RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny
RIOT: Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny
WHAT IS RIOT?
RIOT stands for Regiment Instituted to Overthrow Tyranny
WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE?
RIOT is here to wake America up to the evil traitors who have infiltrated our government as well as most of Europe. A hardcore global crime syndicate known as the Illuminati is setting up a global tyrannical dictatorship(AKA The New World Order). This has been in the works for over one hundred years and is close to becoming a reality. The Illuminati regulates who is eligible to come into power in all of the G8 Nations including the United States. The American chapter of the Illuminati is headed by former U.S. President and dark lord of the CIA, George Herbert Walker Bush and Democratic Party puppeteer, David Rockefeller. The Illuminati is made up of many elite families and secret societies. The Skull and Bones Fraternity at Yale, Bohemian Grove, The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergs, and the newest, most dangerous group Project for a New American Century, AKA Neo-Cons,are American Illuminati groups.The Neo-Cons are led by former Reagan Secretary of State, George Schutlz. In order to put their plans into effect, they have to fool and scare the people into getting behind it. To do that, they have to use what is called Problem, Reaction, Solution. Meaning they create a crisis, get a reaction from the people and then offer a solution which is to get them to give up their rights and their constitution in order to be "protected" by their government. On this site, we will document such events throughout history and ones that have happened recently especially the horrible attacks on September 11 2001.We will explain who was behind them and why.We will also explain the agenda of these creatures and the history behind their organization. We will discuss the criminal history of the Bush family as well as their Nazi connections. We will discuss documents such as the USAPatriot Act that have seriously eroded the constitution. We will talk about who stood to gain from these horrible events. We will discuss the up comming police state in America and explain the Orwellian nightmare surveilance program and cashless society control grid that is already being set up as well as their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population. Most Importantly we will tell you how YOU can help fight these evil traitors and help restore the American republic and constitution. The skeleton of the New World Order is already in place in the form of the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization. Continental superstates are the next step. The European Union, Asian Union, and African Union are already in place, as are plans for a North American Union. The globalists get their power from the central banks that they use to control nations. The central bank of the United States is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private cabal, not a government agency. The government borrows money from the Federal Reserve and pays it back with interest, using the money it recieves from the equally illegal and unconstitutional IRS which steals that money from you and me.
There is still time to stop these creatures from destroying America and enslaving humanity. The only way that they can pull this off is if we unwittingly allow them to. The global elite know that the American people are their greatest threat. We are the only thing that can stop them now.. We the people outnumber them by 500 to 1 but they think that they can sell us on our own enslavement. Unfortunately, so far it is working and time is running out. They do not have the manpower to enslave us if we resist. If you cut off the head, the body dies. The New World Order cannot survive if we abolish the Federal Reserve, which our congress has the constitutional right to do. If we do not wake up and take action now, we are headed for one of the greatest sadnesses that we could ever imagine. TOTAL TYRANNY, TOTAL ENSLAVEMENT, TOTAL DEHUMANIZATION!!!! Read this site and inform yourself. Get involved now!
-Col. South: RIOT Commander in Chief.
Contact us at: email@example.com
IMF, World Bank, Giant Consultants Admit The Storm Is Coming
July 21, 2014
Following Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the World of Resistance Report, in this fifth installment I examine the warnings of social unrest and revolution emanating from the world’s major international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, as well as the world’s major consulting firms that provide strategic and investment advice to corporations, banks and investors around the world.
These two groups – financial institutions and the consultants that advise them – play key roles in the spread of institutionalized corporate and financial power, and as such, warnings from these groups about the threat posed by "social unrest" carry particular weight as they are geared toward a particular audience: the global oligarchy itself.
Organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were responsible for forcing neoliberal economic "restructuring" on much of the developing world from the 1980s onwards, as the IMF and E.U. are currently imposing on Greece and large parts of Europe. The results have been and continue to be devastating for populations, while corporations and banks accumulate unprecedented wealth and power.
As IMF austerity programs spread across the globe, poverty followed, and so too did protests and rebellion. Between 1976 and 1992, there were 146 protests against IMF-sponsored programs in 39 different countries around the world, often resulting in violent state repression of the domestic populations (cited explicitly by Firoze Manji and Carl O’Coill in "The Missionary Position: NGOs and Development in Africa," International Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 3, 2002).
These same programs by the IMF and World Bank facilitated the massive growth of slums, as the policies demanded by the organizations forced countries to undertake massive layoffs, privatization, deregulation, austerity and the liberalization of markets – amounting, ultimately, to a new system of social genocide. The new poor and displaced rural communities flocked to cities in search of work and hope for a better future, only to be herded into massive urban shantytowns and slums. Today roughly one in seven people on Earth, or over 1 billion, live in slums. (An excellent source on this is Mike Davis's "Planet of Slums".)
How the Big Institutions Have Operated
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning former chief economist at the World Bank, blew the whistle on the World Bank's and IMF's policies in countries around the world – an act for which he was ultimately fired. In an interview with Greg Palast for the Guardian in 2001, Stiglitz explained that the same four steps of market liberalization are applied to every country.
The first includes privatization of state-owned industries and assets. The second step is capital market liberalization, which "allows investment capital to flow in and out," though as he put it, "the money often simply flows out." As Stiglitz explained, speculative cash flows into countries, and when there are signs of trouble it flows out dramatically in a matter of days, at which point the IMF demands the countries raise interest rates as high as 30% to 80%, further wrecking the economy.
At this point comes step three, called "market-based pricing," in which prices get raised on food, water and cooking gas, leading to what Stiglitz calls "Step-Three-and-a-Half: the IMF riot." When a nation is "down and out, [the IMF] squeezes the last drop of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up." This process is always anticipated by the IMF and World Bank, which have even noted in various internal documents that their programs for countries could be expected to spark "social unrest."
And finally comes step four, "free trade," meaning that highly protectionist trade rules go into effect under supervision of the World Bank and World Trade Organization.
The term "IMF riots" was applied to dozens of nations around the world that experienced waves of protests in response to the IMF/World Bank programs of the 1980s and 1990s, which plunged them into crisis through austerity measures, privatization and deregulation all enforced under so-called "structural adjustment programs."
As the Guardian noted in September of 2012, "the European governments are out-IMF-ing the IMF in its austerity drive so much that now the fund itself frequently issues the warning that Europe is going too far, too fast." Thus, we saw "IMF riots" – protests against austerity and structural adjustment measures – erupting over the past three years in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere in the E.U.
An academic study published in August of 2011 by Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth examined the link between austerity and social unrest, analyzing 28 European countries between 1919 and 2009, and 11 Latin American countries since 1937. The researchers measured levels of social unrest looking at five major indicators: riots, anti-government protests, general strikes, political assassinations and attempted revolutions.
The verdict: The researchers found there was "a clear and positive statistical association between expenditure cuts and the level of unrest." In other words, the more that austerity was imposed, the more unrest resulted. Spending cuts, they wrote, "create the risk of major social and political instability."
The Eurozone has been referred to by some as "an unemployment torture chamber" due to the structural reforms to the labor market – enforced through bailout conditions – which were purportedly designed to make it easier for employers to hire and fire but, instead, "firing has utterly dominated the employers’ agendas," according to the Globe and Mail. This has created a "lost generation" in which unemployment in the E.U. for youths between 16 and 24 amounts to roughly 25% – while in Italy it's roughly 40% and for Greece and Spain it’s as high as 60%. Tom Rogers, an adviser to Ernst & Young, noted, "Youth joblessness at these levels risks permanently entrenched unemployment, lowering the rate of sustainable growth in the future."
The head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warned in 2008 that "social unrest may happen in many places, including advanced economies." The head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, warned in 2009 that "If we do not take measures, there is a risk of a serious human and social crisis with very serious political implications."
Additionally, in November of 2009, the IMF chief warned the premier British corporate lobbying group, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), that if a second major bailout of the banks were to occur, democracy itself would be jeopardized. The "man on the street" would not accept further bailouts, Strauss-Kahn said, and "the political reaction will be very strong, putting some democracies at risk."
Consulting in the Midst of a Crisis
Global consulting firms play a peculiar role in the global economic order. The consulting, or "strategy," firms became commonplace in the 1960s onward, and were frequently seen as "home to some great minds in the corporate world," hired by corporate, financial and other institutional clients to advise management on strategy and investments. The Financial Times referred to the industry as "a global behemoth, employing an estimated 3 million people and generating revenues of $300 billion a year," with the industry’s "product" being "the knowledge vested in its people."
According to an Oxford team of researchers, in 2011 consulting firms advised on more than $13 trillion of U.S. institutional money. Worldwide, consultants advised roughly $25 trillion worth of assets. Consulting advice was seen to be "highly influential" in the United States; yet despite the enormous power wielded by consultancy firms, the Oxford study found that the funds recommended to investors by consultants did not in the end perform better than other funds.
Still, the influence of giant consulting firms remains, although their reputations have taken some hits along the way. The world’s largest consulting firms at the end of 2013 were McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Booz & Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Oliver Wyman, Deloitte Consulting, The Parthenon Group, A.T. Kearney and Accenture. With these large firms advising even larger clients on strategy and investments, it's worth examining some of the advice and perspectives published by these agencies.
For example, McKinsey & Company, the world’s largest global management consulting firm, published a report in 2012 (Dominic Barton, "Capitalism for the Long Term," Autumn 2012) noting that in the previous few years the world had been witnessing "a dramatic acceleration in the shifting balance of power between the developed West and the emerging East, a rise in populist politics and social stresses in a number of countries, and significant strains on global governance systems."
For corporate executives, "the most consequential outcome of the [economic] crisis is the challenge to capitalism itself." And while "trust in business hit historically low levels more than a decade ago," McKinsey warned, "the crisis and the surge in public antagonism it unleashed have exacerbated the friction between business and society," adding to anxiety over rising income inequality and other factors.
Having interviewed over 400 business and government leaders around the world, the McKinsey report noted that "despite a certain amount of frustration on each side, the two groups share the belief that capitalism has been and can continue to be the greatest engine of prosperity ever devised." However, the report warned, "there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results." McKinsey & Company thus called for "nothing less than a shift from... quarterly capitalism to what might be referred to as long-term capitalism."
In another instance, KPMG, one of the world’s leading accountancy firms and professional service providers, published a report in 2013 examining a list of "megatrends" in the world leading up to the year 2030 ("Future State 2030: The Global Megatrends Shaping Governments," KPMG International, 2013). One of the major trends it referred to was "the rise of the individual," in which technological and educational advancements "have helped empower individuals like never before, leading to increased demands for transparency and participation in government and public decision-making."
This process is "ushering in a new era in human history," KPMG went on. With major social issues left unresolved such as growing inequality and access to education, services, employment and healthcare, "growing individual empowerment will present numerous challenges to government structures and processes, but if harnessed, could unleash significant economic development and social advancement."
The report further warned that there were other major consequences with the "rise of the individual," including "rising expectations" and increased "income inequality within countries leading to potential for greater social unrest." The fact that populations are "increasingly connected" and "faster dissemination of information through social media accelerates action" posed other concerns. John Herhalt, a former partner at KPMG, was quoted in the report as saying, "Citizens are not just demanding technologically advanced interactions with government, but also asking for a new voice."
Further, a 2013 survey of 1,300 CEOs from 68 countries by PricewaterhouseCoopers, another of the world's largest consulting firms, reported general views shared by CEOs around the world ("Dealing With Disruption: Adapting to Survive and Thrive," 16th Annual Global CEO Survey). When asked about the ability of firms to deal with the potential impact of disruptive scenarios, the vast majority (75%) of CEOs responded that their companies "would be negatively affected, with major social unrest being cause for the greatest concern." This was perceived as a greater threat than an economic slowdown in China.
CEOs, noted the report, "know they’ll have to repair the bridges of trust between business and society," as the global financial crisis and its aftermath "have badly damaged faith in institutions of every kind." Due to the revolution in social media, it concluded, many new "stakeholders... have an unprecedented amount of clout."
After in-depth analyses of documents, speeches and reports from the world’s major economic institutions – from international organizations like the World Bank and IMF to global consultancy firms like McKinsey & Company and PricewaterhouseCoopers; and from big banks like HSBC, JPMorgan Chase and UBS to oligarchic platforms like the World Economic Forum – three issues are prevalent in terms of assessing the fears and threats facing the global elite: 1) growing inequality, 2) decline of public trust in institutions of all kinds, and 3) the resulting social unrest.
It should be clear by now that as global inequality continues to rise, trust in institutions will continue to fall, and social unrest will explode in new and more dramatic ways than we have witnessed thus far. We truly are entering a World of Resistance.
Globalist Mouthpiece Calls For The Entire Planet To Adopt ‘National Identification System’
Would you like to have a digital identity card that is automatically issued to you at birth?by Michael Snyder: American Dream
July 17, 2014
Would you like to have a digital identity card that is automatically issued to you at birth? In one European nation, residents use such a card when they go to the hospital, when they do their banking, when they go shopping and even when they vote. This card has become so popular that this particular European country actually plans to start issuing them to millions of non-citizens all over the planet who request them. Never heard about this? Neither had I before this week. The Economist, a well-known mouthpiece for the global elite, is calling for the entire planet to adopt this "national identification system" that the little nation of Estonia has adopted. The Economist is touting all of the "benefits" of a "national identification card", but are there dangers as well? Could adopting such a system potentially open the door for greater government tyranny than we have ever known before?
The Economist article about this national identification scheme went largely unnoticed because it had a very boring title: "Estonia takes the plunge". But the content of the article is absolutely startling. The Economist article calls the Estonian national identification system a "cyberdream" and makes it sound like it will solve all of our problems…
There is one place where this cyberdream is already reality. Secure, authenticated identity is the birthright of every Estonian: before a newborn even arrives home, the hospital will have issued a digital birth certificate and his health insurance will have been started automatically. All residents of the small Baltic state aged 15 or over have electronic ID cards, which are used in health care, electronic banking and shopping, to sign contracts and encrypt e-mail, as tram tickets, and much more besides—even to vote.
"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom;""" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom; display: none; visibility: hidden;"
If this was just limited to Estonia, it would be disturbing enough. But according to the Economist, the Estonian government plans to start issuing these cards to millions of "satellite Estonians" all over the world…
That has left a gap in the global market—one that Estonia hopes to fill. Starting later this year, it will issue ID cards to non-resident "satellite Estonians", thereby creating a global, government-standard digital identity. Applicants will pay a small fee, probably around €30-50 ($41-68), and provide the same biometric data and documents as Estonian residents. If all is in order, a card will be issued, or its virtual equivalent on a smartphone (held on a special secure module in the SIM card).
Some good ideas never take off because too few people embrace them. And with just 1.3m residents, Estonia is a tiddler—even with the 10m satellite Estonians the government hopes to add over the next decade. What may provide the necessary scale is a European Union rule soon to come into force that will require member states to accept each others’ digital IDs. That means non-resident holders of Estonian IDs, wherever they are, will be able not only to send each other encrypted e-mail and to prove their identity to web-service providers who accept government-issued identities, but also to do business with governments anywhere in the EU.
The Economist hopes that Estonia will become a model that the rest of the world will follow.
But do we really want government to have that much control over our lives?
If we need this "digital identity card" to go shopping, do banking or get health care, it would also give the government the power to revoke those "privileges" in a heartbeat.
Already there are countless examples of how governments around the world are using information databases in abusive ways. For instance, one new lawsuit in the U.S. alleges that average citizens have been put in a ‘terror database’ for doing such things as buying computers and waiting for family members at train stations.
Do we really want to go even further down this road?
And of course "identity cards" can be lost, stolen and forged. The next logical step would be to permanently implant our identity cards.
To many older Americans, such a notion sounds ludicrous, but many younger Americans are so eager to adopt this kind of technology that they are actually doing it to themselves. Just check out the following excerpt from a recent NBC News article about "biohackers"…
In tattoo parlors and basements around the world, people are turning themselves into cyborgs by embedding magnets and computer chips directly into their bodies.
They call themselves biohackers, cyborgs and grinders. With each piece of technology they put beneath their skin, they are exploring the boundaries — and the implications — of fusing man and machine.
Welcome to the world of biohacking.
It’s a niche community at the literal bleeding edge of body modification, and it attracts fervent fans from a variety of schools of thought. Some simply enjoy experimenting with new tech. Others use the magnets and chips for utilitarian purposes.
Does that sound creepy to you?
But it isn’t just people on the fringes of society that are interested in these kinds of technologies.
For example, electronics giant LG says that it wants to put an electronic tracking device on your child…
Various tech companies have introduced wearable devices over the last few years that track your steps or heartbeat and even deliver your e-mails to your wrist.
Is electronically tracking your kid the next frontier?
LG announced a new device Wednesday morning, the KizON wristband, designed to let parents keep track of their child’s whereabouts. The KizON uses GPS, WiFi and mobile Internet signals to identify the user’s location in real time and sends the information to an Android app.
And billionaire Bill Gates is helping to develop an implant that "acts as a contraceptive for 16 years"…
Helped along by one of the world’s most notable billionaires, a U.S. firm is developing a tiny implant that acts as a contraceptive for 16 years — and can be turned on or off using a remote control.
The birth control microchip, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would hold nearly two decades worth of a hormone commonly used in contraceptives and dispense 30 micrograms a day, according to a report from the MIT Technology Review.
The new birth control, which is set to begin preclinical testing next year with hopes of putting it on shelves in 2018, can be implanted in the buttocks, upper arm or abdomen.
Whether you are ready or not, these technologies are coming.
For now, they are voluntary.
But eventually a day may come when you will be required to have an "identity chip" in order to buy, sell, conduct banking, have a job or go to the hospital.
When that day arrives, what will you do?
Monsanto's Herbicide Linked to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic: Could It Topple Monsanto?
July 10, 2014
Monsanto's herbicide Roundup has been linked to a mysterious fatal kidney disease epidemic that has appeared in Central America, Sri Lanka and India.
For years, scientists have been trying to unravel the mystery of a chronic kidney disease epidemic that has hit Central America, India and Sri Lanka. The disease occurs in poor peasant farmers who do hard physical work in hot climes. In each instance, the farmers have been exposed to herbicides and to heavy metals. The disease is known as CKDu, for Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology. The "u" differentiates this illness from other chronic kidney diseases where the cause is known. Very few Western medical practitioners are even aware of CKDu, despite the terrible toll it has taken on poor farmers from El Salvador to South Asia.
Dr. Catharina Wesseling, the regional director for the Program on Work and Health (SALTRA) in Central America, which pioneered the initial studies of the region's unsolved outbreak, put it this way, "Nephrologists and public health professionals from wealthy countries are mostly either unfamiliar with the problem or skeptical whether it even exists."
Dr. Wesseling was being diplomatic. At a 2011 health summit in Mexico City, the United States beat back a proposal by Central American nations that would have listed CKDu as a top priority for the Americas.
"The idea was to keep the focus on the key big risk factors that we could control and the major causes of death: heart disease, cancer and diabetes. And we felt, the position we were taking, that CKD was included."
The United States was wrong. The delegates from Central America were correct. CKDu is a new form of illness. This kidney ailment does not stem from diabetes, hypertension or other diet-related risk factors. Unlike the kidney disease found in diabetes or hypertension, the kidney tubules are a major site of injury in CKDu, suggesting a toxic etiology.
.CKDu is now the second leading cause of mortality among men in El Salvador. This small, densely populated Central American country now has the highest overall mortality rate from kidney disease in the world. Neighboring Honduras and Nicaragua also have extremely high rates of kidney disease mortality. In El Salvador and Nicaragua, more men are dying from CKDu than from HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and leukemia combined. In one patch of rural Nicaragua, so many men have died that the community is called "The Island of the Widows."
In addition to Central America, India and Sri Lanka have been hit hard by the epidemic. In Sri Lanka, over 20,000 people have died from CKDu in the past two decades. In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, more than 1,500 have been treated for the ailment since 2007. Given the rarity of dialysis and kidney transplantation in these regions, most who suffer from CKDu will die from their kidney disease..
