

Death-dealing drones buzzing above may be a constant worry for militants in far-flung lands, but now more of America's aerial assassins and their spying compatriots could be coming to your backyard - just for testing and training, according to the Department of Defense.

The military has identified 110 potential bases for drone operations at military installations in 39 states, from Georgia to California, according to a new Defense Department report dated April 2012 and published online late last week by the Federation of American Scientists. The U.S. bases could support all kinds of drones, from the deadly, missile-capable Predators to the next-generation surveillance Global Hawks.

Drone testing and operator training are already done in the U.S., but the report noted that the "strong demand" from the military's various branches for expanded access to domestic airspace, which is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration, has "quickly exceeded the current airspace available for these activities." The report says that under current policy, the military has to obtain temporary permission to operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) outside its own restricted airspace.

Earlier this month the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said in a defense budget bill that the government needs to speed up the process in which drones are integrated into the national airspace.

"Without the ability to operate freely and routinely in the NAS [National Airspace System], UAS development and training - and ultimately operational capabilities - will be severely impacted," the committee said in its report.

The Defense Department report's public unveiling follows the publication of a list of dozens of "current" drone bases early last week by the anti-secrecy website public intelligence.

The U.S. military currently has 6,316 drones of various types, according to the report, and plans to add another 2,076 by 2017.

Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com June 15, 2012

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axerlrod, announced earlier this week that the administration will push for a constitutional amendment to rollback free speech if his boss is re-elected in November.

"When we win, we will use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment, to turn this back," Axlerod said on Wednesday. "I understand the free speech argument, but when the Koch brothers can spend $400 million, more than the McCain campaign and the Republican Party spent last time, that's very concerning."

"This has never been done before - in 235 years - to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country - a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it," remarked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

"America was built on free speech - the most important part of the Bill of Rights - and so we need to defend speech we don't like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut us up," he said.

McConnell accused the Obama administration of using the the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to muzzle its critics. He added that the tactic is reminiscent of Nixon's enemies list in the 1970s. White House Counsel John Dean said Nixon wanted to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."

In April, Rory Cooper wrote about Obama's "Truth Team" campaign website. He noted "subtle differences between Obama's and Nixon's enemy lists. President Nixon kept his secret, and allegedly used the force of the government to punish adversaries. President Obama's list is open and designed to elicit public scorn, shame and rebuke. There is no current evidence the President has manipulated the federal machinery punitively. But the message remains clear, if you support a philosophical adversary, you will face some retribution."

Cooper penned his commentary following remarks made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and House Democrats have proposed a three tiered plan to ram through Congress what is known as the DISCLOSE Act. It would restrict the political speech of "covered organizations," including most television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and think tanks.

Axlerod's remarks about the First Amendment reveal that the so-called Team Obama approach to silencing the political opposition is not particularly effective. It also reveals a brazen contempt for the Bill of Rights.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the court said the First Amendment applies to all entities, including corporations:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. ... This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. ... Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection "simply because its source is a corporation." The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not "natural persons."

Obama and Axlerod may disagree with the concept of "corporate personhood" (except, of course, when it comes to the banks and corporations that support Obama), but the issue has far larger implications than simply preventing the dreaded Koch brothers from spending a small portion of their billions for the purpose of political speech.

If Obama manages to amend the Constitution - a remote possibility at best (but then considering the way the Supreme Court is currently construed, maybe not) - restrictions on free speech will undoubtedly be used against opponents outside the political establishment.

Axlerod's comments underscore a deep-seated hostility toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as McConnell noted (not that Republicans are exactly champions of liberty).

Obama and the Democrats apparently hate that the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as inherent in our humanity. Axlerod's comments reveal Obama - who we are told is a constitutional scholar - does not agree

Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty

June 14, 2012

By Susanne Posel

Occupy Corporatism

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State has announced that the Obama administration is working with the United Nations (UN) to approve, through the US Congress, the Small Arms Treaty (SAT).

Clinton affirmed that the US would facilitate talks with the UN in the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, as long as it "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly."

This global gun control scheme, concocted by the UN, is called the International Arms Control Treaty (IACT). Disguised as a way to combat terrorism, insurgents and international criminals, this document endeavors to secure that the world's citizens cannot defend themselves.

The IACT will empower the UN to literally force the US government to:

Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans.
Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the US government to keep theirs.
Ban trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic guns.
Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America.
Senator Jerry Moran said in a letter (signed by 44 other senators) to President Obama; warning him not to continue his push for ratification of the SAT. Moran wrote:

Our country's sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.
The US is the world's largest exporter of firearms; while private sales between citizens, collectors and sportsmen would all be internationally regulated with the approval of IACT. This includes rules over ammunition, and procurement.

The Obama administration, in an attempt to appear coy, agreed to sign only if other states agreed to as well. Yet many Senators, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and pro-gun advocates perceive IACT as the first step in international gun control and will not abide by while Obama gives the UN over-reaching power to destroy our 2nd Amendment and our Constitutional Republic.

A final version of SAT, which is based on IACT will be drafted by 2013.

Chris Cox, the NRA's top lobbyist, explains:

As we have for the past 15 years, the NRA will fight to stop a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Constitutional rights of American gun owners.
Cox feels that Senators like Moran:

send a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or their elected U.S. Senators. Senator Moran is a true champion of our freedom. We are grateful for his leadership and his tenacious efforts on this issue, as well as the 44 other senators who agree with the NRA's refusal to compromise on our constitutional freedoms.
Last month, in press release , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has awarded defense contractor ATK with an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition.

According to ATK :

'ATK has secured a major Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity deal to supply up to 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security . . . The 1 year contract with four option years comes at a time when many Americans believe that DHS, along with certain aspects of the military, will soon turn their sights on the American people during some sort of martial law scenario . . . We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,' said Ron Johnson, the president of ATK's Security and Sporting group.
This particular type of bullet is meant to expand upon impact "engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration."