In an investigation worthy of the great Sherlock Holmes, a scientific sleuth from Sri Lanka, Dr. Channa Jayasumana, and his two colleagues, Dr. Sarath Gunatilake and Dr. Priyantha Senanayake, have put forward a unifying hypothesis that could explain the origin of the disease. They reasoned that the offending agent had to have been introduced into Sri Lanka within the last 30 years, since the first cases appeared in the mid-1990s. The chemical also needed to be able to form stable complexes with the metals in hard water and to act as a shield, protecting those metals from metabolism by the liver. The compound would also need to act as a carrier and be able to deliver the metals to the kidney.
We know that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. The researchers looked for likely suspects. Everything pointed to glyphosate. This herbicide is used in abundance in Sri Lanka. Earlier studies had shown that once glyphosate binds with metals, the glyphosate-metal complex can last for decades in the soil.
Glyphosate was not originally designed for use as an herbicide. Patented by the Stauffer Chemical Company in 1964, it was introduced as a chelating agent. It avidly binds to metals. Glyphosate was first used as a descaling agent to clean out mineral deposits from the pipes in boilers and other hot water systems.
It is this chelating property that allows glyphosate to form complexes with the arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals found in the groundwater and soil in Central America, India and Sri Lanka. The glyphosate-heavy metal complex can enter the human body in a variety of ways. The complex can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Glyphosate acts like a Trojan horse, allowing the bound heavy metal to avoid detection by the liver, since the glyphosate occupies the binding sites that the liver would normally latch onto. The glyphosate-heavy metal complex reaches the kidney tubules, where the high acidity allows the metal to break free of the glyphosate. The cadmium or arsenic then damages the kidney tubules and other parts of the kidneys, ultimately resulting in kidney failure and, most often, death.
At this point, this elegant theory advanced by Dr. Jayasumana and colleagues can only be considered hypothesis-generating. Further scientific studies will need to confirm the hypothesis that CKDu is indeed due to glyphosate-heavy metal toxicity to the kidney tubules. For the present, this may be the best explanation for the epidemic.
Another explanation is that heat stress may be the cause, or a combination of heat stress and chemical toxicity. Monsanto, of course, is standing behind glyphosate and disputing the claim that it plays any role whatsoever in the genesis of CKDu.
While the exact cause of CKDu has not been proven conclusively, both Sri Lanka and El Salvador have invoked the precautionary principle. El Salvador banned glyphosate in September 2013 and is currently looking for safer alternatives. Sri Lanka banned glyphosate in March of this year because of concerns about CKDu.
Glyphosate has had an interesting history. After its initial use as a descaling agent by Stauffer Chemical, scientists at Monsanto discovered its herbicidal qualities. Monsanto patented glyphosate as an herbicide in the 1970s, and has marketed it as "Roundup" since 1974. Monsanto retained exclusive rights until 2000, when the patent expired. By 2005, Monsanto's glyphosate products were registered in more than 130 countries for use in more than 100 crops. As of 2013, glyphosate was the world's largest selling herbicide.
Glyphosate's popularity has been due, in part, to the perception that it is extremely safe. The Monsanto website claims:
Glyphosate binds tightly to most types of soil so it is not available for uptake by roots of nearby plants. It works by disrupting a plant enzyme involved in the production of amino acids that are essential to plant growth. The enzyme, EPSP synthase, is not present in humans or animals, contributing to the low risk to human health from the use of glyphosate according to label directions.
Because of glyphosate's reputation for both safety and effectiveness, John Franz, who discovered glyphosate's usefulness as a herbicide, received the National Medal of Technology in 1987. Franz also received the American Chemical Society's Carothers Award in 1989, and the American Section of the Society of Chemical Industry's Perkins Medal in 1990. In 2007, he was inducted into the United States' Inventor's Hall of Fame for his work on the herbicide. Roundup was named one of the "Top 10 Products That Changed the Face of Agriculture" by the magazine Farm Chemicals in 1994.
Not everyone agrees with this perception of glyphosate's safety. The first "Roundup resistant" GMO crops, soybeans, were introduced by Monsanto in 1996. The same year, the first glyphosate resistant weeds began to emerge. Farmers responded by using increasingly toxic herbicides to deal with the new super weeds that had developed glyphosate resistance.
In addition to the concern about the emergence of super weeds, a study in rats demonstrated that low levels of glyphosate induced severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic, and kidney disturbances. Recently two activist groups, Moms Across America and Thinking Moms Revolution, asked the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to recall Monsanto's Roundup, citing a host of adverse health impacts in their children from the herbicide, including failure to thrive, leaky gut syndrome, autism and food allergies.
Glyphosate is no ordinary herbicide. Besides being the most used herbicide on earth, it is also the central pillar of Monsanto's temple. Most of Monsanto's seeds, including soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, sugar beets and sorghum, are glyphosate resistant. As of 2009, Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) products, which include its GMO seeds, represented about half of Monsanto's yearly revenue. This reliance on glyphosate products makes Monsanto extremely vulnerable to research challenging the herbicide's safety.
Glyphosate-resistant seeds are engineered to allow the farmer to drench his fields in the herbicide to kill off all of the weeds. The glyphosate resistant crop can then be harvested. But if the combination of glyphosate and the heavy metals found in the groundwater or the soil destroys the farmer's kidneys in the process, the whole house of cards falls apart. This may be what is happening now.
An ugly confrontation has been unfolding in El Salvador. The US government has been pressuring El Salvador to buy GMO seeds from Monsanto rather than indigenous seeds from their own farmers. The US has threatened to withhold almost $300 million in aid unless El Salvador purchases Monsanto's GMO seeds. The GMO seeds are more expensive. They are not adapted to the Salvadoran climate or soil.
The only "advantage" of Monsanto's GMO seeds is their glyphosate resistance. Now that glyphosate has been shown to be a possible, and perhaps likely, cause of CKDu, that "advantage" no longer exists.
What is the message from the United States to El Salvador exactly? Perhaps the kindest explanation is that the United States is unaware that glyphosate may be the cause of the fatal kidney disease epidemic in El Salvador and that the government sincerely believes that the GMO seeds will provide a better yield. If so, a sad mixture of ignorance and arrogance is at the heart of this foreign policy blunder. A less kind interpretation would suggest that the government puts Monsanto's profits above concerns about the economy, environment and health of the Salvadorans. This view would suggest that a tragic mix of greed and callous disregard for the Salvadorans is behind US policy.
Unfortunately, there is evidence to support the latter view. The United States seems to be completely behind Monsanto, regardless of any science questioning the safety of its products. Cables released by WikiLeaks show that US diplomats around the world are pushing GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. The cables also reveal instructions to punish any foreign countries trying to ban GMO crops.
Whatever the explanation, pressuring El Salvador, or any country, to buy GMO seeds from Monsanto is a tragic mistake. It is foreign policy not worthy of America. Let's change it. Let's base our foreign and domestic policies on human rights, environmental stewardship, health and equity.
Post script: After articles about the seed dispute appeared in the media, The New York Times reported that the United States has reversed its position and will stop pressuring El Salvador to buy Monsanto's seeds. Thus far, the aid money has not been released.
Wall Street Teams Up with U.S. Intelligence Cronies in Bid to Form Fascist "Cyber War Council"July 9, 2014
Want to hear the worst idea in the history of horrible ideas? How about we take the industry responsible for destroying the U.S. economy and wrecking the lives of tens of millions of people, and then allow it to create a "government-industry cyber war council."
It appears that trillions in taxpayer bailouts simply wasn’t enough for Wall Street. Recognizing that it can seemingly get whatever it wants whenever it wants, the industry is now positioning itself to overtly control U.S. "cyber" policy. What could go wrong.
The man behind the push appears to be ex-NSA chief Keith Alexander, who as I reported on last month, is now: Pimping Advice to Wall Street Banks for $1 Million a Month. As I mentioned in that post, one of Mr. Alexander’s most high profile clients is Wall Street’s largest lobbying group the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). Unsurprisingly, SIFMA is behind the latest push to formally merge Wall Street with the government intelligence apparatus. Mr. Alexander isn’t wasting any time.
Bloomberg reports that:
Wall Street’s biggest trade group has proposed a government-industry cyber war council to stave off terrorist attacks that could trigger financial panic by temporarily wiping out account balances, according to an internal document.
The proposal by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, known as Sifma, calls for a committee of executives and deputy-level representatives from at least eight U.S. agencies including the Treasury Department, the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, all led by a senior White House official.
More centralization. This is the exact opposite of what we want or need. The establishment is very worried about the trend toward decentralization, and making its move on many fronts.
The trade association also reveals in the document that Sifma has retained former NSA director Keith Alexander to "facilitate" the joint effort with the government. Alexander, in turn, has brought in Michael Chertoff, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and his firm, Chertoff Group.
Ah, Michael Chertoff again. One of the most shameless government cronies out there. His relentless desire to profit from the "war on terror" is one of the main reasons we have installed those useless naked body scanners at airports across the country. Recall I covered this in my post, License Plate Readers Stir Controversy in California as the NYPD Prepares to Use Drones, in which I noted:
Forrmer head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Chertoff, has a private security company called the Chertoff Group, which stands to make lots of money from fear mongering the public about terrorism. As the Huffington Post reported in 2010:
Chertoff’s clients have prospered in the last two years, largely through lucrative government contracts, and The Chertoff Group’s assistance in navigating the complex federal procurement bureaucracy is in high demand. One example involves the company at the heart of the recent uproar over intrusive airport security procedures – Rapiscan, which makes the so-called body scanners. Back in 2005, Chertoff was promoting the technology and Homeland Security placed the government’s first order, buying five Rapiscan scanners.
Moving back to today’s Bloomberg article…
Alexander had been pitching Sifma and other bank trade associations to purchase his services through his new consulting firm, IronNet Cybersecurity Inc., for as much as $1 million per month, according to two people briefed on the talks.
He has made much the same argument to Sifma as the association is now making to the government about the emergence of new kinds of software assaults. For several months beginning in fall 2012, major U.S. bank websites were hit by what is known as distributed denial-of-service attacks, in which hackers flood systems with information to shut them down.
The government-industry group would develop plans for "much quicker, near real-time" dissemination of information from agencies to the private sector and ways to "actively defend the industry" if preparations for a cyber attack are discovered in advance. Sifma is also seeking "pre-discussed and mutually understood protocols" for the industry to request government help during and after an attack.
Merging of private business and government. Fascism.
Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat, said today he was concerned that industry members in such a joint group could improperly get involved in pre-emptive strikes against a person or state planning an assault on the U.S.
Or they could get involved in strikes against U.S. citizens they find undesirable or problematic.
"This could in effect make the banks part of what would begin to look like a war council," Grayson said in an e-mail. "Congress needs to keep an eye on what something like this could mean."
The Senate Intelligence Committee plans today to take up a bipartisan bill — sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican - – aimed at improving private-sector cyber-defenses. The bill includes rules that would insulate banks from liability arising from sharing information for cybersecurity, addressing a point financial institutions have raised in the past.
Naturally, Dianne Feinstein, one of Congress’ most dangerous and authoritarian members is behind this travesty.
As I said in the beginning, this is one of the worst ideas of all-time. Two of the most powerful, out of control and corrupt segments of American society, Wall Street and the intelligence community, want to formally merge in order to better protect their power structure in a "public-private partnership."
Although these partnerships are always a concern, this particular partnership is as dangerous as you get
Attempt to Tie Bitcoin to ISIS is Proof the Establishment is Scared to Death
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has proposed using bitcoin to fund global jihadist efforts
by Michael Krieger
Liberty Blitzkrieg | July 8, 2014
I first threw my public support behind Bitcoin in August 2012 after finding out that it had been used to donate funds to whistleblower group Wikileaks in the wake of a payment blockade by large financial institutions. I explained my rationale in the post: Bitcoin: A Way to Fight Back Against the Financial Terrorists?
It was this event that really sparked my interest in Bitcoin and resulted in me spending much of my time in the subsequent months learning as much as possible about the revolutionary payment system. The more I learned, the more excited I became. In fact, learning about Bitcoin and its freedom unleashing potential is what made me more encouraged about the future of humanity than anything else over the past couple of years. It became evident to me early on that the large financial institutions and the statists they are in bed with would ultimately panic if Bitcoin ever took off. In early 2013 I wrote the following in the post, Bitcoin Goes Parabolic: My Updated Thoughts:
Based on intuition, psychology and nothing more I suspect the Bitcoin market will hit a total value of about $1 billion before experiencing a severe pullback. That would put the price at around 92. At that point, it is likely to be all over the financial press and I think "the state" may be tempted to threaten it. Supporters of Bitcoin should not only expect such an attack, we should embrace it. Just think about how ridiculous the government will look if they attack Bitcoin. I mean, these guys can’t put a single banker in jail, but when citizens decide to freely exchange goods using a currency of their choice that is where they draw the line! Bitcoin’s purpose is to both show us the way forward and to make the authorities look foolish as they spastically and irrationally respond to it. I suspect it will be highly successful in accomplishing both objectives.
"" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom;""" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom; display: none; visibility: hidden;"
One of the key points I was trying to make in the above passage is the notion that governments would look ridiculous in their attempts to attack Bitcoin. We have seen this in droves ever since then, with the most amusing being Senator Joe Manchin’s ridiculous and short lived campaign to "Ban Bitcoin," which I highlighted in the post: U.S. Senator Wants to Ban Bitcoin – To be Followed by Book Burnings and Witch Hunts.
Every attempt to demonize Bitcoin has demonstrated an increased level of desperation and ridiculousness. However, the most recent example is the most absurd yet. According to Sky News, an "ISIS-linked blog" has posted about how Bitcoin can be used to "fund global jihad." Coindesk has coveredthe Sky News article, in which it notes:
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has proposed using bitcoin to fund global jihadist efforts.
Sky News reported that a blog post entitled ‘Bitcoin and the Charity of Violent Physical Struggle’ outlines a use case for bitcoin as a vehicle for terrorist financing, noting that its pseudonymous transaction capability fits well within the needs of jihadist organizers. The news site received the article from sources claiming to be members of the Islamic State, the so-called jihadi nation established by the ISIS leadership.
The blog said:
"This system has the potential to revive the lost sunnah of donating to the mujahideen, it is simple, easy, and we ask Allah to hasten its usage for us."
The blog author wrote that, as a result of anti-terrorism financial restrictions and cooperation between governments on these efforts, jihadist funding has all but dried up. Only the wealthiest supporters are able to contribute by using traditional currencies and payment methods.
This entire meme is so fucking stupid I don’t even know where to start. I think I summarized my overall sentiment in the following tweet:
If you are a real terrorist organization and you plan on terrorist attacks, are you really going to publish a blog saying to use Bitcoin?
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) July 7, 2014
The answer is, of course not. That’s assuming that anyone actually believes ISIS is a bunch of ragtag terrorists operating without state backing, which of course is ridiculous. So who is behind ISIS? It seems to be mainly Saudi Arabia, something I outlined in my post: America’s Disastrous Foreign Policy – My Thoughts on Iraq. In that post, I also noted the strong connection between the Saudis and the attacks on September 11, 2001.Notice a trend here? The Saudis fund radical, violent groups that are being used to take away all our freedoms yet they remain a close ally. What the heck is going on here?
It seems to me that the authoritarians have learned quite well since 9/11 that nothing leads Westerns to puke up their civil liberties more than the threat of Islamic terrorists. With Bitcoin a serious threat to the global status quo, the demonization tactics are becoming increasingly desperate. As I mentioned earlier, if you had more than two braincells to rub together you’d recognize the absurdity of a real terrorist group broadcasting to the world that they are going to use Bitcoin. Also, recall the following passage from the Coindesk article:
The blog author wrote that, as a result of anti-terrorism financial restrictions and cooperation between governments on these efforts, jihadist funding has all but dried up. Only the wealthiest supporters are able to contribute by using traditional currencies and payment methods.
Well, hold on a second here. I seem to recall that ISIS recently stole as much as $400 million in cash during a raid in the Iraqi city of Mosul. Recall theWashington Post reported that:
Islamist insurgents may have seized millions of dollars in cash as they looted banks while seizing the Iraqi city of Mosul this week, a windfall that the al-Qaeda-inspired group could use to expand territory and fund further attacks, U.S. officials said. News reports citing Iraqi regional governor Atheel al-Nujaifi, whose province includes Mosul, indicated that ISIS may have made off with as much as $500 billion Iraqi dinars, more than $400 million. U.S. officials and experts questioned whether branches would keep such amounts on hand, especially as violence has spiked in the country.
So ISIS has what may be $400 million in cash and it is going to decide to use Bitcoin, with a total market capitalization of $8 billion and every transaction recorded on the blockchain? Give me a fucking break.
The good news is that the global oligarchy is clearly terrified of Bitcoin. The bad news is that a lot of people are so brain-dead and incapable of critical thought they may actually believe this ISIS-blog post nonsense. It’s up to us to expose this meme for the ridiculous desperation it is.
Police/DHS Are Entering Kid's Irises Into A NATIONAL DATABASE
6-26-2014Source: Mass Private I
This is the most disturbing story I've had the displeasure to write about, not only does Big Brother spy on us, our families & kids they're collecting their irises!
Worcester, MA - It takes less than a minute to enter a child’s information into a national missing person’s database. All it takes is a photo, some general information like height and weight, and a quick scan of your eyes.
It's happening across the country!
Click here, here, here, here & here to read more.
(Note: scroll down to the middle of the page to view the Rumford police child iris scan pics.)
"The eyes don't lie," said Lewis Evangelidis, the Worcester City sheriff. "The eyes are the identification."
It's a part of Evangelidis' child ID iris scan program.
The department has been using the iris scanning program for years among the county's seniors where thousands of adults with Alzheimer's or dementia have been scanned. The program has been used among children at fairs and community events, but for the first time the sheriff brought the program to a Worcester public school. The program is free to those who sign up and can be used to quickly identify children who are either lost or may have been abducted.
"We try to see in what ways we can improve the safety for the community and this seemed like a no-brainer. We have the technology and have been using it for seniors and why not extend it to children," said Evangelidis who has joined 1,300 other sheriff's departments implementing this technology with children. "In the end, it's another tool for public safety."
What a load of crap, it's Big Brother's (police, politicians) B/S answer to spying on us, claiming its about public safety!
Why does DHS need our irises, fingerprints & driver's license pictures (facial recognition)?
It's about control! Please, Please stop feeding us the same crap over & over, that its about our safety!
The Child Project national registry is maintained by the National Center For Missing & Exploited Children, a non-profit based in Phoenix. Once digital photos of the children's eyes are made, the data is analyzed and a 688 byte code is created and put into the database. Any law enforcement agency with the proper equipment - which is now prevalent, according to Evangelidis - can easily scan a child's eyes and get an identification along with contact information for the child's parents.
What's the common denominator for spying on us? Money! See below:
In 2012 The National Center For Missing & Exploited Children made over $48 Million Dollars!
Their salaries range from over $100,000 to less than $56,000.
Remember non-profits make millions of dollars it's all about profits.
The process requires children to have two pictures taken, one of their eyes and one regular digital photo for identification purposes. Parents must sign off on the program, according to the sheriff's department, and the iris information is erased from the system once the child turns 18.
The camera captures an up-close look at the iris, which is the colored part of the eye.
The sheriff says the iris is ten times more identifiable than a fingerprint. It's the one part of the body that will never change.
"Fingerprints wear out, fingerprints can be compromised. Your iris cannot be," he explained.
The Center For Missing Kids also has a fingerprinting program.
Sheriff Evangelidis has been using the program with senior citizens for years. Wednesday was the first time it's been brought to a public school.
Close to 500 Nelson Place School students lined up to get their picture taken. The students are days away from summer vacation. The sheriff says it's a perfect time to get their information in the system.
"This iris scan is a national database, so if you travel in the summer and something was to happen, you'd be part of that database in any local law enforcement no matter where you were," Evangelidis explained.
Evangelidis also uses iris scans at the Worcester County House of Corrections to identify inmates. He calls the technology the next generation of identification, but says it shouldn't replace traditional child ID kits that use fingerprints.
"You know it's always good if you've got the potential to have a safety kit with fingerprinting. I'd recommend that too," he said.
What a surprise, police want our kids fingerprints, dental records, school grades, etc.
Government Spying Has Reached A New Low!
Sunday, June 22, 2014
"Finance is the new form of warfare – without the expense of a military overhead and an occupation against unwilling hosts. It is a competition in credit creation to buy foreign resources, real estate, public and privatized infrastructure, bonds and corporate stock ownership. Who needs an army when you can obtain the usual objective (monetary wealth and asset appropriation) simply by financial means?" - Dr. Michael Hudson, Counterpunch, October 2010.
When the US Federal Reserve bought an 80% stake in American International Group (AIG) in September 2008, the unprecedented $85 billion outlay was justified as necessary to bail out the world’s largest insurance company. Today, however, central banks are on a global corporate buying spree not to bail out bankrupt corporations but simply as an investment, to compensate for the loss of bond income due to record-low interest rates. Indeed, central banks have become some of the world’s largest stock investors.
Central banks have the power to create national currencies with accounting entries, and they are traditionally very secretive. We are not allowed to peer into their books. It took a major lawsuit by Reuters and a congressional investigation to get the Fed to reveal the $16-plus trillion in loans it made to bail out giant banks and corporations after 2008.
What is to stop a foreign bank from simply printing its own currency and trading it on the currency market for dollars, to be invested in the US stock market or US real estate market? What is to stop central banks from printing up money competitively, in a mad rush to own the world’s largest companies?
Apparently not much. Central banks are for the most part unregulated, even by their own governments. As the Federal Reserve observes on its website:
[The Fed] is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan quipped, "Quite frankly it does not matter who is president as far as the Fed is concerned. There are no other agencies that can overrule the action we take."
The Central Bank Buying Spree
That is how "independent" central banks operate, but it evidently not the US central bank that is gambling in the stock market. After extensive quantitative easing, the Fed has a $4.5 trillion balance sheet; but this sum is accounted for as being invested conservatively in Treasuries and agency debt (although QE may have allowed Wall Street banks to invest the proceeds in the stock market by devious means).
Which central banks, then, are investing in stocks? The biggest player turns out to be the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the Chinese central bank.
According to a June 15th article in USA Today:
Evidence of equity-buying by central banks and other public sector investors has emerged from a large-scale survey compiled by Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF), a global research and advisory group. The OMFIF research publication Global Public Investor (GPI) 2014, launched on June 17 is the first comprehensive survey of $29.1 trillion worth of investments held by 400 public sector institutions in 162 countries. The report focuses on investments by 157 central banks, 156 public pension funds and 87 sovereign funds, underlines growing similarities among different categories of public entities owning assets equivalent to 40% of world output.
The assets of these 400 Global Public Investors comprise $13.2 trillion (including gold) at central banks, $9.4 trillion at public pension funds and $6.5 trillion at sovereign wealth funds.
Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds are well known to be large holders of shares on international stock markets. But it seems they now have rivals from unexpected sources:
One is China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), part of the People’s Bank of China, the biggest overall public sector investor, with $3.9 trillion under management, well ahead of the Bank of Japan and Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), each with $1.3 trillion.
SAFE’s investments include significant holdings in Europe. The PBoC itself has been directly buying minority equity stakes in important European companies.
Another large public sector equity owner is Swiss National Bank, with $480 billion under management. The Swiss central bank had 15% of its foreign exchange assets – or $72 billion – in equities at the end of 2013.
Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds invest their pension contributions and exchange reserves earned in foreign trade, which is fair enough. The justification for central banks to be playing the stock market is less obvious. Their stock purchases are justified as compensating for lost revenue caused by sharp drops in interest rates. But those drops were driven by central banks themselves; and the broad powers delegated to central banks were supposed to be for conducting "monetary policy," not for generating investment returns. According to the OMFIF, central banks collectively now have $13.2 trillion in assets (including gold). That is nearly 20% of the value of all of the stock markets in the world, which comes to $62 trillion.
From Monetary Policy to Asset Grabs
Central banks are allowed to create money out of nothing in order to conduct the monetary policies necessary to "regulate the value of the currency" and "maintain price stability." Traditionally, this has been done with "open market operations," in which money was either created by the central bank and used to buy federal securities (thereby adding money to the money supply) or federal securities were sold in exchange for currency (shrinking the money supply).
"Quantitative easing" is open market operations on steroids, to the tune of trillions of dollars. But the purpose is allegedly the same—to augment a money supply that shrank by trillions of dollars when the shadow banking system collapsed after 2008. The purpose is not supposed to be to earn an income for the central bank itself. Indeed, the U.S. central bank is required to return the interest earned on federal securities to the federal government, which paid the interest in the first place.
Further, as noted earlier, it is not the US Federal Reserve that has been massively investing in the stock market. It is the PBoC, which arguably is in a different position than the US Fed. It cannot print dollars or Euros. Rather, it acquires them from local merchants who have earned them legitimately in foreign trade.
However, the PBoC has done nothing to earn these dollars or Euros beyond printing yuan. It trades the yuan for the dollars earned by Chinese sellers, who need local currency to pay their workers and suppliers. The money involved in these transactions has thus doubled. The merchants have been paid in yuan and the central bank has an equivalent sum in dollars or Euros. That means the Chinese central bank’s holdings are created out of thin air no less than the Federal Reserve’s dollars are.
Battle of the Central Banks?
Western central banks have generally worked this scheme discreetly. Not so much the Chinese, whose blatant gaming of the system points up its flaws for all to see.
Georgetown University historian Professor Carroll Quigley styled himself the librarian of the international bankers. In his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, he wrote that their aim was "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." This system was to be controlled "in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements," central banks that "were themselves private corporations."
It may be the Chinese, not acting in concert, who break up this cartel. The PBoC is no more transparent than the US Fed, but it is not an "independent" central bank. It is a government agency accountable to the Chinese government and acting on its behalf.
The Chinese have evidently figured out the game of the "independent" central bankers, and to be using it to their own advantage. If the Fed can do quantitative easing, so can the Chinese – and buy up our assets with the proceeds. Owning our corporations rather than our Treasuries helps the Chinese break up US dollar hegemony.
Whatever power plays are going on behind the scenes, it is increasingly clear that they are not serving we-the-people. Banks should not be the exclusive creators of money. We the people, through our representative governments, need to be issuing the national money supply directly, as was done in America under President Abraham Lincoln and in colonial times
Friday, June 20, 2014
Recently, I wrote an article entitled, "The Clandestine Reasons For ISIS Taking Over Iraq," where I suggested there were at least two possible reasons out of several for NATO powers to direct ISIS fighters in their rampage across Iraq and subsequent seizure of large swaths of territory in that country.
One of the reasons for directing ISIS’ assault against Iraq is the ability to arm the organization with heavy military equipment to then be funneled across the border into Syria for use in that country. Such equipment as tanks, Humvees, and even helicopters could thus be written off as a mistake and not the backdoor weapons transfer that it was.
Second, and more likely, is the possibility that the United States has allowed ISIS to conquer Iraqi territory so as to justify the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as "cross-border" strikes against the organization in Syria. Such "cross-border" strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing "handcuffs on the troops."
Any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the "buffer zone" that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this "buffer zone," a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.
There exists, however, a third reason for the further destabilization of Iraq, the deployment of ISIS, and the pressure on Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki to resign – the weakening of Iran and its influence in the region.
To begin with, the deployment of ISIS by NATO and GCC intelligence/government agencies across Iraq places radical Sunni Muslim fanatics even closer to the borders of the Shiite nation of Iran, a country that is clearly the target of the West and slated for the guillotine immediately after Syria and Lebanon. This deployment of death squads thus clearly makes the Iranian government quite nervous at the prospect of facing the type of destabilization that Syria continues to face today.
In addition, it is important to note that the current Iraqi Prime Minister has largely been friendly to the Iranian government in contrast to the previous Iraqi administration and the current puppet opposition, Ayad Allawi. The fact that Maliki has consistently moved to improve relations between Iraq and Iran clearly makes Washington’s job more difficult as it seeks to destroy both the governments of Syria (and Iranian ally) and Iran.
Indeed, the friendly relations between Iraq and Iran hamper the efforts to destroy the Syrian government since Iraq has been allowing Iranian aid flights to Syria over Iraqi airspace, an issue that was a serious point of contention between Maliki and Skull and Bones John Kerry since 2013. Trucked shipments also take place from Iran to Syria via Iraqi territory but aid flights take place on an almost daily basis.
If Maliki steps down as Prime Minister and a "coalition government" made up of radicalized Sunnis and pro death squad or pro American players is formed, then the shipments from Iran to Syria will almost certainly be halted.
The installation of a weak or Shia-hostile government in Iraq is also a future that Iran would like to avoid. Indeed, this is just one of the many reasons that Iran is so eager to commit its own troops to Iraq in order to prevent the spread of ISIS.
While the events transpiring across the Middle East has baffled the American public for many years, the truth is that the ethnic, religious, tribal trigger points, and nuances are well understood by the world oligarchy.
Unfortunately, this knowledge is being put to use in the worst way.
While the American people throw their hands up in frustration, NATO and the GCC move forward with a cleverly crafted plan that was carefully scripted a long time ago
ISIS "Made in USA". Iraq "Geopolitical Arsonists" Seek to Burn Region
Global Research, June 18, 2014
When a fire is raging, firefighters are called – not the arsonist who started it, especially if they return to the scene of the crime dragging a barrel of gasoline behind them. Yet, this is precisely what the US proposes – that they – the geopolitical arsonists – be allowed to return to Iraq to extinguish the threat of heavily armed sectarian militants streaming from NATO territory in Turkey and edging ever closer to Baghdad.
ISIS: Made in USA
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and recently added to the list, Kuwait. The Daily Beast in an article titled, "America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS," states:
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.
Despite the candor of the opening sentence, the article would unravel into a myriad of lies laid to obfuscate America’s role in the creation of ISIS. The article would claim:
The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region. There, the threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war trumps the U.S. goal of stability and moderation in the region.
However, the US goal in the region was never "stability" and surely not "moderation." As early as 2007, sources within the Pentagon and across the US intelligence community revealed a conspiracy to drown the Middle East in sectarian war, and to do so by arming and funding extremist groups including the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda itself. Published in 2007 – a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin – Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" stated specifically (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
The 9 page, extensive report has since been vindicated many times over with revelations of US, NATO, and Persian Gulf complicity in raising armies of extremists within Libya and along Syria’s borders. ISIS itself, which is claimed to occupy a region stretching from northeastern Syria and across northern and western Iraq, has operated all along Turkey’s border with Syria, "coincidentally" where the US CIA has conducted years of "monitoring" and arming of "moderate" groups.
In fact, the US admits it has armed, funded, and equipped "moderates" to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In a March 2013 Telegraph article titled, "US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb’," it was reported that a single program included 3,000 tons of weapons sent in 75 planeloads paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States. The New York Times in its article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that the CIA assisted Arab governments and Turkey with military aid to terrorists fighting in Syria constituting hundreds of airlifts landing in both Jordan and Turkey.
The vast scale of US, NATO, and Arab aid to terrorists fighting in Syria leaves no doubt that the conspiracy described by Hersh in 2007 was carried out in earnest, and that the reason Al Qaeda groups such as Al Nusra and ISIS displaced so-called "moderates," was because such "moderates" never existed in any significant manner to begin with. While articles like the Daily Beast’s "America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS" now try to portray a divide between US and Persian Gulf foreign policy, from Hersh’s 2007 article and all throughout the past 3 years in Libya and Syria, the goal of raising an army in the name of Al Qaeda has been clearly shared and demonstrably pursued by both the US and its regional partners.
The plan, from the beginning, was to raise an extremist expeditionary force to trigger a regional sectarian bloodbath – a bloodbath now raging across multiple borders and set to expand further if decisive action is not taken.
Iran Must Avoid America’s "Touch of Death" and Sectarian War at All Costs
Despite an open conspiracy to drown the region in sectarian strife, the US now poses as a stakeholder in Iraq’s stability. Having armed, funded, and assisted ISIS into existence and into northern Iraq itself, the idea of America "intervening" to stop ISIS is comparable to an arsonist extinguishing his fire with more gasoline. Reviled across the region, any government – be it in Baghdad, Tehran, or Damascus – that allies itself with the US will be immediately tainted in the minds of forces forming along both sides of this artificially created but growing sectarian divide. Iran’s mere consideration of joint-operations with the US can strategically hobble any meaningful attempts on the ground to stop ISIS from establishing itself in Iraq and using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against both Tehran and Damascus.
Any Iranian assistance to Iraq should be given only under the condition that the US not intervene in any manner. Iran’s main concern should be portraying the true foreign-funded nature of ISIS, while uniting genuine Sunni and Shia’a groups together to purge what is a foreign invasion of Iraqi territory. Iran must also begin allaying fears among Iraq’s Sunni population that Tehran may try to use the current crisis to gain further influence over Baghdad.
While the US downplays the sectarian aspects of ISIS’ invasion of Iraq before global audiences, its propaganda machine across the Middle East, assisted by Doha and Riyadh, is stoking sectarian tensions. The ISIS has committed itself to a campaign of over-the-top sectarian vitriol and atrocities solely designed to trigger a wider Sunni-Shia’a conflict. That the US created ISIS and it is now in Iraq attempting to stoke a greater bloodbath with its already abhorrent invasion, is precisely why Tehran and Baghdad should take a cue from Damascus, and disassociate itself from the West, dealing with ISIS themselves.
Rand Paul threatens to hold Federal Reserve nominees unless his Fed audit gets a vote
BY JOSEPH LAWLER | MAY 12, 2014
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Freedom Summit in Manchester, N.H. (Photo by Darren...
Sen. Rand Paul threatened Monday to place a hold on three nominees to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors unless his bill to subject the Fed to an audit gets a vote in the Senate.
It's a replay of a maneuver the libertarian Republican and Fed critic attempted last year when current Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen's nomination was under consideration.
In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, Paul wrote that "there is no more appropriate time to provide Congress with additional oversight and scrutiny of the actions and decisions of the central banks" than during the Senate's consideration of the nominees, whom the Senate Banking Committee approved in late April. The candidates are Stanley Fischer, the former top Israeli central banker nominated to be the Fed's vice chairman, former Obama Treasury official Lael Brainard, and Jerome Powell, a current member of the board seeking a second term..
The Government Accountability Office already audits many of the Fed's functions. But Paul's bill, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would provide for an annual audit of all of the Fed's activities, including its emergency loans to banks through its discount window and its monetary policy deliberations.
Although Paul's previous attempt to use a hold on Yellen's candidacy to gain a vote on the bill was unsuccessful, it did garner publicity and support for the measure, which polls favorably and was a long-time goal of his father, the libertarian Texas congressman and author of the book End the Fed, Ron Paul.
Rand Paul's latest effort comes as the Federal Reserve Board is severely understaffed. Setting aside Powell, whose term has expired, there are just three members of the seven-member board left, and one, Jeremy Stein, is set to return to his academic post at Harvard at the end of the month.
Following Reid's decision in November to eliminate the filibuster for executive nominees, however, Paul's ability prevent a vote on the Fed candidates is limited.
Homeland Security Faces Lawsuit Over Ignored FOIA Request
Border Patrol refuses to release information on unconstitutional checkpoints, roving patrols
Paul Joseph Watson
May 7, 2014
Two law professors are suing the Department of Homeland Security after U.S. Customs and Border Protection ignored repeated Freedom of Information Act Requests to provide documentation on unconstitutional Border Patrol checkpoints.
Derek and Jane Bambauer, who are professors at James E. Rogers College of Law, are being represented by the ACLU after the U.S. Customs and Border Protection refused to turn over information relating to its increasingly notorious checkpoints and "roving patrols" that have ensnared innocent Americans as much as 100 miles inland from the border.
The two professors are attempting to confirm the charge that the Border Patrol is routinely violating the law by instead following its own internal rules, leading to Fourth Amendment-busting drugs searches performed on the flimsiest of pretexts.
After Border Patrol failed to respond to the initial FOIA request after 20 days, an appeal was filed but the federal agency again completely ignored the matter, forcing the professors to file a lawsuit.
"We feel that their decision to not respond is just an example of their noncompliance," Jane Bambauer told the Daily Wildcat, while Derek Bambauer noted that the Border Patrol is a federal agency that has, "both been increasing in power and decreasing in transparency."
Last year we reported on numerous examples of American citizens who had been sexually molested by Border Patrol agents, including a woman who had her vagina and anus violated without consent and without a warrant.
We also covered the harrowing case of David Eckert, an innocent New Mexico man who was forced to endure 14 hours of enforced anal probing at the hands of doctors, on the orders of cops looking for narcotics, and was then billed by the medical center. Eckert was singled out after police claimed he "appeared to be clenching his buttocks" while stepping out of his vehicle at a traffic stop.
Eckert was subjected to manual probing of his anus, an enema, x-rays, as well as a colonoscopy - all against his will - by doctors on orders of New Mexico police. No drugs were found.
Two days later, a similar story emerged involving a man named Timothy Young, who was pulled over by New Mexico police in October for not using his blinker. Young was singled out by a drug sniffing dog and subsequently subjected to anal exams and x-rays of his stomach, without giving his consent.
Last month, another story emerged about a mother and her two young children who were terrorized by Border Patrol agents who threatened to taser her if she did not consent to a search of her vehicle before slashing her tires.
The Department of Homeland Security now considers any area within a 100 mile radius of the entire US border to be what the ACLU has described as a "constitution free zone," where Fourth amendment legal protection from unconstitutional searches and seizures does not apply.
The targeting of Americans by Border Patrol agents is even more disturbing in light of a recent report by the Center for Immigration Studies, which found that the Obama administration, "Has allowed tens-of-thousands of violent illegal aliens to go free inside the United States and without deportation," with 68,000 released in 2013.
Suspicious Deaths of Bankers Are Now Classified as "Trade Secrets" by Federal Regulator
Pam Martens and Russ Martens
Wall St On Parade
April 29, 2014
It doesn't get any more Orwellian than this: Wall Street mega banks crash the U.S. financial system in 2008. Hundreds of thousands of financial industry workers lose their jobs. Then, beginning late last year, a rash of suspicious deaths start to occur among current and former bank employees. Next we learn that four of the Wall Street mega banks likely hold over $680 billion face amount of life insurance on their workers, payable to the banks, not the families. We ask their Federal regulator for the details of this life insurance under a Freedom of Information Act request and we're told the information constitutes "trade secrets."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the life expectancy of a 25 year old male with a Bachelor's degree or higher as of 2006 was 81 years of age. But in the past five months, five highly educated JPMorgan male employees in their 30s and one former employee aged 28, have died under suspicious circumstances, including three of whom allegedly leaped off buildings - a statistical rarity even during the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
There is one other major obstacle to brushing away these deaths as random occurrences - they are not happening at JPMorgan's closest peer bank - Citigroup. Both JPMorgan and Citigroup are global financial institutions with both commercial banking and investment banking operations. Their employee counts are similar - 260,000 employees for JPMorgan versus 251,000 for Citigroup.
Both JPMorgan and Citigroup also own massive amounts of bank-owned life insurance (BOLI), a controversial practice that pays the corporation when a current or former employee dies. (In the case of former employees, the banks conduct regular "death sweeps" of public records using former employees' Social Security numbers to learn if a former employee has died and then submits a request for payment of the death benefit to the insurance company.)
Wall Street On Parade carefully researched public death announcements over the past 12 months which named the decedent as a current or former employee of Citigroup or its commercial banking unit, Citibank. We found no data suggesting Citigroup was experiencing the same rash of deaths of young men in their 30s as JPMorgan Chase. Nor did we discover any press reports of leaps from buildings among Citigroup's workers.
Given the above set of facts, on March 21 of this year, we wrote to the regulator of national banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act (See OCC Response to Wall Street On Parade's Request for Banker Death Information):
The number of deaths from 2008 through March 21, 2014 on which JPMorgan Chase collected death benefits; the total face amount of BOLI life insurance in force at JPMorgan; the total number of former and current employees of JPMorgan Chase who are insured under these policies; any peer studies showing the same data comparing JPMorgan Chase with Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup.
The OCC responded politely by letter dated April 18, after first calling a few days earlier to inform us that we would be getting nothing under the sunshine law request. (On Wall Street, sunshine routinely means dark curtain.) The OCC letter advised that documents relevant to our request were being withheld on the basis that they are "privileged or contains trade secrets, or commercial or financial information, furnished in confidence, that relates to the business, personal, or financial affairs of any person," or relate to "a record contained in or related to an examination."