This order is not the first for DHS. In 2009, DHS contracted Winchester for delivery of 200 million hollow point bullets.

The economic state of America has caused US citizens to purchase armory at an incredible rate.

A national " gun-run " last March saw a shortage of guns in stores for the first time.

"I have never seen such a situation in all my years as a gun owner, hunter and cop," said Edna Aquino, a New York police officer and shooting instructor. "I'm hearing from fellow shooters that they are stockpiling ammunition these days because they are afraid of what they're seeing in this country."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reported that an estimated 6 million requests for pre-sale guns in 2009 reflects a 26% increase.

In response to Americans arming themselves, President Obama is seeking Congress to approve the UN's international governance over our 2nd Amendment while claiming that it is only an attempt to create more stringent gun legislation for the American public's protection.

The U.N. Seeks to Tax the Internet

By Charles C. W. Cooke

June 11, 2012

The U.N. recently revived its long-held desire to take control of the Internet. It is unlikely to get its way. So, led by European nations - who else? - it has hit upon another means by which to exercise its influence: Taxes. CNET reports:

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

The documents (No. 1 No. 2) punctuate warnings that the Obama administration and Republican members of Congress raised last week about how secret negotiations at the ITU over an international communications treaty could result in a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow governments to monitor or restrict their citizens' online activities.

"It's extremely worrisome," Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at theInternet Society, says about the proposed Internet taxes. "It could create an enormous amount of legal uncertainty and commercial uncertainty."

As I noted last month:

The current system has served extremely well, allowing the Internet to flourish and grow with neither the dead hand of government interference holding it back nor baleful tyrants attempting to shape its structure in their own image. It is just 22 years since British computer engineer Tim Berners-Lee developed the language and architecture behind the World Wide Web and turned an electronic delivery mechanism that the American government had been developing since the 1960s into an information system with almost unlimited potential. His idea has caught on. The number of websites has grown from just 50 in 1992 to almost 377 million in mid-2012. In 1995, there were just 16 million Internet users; now, there are 2.28 billion. Such growth is a glowing testament to the salutary neglect of American stewardship.

Despite this sterling record, the United Nations seeks the opportunity to institute an unnecessary tax scheme designed by Europeans. What could possibly go wrong?

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

June 8, 2012

By Alex Newman The New American

Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure's approval as a significant victory against the UN "sustainability" plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.

The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the "Due Process for Property Rights" Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure - but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.

Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

"The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,' " the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives - not UN bureaucrats - have the authority to develop the state's environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to "any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama" are also prohibited under the new measure.

Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world - most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: "the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from" any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.

"This bill, that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process, is intended to shelter Alabamians from the United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government," explained Alabama GOP Executive Director T.J. Maloney when announcing that it had been signed into law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution earlier this year blasting the global scheme and urging policy makers to oppose it, and state parties have followed suit.

Public support for the Alabama law was overwhelming and bipartisan as citizens who had been terrorized by Agenda 21-linked schemes targeting their private property spoke out. But according to analysts and state Republican Party officials cited in press reports, Gov. Bentley was originally hesitant to sign the bill - almost certainly due to concerns over the potential loss of some federal funding.

The U.S. Senate, of course, has never formally ratified Agenda 21. But the executive branch - in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels - has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like "Smart Growth" and "Green." And proponents of the global scheme consistently threaten that states seeking to protect citizens from the UN plot could end up losing some federal funds.

"Every time you take a dollar of federal money, there's strings attached," explained Ken Freeman, chairman of the Alabama-based group Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR), an organization that fought hard to ensure that the Governor signed the bill into law. "We were originally walking soft on this issue, to tell you the truth, because when things were going our way, why change anything?"

But when Gov. Bentley did not immediately approve the bill, Freeman told a reporter, ACR turned the activism up a notch, urging citizens to contact the Governor's office and express their support for the measure. The grassroots pressure paid off: Alabama became the first state to be officially shielded by law from UN-linked anti-property rights scheming.

"It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities - just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for," remarkedJustice Gilpin-Green in a column for the conservative site Townhall, citing Freeman and other instrumental supporters of the effort. "Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama's determined nature in passing their anti-Agenda 21 legislation. It was citizen awareness and direct action that finally brought about the needed changes last week and that same awareness and action will be needed for the future of every other state."

Legislative analysts said the bill, sponsored by GOP state Sen. Gerald Dial, was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21 advocates would have a hard time criticizing. Liberty-minded organizations and lawmakers are already examining the measure for potential use as a model in other states currently struggling to expel the global scheme and its myriad tentacles.

"Alabama House Bill 618 [SB 477] is a large step towards protecting Alabamians against UN meddling. It protects the due process rights of Alabamians. It keeps Constitutional Law above International Law," noted Jason Baker, a Montgomery-based conservative pundit with the Examiner. "Now state after state awakens to the threat it poses to freedom and sovereignty."

Across America, Tea Party groups, liberty-minded Democrats, libertarians, and a broad coalition of activists have been turning up the heat on Agenda 21. Tennessee, for example, adopted a bipartisan state resolution slamming the UN scheme as an "insidious" and "socialist" plot that is completely at odds with American traditions of limited government, individual freedom, private property, and self-governance under the Constitution. Numerous other states are pursuing similar measures.

A bill similar to Alabama's seeking a complete ban on Agenda 21 and unconstitutional UN "sustainability" efforts in Arizona wasapproved overwhelmingly in the state Senate. The legislation died in the state House even after clearing several hurdles, however, when the legislative session ended before a final vote could be taken. New Hampshire is reportedly working on a bill to ban Agenda 21 that sailed through the state House last month.