The ironic reality is that the documents do not pertain to the personal financial affairs of individuals who have a privacy right. Individuals are not going to receive the proceeds of this life insurance for the most part. In many cases, they do not even know that multi-million dollar policies that pay upon their death have been taken out by their employer or former employer. Equally important, JPMorgan is a publicly traded company whose shareholders have a right under securities laws to understand the quality of its earnings - are those earnings coming from traditional banking and investment banking operations or is this ghoulish practice of profiting from the death of workers now a major contributor to profits on Wall Street?
As it turns out, one aspect of the information cavalierly denied to us by the OCC is publicly available to those willing to hunt for it. On March 24 of this year, we reported that JPMorgan Chase held $10.4 billion in BOLI assets at its insured depository bank as of December 31, 2013.
We reached out to BOLI expert, Michael D. Myers, to understand what JPMorgan's $10.4 billion in BOLI assets at its commercial bank might represent in terms of face amount of life insurance on its workers. Myers said: "Without knowing the length of the investment or its rate of return, it is difficult to estimate the face amount of the insurance coverage. However, a cash value of $10.4 billion could easily translate into more than $100 billion in actual insurance coverage and possibly two or three times that amount" said Myers, a partner in the Houston, Texas law firm McClanahan Myers Espey, L.L.P.
Myers' and his firm have represented the families of deceased employees for almost two decades in cases involving corporate-owned life insurance against employers such as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Fina Oil and Chemical Co., and American Greetings Corp. (Families may be entitled to the proceeds of these policies if employee consent was required under State law and was never given and/or if the corporation cannot show it had an "insurable interest" in the employee - a tough test to meet if it's a non key employee or if the employee has left the firm.)
As it turns out, the $10.4 billion significantly understates the amount of money JPMorgan has tied up in seeking to profit from workers' deaths. Since Wall Street banks are structured as holding companies, we decided to see what type of financial information might be available at the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), a federal interagency that promotes uniform reporting standards among banking regulators.
The FFIEC's web site provided access to the consolidated financial statements of the bank holding companies of not just JPMorgan Chase but all of the largest Wall Street banks. We conducted our own peer review study with the information that was available.
Four of Wall Street's largest banks hold a total of $68.1 billion in BOLI assets. Using Michael Myers' approximate 10 to 1 ratio, that would mean that over time, just these four banks could potentially collect upwards of $681 billion in tax free income from life insurance proceeds on their current and former workers. (Death benefits are received tax free as is the buildup in cash value in the policies.) The breakdown in BOLI assets is as follows as of December 31, 2013:
Bank of America $22.7 billion
Wells Fargo 18.7 billion
JPMorgan Chase 17.9 billion
Citigroup 8.8 billion
In addition to specifics on the BOLI assets, the consolidated financial statements also showed what each bank was reporting as "Earnings on/increase in value of cash surrender value of life insurance" as of December 31, 2013. Those amounts are as follows:
Bank of America $625 million
Wells Fargo 566 million
JPMorgan Chase 686 million
Given the size of these numbers, there is another aspect to BOLI that should raise alarm bells among both regulators and shareholders. The Wall Street banks are using a process called "separate accounts" for large amounts of their BOLI assets with reports of some funds never actually leaving the bank and/or being invested in hedge funds, suggesting lessons from the past have not been learned.
On May 20, 2008, Bloomberg News reported that Wachovia Corp. (now owned by Wells Fargo) and Fifth Third Bancorp reported major losses on failed gambles with BOLI assets. "Wachovia reported a $315 million first-quarter loss in its bank-owned life insurance program, known as BOLI, because of investments in hedge funds managed by Citigroup Inc. Fifth Third said in a lawsuit filed last month that it had losses of $323 million from Citigroup's Falcon funds, which slumped more than 50 percent in the past year as the subprime market collapsed." Citigroup's Falcon Strategies hedge fund had lost as much as 75 percent of its value by May 2008.
Following are the names and circumstances of the five young men in their 30s employed by JPMorgan who experienced sudden deaths since December along with the one former employee.
Joseph M. Ambrosio, age 34, of Sayreville, New Jersey, passed away on December 7, 2013 at Raritan Bay Medical Center, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. He was employed as a Financial Analyst for J.P. Morgan Chase in Menlo Park. On March 18, 2014, Wall Street On Parade learned from an immediate member of the family that Joseph M. Ambrosio died suddenly from Acute Respiratory Syndrome.
Jason Alan Salais, 34 years old, died December 15, 2013 outside a Walgreens inPearland, Texas. A family member confirmed that the cause of death was a heart attack. According to the LinkedIn profile for Salais, he was engaged in Client Technology Service "L3 Operate Support" and previously "FXO Operate L2 Support" at JPMorgan. Prior to joining JPMorgan in 2008, Salais had worked as a Client Software Technician at SunGard and a UNIX Systems Analyst at Logix Communications.
Gabriel Magee, 39, died on the evening of January 27, 2014 or the morning of January 28, 2014. Magee was discovered at approximately 8:02 a.m. lying on a 9th level rooftop at the Canary Wharf European headquarters of JPMorgan Chase at 25 Bank Street, London. His specific area of specialty at JPMorgan was "Technical architecture oversight for planning, development, and operation of systems for fixed income securities and interest rate derivatives." A coroner's inquest to determine the cause of death is scheduled for May 20, 2014 in London.
Ryan Crane, age 37, died February 3, 2014, at his home in Stamford, Connecticut. The Chief Medical Examiner's office is still in the process of determining a cause of death. Crane was an Executive Director involved in trading at JPMorgan's New York office. Crane's death on February 3 was not reported by any major media until February 13, ten days later, when Bloomberg News ran a brief story.
Dennis Li (Junjie), 33 years old, died February 18, 2014 as a result of a purported fall from the 30-story Chater House office building in Hong Kong where JPMorgan occupied the upper floors. Li is reported to have been an accounting major who worked in the finance department of the bank.
Kenneth Bellando, age 28, was found outside his East Side Manhattan apartment building on March 12, 2014. The building from which Bellando allegedly jumped was only six stories - by no means ensuring that death would result. The young Bellando had previously worked for JPMorgan Chase as an analyst and was the brother of JPMorgan employee John Bellando, who was referenced in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' report on how JPMorgan had hid losses and lied to regulators in the London Whale derivatives trading debacle that resulted in losses of at least $6.2 billion.
The Mark: Scientist Claims Human Microchip Implants Will Become "Not Optional"
April 25, 2014
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name....
Technologies designed specifically to track and monitor human beings have been in development for at least two decades.
In the virtual realm, software programs are now capable of watching us in real time, going so far as to make predictions about our future behaviors and sending alerts to the appropriate monitoring station depending on how a computer algorithm flags your activities. That is in and of itself a scary proposition.
What may be even scarier, however, is what's happening in the physical realm. According to researches working on human-embedded microchips it's only a matter of time before these systems achieve widespread acceptance.
Chances are you're carrying a couple of RFID microchips now. And if you are, they're sending out a 15-digit number that identifies you. That number can be picked up by what's called an ISO compliant scanner. And they're everywhere, too.
It's not possible to interact with society in a meaningful way by not having a mobile phone. I think human implants are likely to go along a very similar route. It would be such a disadvantage to not have the implant that it essentially becomes not optional.
Your initial reaction to this idea may be one of disbelief. There's no way society would accept such a device. Why would anyone want to implant this in their body?
Consider for a moment where we are right now. For decades Americans rejected the notion that they would submit to being tracked or recorded.
Yet, just about every American now carries a mobile phone. They're so prevalent, in fact, that many consider it a "right," prompting the government to actually provide subsidies to those who can't afford one on their own.
Embedded in every one of those phones is an RFID chip that can track our every movement via GPS or cell tower triangulation. Moreover, those microphones and cameras that come standard on every phone can be remotely activated by law enforcement surveillance systems, a capability that has existed since the early 2000′s.
But as intrusive as these devices are, they are accepted as the norm by billions of people world wide. Not only that, but no one had to "force" them on us. We are, it seems, the masters of our own enslavement. And we pay top dollar to have the best tracking device money can buy!
Granted, one can simply disconnect from "the grid" by throwing away their cell phone. But, the direction these new monitoring technologies are moving coupled with continued government expansion of surveillance suggests that microchip RFID technology will eventually be non-voluntary.
Michael Snyder of The Truth Wins asks What will you do when you can no longer buy or sell without submitting to biometric identification?
This technology is going to keep spreading, and it is going to become harder and harder to avoid it.
And it is easy to imagine what a tyrannical government could do with this kind of technology. If it wanted to, it could use it to literally track the movements and behavior of everyone.
And one day, this kind of technology will likely be so pervasive that you won't be able to open a bank account, get a credit card or even buy anything without having either your hand or your face scanned first.
It's difficult to imagine a populace that will freely submit to such digital bondage. But as has been the case with the degradation of personal privacy and rights in America, be assured it won't simply become law over night.
First, the technologies will need to be generally accepted by society. It'll start with real-time consumer based products like Google Glass. The older generations may reject it, but in a couple of years you can bet that tens of millions of kids, teens and younger adults will be roaming the streets while sporting cool shades, interactive web surfing and the capability to record everything around them and upload it to the internet instantly.
Next, as we're already seeing from early adopters, RFID chips will be voluntarily implanted under our skin for everything from access to high security buildings to grocery store purchases.
Eventually, once the concept is generally accepted by the majority, it will become our new "social security number."
To gain access to official services, you'll need to be a verified human. Without verification you won't even be able to purchase a six pack of beer, let alone get medical care or a driver's license.
Whether we like it or not this is the future. Every purchase you make and every step you take will be tracked by a tiny 15-digit passive microchip, meaning that the only way to "turn it off" will be to physically remove it from your body.
In essence, we'll soon live in a world of Always On Monitoring.
Our children and grandchildren - at least most of them - will likely not only submit to implantation, they'll gladly pay the costs so that they, too, can "interact with society in a meaningful way."
Feds Beg Supreme Court to Let Them Search Phones Without a Warrant
By Andy Greenberg
American law enforcement has long advocated for universal "kill switches" in cellphones to cut down on mobile device thefts. Now the Department of Justice argues that the same remote locking and data-wiping technology represents a threat to police investigations-one that means they should be free to search phones without a warrant.
In a brief filed to the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in the case of alleged Boston drug dealer Brima Wurie, the Justice Department argues that police should be free to warrantlessly search cellphones taken from suspects immediately at the time of arrest, rather than risk letting the suspect or his associates lock or remotely wipe the phone before it can be searched.
The statement responds to briefs made to the court by the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that warrantless searches of cellphones for evidence represents a serious violation of the suspect's privacy beyond that of a usual warrantless search of a suspect's pockets, backpack, or car interior.
"This Court should not deprive officers of an investigative tool that is increasingly important for preserving evidence of serious crimes based on purely imaginary fears that police officers will invoke their authority to review drug dealers' ‘reading history,' ... ‘appointments with marital counselors,' or armed robbers' ‘apps to help smokers quit,'" reads the statement written by DOJ attorney Donald Verrilli Jr., responding to specific examples cited by the CDT.
At another point in the brief, Verrilli adds that "searching an arrestee's cell phone immediately upon arrest is often critical to protecting evidence against concealment in a locked or encrypted phone or remote destruction."
That last statement strikes civil liberties advocates as especially ironic, given law enforcement's enthusiasm for new requirements that all cellphones implement exactly that sort of "kill switch" as a bulwark against a rising tide of cellphone thefts. The technology lets cellphone owners remotely wipe or encrypt the data on their phone if it's stolen, or kill the phone entirely so it can't be used by the thief.
Law enforcement officials ranging from New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to San Francisco District Attorney General George Gascón to several major city police commissioners have all pushed for a bill introduced in February by Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar requiring the kill switches in all smartphones.
"You have this weird scenario where law enforcement has demanded remote wiping be deployed," says ACLU principal technologist Chris Soghoian, "and now they're using that to also justify warrantless searches."
In its brief, the Department of Justice describes those same wiping functions as dangerous tools for covering the tracks of criminals:
For example, in one California case,the members of a narcotics-trafficking organization "admitted that they had a security procedure, complete with an IT department, to immediately and remotely wipe all digital evidence from their cellphones." And because remote-wiping capability is widely and freely available to all users of every major mobile communications platform, individuals have used the same tactic. That problem will only increase as mobile technology improves and criminals become more sophisticated.
But there are better ways to respond to the threat of evidence destruction on mobile phones than warrantlessly rifling through the devices' data on the spot, argues Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He points out that it's easier-and potentially less unconstitutional-to simply remove the phone's battery, turn it off, or put it in a Faraday cage that blocks all radio communications while the police wait for a judge to sign a warrant.
He adds that the Justice Department has yet to prove that the remote wiping problem is a real issue. "The government can point to no actual statistics that show this is a widespread problem," says Fakhoury. "And the reality is that most people don't even have remote wiping technology on their phone."
In its brief, the Justice Department also argues that regardless of the Court's decision on warrantless access to the entire phone, police should at least be granted access to phones' call logs. The brief references an argument known as the "third party doctrine," that individuals don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for information shared with a third party like the phone company, so it's not covered by the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches.
"If this Court were to draw a special exception from that settled doctrine for information on cell phones...it should at least preserve officers' authority to review information in which the individual lacks a significant privacy interest, such as information that is also conveyed to telecommunications companies," the brief reads.
But that argument ignores the fact that the specific data being searched in this case isn't actually held by the phone companies, but stored on the device itself, argues the ACLU's Soghoian. If it were held by the companies, cops wouldn't need to search the phone in the first place. "What matters isn't just the information, but where they get it from," says Soghoian. "They're saying that there are certain things on your phone that have less protections than others under the law, which is crazy."
SPLC Admits U.N. Losing Battle With Grassroot Activists Over Agenda 21
More Americans now realize that Agenda 21 expands government power at the expense of individual liberties
April 22, 2014
The Southern Poverty Law Center recently admitted that proponents of the United Nations' neo-feudalism program known as Agenda 21 are losing public support due to the ever-growing influence of grassroot organizations.
In its latest report entitled "Agenda 21: The U.N., Sustainability and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory," the SPLC indicates that the implementation of Agenda 21, a United Nations program designed to replace private control of land with government planning, is slowing down due to successful resistance by liberty activists across the country.
"At least three states - Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma - have considered laws, each of which passed one chamber of their legislatures, to halt the purportedly noxious effects of Agenda 21; Alabama went all the way, passing a 2012 law that was signed by Gov. Robert Bentley," the report states. "Major political battles have broken out over it in Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Ohio and Texas."
"Even the Republican National Committee, in January 2012, denounced Agenda 21 as a ‘destructive and insidious scheme' to impose a ‘socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.'"
Signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush and later phased in by President Bill Clinton, the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program is based on communitarianism, which calls for government to eventually take control of all land use without leaving any decision making in the hands of private property owners.
"It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control," Agenda 21 expert Rosa Koire wrote on the subject, who is a Californian Democrat and the author of Behind The Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21. "Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body."
Some of the features of Agenda 21 include but are not limited to:
- The development of expensive and inefficient public rail systems in cities in order to increase centralized government control while also reducing the use of private transportation
- Utilities monitored by "Smart Meters" which can be controlled remotely by public utility companies
- The purposeful lack of easy freeway access in cities so residents remain close to their neighborhoods
- The accelerated implementation of toll roads, especially toll roads that discourage driving by increasing prices for traveling alone or for driving in "congested" areas
Another good example of how Agenda 21 is currently being implemented is to look at the explosion of "mixed use" condos being built in American cities which feature retail stores on the ground floor with several residential floors above.
These buildings are designed to keep people from traveling long distances by placing businesses within walking distance, but the stores on the ground floor typically stay vacant or are filled with businesses which seem out of place with the surrounding neighborhood.
In one major city in Texas, for example, a high-end pub with an expensive menu opened up on the ground floor of a "mixed use" condo and began charging $14 for hamburgers despite the neighborhood having an average annual income of around $40,000.
The current push by cities to completely replace private transportation such as cars with public transportation and bike lanes is another aspect of Agenda 21. Hamburg, Germany is already planning to ban cars within its city limits in the next 20 years.
And despite being fiction, the megacities in the comic series Judge Dredd feature many planned aspects of Agenda 21, a scary scenario even if real cities never completely match these fictional counterparts.
The overall intent of Agenda 21 is to expand government power at the expense of individual liberties by making the population more dependent on city infrastructure controlled by the government.
While the SPLC and other Agenda 21 proponents constantly harp that the program is "voluntary," it is a moot point when so many cities are already implementing Agenda 21 which clearly benefits the government at the expense of its citizens.
"The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms and take away your voice," Koire added.
Industry's Own Words: 6 Admissions Of In-Home Surveillance Using Smart Meters
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Josh del Sol
A look at what utility companies, PUCs, and the former CIA director have to say about the ‘smart' meters, data-mining, and surveillance - sans propaganda.
It's always a drag to find out when a friend is saying one thing to your face, and another to your back. As uncovered in our film Take Back Your Power, the way in which most utilities are now delivering the lies and propaganda - with your individual rights, security, and potentially health on the line - is elevating the trait of "two-faced" to a completely new level.
It's important to note that the first 4 of these references have to do with the smart meters / grid infrastructure capabilities as of this time. According to the sum of my research over the past 3 years, the plan involves achieving a greater and greater level of granularity and extraction of in-home data over time - see #5 and #6 below as examples (as well as my article on Google's Nest acquisition). So as far as privacy and surveillance go, according to utilities' own documentation and writings, ‘smart' meters are effectively a trojan horse.
1) US Congressional Research Service report, "Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity" (February 2012)
With smart meters, police will have access to data that might be used to track residents' daily lives and routines while in their homes, including their eating, sleeping, and showering habits, what appliances they use and when, and whether they prefer the television to the treadmill, among a host of other details.
Source: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42338.pdf - see page 7 (page 10 of the PDF)
2) Colorado Power Utility Commission report, "Smart Metering & Privacy: Existing Law and Competing Policies" (Spring 2009)
First, the privacy concerns are real, and should be addressed proactively in order to protect consumers. Second and related, a salient privacy invasion-were it to happen and get press-could create significant opposition to smart grid deployment efforts.
Source: http://www.dora.state.co.us/puc/DocketsDecisions/DocketFilings/09I-593EG/09I-593EG_Spring2009Report-SmartGridPrivacy.pdf - see page 6
3) California Public Utility Commission press release, "California Commission Adopts Rules to Protect the Privacy and Security of Customer Electricity Usage Data" (July 2011)
Our action today will protect the privacy and security of customer usage data while enablingutilities and authorized third-parties to use the information to provide useful energy management and conservation services to customers.
I support today's decision because it adopts reasonable privacy and security rules and expandsconsumer and third-party access to electricity usage and pricing information. I hope this decision stimulates market interest.
4) SF Chronicle article, "California Utilities Yield Energy Use Data" (July 2013)
California's electric utilities last year disclosed the energy-use records and other personal information of thousands of customers, according to reports the companies filed with state regulators.
The vast majority of those disclosures - 4,062 - were made by one utility, San Diego Gas and Electric Co. In 4,000 of those cases, the information was subpoenaed by government agencies.
New digital smart meters being installed throughout the state can measure a home's energy use hour by hour, showing when residents leave for work, go to sleep or travel on vacation. Older analog meters, which measured cumulative energy use over the course of a month, couldn't do that.
"Before smart meters, what happened inside houses couldn't be revealed unless there was a police officer inside with a warrant," Ozer said.
5) Raab & Associates, Steering Committee report (February 2013) - Under the heading "Strategic (3-10 years)":
New tools for mining data for intel
Under the heading "Transformational (10+ years)":
Centralized intel combined with widespread local/distributed intel and Data mining and analytics becomes core competency
View slide 17 only (PDF): http://www.takebackyourpower.net/documents/RaabDraft-17.pdf
6) Wired.com, "CIA Chief: We'll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher" (15 Mar 2012)
‘Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters - all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,' Petraeus said, ‘the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.
"Petraeus allowed that these household spy devices "change our notions of secrecy" and prompt a rethink of "our notions of identity and secrecy." All of which is true - if convenient for a CIA director."
Did we really think that the technocratic oligarchy would stop at collecting information about how we use our phones, who we call, and where we're located? If we did, we were naive. Plainly, there is a corporate intention to effectively colonize your home.
However, there is also a rising awareness, and resistance, as new solutions are uncovered. The first step is to remove your consent, in writing.
The following is actually written into the California Civil Code. Not only do these provide a strong clue at how the corporatocracy functions (and gets away with what it does), but they also outline a basis for remedy: (notes in parentheses, italics)
California Civil Code (2009)
1619. A contract is either express or implied. (If you didn't say no, you said yes.)
3515. He who consents to an act is not wronged by it. (The way they do business is in writing. If you didn't send them a letter or notice to remove your consent, you have agreed to their terms, and thus have agreed to a reduction in rights.)
3521. He who takes the benefit must bear the burden. (Utilities and their executives - and many public servants - are taking the benefit. They must, according to their law, accept the liability for all harm if the liability is enforced.)
3523. For every wrong there is a remedy. (We are not bound into something which would have us be as slaves, if we do not want to be.)
3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.
What statutes are YOUR utilities and governments bound by?
Inside the Private Prison Industry's Alarming Spread Across America
For-profit companies like Geo-Group are buying up any politician they can find to expand their share of the "market."
By Aaron Cantú
April 9, 2014
On a recent Friday afternoon, with budget negotiations winding down, Arizona state representative John Kavanagh was racing against the clock. His position as House Appropriations Chairman afforded him the opportunity to stuff whatever minor extra provisions he wanted into the budget before it went to a vote the following Monday, and he only had a few hours left to do it.
What was Kavanagh frantically trying to accomplish for his constituents at the last minute? Extra funding for education, since Arizona spends less on educating its children than all but three states? No, Rep. John Kavanagh was trying to secure an extra $900,000 gift for the GEO Group, the billion-dollar private prison corporation whose state lobbyists came to him at the last second begging with upturned hats. The $45 million already earmarked for the maintenance of low- and medium-security facilities wasn't enough, they said.
The Arizona Department of Corrections didn't ask for the extra money, nor did anybody push for the prison funds to be included in the Senate budget.
"This came out of nowhere - I mean that," Arizona House Minority Leader Chad Campbell told the Arizona Republic. "No one said a word about it. It wasn't in the Senate budget, it didn't come as a request from DOC. There's something really shady here."
For Kavanagh, there was nothing shady about sweetening the deal with nearly a million extra dollars. On the contrary, he says, it was a moral imperative.
"If somebody cuts you a smoking deal and helps you when you're down, and you get more money back, I think you morally have a responsibility to increase the payments," Kavanagh told the Arizona Republic in a taped interview the following Monday.
Kavanagh is referring to the lowered rate-per-bed the GEO Group offered Arizona as the national economy cratered in 2008. The rate applied to emergency "temporary" beds at two of its facilities to house an overflow of prisoners. In exchange for the discount, the state agreed to meet a 100% occupancy rate for all non-emergency beds at both prisons.
And thank goodness. If it weren't for the flexibility of the GEO Group, how else could Arizona's correction officials reach their forecasted benchmark of 43,000 prisoners-a 9.3 percent increase from current levels-by 2016?
In the end, however, the state legislature may nullify Kavanagh's act of kindness to the private prison industry. Even though the House approved a version of the budget with the extra prison dollars, the Senate Appropriations Committee nixed them, and the two chambers are in the midst of reconciling their different spending plans.
Kavanagh later told the Arizona Republic he would try to retain his gift to the GEO Group unless others found it to be "a deal breaker."
Baffling, abhorrent, hopelessly out of touch: All criticisms that have been lobbed in the representative's direction since his frenzied fourth quarter Hail Mary for the GEO Group. But his gaffe makes a lot more sense in consideration of how much influence the prison industry has in his state.
Arizona is one of four states (along with Virginia, Oklahoma and Louisiana) in which state governments are bound to contracts guaranteeing a 95%-100% occupancy in facilities leased by private prisons. Of the four, Arizona's quotas are the most extreme: as part of the aforementioned "deal" in 2008, prison officials must keep a 100% occupancy rate in the two GEO Group facilities and another facility leased to the state by Management and Training Corporation, according to a 2013 report by In the Public Interest. Paradoxically, this may be costing the state more money: An August 2013 analysis from the Tucson Citizen shows that the "per-prisoner, per-day rates" for those particular facilities have increased by an average of 14% since 2008.
The Obama Administration Wants Gun Owners To Wear RFID Tracking Bracelets?
April 9, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder says that gun owners in the United States could eventually be forced to wear RFID tracking bracelets. In fact, in recent testimony in front of Congress he gave the impression that this was something that the Obama administration has been thinking about for quite a long time.
Holder seems to think that this would advance the cause of "gun safety" and that gun owners wouldn't mind having an RFID microchip tracking their every movement. Apparently he does not know gun owners very well, because most of the gun owners that I know would be extremely resistant to the idea of being "chipped". But this is yet another example of how the Obama administration plans to erode Second Amendment rights. They want to put up as many obstacles as possible to owning and using guns.
When I first came across the testimony by Eric Holder that I am about to share with you, I could hardly believe it. This seemed like something that you would see on "The Onion" or on some other satire website. But this is very, very real. Eric Holder really does seem quite interested in having gun owners wear RFID tracking bracelets. Just check out the following quotes from Holder that come from a recent Free Beacon article...
"I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe," he said.
"By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon."
"It's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis," Holder said.
So would you be willing to wear a government-issued RFID tracking bracelet in order to own a gun?
Of course not.
And such a thing would essentially be a de facto system of gun registration. It would be inevitable that all of the information about the guns and their matching gun owners would be stored in a massive government database somewhere.
In addition, it is also conceivable that under such a system that the authorities could use it to physically track the location of guns and gun owners at all times. Some have suggested that this would be good for us because it would mean that law enforcement agencies could "send automatic alerts if a weapon moves away from the tracker, indicating that the gun is lost or stolen".
But do we really want the government to know where they can find us and our guns 24 hours a day on a permanent basis?
That would give them the perfect tool if they wanted to implement a widespread policy of gun confiscation someday.
Look, I am all in favor of making guns safer. But in the end, that is not what this is about. Just like all other recent presidential administrations, the Obama administration is eroding our liberties and freedoms on a daily basis. We are becoming a "Big Brother society", and they will keep pushing the envelope until the American people demand that they stop. The following is an excerpt from an outstanding commentary by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute...
Adding injury to the ongoing insult of having our tax dollars misused and our so-called representatives bought and paid for by the moneyed elite, the government then turns around and uses the money we earn with our blood, sweat and tears to target, imprison and entrap us, in the form of militarized police, surveillance cameras, private prisons, license plate readers, drones, and cell phone tracking technology.
All of those nefarious deeds that you read about in the paper every day: those are your tax dollars at work. It's your money that allows for government agents to spy on your emails, your phone calls, your text messages, and your movements. It's your money that allows out-of-control police officers to burst into innocent people's homes, or probe and strip search motorists on the side of the road. And it's your money that leads to innocent Americans across the country being prosecuted for innocuous activities such as raising chickens at home, growing vegetable gardens, and trying to live off the grid.
The Obama administration has been very open about the fact that it is anti-gun.
They do not like the fact that tens of millions of Americans currently own guns.
People like Obama and Holder are fully convinced that guns make society less safe, even though the cold, hard statistics show just the opposite.
Most people just want to be able to protect their homes and their families. Because when a home invader breaks in, you never know what is going to happen...
A man breaking into a Winter Haven home Monday morning was shot and killed by the family living there, Police Chief Gary Hester said.
It happened at a little before 7 a.m. on Lake Marriana Road Drive. A mother, father, and son woke up to the sound of someone, identified by police as 40-year-old Mitchell Large, trying to get in through a porch door.
Chief Hester said one of the family members fired a warning shot.
"[A resident] fired a warning shot above the door. That warning shot did not deter the intruder. The intruder didn't retreat," Hester said.
According to politicians such as Obama and Holder, we are just supposed to allow home invaders to take whatever they want, do whatever they want to our wives and children, and then call the police when it is all over so that they can file a report.
What do you think would have happened if that family had been unarmed when that home intruder had entered their home?
That is frightening to think about.
But if Obama and Holder have their way, almost the entire country will eventually be unarmed.
WHY FUSION CENTERS MATTER
April 8, 2014
While NSA surveillance has been front and center in the news recently, fusion centers are a part of the surveillance state that deserve close scrutiny.
Fusion centers are a local arm of the so-called "intelligence community," the 17 intelligence agencies coordinated by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). The government documentation around fusion centers is entirely focused on breaking down barriers between the various government agencies that collect and maintain criminal intelligence information.
Barriers between local law enforcement and the NSA are already weak. We know that the Drug Enforcement Agency gets intelligence tips from the NSA which are used in criminal investigations and prosecutions. To make matters worse, the source of these tips is camouflaged using "parallel construction," meaning that a different source for the intelligence is created to mask its classified source.
This story demonstrates what we called "one of the biggest dangers of the surveillance state: the unquenchable thirst for access to the NSA's trove of information by other law enforcement agencies." This is particularly concerning when NSA information is used domestically. Fusion centers are no different.
In fact, in early 2012, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the sharing of raw NSA data with the NCTC. The intelligence community overseen by the NCTC includes the Department of Homeland Security and FBI, the main federal fusion center partners. Thus, fusion centers-and even local law enforcement-could potentially be receiving unminimized NSA data. This runs counter to the distant image many people have of the NSA, and it's why focusing on fusion centers as part of the recently invigorated conversation around surveillance is important.
What are fusion centers?
Fusion centers are information centers that enable intelligence sharing between local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal agencies. They are actual physical locations that house equipment and staff who analyze and share intelligence.
How many are there?
There are 78 recognized fusion centers listed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.
Who works at fusion centers?
Fusion centers are staffed by local law enforcement and other local government employees as well as Department of Homeland Security personnel. DHS "has deployed over 90 personnel, including Intelligence Officers and Regional Directors, to the field." Staffing agreements vary from place to place. Fusion centers are often also colocated with FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
What do fusion centers do?
Fusion centers enable unprecedented levels of bi-directional information sharing between state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and the federal intelligence community. Bi-directional means that fusion centers allow local law enforcement to share information with the larger federal intelligence community, while enabling the intelligence community to share information with local law enforcement. Fusion centers allow local cops to get-and act upon-information from agencies like the FBI.
Fusion centers are also key to the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (NSI), discussed below.
What is suspicious activity reporting?
The government defines suspicious activity reporting (SAR) as "official documentation of observed behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity." SARs can be initiated by law enforcement, by private sector partners, or by "see something, say something" tips from citizens. They are then investigated by law enforcement.
What is the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative?
NSI is an initiative to standardize suspicious activity reporting. The NSI was conceived in 2008, and started with an evaluation project that culminated in a January 2010 report describing how NSI would encompass all fusion centers. It appears significant progress has been made towards this goal.
The evaluation project included so-called Building Communities of Trust (BCOT) meetings which focused "on developing trust among law enforcement, fusion centers, and the communities they serve to address the challenges of crime and terrorism prevention."
BCOT "community" events involved representatives from local fusion centers, DHS, and FBI traveling to different areas and speaking to selected community representatives and civil rights advocates about NSI. These were invite only events with the clear purpose of attempting to engender community participation and garner support from potential opponents such as the ACLU.
So what's wrong with Suspicious Activity Reporting and the NSI?
SARs do no meet legally cognizable standards for search or seizure under the Fourth amendment. Normally, the government must satisfy reasonable suspicion or probable cause standards when searching a person or place or detaining someone. While SARs themselves are not a search or seizure, they are used by law enforcement to initiate investigations, or even more intrusive actions such as detentions, on the basis of evidence that does not necessarily rise to the level of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In other words, while the standard for SAR sounds like it was written to comport with the constitutional standards for investigation already in place, it does not.
In fact, the specific set of behaviors listed in the National SAR standards include innocuous activities such as:
taking pictures or video of facilities, buildings, or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person," and "demonstrating unusual interest in facilities, buildings, or infrastructure beyond mere casual or professional (e.g. engineers) interest such that a reasonable person would consider the activity suspicious. Examples include observation through binoculars, taking notes, attempting to measure distances, etc.
These standards are clearly ripe for abuse of discretion.
Do fusion centers increase racial and religious profiling?
The weak standards around SAR are particularly concerning because of the way they can lead to racial and religious profiling. SARs can originate from untrained civilians as well as law enforcement, and as one woman pointed out at a BCOT event people who might already be a little racist who are 'observing' a white man photographing a bridge are going to view it a little differently than people observing me, a woman with a hijab, photographing a bridge. The bottom line is that bias is not eliminated by so-called observed behavior standards.
Furthermore, once an investigation into a SAR has been initiated, existing law enforcement bias can come into play; SARs give law enforcement a reason to initiate contact that might not otherwise exist.
Unsurprisingly, like most tools of law enforcement, public records act requests have shown that people of color often end up being the target of SARs:
One review of SARs collected through Public Records Act requests in Los Angeles showed that 78% of SARs were filed on non-whites. An audit by the Los Angeles Police Department's Inspector General puts that number at 74%, still a shockingly high number.
A review of SARs obtained by the ACLU of Northern California also show that most of the reports demonstrate bias and are based on conjecture rather than articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Some of the particularly concerning SARs include titles like "Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern] Males Buy Several Large Pallets of Water" and "Suspicious photography of Folsom Dam by Chinese Nationals." The latter SAR resulted in police contact: "Sac[ramento] County Sheriff's Deputy contacted 3 adult Asian males who were taking photos of Folsom Dam. They were evasive when the deputy asked them for identification and said their passports were in their vehicle." Both of these SARs were entered into FBI's eGuardian database.
Not only that, there have been disturbing examples of racially biased informational bulletins coming from fusion centers. A 2009 "North Central Texas Fusion Center Prevention Awareness Bulletin" implies that tolerance towards Muslims is dangerous and that Islamic militants are using methods such as "hip-hop boutiques" and "online social networks" to indoctrinate youths in America.
Do fusion centers facilitate political repression?
Fusion centers have been used to record and share information about First Amendment protected activities in a way that aids repressive police activity and chills freedom of association.
A series of public records act requests in Massachusetts showed: "Officers monitor demonstrations, track the beliefs and internal dynamics of activist groups, and document this information with misleading criminal labels in searchable and possibly widely-shared electronic reports." The documents included intelligence reports addressing issues such internal group discussions and protest planning, and showed evidence of police contact.
For example, one report indicated that "Activists arrested for trespassing at a consulate were interviewed by three surveillance officers 'in the hopes that these activists may reach out to the officers in the future.' They were asked about their organizing efforts and for the names of other organizers."
Who oversees the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative?
The NSI is led by the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) in collaboration with the DHS and the FBI. The ISE is "the people, projects, systems, and agencies that enable responsible information sharing for national security." The PM-ISE, currently Kshemendra Paul, oversees the development and implementation of the ISE. The position was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
If this all sounds confusing, that's because it is: the entire intelligence community is a plethora of duplicative agencies with overlapping areas of responsibility.
What kind of information do fusion centers have?
Staff at fusion centers have access to a variety of databases. Not all staff have the same level of clearances, and the entire extent of what is available to fusion centers is unclear. But we do know certain facts for sure:
Fusion centers have access to the FBI's eGuardian database, an unclassified companion to the FBI's Guardian Threat Tracking System. "The Guardian and eGuardian systems . . . have a bi-directional communication ability that facilitates sharing, reporting, collaboration, and deconfliction among all law enforcement agencies."
Fusion centers also have access to DHS' Homeland Security Data Network and it's companion Homeland Security Information Network. These systems provide access to terrorism-related information residing in DoD's classified network. It is worth noting that HSIN was hacked in 2009 and was considered so problematic that it was briefly decommissioned entirely.
Fusion centers have access to other information portals including the FBI's Law Enforcement Online portal, Lexis Nexis, the Federal Protective Service portal, and Regional Information Sharing Systems .
Finally, as discussed above, we know that unminimized NSA data can be shared with the National Counterterrorism Center, which means that fusion centers could be in receipt of such data.
What federal laws apply to fusion centers?
Because they are collaborative, legal authority over fusion centers is blurred, perhaps purposefully. However, there are some federal laws that apply. The Constitution applies, and fusion centers arguably interfere with the First and Fourth Amendments.
28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 governs certain federal criminal intelligence systems. The "Fusion Center Guidelines . . . call for the adoption of 28 CFR Part 23 as the minimum governing principles for criminal intelligence systems." 28 CFR 23.20 requires reasonable suspicion to collect and maintain criminal intelligence and prohibits collection and maintenance of information about First Amendment protected activity "unless such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and there is reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct or activity." Finally, it prohibits inclusion of any information collected in violation of local law.
Section 552(a)(e)(7) of the Privacy Act prohibits federal agencies, in this case DHS personnel who work at fusion centers, from maintaining any "record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity." A 2012 U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on fusion centers stated: "The apparent indefinite retention of cancelled intelligence reports that were determined to have raised privacy or civil liberties concerns appears contrary to DHS's own policies and the Privacy Act."
What state or local laws apply to fusion centers?
Fusion centers are sometimes bound by local and state laws. The law enforcement agencies that feed information into centers may also be restricted in terms of what information they can gather.
The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, located in San Francisco, CA, serves as a good example of how state and local regulations can apply to a fusion center. NCRIC works with law enforcement partners around the region and stores criminal intelligence information. The California constitution has a right to privacy and California has other laws that address privacy and criminal intelligence. These should cover NCRIC.
The San Francisco Police Department's relationship with NCRIC also serves as a good example of the applicability of local laws. SFPD participates in suspicious activity reporting, but is also bound by a number of restrictions, includingDepartment General Order 8.10, which heavily restricts intelligence gathering by the SFPD, as well as the sanctuary city ordinance, which prohibits working with immigration enforcement. While the fusion center would not be bound by these regulations on its own, the SFPD is.
Who funds fusion centers?
Fusion centers are funded by federal and state tax dollars. Estimates of exactly how much funding fusion centers get from these sources are difficult to obtain. However, there are some numbers available.
For 2014, the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is the federal grant program that funds fusion centers, has$401,346,000 available in grant funds. The grant announcement emphasizes that funding fusion centers and integrating them nationally is a high priority. This is an approximately $50 million increase over last year's allocation-somewhat shocking in light of the critiques around fusion center funding that have been raised by Congress.
A 2008 Congressional Research Service report states that the average fusion center derives 31% of its budget from the federal government. Those numbers may have changed now.
Has there been any discussion about fusion centers at the federal level?
Yes, but not enough. In October of 2012, fusion centers were the subject of an extremely critical report from the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The bipartisan report focused on the waste, ineptitude, and civil liberties violations at fusion centers. The report revealed that fusion centers spent tax dollarson "gadgets such as 'shirt button cameras, $6,000 laptops and big-screen televisions. One fusion center spent $45,000 on a decked-out SUV..." Regarding the information produced by fusion centers, the report noted that fusion centers produced "'intelligence' of uneven quality - oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism."
This report recommended a hard look at fusion center funding, but that clearly has not happened. They are still operating across the country with federal funding. In fact, their funding has even been increased.
What about at the local level?
There are grassroots privacy advocates in multiple cities fighting to get more information about fusion centers and how their local law enforcement participates in them. These efforts have been frustrated by stonewalling of public records act requests and uneducated, or at times dishonest, public officials.
Have any regulations been passed or proposed?
To date, only one place has passed regulations around fusion centers. Berkeley, CA, passed a policy in September 2012 that the Berkeley Police Department can only submit suspicious activity reports after establishing reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, and put in place an audit of SARs.
Massachusetts is also considering changes to fusion centers. SB 642 would strictly limit collection and dissemination of criminal intelligence information and would require a yearly audit of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Fusion Center.
What can I do?
Fusion centers are an area ripe for grassroots organizing. Groups like the StopLAPD Spying Coalition, which put together a "People's Audit" of SARs in LA, provide excellent examples of how this can happen. Public records act requests can be leveraged to get information about what your local law enforcement is doing. Grassroots organizing and education can get people and elected officials talking about this issue.
On April 10, activists across the country will be participating in "Stop the Spy Centers: a national day of action against fusion centers." These activists have three demands: 1. Shut down fusion centers, 2. De-fund fusion centers, and 3. Release all suspicious activity reports and secret files.