Meanwhile, local governments across America - under intense pressure from citizens and activist groups - are slowly awakening to what critics call the "dangers" of the UN scheme. Dozens of cities and counties have withdrawn from ICLEI in recent years, and as awareness continues to grow, that trend is expected to accelerate.

The UN, however, is doubling down on its controversial plan. In June, governments from all over the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro for the so-called "Conference on Sustainable Development" - known as Rio+20 for short. According to official documents released by the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of environmentalism.

Production, education, consumption, individual rights, and even people's thoughts will all be targeted under the global plan to create a so-called "green economy," the UN admitted. But with the tidal wave of opposition in America growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierce U.S. opposition - if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.

U.S. Military Operating Drones In Tandem With Local Law Enforcement

June 7, 2012

Madison Ruppert

End The Lie

As many are now well aware, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is pushing for the integration of drones into the national airspace, especially for use by law enforcement and unsurprisingly a bill was passed and signed into law doing just that.

This is disturbing to some, for good reason.

It has become clear that when you give the federal government an inch, they will take a mile. This can be seen quite plainly in the so-called war on terror and how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rapidly expanded into a massive agency which regularly violates our rights.

It can also be seen in how some entities will simply give themselves ludicrous powers over the personal information of Americans, such as the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which not long ago gave itself the power to keep the personal information of Americans - with absolutely no links to terrorism whatsoever - for a whopping five years.

A new report from CBS Los Angeles has revealed some disturbing truths regarding the United States military's use of drones in American airspace and their sharing of data with various government entities and law enforcement agencies.

While it is far from news to most that the military is working with law enforcement in this regard, as evidenced by the launching of a military drone from a military base in order to conduct a domestic law enforcement operation, the documents obtained by CBS Los Angeles reveal some new information.

A non-classified intelligence report written by the U.S. Air Force dated April 23, 2012 reveals that video and other data captured "inadvertently" or "mistakenly" by military drones flying above the United States could quite easily end up in the hands of federal, state or local law enforcement agencies.

Even the local CBS affiliate in Los Angeles realizes that this is far from minor in pointing out that this procedure is means that law enforcement and the military are "doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants."

I have been an outspoken critic of the blending between law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels for quite a while now, and to me this intelligence report is actually not all that surprising.

I see this as par for the course when you're dealing with a government which refuses to allow states to have law enforcement with any meaningful separation from federal entities.

This refusal can be seen in many ways and a recent striking example was in Massachusetts where the federal government refused to honor the wishes of the governor in implementing thecentralized biometrics program which he refused to allow.

What might be shocking to some is that this military policy is actually far from new, as CBS Los Angeles points out, it is "a continuation of a policy already a few years old, but is causing more alarm now as drones appear poised to soon become a ubiquitous presence in the U.S. skies thanks to a federal policy to promote their use, first by law enforcement agencies, and then by commercial concerns."

Personally, I do not think that law enforcement use of drones is acceptable, nor is commercial use, as we could very well see something like Google Street Drone View.

"We've seen in some records that were released by the Air Force just recently, that under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations," explains Jennifer Lynch, an attorney working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

"This report noted that they are able to collect that information and then determine whether or not they can keep it," she explained.

We must realize that these reports actually allow this data to be passed on to a slew of other agencies, which means that they could very well pass it on to the NCTC, allowing the window for storage to widen considerably.

Under these guidelines, the military is allowed to hold on to data "accidentally" captured by drones for as long as three months before destroying it.

However, since they are able to turn over this data to "another department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains," there is nothing stopping them from giving it to the NCTC which can then hold on to it with years despite no relation to terrorism.

The FAA recently introduced a "streamlined" process which allows law enforcement agencies to apply for permits to fly drones and get them approved and thus get drones in the air much quicker than previously expected.

This is noteworthy because it means that law enforcement will be able to get drones up in the air and operational much more rapidly than one might think.

Some law enforcement agencies have already expressed a willingness to purchase and use drones with support from the state government, such as Virginia where the governor cited the warzone successes of the unmanned vehicles and police chiefs seem more than willing to use them, even for purposes as nonsensical as traffic monitoring.

Officials from the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department are evaluating the benefits of using drones in the significantly restricted and congested airspace around Los Angeles, although they have yet to purchase any.

While the U.S. Air Force's guidelines claim that drones are not allowed to carry out "non-consensual surveillance" on U.S. citizens or property, there are plenty of exceptions to this allowing such surveillance to occur.

Personally, I find it ludicrous that they specify "non-consensual surveillance" due to the fact that drones fly at an altitude so high that they cannot easily be detected and thus there is no way consent could be given.

Some of these many exceptions outlined in the Air Force documents include:

- Investigating or preventing clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, international narcotics activities, or international terrorist activities

- Protecting DoD employees, information, property and facilities

- Preventing, detecting or investigating other violations of law

Seems pretty broad, doesn't it? "Other violations of law" leaves the door wide open for the drones to be used for just about everything. After all, jaywalking is a violation of law. Does this mean that if a drone captures someone jaywalking, the use of military drones in U.S. airspace is somehow justified?

The document also outlines the type of assistance that the Air Force drones may provide to law enforcement, which include:

- Violations of US federal law. Incidentally acquired information reasonably believed to indicate a violation of federal law shall be provided to appropriate federal law enforcement through AFOSI channels.

- Other violations of law. Information incidentally acquired during the course of Air Force counterintelligence activities reasonably believed to indicate a violation of state, local or foreign law will be provided to appropriate officials IAW procedures established by the Commander, AFOSI. Information incidentally acquired during the course of Air Force foreign intelligence activities reasonably believed to indicate a violation of state, local, or foreign law will, unless otherwise decided by AF/A2 for national security reasons, be provided to AFOSI IAW procedures established by the AF/A2, or his/her designee, for investigation or referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Information covered by this paragraph includes US persona information.

- Provision of specialized equipment and facilities. Specialized intelligence equipment and facilities may be provided to federal law enforcement authorities, and, when lives are endangered, to state and local law enforcement authorities, only with the approval of the SecAF delegated authority and the concurrence of SAF/GC.

- Assistance of Air Force intelligence personnel. Air force intelligence personnel may be assigned to assist federal law enforcement authorities with the approval of the SecAF delegated authority and the concurrence of SAF/GC.

One of the most disturbing aspects of these guidelines is the inclusion of "foreign law." This makes one wonder, which foreign laws will they honor? Why would foreign laws be honored in the United States of America? This aspect of the guidelines makes little to no sense to me but hopefully it will be cleared up to some degree.

Air Force spokesperson Captain Rose Richeson told KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO in an email, "The Executive Branch has promulgated detailed Departmental and Intelligence Community-wide instructions and directives about when it is appropriate to share information with federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies consistent with the protection of privacy and civil liberties."

Sure, that sounds great, except Richeson adds that "a court order or warrant is not required in all circumstances."

The drone industry has boasted in the past about their ability to influence the government and has even said that they should use propaganda in order to influence the public's opinion of these devices.

If you aren't worried or even slightly concerned yet, I don't know what will wake you from your slumber enough to realize that what should be our government is actively working against us, the American people, under the guise of keeping us safe.

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@endthelie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.

Bilderberg 2012: Mitt Romney and Bill Gates were there

By Charlie Skelton, The Guardian

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Another conference over. Charlie Skelton talks to some of the 800 activists outside the gates to find out what they learned

What a Bilderberg it's been. Big names, big money, big decisions, big crowds. Somewhere around 800 activists outside the gates (up from about a dozen in 2009), and inside? Well, here's what we learned.

A Mitt Romney attendance?

Four eyewitnesses on the hotel staff told me Willard Mitt Romney was here at Bilderberg 2012. My four eyewitnesses place him inside. That's one more than Woodward and Bernstein used. Romney's office initially refused to confirm or deny his attendance as Bilderberg is "not public". They later said it was not him.

So, was he being crowned, or singing for his supper? Will Mitt Romney follow in the august footsteps of Clinton, Cameron and Blair to have attended Bilderberg and then shortly become leader? Four years ago, Senator Obama shook off his press detail and nipped (many think) into Bilderberg. This exact same hotel.

Did Romney have to get down on one knee in front of David Rockefeller? This sounds flippant, but it's a serious question: has Bilderberg switched allegiance? Are they going to toss away Obama after just one term?

I put this question to author and Bilderberg expert Webster Tarpley. Is Wall Street going to throw its chips in with Romney? "I think there's a frisson that's gone through the ruling class against Obama," he says. The leak we had from the flirty hotel staffer corroborated this. "They don't seem to like Obama very much," he said.

Tarpley's conclusion is this: "They want Romney and Mitch Daniels, who will run together as moderate rightists." Governor Daniels of Indiana was on the official list.

The official list is nonsense

The Washington Post saw Bill Gates come in. And I've got three eyewitnesses from inside who confirmed he was here. This is his ear:

You won't see the names Mitt Romney or Bill Gates on the officially released Final List of Participants because, well, the list is a nonsense. It's nothing like a complete list of people who attend Bilderberg. It's a smokescreen, a bit of spin. So can we all, please, stop repeating it as gospel?

The Syrian war is on

Attending Bilderberg 2012 as an ‘international' participant was Bassma Kodmani.

So who is Bassma Kodmani? The answer to that question is also the answer to the question: what the hell is happening in Syria? This is where it gets interesting (and worrying) for Bilderberg followers.

Kodmani was at Bilderberg in 2008, the last time it was here in Chantilly. She is a member of the European Council on foreign relations - its parent group, the council on foreign relations, is a sort of über lobby group, a couple of rungs down from Bilderberg, but still hugely powerful.

There's a lot of CFR/Bilderberg crossover. Honorary chairman of both is David Rockefeller; co-chairman of the CFR is Robert Rubin (he was here); and on the CFR's board of directors are Fouad Ajami and Henry Kravis, both at Bilderberg 2012.

Bassma Kodmani is also the executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative. This body, set up in 2004 by the CFR, is helping to steer "a comprehensive process" of "democratic reform" in the region. In 2005, the Syrian National Council came into being. Bassma Kodmani was a founding member, and is on the executive committee. Kodmani is one of the SNC's two spokespeople, alongside Radwan Ziadeh (who has a flawless Washington pedigree - look him up). According to its website, the SNC is a non profit public policy research organization register in the District of Colombia and headquartered in Washington DC. Just up the road.

I asked Tarpley about Kodmani. He doesn't mince words. "She's a Nato agent, a destabilizer, a colour revolution queen. The fact that Kodmani was there is a scary one for Syria", says Tarpley.

To those gathered outside, at least, it looks increasingly like, at this year's Bilderberg, the war of regime change got signed off. In the airport lobby, on the way home from Bilderberg, I looked up at a TV monitor to see Bilderberg attendee and CFR board member Fouad Ajami talking about how Syria is about to become another Libya. That sound you can hear? It's all those juicy defence contracts being scratched out around Chantilly. Fuel the jets and open the champagne, boys. We're going in.

Occupy Bilderberg turned up

A statement of support from Occupy London was read out at Occupy Bilderberg. A symbol of Anglo-American unity, like Bilderberg itself. The statement protested against (amongst other things): the rise of an undemocratic "technocracy" - a "network of cronies" in which financial "experts", largely from the international banking community, who have been appointed rather than elected, are handed the reins of government.