While April 10 is one day of action, the conversation around fusion centers must continue hand in hand with our national discourse around NSA, CIA, and FBI surveillance.
Army Admits Fort Hood Shooter Was on Psychiatric Drugs
Connection between violence and SSRI medication emerges yet again
Paul Joseph Watson
April 3, 2014
Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley acknowledged that Fort Hood gunman Ivan Lopez was taking psychiatric medication before the shooting, underscoring yet again the clear and consistent connection between mass shooting incidents and SSRI drugs.
"Was he on any sort of medications....SSRI's, anti-depressants, anything of that nature," an Infowars reporter asked Milley, to which the General responded, "He was on medications that's correct."
In a subsequent report, officials also admitted that Lopez had been prescribed Ambien, a sleeping pill associated with accidents and aggressive outbursts.
34-year-old Lopez, who shot dead three colleagues and injured 16 others before turning the gun on himself, returned from Iraq suffering from "mental problems," according to officials.
The obvious link between psychiatric drugs and violent outbursts is a common theme that crops up in almost every mass shooting incident, yet the media is routinely loathe to make the connection.
After it emerged that Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis "had been treated.... by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems," the press showed little interest in discovering what drugs Alexis had been taking. The only medication currently offered by the VA for mental problems are SSRI drugs.
Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was also taking anti-depressant drugs when he massacred 16 Afghan civilians in 2012. SSRI medication, which is known to cause violent outbursts, is routinely used to treat PTSD, which goes some way to explain why there are so many stories about both active duty and returning troops carrying out acts of inexplicable violence on a regular basis.
Despite it being reported that prescription drugs were found in the apartment of ‘Batman' shooter James Holmes days after the Aurora massacre, it took nine months to find out exactly what those drugs were. Like Columbine killer Eric Harris, Holmes had been taking Zoloft, another SSRI drug linked with violent outbursts.
As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. The number of cases is staggering, but the media has completely failed to generate a national conversation about the issue due to its obsession with exploiting mass shootings to demonize the second amendment.
Pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue, which is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons why the connection is habitually downplayed or ignored entirely.
CONFIRMED: NATO's Plans for False Flag Attack on Turkey Revealed
March 28, 2014
It has been revealed that NATO has been planning a false flag attack against Turkey to justify the Turkish invasion of northern Syria, the International Business Times reported in its article, "Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript of Leaked Syria ‘War' Conversation Between Erdogan Officials."
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ban of YouTube occurred after a leaked conversation between Head of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu that he wanted removed from the video-sharing website.It released the full transcript of a leaked conversation between the head of Turkish intelligence Hakan Fidan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu. The Times reported:
The leaked call details Erdogan's thoughts that an attack on Syria "must be seen as an opportunity for us [Turkey]".
In the conversation, intelligence chief Fidan says that he will send four men from Syria to attack Turkey to "make up a cause of war".
Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Yaþar Güler replies that Fidan's projected actions are "a direct cause of war...what you're going to do is a direct cause of war".
Turkey's foreign ministry said the leaked recording of top officials discussing the Syria operation was "partially manipulated" and is a "wretched attack" on national security.
In the leaked video, Fidan is discussing with Davutoðlu, Güler and other officials a possible operation within Syria to secure the tomb of Suleyman Shah, grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman empire.
The Western media has purposefully obsessed myopically over Turkey's ban of Twitter and Facebook and leaks regarding "corruption," in an attempt to sidestep conversations revealing Turkey, a NATO member for decades, planning a false flag attack that would lead to an intentionally provoked war with neighboring Syria.
This comes as Turkey provides air support, logistics, and artillery cover for members of the US State Department designated terrorist group Al Nursa who have been leading an ongoing offensive from Turkish territory into Syria's northwestern province of Latakia.
Since the operation began days ago, Turkey has fired on and shot down a Syrian warplane that was targeting Al Nusra militants in Syrian territory. While Turkey claims the warplane violated Turkish airspace, the plane crashed in Syrian territory, and the pilot ejected and was recovered on Syrian soil. The incident has been used by Turkey to lay the rhetorical groundwork to further escalate tensions between Ankara and Damascus, most likely in an attempt to serve as an impetus for war instead of NATO's riskier false flag operation.
Turkey's belligerent posture in the north of Syria is matched by a joint US-Saudi offensive in the south, near the Syrian-Jordanian border city of Daraa. Called the "Southern Front," the offensive appears to already have been neutralized by Syrian security forces.
Regarding the creation of the "Southern Front," the US corporate-funded policy think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, even stated in its post, "Does the "Southern Front" Exist?," that:
Rather than an initiative from the rebels themselves, word is that it was foreign officials that called on rebel commanders to sign a statement declaring their opposition to extremism, saying it was a precondition for getting more guns and money. Since beggars can't be choosers, the commanders then collectively shrugged their shoulders and signed-but not so much to declare a new alliance as to help U.S. officials tick all the right boxes in their reports back home, hoping that this would unlock another crate of guns.
With the "Southern Front" arriving on the battlefield stillborn, and NATO resorting to false flag attacks in blatant support of Al Qaeda-affiliated terror organizations, the West's desperation in what appears to be a strategic "last gasp" is palpable.
THE OBAMA REGIME'S HYPOCRITICALLY INSANE PRO-ZIONIST FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE HAS BROUGHT THE WORLD CLOSE TO WAR
March 4, 2014
SOURCE: LEE ROGERS, BLN/DAILY SLAVE
The on-going situation in Ukraine illustrates the unbelievable insanity originating from Washington DC. The U.S. State Department for whatever reason thought that it would be a good idea to spend billions of dollars to finance a coup in Ukraine to help fulfill their never ending quest for world domination. This is a country that was once part of the Soviet Union and shares a border with Russia. This is right in Russia's backyard and with anti-Russian and ultranationalist groups filling the power vacuum in Kiev, these developments represent a direct security threat to the Russian people. This has prompted Russia's President Vladimir Putin to send military forces into the Crimean peninsula. This is an area in Ukraine largely populated by Russian speakers and is also home to an important Russian military base. The propaganda from the Zionist run American media and the nonsensical rhetoric coming from the Obama regime are nothing but delusional lies. They're now trying to paint Putin as an evil aggressor who hates freedom when this whole mess was caused directly by American arrogance. They have now created an incredibly dangerous situation that could potentially lead to war with Russia. Of course the Zionists in the Obama regime who have been primarily responsible for creating this mess don't seem to care. In fact, they are escalating their rhetoric against Russia.
To illustrate the madness that we are dealing with, look at what current U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had to say about the situation on the CBS television program "Face the Nation."
"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text."
How stupid does this guy think everyone is? This past August Kerry was trying to justify American military strikes against Syria using what could be easily described as a completely trumped up pre-text. He claimed that Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people citing highly questionable evidence. In fact, there was more evidence indicating that Islamic fanatics fighting against the Assad government had used chemical weapons. It is absolutely comical that Kerry is now openly criticizing the Russians for what he was guilty of trying to do just a few months ago.
Kerry has even criticized ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych for the luxurious lifestyle he was leading. This is ridiculous considering that Kerry is a multi-millionaire who married into the wealthy Heinz ketchup family. While he was a Senator, he was consistently ranked as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
How can anyone in the world take this hypocrite seriously when he makes such statements? Kerry has proven on multiple occasions that he is a joke but these recent comments make him the world's laughing stock. It is an absolute embarrassment that this clown is in charge of American foreign policy.
Besides the idiotic statements from Kerry, the Obama regime has even resorted to accusing Russia of interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs and violating their sovereignty. This once again represents more American hypocrisy since the United States has been interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs all along. The Russian military move has been in response to the American financed coup which has destabilized the country. It is laughable that Obama and his cronies act as if they've done nothing to provoke this response.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Zionist Jew Victoria Nuland is on video stating that they spent billions of dollars to finance everything that's happened in Ukraine. She was even caught on a wiretap scheming about how they would put particular people in power. In fact the very person she wanted to become Ukraine's Prime Minister a Jewish banker named Arseniy Yatsenyuk with close ties to institutions of Western power has become Prime Minister. It is not a surprise thatYatsenyuk is immediately leading an effort to secure a multi-billion dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund. He's literally delivering Ukraine right into the hands of central bankers. Historically speaking, IMF loans have never been good for the general population of a country that receives them. Either way, these events prove conclusively that this entire operation has been about the United States imposing its will on the Ukrainian people. Any nonsense about spreading freedom and democracy was just a cover story for this intervention.
Obama himself has laughably claimed that there would be consequences for Russia's military action. One of the supposed consequences is that Russia might find itself excluded from the G8. Why would Russia care if they are excluded from that? The G8 has no power. It is nothing more than a conference where world leaders listen to speeches and socialize.
There's also been talk from the Obama regime that they may try to apply sanctions against Russiawhich is an obvious non-starter. The member nations of the European Union rely heavily upon natural resources that come from Russia. The EU economy is already in bad shape and would not be able to sustain itself if they lost Russia as a trading partner. Not only that, but how likely is it that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would go along with sanctions considering that the United States was spying on her communications? If the United States attempts to apply sanctions on Russia, they are going to have an awfully hard time finding support from European allies.
We even see the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power claiming Russian aggression and how they are responding to an imaginary threat. Perhaps she has been living in a cave for the past decade but since September 11th, 2001 all the United States has done is invent imaginary threats and invade countries based on a threat that they created or made up. Of course when Russia responds militarily to a situation that is happening right along their national border, she criticizes them. This is completely ridiculous considering all of the insane military misadventures America has involved itself in. The hypocrisy is blatantly obvious.
We could argue back and forth trying to figure out if this is the result of these people's insanity or their stupidity. It actually could be a combination of both but in the end it probably doesn't matter all that much. They are so arrogant and filled with narcissism that they would probably prefer to have war than admit that they were wrong.
We must also ask the following question. Why is it that the United States has Zionist Jews in key positions of power responsible for making these major foreign policy decisions? Nuland, Kerry and the newly anointed Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk all have Jewish lineage of some type. Then we have Power who is married to Cass Sunstein another Zionist Jew who has endorsed government infiltration of the alternative media. Who are these people working for any way? It appears as if they all primarily represent the best interests of Israel and the larger concept of international Zionism through their actions and statements. Financing this Ukrainian coup has done nothing for the United States and has further ruined its standing around the world. These people should be fired for their support of such a boneheaded foreign policy.
The United States needs to quit spending billions of dollars financing coups, invading countries and trying to implement world government through brute force. It is time that the people endorsing this type of insane foreign policy be removed from power and exposed as traitors. America has enough issues domestically that need to be sorted out, but instead of solving real problems these buffoons are pushing the country towards world war. A mental institution would be a suitable place for these idiots
The Winners of The Ukraine Revolution: Austerity, Fascism, and the EU
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
To anyone who had a passing knowledge of the nature of color revolutions and destabilization efforts in years past, the recent protests in Ukraine were an obvious example of foreign meddling in the domestic affairs of yet another Eastern European nation.
From the initial spates of violence coming largely from the direction of the protesters to the pro-EU and pro-IMF demands, it was clear from the very beginning that the Ukrainian people were being callously pulled back and forth between two world powers indifferent to any interests but their own.
These powers, the United States and Russia, have been covertly jockeying for more and more control over Ukraine, a strategic location for both countries, for the last several years. Yet, as the United States' power and influence begins to wane and Russia's begins to increase on the world stage, the risk of both powers clashing over Ukraine in a direct fashion becomes a bigger possibility by the day.
While tensions between the United States and Russia have escalated over the last three years through the Syrian crisis, Ukraine is more than a simple sphere-of-influence region for Russia. It is a sphere-of-influence region that borders the homeland. For this reason alone, the level of importance attributed to Ukraine by Russia is obviously higher than that of Syria in the long run.
Interestingly enough, it is for this same reason that the United States considers Ukraine such a vital sphere-of-influence nation as well. That is, the fact that Ukraine lies on the doorstep of Russia.
Although the reasons for considering Ukraine an extremely important part of the world by both the United States and Russia cannot simply be boiled down to that of a border issue, the fact remains that the potential for a direct collision between two world nuclear powers is a possibility if the meddling continues.
In the meantime, as the Ukrainian people are being used as battering rams for the will of world elites, they are quite clearly the guaranteed loser no matter what decision is made. With the recent success of the Western-backed color revolution, what is also clear is that the only winner in Ukraine is austerity, Fascism, the IMF, and, of course, the world elites. International bankers, as usual, are salivating over the coming feast that will come at the expense of the living standards of the Ukrainian people and the coffers of the Ukrainian government.
Even before a ruling government can be formed by the leading color revolutionary leaders Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and other relevant agents of destabilization, the acting President, Oleksander Turchinov, is stating that European integration is a high priority of the new government. This, of course, means that Ukraine will soon move forward in becoming a full-fledged member in good standing of the new European Soviet known as the European Union.
In addition, leading contender for the post of Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and the Parliamentary leader of the Fatherland Party, is now calling on the rest of Parliament to immediately come to agreement on a new government so that Ukraine can now crawl to the International Monetary Fund for "emergency economic assistance." As one may expect, the IMF has already declared that it will require harsh austerity measures and other "economic changes" in exchange for any aid to Ukraine.
The $15 billion bailout package provided by Russia to Ukraine in December has now been suspended, placing Ukraine in imminent danger of default. The Hryvna, the Ukrainian currency, has been sharply devalued and the country's bond rating has been downgraded in such a dramatic fashion that Ukraine is no longer able to borrow on international markets. Foreign reserves have also dropped dramatically.
If conditions persist, Ukraine will soon no longer be able to pay public pensions and salaries.
Yet austerity is not the only result of the recent Ukrainian "revolution." Subtle and even outright Fascism has come to dominate not only the demonstrations themselves but the relatively young "transitional" phase now taking place.
Indeed, this relatively new trend of Fascist rule was enunciated in a recent statement by Natalia Vitrenko of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a party that asserts its opposition to both the Orange Revolution installment of Yuschenko as well as the polices of Yanukovych.
Vitrenko first began by describing the nature of the movement used to oust Yanukovych by pointing out that many of the most powerful elements of the anti-Yanukovych movement, or Euromaidan, were indeed fascists and neo-Nazi's. She stated,
Washington and Brussels should hear our warnings. We hold them responsible for all they have done to transfer power to the political forces responsible for establishing this totalitarian Nazi regime in Ukraine, with the inevitable gross violation of the rights and freedoms of millions of our fellow citizens.
The U.S. and EU should know that this power grab by political parties and movements including neo-Nazi forces (such as "Svoboda - Freedom" and "Right Sector") , announced the implementation of a national revolution under the slogans "Ukraine for Ukrainians," "Glory to the nation - death to enemies," "Muscovite tools and Communists to the gallows!" and others.
Starting on February 22, this new government must assume all responsibility throughout Ukraine for the violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Vitrenko then went on to discuss the events currently unfolding in Ukraine including the capture of government buildings as well as political intimidation, force, beatings, shootings, and even lynchings of those seen as pro-government or opposed to the positions of the Western-backed fascists. Vitrenko states,
Insurgents and terrorists continue to capture Euromaidan administrative buildings and local authorities in the South and East of Ukraine. Using terrorist methods, voters have been deprived of their rights and of the authority of their elected representatives in local councils. Civilians defending their choices have been mercilessly shot by gunmen armed with Kalashinkovs, rifles, and other combat weapons, as for example on February 22 in Lugansk.
Militants not endowed with any legitimate police authority have arrogated emergency police powers to themselves, using axes and sticks to block central thoroughfares, halting cars to carry out inspections and verification of documents of passengers, and arresting people. They have blocked the entrance to the airport and thus grossly violated the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the inviolability of the person, freedom of movement, the presumption of innocence, and the right to security and life. All the people of Ukraine have been humiliated and denied their dignity and rights.
Already on February 23 representatives of the new government announced the formation of the Ukrainian nation: they proclaim that anyone who uses the Russian language will be subjected to deprivation of their native-born status of Ukrainian ethnicity and will be discriminated against in civil and political rights.
The new regime has already announced their intention to ban the broadcast channels of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, branding them as the TV channels of a hostile state . This is the way the new government defends the European values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The regime is preparing lists of enemies who are subject to proscription. This mechanism will deprive of civil and political rights all those who do not share the neo-Nazi views of the new Ukrainian authorities.
Across the country, ghoulish lynchings continue. People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.
In addition, Vitrenko adds that "Euromaidan militants are seizing Orthodox shrines like the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, seeking to transfer them to dissenting churchmen like Filaret. The intention is to grab all the churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to conform them to the Vatican."
In other words, those few participants who at first joined the movement to fight against government corruption and for whatever they perceived to be a better political structure or simply those that were paid to fight in the streets, have been pushed out of the movement after the seizure of power was accomplished. In their place are the more militant wings of the movement such as the political parties mentioned above and the brutal thugs sanctioned by Western governments.
In the end, with the full support of the West, particularly the U.S. State Department, the recent successful "regime change" effort in Ukraine still has the potential to turn into an explosive situation in the literal sense. Aside from the moral qualms of allowing foreign powers the ability to dictate to smaller states the political direction which they must take, provoking a confrontation between two major world powers - both with nuclear capability - is a recipe for disaster.
From Syria to Ukraine, a new geopolitical race has been initiated with a clear destination firmly in the minds of the world political elites currently directing both sides of the contest. That direction, while potentially beneficial for those in positions of power, spells nothing but destruction for the rest of us.
NEOCONS AND THE UKRAINE COUP
February 25, 2014
BY ROBERT PARRY, CONSORTIUM NEWS
Protesters at Hrushevskogo street on January 26, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine. The anti-governmental protests turned into violent clashes. (Photo: Sasha Maksymenko / Flickr)
American neocons helped destabilize Ukraine and engineer the overthrow of its elected government, a "regime change" on Russia's western border. But the coup - and the neo-Nazi militias at the forefront - also reveal divisions within the Obama administration, reports Robert Parry.
More than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America's approach to the world in a more peaceful direction.
But Obama deserves a big dose of the blame for this predicament because he did little to neutralize the government holdovers and indeed played into their hands with his initial appointments to head the State and Defense departments, Hillary Clinton, a neocon-leaning Democrat, and Robert Gates, a Republican cold warrior, respectively.
Even now, key U.S. diplomats are more attuned to hard-line positions than to promoting peace. The latest example is Ukraine where U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, are celebrating the overthrow of an elected pro-Russian government.
Occurring during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the coup in Ukraine dealt an embarrassing black eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offended neocon sensibilities by quietly cooperating with Obama to reduce tensions over Iran and Syria, where the neocons favored military options.
Over the past several weeks, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was undercut by a destabilization campaign encouraged by Nuland and Pyatt and then deposed in a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias. Even after Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward early elections, right-wing armed patrols shattered the agreement and took strategic positions around Kiev.
Despite these ominous signs, Ambassador Pyatt hailed the coup as "a day for the history books." Most of the mainstream U.S. news media also sided with the coup, with commentators praising the overthrow of an elected government as "reform." But a few dissonant reports have pierced the happy talk by noting that the armed militias are part of the Pravy Sektor, a right-wing nationalist group which is often compared to the Nazis.
Thus, the Ukrainian coup could become the latest neocon-initiated "regime change" that ousted a target government but failed to take into account who would fill the void.
Some of these same American neocons pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, not realizing that removing Saddam Hussein would touch off a sectarian conflict and lead to a pro-Iranian Shiite regime. Similarly, U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 eliminated Muammar Gaddafi but also empowered Islamic extremists who later murdered the U.S. ambassador and spread unrest beyond Libya's borders to nearby Mali.
One might trace this neocons' blindness to consequences back to Afghanistan in the 1980s when the Reagan administration supported Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden, in a war against Soviet troops, only to have Muslim extremists take control of Afghanistan and provide a base for al-Qaeda to plot the 9/11 attacks against the United States.
Regarding Ukraine, today's State Department bureaucracy seems to be continuing the same anti-Moscow geopolitical strategy set during those Reagan-Bush years.
Robert Gates described the approach in his new memoir, Duty, explaining the view of President George H.W. Bush's Defense Secretary Dick Cheney: "When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world."
Vice President Cheney and the neocons pursued a similar strategy during George W. Bush's presidency, expanding NATO aggressively to the east and backing anti-Russian regimes in the region including the hard-line Georgian government, which provoked a military confrontation with Moscow in 2008, ironically, during the Summer Olympics in China.
As President, Obama has sought a more cooperative relationship with Russia's Putin and, generally, a less belligerent approach toward adversarial countries. Obama has been supported by an inner circle at the White House with analytical assistance from some elements of the U.S. intelligence community.
But the neocon momentum at the State Department and from other parts of the U.S. government has continued in the direction set by George W. Bush's neocon administration and by neocon-lite Democrats who surrounded Secretary of State Clinton during Obama's first term.
The two competing currents of geopolitical thinking - a less combative one from the White House and a more aggressive one from the foreign policy bureaucracy - have often worked at cross-purposes. But Obama, with only a few exceptions, has been unwilling to confront the hardliners or even fully articulate his foreign policy vision publicly.
For instance, Obama succumbed to the insistence of Gates, Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus to escalate the war in Afghanistan in 2009, though the President reportedly felt trapped into the decision which he soon regretted. In 2010, Obama backed away from a Brazilian-Turkish-brokered deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear program after Clinton denounced the arrangement and pushed for economic sanctions and confrontation as favored by the neocons and Israel.
Just last summer, Obama - only at the last second - reversed a course charted by the State Department favoring a military intervention in Syria over disputed U.S. claims that the Syrian government had launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians. Putin helped arrange a way out for Obama by getting the Syrian government to agree to surrender its chemical weapons. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Showdown for War or Peace."]
Stirring Up Trouble
Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves."
The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan "surge" strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that "an important way station in my ‘pilgrim's progress' from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
"I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam's palaces in Baghdad."
Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more "regime change."
As for Nuland's sidekick, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt previously served as a U.S. diplomat in Vienna involved in bringing the International Atomic Energy Agency into a line with U.S. and Israeli hostility toward Iran. A July 9, 2009, cable from Pyatt, which was released by Pvt. Bradley Manning, revealed Pyatt to be the middleman who coordinated strategy with the U.S.-installed IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano.
Pyatt reported that Amano offered to cooperate with the U.S. and Israel on Iran, including having private meetings with Israeli officials, supporting U.S. sanctions, and agreeing to IAEA personnel changes favored by the United States. According to the cable, Pyatt promised strong U.S. backing for Amano and Amano asked for more U.S. money. [See Consortiumnews.com's "America's Debt to Bradley Manning."]
It was Ambassador Pyatt who was on the other end of Nuland's infamous Jan. 28 phone call in which she discussed how to manipulate Ukraine's tensions and who to elevate into the country's leadership. According to the conversation, which was intercepted and made public, Nuland ruled out one opposition figure, Vitali Klitschko, a popular former boxer, because he lacked experience.
Nuland also favored the UN as mediator over the European Union, at which point in the conversation she exclaimed, "Fuck the E.U." to which Pyatt responded, "Oh, exactly ..."
Ultimately, the Ukrainian unrest - over a policy debate whether Ukraine should move toward entering the European Union - led to a violent showdown in which neo-fascist storm troopers battled police, leaving scores dead. To ease the crisis, President Yanukovych agreed to a power-sharing government and to accelerated elections. But no sooner was that agreement signed then the hard-right faction threw it out and pressed for power in an apparent coup.
Again, the American neocons had performed the role of the Sorcerer's Apprentice, unleashing forces and creating chaos that soon was spinning out of control. But this latest "regime change," which humiliated President Putin, could also do long-term damage to U.S.-Russian cooperation vital to resolving other crises, with Iran and Syria, two more countries where the neocons are also eager for confrontation.
HOMELAND SECURITY CANCELS PLAN TO TRACK LICENSE PLATES NATIONWIDE
The Department of Homeland Security(DHS) has abruptly canceled a recent plan to collect data from private license-plate readers and store it in a national database.
The controversial proposal was intended to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) locate illegal immigrants who have broken the law. DHS wanted to be able to access license-plate recognition databases filled with information from scanners operated by law enforcement and private companies across the country.
But the plan sparked objections from privacy advocates who feared the program would also track the movements of ordinary citizens not suspected of criminal activity.
Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University who also serves on a DHS data privacy subcommittee, told Ars Technica that the effort was "deeply disturbing."
"[This is] a classic example of expanding data collection and centralization, concerning people who have done nothing to warrant suspicion, without a clearly defined purpose or the legally required privacy impact analysis," he said. "‘Build it first and worry about privacy and purpose later'-it is the same disease that has infected the NSA and so much of our government. This type of dragnet search is the modern equivalent of the general search that [the Constitution's] framers were so anxious to guard against.
The decision to cancel the program came from the very top: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.
ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said the solicitation "was posted without the awareness of ICE leadership."
"While we continue to support a range of technologies to help meet our law enforcement mission, this solicitation will be reviewed to ensure the path forward appropriately meets our operational needs," she said in a prepared statement.
News of the plan surfaced in mid-February after The Washington Post reported ICE solicited proposals from companies to compile a database of license plate information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers.
AMERICAN AND ISRAELI ZIONISTS BEHIND CIVIL UNREST IN THE UKRAINE
February 19, 2014
For the past several months we have seen all sorts of political turmoil hit the Ukraine including violent protests which have left many people injured or dead. A former member of the Soviet Union and a Russian border country, the Ukraine has become a primary target of Zionist aggression. They have been targeted primarily due to their historical ties with Russia which under Vladimir Putin have successfully blocked a number of Zionist agendas including a potential American military strike on Syria this past year. By destabilizing the Ukraine they hope to bring in a puppet government that will move the country away from Russian influence. The on-going protests against the current Ukrainian government are largely being financed and controlled by the United States and Israel. This is not part of a true popular uprising as the corporate media propagandists will have you believe.
The United States government has actually invested $5 billion dollars into this on-going operation to overthrow the Ukrainian government. This is more commonly known by those in the propaganda machine as spreading freedom and democracy. Victoria Nuland the fanatical war mongering Zionist Jew and current assistant U.S. Secretary of State confirmed all of this in a December 13th 2013 speech that is available for all to see. She may have used more friendly and politically correct terminology to describe the agenda, but considering what is happening now it becomes easy to read between the lines.
This is especially true considering Nuland was recently caught on a wiretap discussing how they were going to place specific people in power once their paid protesters had overthrown the government. She even had a few choice words for the European Union who she perceived as not being helpful to their agenda. In fact she used the specific phrase "fuck the EU" in expressing her outright contempt.
What's really sick about this whole thing is that the United States government has decided to allocate billions of dollars to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country at the same time that we have a whole host of problems domestically. Surely these billions of dollars would have been much better spent domestically to finance infrastructure projects and things of that sort. Or better yet how about returning that money back to the American people? In fact any number of alternatives would have been preferable compared to this misguided project which promotes Nuland's wet dream of Zionist world domination.
This begs another question. Why is that we have so many vile Jews like Nuland in positions of power and influence in Washington DC? No matter which political party is in power it seems as if Washington DC is constantly infested with these creatures. Take for example all of the Jewish neo conservatives that were in the regime of George W. Bush. There needs to be a serious discussion in America about purging these types of people from all government and political offices. How can any of these people be trusted when we have no idea if they're serving the interests of America or Israel? It is unfortunate that such a discussion will unlikely happen anytime soon since the American people have been brainwashed by mass media and Hollywood to view Jews as perpetual victims who cannot be criticized.
Even crazier is the fact that several reports indicate that individuals linked to the Israeli Army and their intelligence agency the Mossad are also involved in helping to organize some of the on-going Ukraine protests. In fact the International Business Times ran a report detailing how a significant number of young Jews are involved in protesting the government.
It is painfully clear that Zionist forces in America and Israel are the primary causes of the civil unrest in the Ukraine. Even though some of the people participating in the protests might be doing so because they have legitimate complaints about how the Ukraine is being run, they need to understand that much of what is happening now is being orchestrated by outside forces that seek control of the Ukraine's future. Even if the protests are successful in overthrowing the existing government, the vast majority of the Ukrainian people will be sorely disappointed with the outcome. Nuland and her cronies will push to setup a government not chosen by the people of the Ukraine but instead a government that will serve the interests of international Zionism
GOVERNMENT SPYING GONE CRAZY: DHS WANTS RFID CHIPS IN EVERY DRIVERS LICENSE
February 19, 2014
The Alabama Department of Public Safety (ADPS) are issuing new chipped driver's licenses and IDs under the STAR ID initiative that promises to "improve the integrity and security of state-issued driver licenses and identification cards, which, in turn, will help fight terrorism and reduce fraud."
STAR ID is the Alabama legislature's response to the REAL-ID Act of 2005 (RIDA) which keeps the state in compliance with federal mandates while maintaining ‘security [and] authentication" of Alabama residents.
By December of 2017, Alabama states that all residents must have their STAR ID; having replaced their current ID and driver's license.
RIDA is tasked with protecting Americans from terrorism by empowering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies to monitor and profile residents to ensure their authenticity.
Over four distinct phases, the DHS is enforcing state mandatory deadlines for compliance and a courtesy 3 month "warning" period.
The phases of compliance are:
1. Restricted areas for DHS headquarters
2. All federal facilities and nuclear power plants
3. Semi-restricted areas at federal facilities
4. Entry into commercial aircraft
States that have complied with RFID chipped ID cards for residents include:
• District of Columbia
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Rhode Island
The Dept. of Defense (DoD) is using biometrics to fight terrorism, catalogue active duty troops and maintain national security interests. The Biometrics Identity Management Agency (BIMA) utilizes biometrics to "identify the enemy" and verify individuals to ensure secure business and governmental functions.
The US Department of State Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) has more than 90 million people's photographs data based with the continuous use of the Department of Facial Recognition Software.
The DHS Automated Biometric Identification System tracks an estimated 250,000 biometric communications a day. Over 126 million fingerprints, photographs and biographical information are filed for the US government to use at their discretion.
The National ID card by Oracle would establish "a standard and secure national identifier, we could ensure that any system that chose to use it could effectively share information with other systems that use it."
Public Schools Are Preparing America's Children For Life In A Police State
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Our children are the future of America, and our public schools are systematically training them to become accustomed to living in a "Big Brother" police state. All across the United States today, public schools have essentially become "prison grids" that are run by control freaks that are absolutely obsessed with micromanaging the lives of their students down to the smallest detail.
As you will read about below, students all over the country are now being monitored by RFID microchips, their lunches are being inspected on a daily basis by school administrators, and the social media accounts of students are being constantly monitored even when they are at home. Of course these sorts of things do not happen everywhere just yet, but on the path that we are on it is just a matter of time.
At this point, many of our public schools very closely resemble "totalitarian dictatorships", and so if the United States ever slips into totalitarianism the students of today will actually feel very comfortable under that political system.
I went to public schools all my life, so I have experience in this area. Sadly, things have gone downhill quite a bit since those days. For example, one thing that was unheard of back when I was in high school was "active shooter drills". They are being held in school districts all over the nation today, and they often involve the firing of blanks and the use of fake blood. The following is from a recent NBC News about these drills...
In a cramped, carpeted amphitheater in the basement of Troy Buchanan High School, 69 students are waiting to die.
"You'll know when it pops off," says Robert Bowen, the school's campus police officer. "If you get engaged with one of the shooters, you'll know it."
"When you get shot, you need to close your fingers and keep ‘em in," adds Tammy Kozinski, the drama teacher. "When the bad guy and the police come through, they'll step all over you, and who will be saying they're sorry?"
"Nobody!" the students cry in unison.
This isn't a bizarre, premeditated mass murder or some twisted sacrifice led by a student cult. These are the 20 minutes preceding an active shooter drill, the 13th one Missouri's Lincoln County school district has staged in the past year.
Fortunately, the students participating in the active shooter drills in Missouri know in advance what is happening.
In other instances around the country, that is not the case. In fact, sometimes teachers are not even told what is going to happen. Just check out the following example from New Jersey...
About 50 teachers at a New Jersey school experienced a terrifying moment when a shooting rampage turned out to be a drill, but the teachers didn't know it.
It happened Aug. 28 at the Phillipsburg New Jersey Early Learning Center.
A man burst into the library and started shooting. But the gun didn't have any bullets, just blanks.
Teachers took cover under child-sized tables, crying and trembling.
"People are crying. The girl next to me is trembling and shaking. You heard people crying. You heard other people praying. It was pretty dramatic," one teacher said.
Could you imagine your own children being put through something so traumatic?
And of course "active shooter drills" are far from the only way that our public schools are being transformed into prison camps. Just consider the following list...
-Public schools in some parts of the country are beginning to use RFID microchips to track school attendance.
-Some public schools are now systematically monitoring the social media accounts of their students.
-Listening devices are being installed in classrooms all over the nation.
-Bureaucratic control freaks are checking student lunches at many schools to ensure that they are "balanced".
-Students are being suspended from school for simply making gun gestures with their hands.
-Some public schools do not even allow parents to walk their own children to class.
This next set of examples comes from one of my previous articles...
-A few years ago, a class of 3rd grade students at one Kentucky elementary school were searched by a group of teachers after 5 dollars went missing. During the search the students were actually required to remove their shoes and their socks.
-At one public school in the Chicago area, children have been banned from bringing their lunches from home. Yes, you read that correctly. Students at that particular school are absolutely prohibited from bringing lunches from home. Instead, it is mandatory that they eat the food that the school cafeteria serves.
-The U.S. Department of Agriculture is spending huge amounts of money to install surveillance cameras in the cafeterias of public schools so that government control freaks can closely monitor what our children are eating.
-A teenager in suburban Dallas was forced to take on a part-time job after being ticketed for using bad language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637.
-It is not just high school kids that are being ticketed by police. In Texas the crackdown extends all the way down to elementary school students. In fact, it has been reported that Texas police gave "1,000 tickets" to elementary school kids over a recent six year period.
-A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father's lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.
-A 6-year-old girl in Florida was handcuffed and sent to a mental facility after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school.
-In early 2010, a 12-year-old girl in New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs just because she doodled on her desk. "I love my friends Abby and Faith" was what she reportedly wrote on her desk.
-There are actually some public schools in the United States that are so paranoid that they have actually installed cameras in student bathrooms.
-Down in Florida, students have actually been arrested by police for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, for throwing an eraser, and for drawing a picture of a gun.
-The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice has announced that it will begin using analysis software to predict crime by young delinquents and will place "potential offenders" in specific prevention and education programs.
-A group of high school students made national headlines a while back when they revealed that they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem during a visit to the Lincoln Memorial.
-In some U.S. schools, armed cops accompanied by police dogs actually conduct surprise raids with their guns drawn. In this video, you can actually see police officers aiming their guns at school children as the students are lined up facing the wall.
-Back in 2009, one 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.
Are you starting to get the picture?
Our public schools are systematically training our children for life in a police state, and hardly anyone is complaining about it.
We are heading down a very dangerous road, and at the end of that road we would end up like other totalitarian regimes such as North Korea.
If you think that you would like to live in a truly totalitarian regime, just consider what a new UN report that was just released says is going on in North Korea right now...
The commission documents crimes against humanity, including "extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation."
So why don't the people of North Korea rebel?
Well, one prison camp survivor that escaped said that "we became so used to it that we didn't feel anything"...
One witness, a survivor of a North Korean prison camp, told the commission of seeing a guard beat a nearly starving woman who had recently given birth, then force the woman to drown her baby.
Others told of being imprisoned for watching soap operas, trying to find food for their families, traveling without permission or having family members considered suspect by the government.
"Because we saw so many people die, we became so used to it," one prison camp survivor told the commission. "I'm sorry to say that we became so used to it that we didn't feel anything."
Perhaps you think that such a thing could never happen in America, but the truth is that we are also becoming very accustomed to the emerging Big Brother control grid which is being constructed all around us.
And the youth of today are sadly ignorant of what this nation is supposed to look like.
So is there any hope for the next generation of Americans?
Blackmailed Congress Stalls Legislation Outlawing NSA Surveillance
America is now a totalitarian state
February 17, 2014
Congress refuses to act on NSA reform legislation despite an overwhelming number of Americans expressing opposition to the agency's pervasive surveillance. Since October bills in both the House and Senate have remained stuck in respective Judiciary Committees. Aides say there is no indication they will move forward anytime soon.
Rep. Jim Sensebrenner's USA Freedom Act, designed to stop the NSA's dragnet collection of data, is stalled in the House. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatter, a Republican from Virginia, is holding back the bill from markup as he waits for the Obama administration to take a formal stand on the legislation.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is waiting for recommendations from Attorney General Eric Holder and the intelligence community before moving forward with his bill.
Rolling back unconstitutional surveillance faces stiff resistance in the Senate from the likes of Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Feinstein is the Intelligence Committee chairwoman.
Congressional leaders say there may be no action on legislation until the summer of 2015 when provisions of the Patriot Act governing data collection are set to expire.
In June NSA whistleblower Russ Tice, who was instrumental in blowing the cover of the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretapping, told Peter B. Collins the NSA is blackmailing top congressional leaders.
"They went after - and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things - they went after high-ranking military officers," Tice said, "they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the - and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of - heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people."
Former NSA crypto-mathematician William Binney and other whistleblowers have faced intimidation for daring to reveal details of the agency's unconstitutional surveillance program.
"They violated the Constitution setting it up," Binney told James Bamford and Wired in 2012. "But they didn't care. They were going to do it anyway, and they were going to crucify anyone who stood in the way."
Binney believes America is now a totalitarian state.
Bamford writes "there is no doubt that [the NSA] has transformed itself into the largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created."
Many Americans understand the NSA surveillance grid is a tool designed to go after political enemies. In June fifty-seven percent of voters nationwide told Rasmussen Reports NSA data will be used by government agencies to harass political opponents.Second Possible Terror Attack on U.S. Power Plant Uncovered
Gunman used boat to access Tennessee nuclear facility
Paul Joseph Watson
February 12, 2014
After fresh attention was brought to an April 2013 sniper attack on a power plant in central California, bloggers are highlighting a second possible attack that occurred less than a week later at a nuclear facility in Tennessee.
Although it received little news coverage at the time, last year's assault on the Pacific Gas & Electric's Metcalf transmission substation, during which telephone cables were cut and 100 shots were fired into the facility, has sparked fresh concerns about the safety of "soft targets" in the United States.
Described as a "military-style raid" by the L.A. Times, the FBI is still investigating the attack which knocked out 17 transformers, but has dismissed suggestions that it could have been carried out by terrorists despite no motive, fingerprints or suspects having been identified.
The attack was so serious that the entire plant had to be closed down for a month.
Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft highlights another possible attack that occurred just days later on April 21, when a security guard at TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tennessee was involved in a 2am shootout with a suspect.
"TVA spokesperson Jim Hopson said the subject traveled up to the plant on a boat and walked onto the property. When the officer questioned the suspect, the individual fired multiple shots at the officer. The officer shot back, and when he called for backup, the suspect sped away on his boat," reported WBIR.
Hoft asks if the two attacks were part of a coordinated campaign, while Front Page Magazine's Daniel Greenfield suggests that the second incident has hallmarks of being a carefully planned act.
"A trespasser would not be completely extraordinary, but an armed trespasser willing to engage in a shootout with a police officer who arrives there by boat raises a whole series of questions," writes Greenfield.
The fact that the Spring City plant was a nuclear facility obviously heightens concerns about the security of lesser known targets.
The sophisticated attack on the power plant in California has prompted charges that the government habitually fails to afford proper attention to actual organic terrorist attacks, whereas contrived plots involving huge doses of FBI provocateuring are given blanket media coverage.
"Maybe it is good thing that most people don't know about this," writes Michael Snyder. "The truth is that we are a nation that is absolutely teeming with "soft targets", and if people realized how vulnerable we truly are they might start freaking out."
Spy Agencies Work On Psychologically Profiling Everyone
January 31, 2014
Newly-released documents from Edward Snowden show that the NSA and other spy agencies are tracking people's psychological and lifestyle traits such as sexual preference, extroversion-versus-introversion, and whether people are leaders or followers.