So here you've got the (broadly speaking) liberal left protest movement, with its anti-corruption and pro-transparency agenda, finding common ground with US libertarians and an anti-Obama, anti-fascist, pro-union New Deal American like Webster Tarpley.

As Tarpley says: "Bilderberg creates a singularity, where a lot of seemingly disparate things come together." That applies not just to the people inside - megabank money and government - outside the security cordon you've got Occupy Bilderberg rubbing shoulders with US veterans, German students who've flown over for the event, truckers from Michigan, Orthodox Jews, Ron Paul supporters, anarcho-syndicalists, academics and grandmothers.Why? In the words of the statement from Occupy London: "the profound denial of a participatory, direct democracy which the Bilderberg Conference represents."

Mainstream news turned up

Finally. The Washington Times sent Ben Wolfgang, the Guardian sent Ryan Devereaux and the Times of London actually tried to get a journalist inside - Alexandra Frean was turned away at the gates. But she tried. At least she tried. That's a start. We can work with that.

Internet ID

There was speculation before the conference that on the Bilderberg agenda this year would be how to implement a unique EU internet ID. Who would be pushing that through? Step up Neelie Kroes, EU commissioner for digital agenda.

Presumably Eric Schmidt (Google) and Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn) would have been sharing podium-space with Bill Gates at that session. That's if there was one, of course.

Collin versus the new world order

I'm not sure global governance stands a chance against Collin Abramowicz. Here - by popular request - is a last blast from the frontline of the resistance:

Hopefully Collin and I will see you all again in 2013. You can email me at bilderberg2013@yahoo.co.uk - if we had 800 this year, I think we could be having ourselves a party. The Bilderburgers are on me.

CFR Proposes Using Army To Enforce Domestic Law

Elite group calls for blatant violation of Posse Comitatus Act

Steve Watson

Infowars.com June 4, 2012

The Council On Foreign Relations, the elite think tank long associated with globalist policy making and subversion of the principles of the US Constitution, has published an article that proposes using the army to plan and carry out domestic law enforcement missions in the US.

An article in the May/June issue of the CFR official journal, Foreign Affairs, calls for the army to address "challenges in the United States itself" with the justification being to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

The article, written by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno states:

"Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options."

Odierno suggests that major changes within the US now deem it necessary to use the military in such a way. The General points to "declining budgets due to the country's worsened fiscal situation"; "a shift in emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region"; and a "broadening of focus from counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and training of partners to shaping the strategic environment, preventing the outbreak of dangerous regional conflicts, and improving the army's readiness to respond in force to a range of complex contingencies worldwide."

Odierno suggests that the army be "transitioned" into a more "flexible force" by deploying in situations normally reserved for domestic law enforcement officials. He argues that by doing so, troops will be better equipped to deal with conflict elsewhere.

Odierno also specifically singles out The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, noting "Today's army also has an unprecedented level of integration between its active and its reserve components... Our reserve component soldiers are better than they have ever been, and we will dedicate resources to ensure that some of them will be either deployed or ready to deploy around the globe."

The article presents a red flag to anyone who has followed the consistent push by the federal government to militarize the police and further integrate the armed forces into domestic law enforcement.

Of course, the use of U.S. troops in law enforcement duties is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

However, despite the constitutional protections outlined in these laws, there has been and is an ongoing push to blur the divisions between military and domestic law enforcement officials.

National Guard troops are routinely involved in ‘urban warfare training' drills. Usually such drills take place within the confines of military bases, however, more recently heavily armed troops are increasingly seen patrolling residential neighborhoods and even the downtown areas of major US cities.

Such "invasions" are often reported on as nothing to worry about and even as "cool."

Indeed, back in 2008 the Washington Post reported how 20,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq would be stationed inside America under Northcom for purposes of "domestic security" from September 2011 onwards.

Northcom officials were forced to subsequently issue a denial after the Army Times initially reported that the troops would be used to deal "with civil unrest and crowd control."

As Alex Jones exposed back in the late 1990's, U.S. troops have been training to impose martial law for a considerable amount of time. During numerous urban warfare drills that Jones attended and reported on, troops were trained to raid, arrest, and imprison U.S. citizens in detention camps as well as taking over public buildings and running checkpoints. During role playing exercises, actors playing prisoners would scream "I'm an American citizen, I have rights" as they were being dragged away by troops.

The fact that such drills are now set to involve Russian soldiers training on U.S. soil to hunt "terrorists" has also caused consternation.

Federal authorities in the United States have clearly been preparing for domestic civil unrest for a number of years. The Department of Homeland Security recently purchased a staggering 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets as well as bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go' lights.

In addition, worrying legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act, has paved the way for the incarceration of American citizens under military laws, and numerous leaked and semi-secret documents position the army as partners to domestic federal agencies in quelling unrest in America and even engaging in missions involving the "resettlement" of US citizens.

Syria Regime Change On Bilderberg Agenda

Pro-NATO intervention SNC head in attendance at elite confab

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com June 2, 2012

The presence of Syrian National Transitional Council head Bassma Kodmani at the 2012 Bilderberg conference clearly indicates that power brokers at the elite confab will be discussing the effort to topple President Bashar Al-Assad and install a NATO-friendly administration in the violence-stricken country.

Kodmani is the Head of Foreign Affairs with the SNC, a coalition of Syrian opposition groups based in Istanbul, Turkey. While at the Bilderberg meeting she will be in the company of the likes of former Secretary of State and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger, warhawk Richard Perle, and Thomas E. Donilon, National Security Advisor for the Obama White House.

Having overseen numerous wars during his tenure in the White House, Kissinger is a staunch advocate of so-called "humanitarian" interventions. Before last year's toppling of Colonel Gaddafi, he advocated a U.S. ground invasion of Libya.

During last year's Bilderberg conference in St. Moritz, Switzerland, members discussed expanding the war in Libya. Four months later, Gaddafi was killed and the country was under the control of NATO-backed rebels and the National Transitional Council of Libya.

Kodmani is a darling of the establishment, having written op-eds for the New York Times calling for the overthrow of Assad. In recent months her position has become increasingly hardline and pro-NATO intervention. In January she called for "greater militarization of local resistance or foreign intervention." Kodmani has also called for Syria to form an alliance with Israel.

Hostility towards Syria from the international community has intensified in recent weeks, particularly after last weekend's massacre in Houla which was blamed on Assad's forces despite the fact that eyewitnesses in Houla said opposition rebels were responsible for the slaughter, which killed 108 people - mostly women and children.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Houla massacre will be used to build an international consensus for military intervention. "Every day that goes by makes the argument for it stronger," she said while addressing Danish university students.

This followed U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice adopting a more hardline approach following a UN Security Council meeting. "Members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they are prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council," said Rice.

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has repeatedly stated that Congressional authorization for a military assault on Syria will not be sought by the Obama administration, which considers NATO and the UN to be the supreme authority.

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

Bilderberg 2012: Are Bankers Still "All For Obama" Like They Were in '08?

Jurriaan Maessen

Infowars.com

Friday, May 01, 2012

One of the many questions arising from the Bilderberg meeting starting today is whether the bankers who gather are still "all for Obama"- as New Mexico Governor and former democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson has stated they were back in 2008.

In a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations on June 18 of that year, Richardson stated that Barack Obama was favored for the American presidency by a majority of bankers at the Bilderberg-meeting- which, like the one this year, took place near Chantilly, Virginia.

Although Richardson himself didn't attend in 2008, the revealing statement was confided to him by attendee Marie-Josée Kravis, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, who is a Bilderberg regular and did participate in the elitist get-together that year.

In response to a question by CFR-moderator Garrick Utley on the fact that candidate Barack Obama did not pull as much votes from the Hispanic communities as Hillary Clinton did, Richardson told the assembly that as long as people get to know the then Illinois Senator, he's sure to win their votes. Bill Richardson:

"He is a minority himself with an internationalist background - let me tell you-(...) I was just talking to Marie-Josee - some of the people who attended the Bilderberg conferences. The most conservative bankers-they're all for Obama!"

After making this statement, Richardson appears to hesitate, adding:

"I mean, I don't know-and I think you're seeing this nationally"

Important to note here that it would be another 5 months before Barack Obama was actually declared winner of the presidential election. In this slip of the tong by Richardson (himself a two-time Bilderberg attendee) we are shown another glimpse into the murmurings going on around the secretive Bilderberg campfire. So, which banking heads were attending the 2008 Bilderberg-meeting anyway?

To name just a few:

- Robert B. Zoellick, president of The World Bank Group

- Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank

- Timothy Geithner, (then) President and CEO Federal Reserve Bank of New York

- Ben S. Bernanke, chairman Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

- Frank McKenna, Deputy Chair TD Bank Financial Group

- Tom McKillop, Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group

In regards to Obama being regarded as an ideal president by the bulk of international bankers may not be a surprise. When we look at the president's monetary policy for the last four years we can see an international agenda unfolding which is consistent with that of the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements and other transnational leviathans that regularly attend the elitist confab. Fiscal conservatism isn't exactly consistent with the "global consensus" between all the major central banks.

Recent speculations in regards to Mitt Romneys VP-pick, and the role Bilderberg may play in that decision, is consistent with Bilderberg's modus operandi: talent-scouting by Bilderberg's steering-committee is being done on both sides of the spectrum, just like the participants of Bilderberg cover all sides of the political paradigm.

Editor's note: Following is the "official" list of participants at the 2012 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, VA (international bankers emphasized):

Chairman:

FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman and CEO, AXA Group

DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG

GBR Agius, Marcus Chairman, Barclays plc

USA Ajami, Fouad Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University

USA Alexander, Keith B. Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency

INT Almunia, Joaquín Vice-President - Commissioner for Competition, European Commission

USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners

PRT Amado, Luís Chairman, Banco Internacional do Funchal (BANIF)

NOR Andresen, Johan H. Owner and CEO, FERD

FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA

TUR Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs

PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto President and CEO, Impresa; Former Prime Minister

FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

FRA Béchu, Christophe Senator, and Chairman, General Council of Maine-et-Loire

BEL Belgium, H.R.H. Prince Philippe of

TUR Berberoðlu, Enis Editor-in-Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper

ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia

GBR Boles, Nick Member of Parliament

SWE Bonnier, Jonas President and CEO, Bonnier AB

NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA

AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt

SWE Carlsson, Gunilla Minister for International Development Cooperation

CAN Carney, Mark J. Governor, Bank of Canada

ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA; Chairman, El País

AUT Cernko, Willibald CEO, UniCredit Bank Austria AG

FRA Chalendar, Pierre André de Chairman and CEO, Saint-Gobain

DNK Christiansen, Jeppe CEO, Maj Invest

RUS Chubais, Anatoly B. CEO, OJSC RUSNANO

CAN Clark, W. Edmund Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group

GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice

USA Collins, Timothy C. CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC

ITA Conti, Fulvio CEO and General Manager, Enel S.p.A.

USA Daniels, Jr., Mitchell E. Governor of Indiana

USA DeMuth, Christopher Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute

USA Donilon, Thomas E. National Security Advisor, The White House

GBR Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc

ITA Elkann, John Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.

DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus

USA Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Global Head of Growth Markets, Goldman Sachs & Co.

AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor

DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S

USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University

GBR Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc

CHN Fu, Ying Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs

IRL Gallagher, Paul Former Attorney General; Senior Counsel

USA Gephardt, Richard A. President and CEO, Gephardt Group

GRC Giannitsis, Anastasios Former Minister of Interior; Professor of Development and International Economics, University of Athens

USA Goolsbee, Austan D. Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business

USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company

ITA Gruber, Lilli Journalist - Anchorwoman, La 7 TV

INT Gucht, Karel de Commissioner for Trade, European Commission

NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings

USA Harris, Britt CIO, Teacher Retirement System of Texas

USA Hoffman, Reid Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn

CHN Huang, Yiping Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University

USA Huntsman, Jr., Jon M. Chairman, Huntsman Cancer Foundation

DEU Ischinger, Wolfgang Chairman, Munich Security Conference; Global Head Government Relations, Allianz SE

RUS Ivanov, Igor S. Associate member, Russian Academy of Science; President, Russian International Affairs Council

FRA Izraelewicz, Erik CEO, Le Monde

USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard

USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC

USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard

USA Karp, Alexander CEO, Palantir Technologies

USA Karsner, Alexander Executive Chairman, Manifest Energy, Inc

FRA Karvar, Anousheh Inspector, Inter-ministerial Audit and Evaluation Office for Social, Health, Employment and Labor Policies

RUS Kasparov, Garry Chairman, United Civil Front (of Russia)

GBR Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords

USA Kerry, John Senator for Massachusetts

TUR Keyman, E. Fuat Director, Istanbul Policy Center and Professor of International Relations, Sabanci University

USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.

USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa

TUR Koç, Mustafa Chairman, Koç Holding A.Þ.

DEU Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger Berger SE

INT Kodmani, Bassma Member of the Executive Bureau and Head of Foreign Affairs, Syrian National Council

USA Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

INT Kroes, Neelie Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda

USA Krupp, Fred President, Environmental Defense Fund

INT Lamy, Pascal Director-General, World Trade Organization

ITA Letta, Enrico Deputy Leader, Democratic Party (PD)

ISR Levite, Ariel E. Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

USA Li, Cheng Director of Research and Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution

USA Lipsky, John Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University

USA Liveris, Andrew N. President, Chairman and CEO, The Dow Chemical Company

DEU Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG

USA Lynn, William J. Chairman and CEO, DRS Technologies, Inc.

GBR Mandelson, Peter Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel

USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

DEN Mchangama, Jacob Director of Legal Affairs, Center for Political Studies (CEPOS)

CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Group

USA Mehlman, Kenneth B. Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations

PRT Moreira da Silva, Jorge First Vice-President, Partido Social Democrata (PSD)

USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation

DEU Nass, Matthias Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit

NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the

ESP Nin Génova, Juan María Deputy Chairman and CEO, Caixabank

IRL Noonan, Michael Minister for Finance

USA Noonan, Peggy Author, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal

FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc

USA Orszag, Peter R. Vice Chairman, Citigroup

GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitri Managing Director, Titan Cement Co.

NLD Pechtold, Alexander Parliamentary Leader, Democrats '66 (D66)

USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

NLD Polman, Paul CEO, Unilever PLC

CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP

ISR Rabinovich, Itamar Global Distinguished Professor, New York University

GBR Rachman, Gideon Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times

USA Rattner, Steven Chairman, Willett Advisors LLC

CAN Redford, Alison M. Premier of Alberta

CAN Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.

DEU Reitzle, Wolfgang CEO & President, Linde AG

USA Rogoff, Kenneth S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University

USA Rose, Charlie Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose

USA Ross, Dennis B. Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

POL Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance

USA Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury

NLD Rutte, Mark Prime Minister

ESP Sáenz de Santamaría Antón, Soraya Vice President and Minister for the Presidency

NLD Scheffer, Paul Professor of European Studies, Tilburg University

USA Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc.

AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG

FRA Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group

USA Shambaugh, David Director, China Policy Program, George Washington University

INT Sheeran, Josette Vice Chairman, World Economic Forum

FIN Siilasmaa, Risto Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nokia Corporation

USA Speyer, Jerry I. Chairman and Co-CEO, Tishman Speyer

CHE Supino, Pietro Chairman and Publisher, Tamedia AG

IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International

USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital / Thiel Capital

TUR Timuray, Serpil CEO, Vodafone Turkey

DEU Trittin, Jürgen Parliamentary Leader, Alliance 90/The Greens

GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy

FIN Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance

CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman, Novartis AG

INT Vimont, Pierre Executive Secretary General, European External Action Service

GBR Voser, Peter CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc

SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB

USA Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University

GBR Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times

USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company

CAN Wright, Nigel S. Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister

USA Yergin, Daniel Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates

INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

Rapporteurs

GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist

GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

Bilderberg 2012: the technocrats are rising at this year's annual conference

BlackListed News

Our man at Bilderberg is back for a fourth year and has touched down in Chantilly for the 2012 gathering. The shadowy elite leaders' conference starts tomorrow, so what's on the agenda?

Dutch Queen Beatrix arrives at the 2010 Bilderberg conference in Sitges, Spain. Photograph: Nero Angelo

It's all change at Bilderberg this year, with a new chairman, new media and Occupy Bilderberg knocking at the gates.

Everything's set. The hotel is being primped and hoovered, the security is arriving, the press is nowhere to be seen, and I just had a really boring crab salad. It's shaping up to be a vintage Bilderberg.

We were lunching in the Palm Court restaurant of the Westfields Marriott hotel, in Chantilly, Virginia. A few days from now, this hotel will be dripping with billionaires and bankers, industry CEOs and finance ministers, here for the annual Bilderberg summit. "The leaders of the world are coming to our hotel", beams one member of staff. "Are you here for the brunch?"

We are. Most of the other guests have left by now. The hotel is edging towards lockdown. All that's left is a team of nervy conference organizer who start filming us with their iPhones, several dozen security operatives, me, my wife and a really rather boring 'spook', brunching on an adjacent table.

He droned on for the full length of a crab salad about his "internal and external drivers", about how "I got a panel of three-star admirals together" to secure a "$30m contract" and how "CACI excels in capture management".

He talked fondly of CACI International Inc (a giant defense contractor), although more recently he's had "a nice success rate with Booz Allen" (another giant defense contractor). His world was the deathly dull blur between the federal government and private defense corporations. The grim feeding trough of "systems solutions", "security logistics" and "mission assurance". My crab ended just as he was declaring, wisely: "When you leave the navy and you go to a contractor, you say: what's my mission?"

His mission for the next week or so is to keep the queen of the Netherlands, the chairman of Barclays, and the chairman, vice-chairman and CEO of Shell Oil safe and sound for a three-day conference. The hotel is encircled by the offices of the world's largest arms' manufacturers, 15 minutes up the road from the headquarters of the CIA. I suspect they'll be OK.

Welcome to Chantilly: a little bit of paradise on earth. Photograph: Charlie Skelton for the Guardian

The Bilderberg conference was last here in Chantilly, at the exact same godforsaken spot, back in 2008 - which, like 2012, was a US election year, and the moment the current economic woes really started hitting the fan. You might remember, it was the year when then-senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton paid a flying visit to Bilderberg (aka 'an event in northern Virginia'), after shaking off the press pack during the Democratic presidential campaign. AP had the story:

"Reporters travelling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair might when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane."

You can watch the hilarious footage of Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, trying (and failing) to placate a furious press corp, who found themselves tricked aboard a flight to Chicago. "Others had a desire to meet with him in a private way," he explains. This is an extraordinary admission from Gibbs - "others" clicked their fingers, and Obama came running, with Hillary in tow.

Bill Clinton was introduced to the political big league at Bilderberg 1991. The man who introduced him was Vernon Jackson, a lawyer, civil rights activist and currently board member of Lazard investment bank. Speaking last year about the occasion, Jackson recalls:

"In 1991, I took Bill Clinton to the Bilderberg meetings in Baden Baden, Germany. Bilderberg meetings have been going on since 1954, sort of the North-American / European Alliance."

Later, after Clinton won the election:

"The steering committee of Bilderberg came to Washington in January, and I called the president up and I said 'Mr President, they're here' - and he came to the Four Seasons hotel, and the Europeans felt like they owned him because they met him when he was totally unknown."

That's interesting: a meeting of the Bilderberg steering committee at the Four Seasons in Washington? In January? But according to Bilderberg's official website, "Bilderberg's only activity is its annual conference".

As for this year's election, rumours are already circulating about Bilderberg and presidential running mates, sparked off by a Washington Post report back in April on the matter of Republican senator Marco Rubio's speech at the Summit of the Americas:

"[John] Edwards gave a speech in June 2004 at the Bilderberg conference that was widely credited as one reason John Kerry chose him."

Aside from the US presidency, the big debate of Bilderberg 2012 is likely to be: what in Hades do we do about Greece? The Eurozone is Bilderberg's biggest project, but it's been looking distinctly shaky of late. What's to be done? You can feel the unwillingness of Bilderberg to countenance a 'Grexit' in the stern words of Bilderberg spokesperson, the UK member of parliament for Rushcliffe, Kenneth Clarke. To leave the Euro, says Clarke, would be "disastrous" for the Greeks. "If they get a hopeless lot of rather cranky extremists elected at the next election then they will default on their debt." Clarke took the time to brand eurosceptic British MPs "right-wing nationalists", and euroscepticism itself "irresponsible".

Clarke's most telling remark is that: "It's going to take a crisis, an absolute crisis, to make Europe's leaders act." This week's Economist magazine agrees: "For the past six decades, steps forward to greater European union have taken place at moments of incipient crisis."

"A consensus is slowly emerging that, whether a Greek exit is to be averted or weathered, there will have to be a greater level of integration in the euro zone, with tighter constraints on the freedom of national governments."

This message, that out of the struggle will come a new strength, seems to be the Bilderbergian line. For example, EU Commissioner Joaquin Almunia (whom we spotted at Bilderberg 2010) says we need now to "reinforce the European Parliament's role" which "will also strengthen the role of the [EU] Commission". So his solution to the crisis: "I need a bigger office."

The Economist says that if the "elite venture" of Europe is to survive and thrive, "Europe's elites" have got their work cut out. It ventures to give the elites some "unashamedly technocratic" advice on how to forge their closer union, but it needn't worry, the technocrats of Bilderberg seems to have the matter in hand. Mario Monti (unelected Italian PM, Bilderberg steering committee) said this week: "Europe can have euro bonds soon."

But we're not in Europe now, we're in Chantilly, and the CIA is just up the road from the conference venue, so protestors had better stay on their best behaviour. And we're expecting plenty of them - gathering under the activist umbrella: "Occupy Bilderberg"

What a difference a year makes. Occupy Bilderberg? I love it. The Occupy movement seems finally to have realised that the problem isn't the 1%, it's the 0.001%. It's the guys and gals and whatever David Rockefeller is who are meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, at the end of the week. Many hundreds of protestors have pledged to show up. And who knows, they may just manage to drag the mainstream news media with them.

Historically, one of the biggest problems people have had with Occupy is that its aims and demands have been a little, shall we say, "diffuse". Not the case with Occupy Bilderberg. That's the nail getting hit squarely on the head. Occupy Bilderberg is keyhole activism. Picking the exact right spot and sticking the scissors in.

"We refuse to pay for the banks' crisis" was the cry from OccupyLSX back in the autumn. They demanded an end to "our democracy representing corporations instead of the people." What Bilderberg represents is the fact that our democracy IS our corporations. And politics is just the wake behind a shark fin.

Time to go fishing