IC Off the Record reports on future spying techniques being developed by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence's Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity:
In 2006, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) was created to invest in high-risk, high-payoff classified programs uniquely designed to provide research and technical capabilities for the Intelligence Community. IARPA-funded researchers are currently studying novel ways of processing and analyzing the explosive growth of domestic data. ***
• The Knowledge Discovery and Dissemination (KDD) program will develop advanced analytic algorithms that can effectively draw inferences across multiple databases to allow the Intelligence Community to create virtual fusion centers enabling analysts to produce actionable intelligence.
• The Socio-cultural Content in Language (SCIL) Program will develop novel algorithms, techniques and technologies to uncover the social actions and characteristics of members of a group (ie; within discussion forums, online comment sections, social media, etc.) by examining the language used in relation to acceptable social and cultural norms.
• The Reynard Program starts from the premise that "real world" characteristics are reflected in "virtual world" behavior. The program seeks to identify behavioral indicators in online virtual worlds and "massively multiplayer online games" that are related to the real world characteristics of the users. Attributes of interest include gender, age, economic status, educational level, occupation, ideology or "world view", and physical geographic location.
Indeed, the NSA is working on building a "pre-crime" computer system that uses artificial intelligence and massive amounts of data to try to predict how every thinks and what everyone is likely to do.
NSA Hires Former DHS Official As "Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer"
In other words, NSA hires its future scapegoat
January 29, 2014
Instead of reading and understanding the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Agency hired a former Homeland Security employee today as its first "Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer."
NSA Director Keith Alexander claims he cares about Americans' privacy.
In a statement released this morning, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander said that "well-known privacy expert" Rebecca Richards will "provide expert advice" and "oversight" of the NSA's "privacy-related activities" and that she recently worked as the "Senior Director for Privacy Compliance" at the Department of Homeland Security.
Richards' hiring is simply a PR stunt by the NSA to make the agency appear that it actually cares about the privacy of millions and it's especially amusing considering her previous employment at DHS.
"An internal privacy officer does not solve the privacy and other problems revealed in the last seven months," Michelle Richardson, legislative council for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Mashable. "It will take legislative changes and court rulings to make real substantive improvements to the law."
The NSA hired her so it could have someone to take the blame once more leaks about its domestic surveillance are revealed; the agency has no intent of stopping its abuse of the Fourth Amendment.
For one thing, after whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the massive extent of the NSA's dragnet, Alexander told Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that the NSA wanted to collect even more phone records than ever before.
"I believe it is in the nation's best interest to put all the phone records into a lockbox that we can search when the nation needs to do it," he said.
Alexander doesn't just limit his abuse to the Fourth Amendment, either: he also targets the First.
"I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these [Snowden] documents, the 50,000 - whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these - you know it just doesn't make sense," Alexander stated in an interview with the Defense Department's "Armed With Science" blog. "We ought to come up with a way of stopping it."
But let's ignore all these statements for a second and assume that Alexander is not a liar.
If we were to believe his claim today that the NSA cares about privacy and that he simply needs a "privacy officer" to tell him that eavesdropping on private conversations is wrong, wouldn't that, in itself, suggest he is too incompetent to manage the NSA?
Why Are Banking Executives In London Killing Themselves?
January 29, 2014
Bankers committing suicide by jumping from the rooftops of their own banks is something that we think of when we think of the Great Depression. Well, it just happened in London, England. A vice president at JPMorgan's European headquarters in London plunged to his death after jumping from the top of the 33rd floor.
He fell more than 500 feet, and it is being reported by an eyewitness that "there was quite a lot of blood". This comes on the heels of news that a former Deutsche Bank executive was found hanged in his home in London on Sunday. So why is this happening? Yes, the markets have gone down a little bit recently but they certainly have not crashed yet. Could there be more to these deaths than meets the eye? You never know. And as I will discuss below, there have been a lot of other really strange things happening around the world lately as well.
But before we get to any of that, let's take a closer look at some of these banker deaths. The JPMorgan executive that jumped to his death on Tuesday was named Gabriel Magee. He was 39 years old, and his suicide has the city of London in shock...
A bank executive who died after jumping 500ft from the top of JP Morgan's European headquarters in London this morning has been named as Gabriel Magee.
The American senior manager, 39, fell from the 33-story skyscraper and was found on the ninth floor roof, which surrounds the Canary Wharf skyscraper.
He was a vice president in the corporate and investment bank technology department having joined in 2004, moving to Britain from the United States in 2007.
What would cause a man in his prime working years who is making huge amounts of money to do something like that?
The death on Sunday of former Deutsche Bank executive Bill Broeksmit is also a mystery. According to the Daily Mail, police consider his death to be "non-suspicious", which means that they believe that it was a suicide and not a murder...
A former Deutsche Bank executive has been found dead at a house in London, it emerged today.
The body of William ‘Bill' Broeksmit, 58, was discovered at his home in South Kensington on Sunday shortly after midday by police, who had been called to reports of a man found hanging at a house.
Mr Broeksmit - who retired last February - was a former senior manager with close ties to co-chief executive Anshu Jain. Metropolitan Police officers said his death was declared as non-suspicious.
On top of that, Business Insider is reporting that a communications director at another bank in London was found dead last week...
Last week, a U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG died last week. The cause of death has not been made public.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that these deaths have all come so close to one another. After all, people die all the time.
And London is rather dreary this time of the year. It is easy for people to get depressed if they are not accustomed to endless gloomy weather.
If the stock market was already crashing, it would be easy to blame the suicides on that. The world certainly remembers what happened during the crash of 1929...
Historically, bankers have been stereotyped as the most likely to commit suicide. This has a lot to do with the famous 1929 stock market crash, which resulted in 1,616 banks failing and more than 20,000 businesses going bankrupt. The number of bankers committing suicide directly after the crash is thought to have been only around 20, with another 100 people connected to the financial industry dying at their own hand within the year.
But the market isn't crashing just yet. We definitely appear to be at a "turning point", but things are still at least somewhat stable.
So why are bankers killing themselves?
That is a good question.
As I mentioned above, there have also been quite a few other strange things that have happened lately that seem to be "out of place".
For example, Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report posted the following cryptic message on Twitter the other day...
"Have an exit plan..."
What in the world does he mean by that?
Maybe that is just a case of Drudge being Drudge.
Then again, maybe not.
And on Tuesday we learned that a prominent Russian Bank has banned all cash withdrawals until next week...
Bloomberg reports that ‘My Bank' - one of Russia's top 200 lenders by assets - has introduced a complete ban on cash withdrawals until next week. While the Ruble has been losing ground rapidly recently, we suspect few have been expecting bank runs in Russia.
Yes, we have heard some reports of people having difficulty getting money out of their banks around the world lately, but this news out of Russia really surprised me.
Yet another story that seemed rather odd was a report in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that stated that Germany's central bank is advocating "a one-time wealth tax" for European nations that need a bailout...
Germany's central bank Monday proposed a one-time wealth tax as an option for euro-zone countries facing bankruptcy, reviving a idea that has circled for years in Europe but has so far gained little traction.
Why would they be suggesting such a thing if "economic recovery" was just around the corner?
According to that same article, the IMF has recommended a similar thing...
The International Monetary Fund in October also floated the idea of a one-time "capital levy," amid a sharp deterioration of public finances in many countries. A 10% tax would bring the debt levels of a sample of 15 euro-zone member countries back to pre-crisis levels of 2007, the IMF said.
So what does all of this mean?
I am not exactly sure, but I have got a bad feeling about this - especially considering the financial chaos that we are witnessing in emerging markets all over the globe right now.
LAPD Cops Stood Down Minutes Before TSA Shooting
Officers guarding area where Ciancia began attack went AWOL
Paul Joseph Watson
January 22, 2014
LAPD officers assigned to the area where Paul Ciancia began his shooting spree targeting TSA agents at LAX Airport stood down minutes before the attack began, leaving for breaks without informing their dispatcher as required.
"Departmental procedures require that officers notify a dispatcher before going on break and leaving their patrol area in order to ensure supervisors are aware of their absence and, if necessary, a relief unit can be brought in to cover their area," reports the Associated Press.
That didn't happen in the moments before Ciancia began his rampage, with one of the officers on a bathroom break and the other outside on a vehicle traveling to a meal break.
The lack of armed officers allowed Ciancia to begin the shooting unopposed, with TSA agents fleeing the screening area without hitting the panic button or using a land line phone to call for help.
The stand down ensured a one and a half minute lag before police were even alerted about the shooting. Before officers arrived at the scene, Ciancia had fatally wounded TSA worker Gerardo Hernandez as well as shooting two more TSA agents and a traveler. Hernandez did not receive medical attention until 33 minutes after he was shot.
Airport police union chief Marshall McClain claimed that the officers would have alerted their dispatcher once they had arrived at the location of their break but didn't do so "in order to maximize their lunch break so they don't lose time while traveling."
Eyewitnesses on the scene of the shooting reported that the gunman was "dressed like a TSA agent," although this narrative was quickly amended as the portrait of Ciancia as an anti-government lunatic began to emerge.
Immediately after the shooting, news networks like ABC blamed Ciancia's actions on a "shadowy subculture" that opposes the TSA as part of a broader revolt against the growth of big government, directly implicating alternative media journalist, Alex Jones as being responsible for the attack.
The Southern Poverty Law Center also wasted little time in exploiting the incident to smear its political adversaries.
As Jon Rappoport observed at the time, blaming ideological opponents of big government for the actions of one crazed individual would be like blaming J.D. Salinger for the murder of John Lennon.
Paul Ciancia was eventually shot by police officers but survived and now faces murder and other charges
U.S. Army's elite Special Forces train with local cops in a secretive joint exercise
January 21, 2014
Unwarranted NSA surveillance, the passage of NDAA, stop and frisk programs, and the rise of warrior cops, have essentially turned America into a centralized police state.
Blurring the lines between the U.S. military and local sheriff departments sets a dangerous precedent that erodes freedom and civil liberties.
Those lines are being blurred right now in South Carolina.
According to The State, the Richland County Sheriff's Department will participate in secretive joint exercise Monday and Tuesday with unnamed units from Ft. Bragg.
The drills are scheduled to run up to midnight on both days and occur primarily in Lower Richland, around Hopkins and Eastover. Exercises will also take place around the Screaming Eagle Road near Elgin and North Richland County near outbound Monticello Road.
According to The State, a sheriff's department spokesman refused to provide which units from Ft. Bragg are involved. Ft. Bragg is home to the U.S. Army's elite groups, including the Special Forces and Delta Force.
The spokesman also said the drills would be noisy at times.
"Citizens may see military and departmental vehicles traveling in and around rural and metropolitan areas and may hear ordnance being set off or fired which will be simulated/ blanks and controlled by trained personnel," a sheriff's department press release said.
The secretive exercises are off limits to the media, reports The Activist Post.
The implications are serious.
Locally elected Sheriffs take an oath to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution. They are not an extension of the centralized federal government. They have the ultimate say in their county as the top law enforcement officer.
If sheriff deputies engage an enemy in conjunction with the U.S. military who do they take orders from? The ARMY commander? Or their Sheriff?
This violates the separation of local authorities and the federal government. If the separation of powers are eliminated, who will protect the Constitutional rights of citizens?
Monsanto readies first-ever GMO wheat
January 15, 2014
Genetically-modified wheat isn't legally approved anywhere in the world, but the billion-dollar St. Louis, Missouri-based agriculture company has for years been determined to develop the first GMO variety of the cash crop. Now Monsanto's chief technology officer thinks the company is on the right track with regards to research.
Monsanto's GMO wheat-in-progress is among 29 endeavors being undertaken by the group to have made "phase advancements" recently, company reps said in a conference call last week, and testing has advanced from the "proof of concept" stage to early development.
Monsanto-made wheat, like other GMO crops created by the company, would be resistant to their weed killer Roundup and thus join the likes of other "Roundup Ready" products already sold by the company, including bioengineered soybean and corn.
"From an overall market perspective, the grain industry and the wheat industry - specifically the wheat trade industry - has remained very interested and supportive of biotech advances," Monsanto CTO Robb Fraley said during last week's call, according to Baking Business reporter Eric Schroeder.
"A wheat farmer generally is also a corn and soybean farmer, and they understand the benefits of the technology, and the wheat industry has watched the benefits that this technology has brought to both corn and soybeans. And so we continue to make advances," added Schroeder.
According to the company's top technologist, though, GMO wheat would likely not be reality until a couple of years down the road.
"We are still several years away from a product launch, but it is nice to see those products in the pipeline," Fraley added.
Indeed, Monsanto has actually spent the better part of a decade-and-a-half researching GMO wheat. The company began field testing a variety starting in 1998, but suspended operations in 2005 after determining that a super-wheat strain wasn't quite ready to be launched.
As RT reported last week, Monsanto also recently announced that sales of its Roundup Ready soybean grew 16 percent during the quarter ending November 30, 2013.
Piper Jaffray Cos analyst Michael Cos told Bloomberg News at the time that Monsanto's GMO soybean "will prove to be the single most important earnings driver" for the company during the course of the next two years. According to Fraley's assessment, though, the company could be nearly completion on its GMO wheat by then.
Should Monsanto stay on track, however, they'll still have to worry about the restrictions currently in place in the United States and abroad against GMO wheat. The company became the centerpiece of a biotech scandal last year when remnants of old biotech wheat turned up on an Oregon farm practically a decade after Monsanto supposedly stopped testing the crop. After those reports circulated, a government official for Japan's farm ministry placed an embargo on all US wheat.
Many others countries outside the US have banned GMO imports, and China recently refused no fewer than five shipments of American corn allegedly over concerns it could have been tainted by a biotech variety of the crop.
Former Top NSA Official: "We Are Now In A Police State"
December 18, 2013
Bill Binney is the high-level NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information. A 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency, Binney was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees.
Binney has been interviewed by virtually all of the mainstream media, including CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, PBS and many others.
Last year, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together, and said:
"We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state."
But today, Binney told Washington's Blog that the U.S. has already become a police state.
By way of background, the government is spying on virtually everything we do.
All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally "launder" the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way ... and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.
This is a bigger deal than you may realize, as legal experts say that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all ... and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it.
The NSA also ships Americans' most confidential, sensitive information to foreign countries like Israel(and here), the UK and other countries ... so they can "unmask" the information and give it back to the NSA ... or use it for their own purposes.
Binney told us today:
"The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement. These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts - cause it has been acquired without a warrant.
So, they have to do a 'Parallel Construction' and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a 'planned programed perjury policy' directed by US law enforcement.
And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to 'Foreign Counterparts.'
This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process - means we are now in a police state."
We asked Binney a follow-up question:
"You say "this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts.' Does that mean that foreign agencies can also 'launder' the info gained from NSA spying? Or that data gained through foreign agencies' spying can be "laundered" and used by U.S. agencies?"
"For countries like the five eyes (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and probably some others it probably works both ways. But for others that have relationships with FBI or DEA etc., they probably are given the data to used to arrest people but are not told the source or given copies of the data."
Boston Bomber Believed He Was a Victim of Mind Control
Tamerlan Tsarnaev feared he had been brainwashed to act on trigger phrase
Paul Joseph Watson
December 16, 2013
Suspected Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev believed that he was a victim of mind control, according to the results of a five month investigation published yesterday by the Boston Globe.
Tsarnaev, who was killed in a shootout with police four days after allegedly carrying out the bombings with his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was thought to have "some form of schizophrenia," according to family friends, while his mother said Tsarnaev "felt like there were two people living inside of him."
"He believed in majestic mind control, which is a way of breaking down a person and creating an alternative personality with which they must coexist," Donald Larking, a 67-year-old who attended a Boston mosque with Tamerlan, told the Globe. "You can give a signal, a phrase or a gesture, and bring out the alternate personality and make them do things. Tamerlan thought someone might have done that to him."
The link between allegations of mind control and violent acts such as political assassinations or terror attacks has been a running theme in numerous different high profile cases.
Aurora theater gunman James Holmes said he was "programmed" to carry out the massacre by an "evil" therapist, according to an alleged inmate of the ‘Batman' shooter. Steven Unruh claims that Holmes told him he "felt like he was in a video game" during the shooting and that he had been brainwashed with the aid of neuro-linguistic programming.
The parallels between James Holmes and another alleged victim of mind control - RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan - are astounding.
As the London Independent reported in 2005, evidence strongly indicates that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate, a victim of mind control who was set up to be the fall guy for the murder. Sirhan was described by eyewitnesses as being in a trance-like state as he pulled the trigger.
"There was no way Sirhan Sirhan killed Kennedy," said (Sirhan's lawyer Larry) Teeter....He was the fall guy. His job was to get busted while the trigger man walked out. He wasn't consciously involved in any plot. He was a patsy. He was unconscious and unaware of what was happening - he was the true Manchurian Candidate."
The CIA's use of mind control to create killers is a matter of historical record. MK-ULTRA was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence that came to light in 1975 through investigations by the Church Committee, and the Rockefeller Commission. 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti insists that the program is ongoing and has not been abandoned.
According to his lawyers, Sirhan Sirhan "was an involuntary participant in the crimes being committed because he was subjected to sophisticated hypno programming and memory implantation techniques which rendered him unable to consciously control his thoughts and actions at the time the crimes were being committed," and served only as a diversion for the real assassin.
Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six other people, was also obsessed with mind control.
Were the Tsarnaev brothers set up or brainwashed into carrying out the Boston marathon bombing? It's a claim that would be virtually impossible to prove, but it would explain a number of extraordinary contradictions pertaining to the case, including why the brothers apparently shouted "we didn't do it" during their shootout with police.
The aunt of Tamerlan Tsarnaev claims that the footage which emerged of police arresting a naked uninjured man was her nephew, contradicting the official narrative that Tsarnaev was critically injured in a shootout and suggesting he may have been killed while in custody.
According to Tamerlan's mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, the FBI "were controlling his every step." It was subsequently confirmed that both the FBI and the CIA added the brothers to at least two terrorist watch lists in late 2011.DECLASSIFIED FBI DOCS DETAIL WARRANTLESS DRONE SURVEILLANCE
December 13, 2013
While previous reports have indicated that the FBI has sought to employ drone technology for years, newly unveiled documents from inside the agency show the extent to which the bureau believes it has the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance.
Growing skepticism over the US foreign drone program and how it may be used in connection with domestic security inspired Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) to file suit against the FBI. CREW, using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, defeated the FBI in court and compelled law enforcement to turn over a database of documents on the growing drone program.
Among that stockpile released earlier this month was an extensive deck of slides titled "Legal Challenges to the Use of UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems)." The slides provide a glimpse into the FBI's future drone plans, which the bureau clearly hopes will not be impacted by legal restrictions, and will provide instructions for agents who hope to use drones in the field now.
A Justice Department inspector general report published in September indicated that the FBI has been quietly spending millions of dollars to operate a small fleet of unmanned aerial devices in recent years. Then-FBI director Robert Mueller said in June that the bureau was in the "initial stages" of writing privacy policies for its still-developing surveillance policy. However, it was later revealed that the FBI has been using drones in a limited capacity since 2006 - years before experts had previously speculated.
The presentation that surfaced this month opens with a reminder that the FBI operates with "rigorous obedience to the Constitution," especially the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. Privacy advocates have argued that flying cameras through the air and sweeping up intelligence on unwitting subjects accused of no wrongdoing does constitute an unreasonable search.
The slides also mention the exclusionary rule, a legal principle that renders evidence collected in an unconstitutional manner inadmissible in a court of law.
FBI counsel seemingly considers this requirement quaint and burdensome," wrote Vice contributor Shawn Musgrave. "One slide notes an Australian High Court judge's warning that the American high evidence standard puts it in danger ‘of becoming something of a legal backwater.' It's not a great start to a defense of drones' ‘rigorous' constitutionality."
The February 2012 presentation also reminds agents to consider when they are required to obtain a warrant, such as when using a "thermal imager looking through walls" or a "GPS tracker installed on subject's vehicle." But perhaps more importantly were the cases which do not require a warrant at all, including surveillance conducted with a "helicopter, airplane (naked eye), or airplane (camera)."
OBAMA'S CORPORATE AGENDA DELAYED AS TPP MISSES DEADLINE
December 10, 2013
SOURCE: COMMON DREAMS
NEGOTIATORS FAIL TO CLOSE DEAL AMID REVELATIONS OF INTERNAL DISCORD OVER US CORPORATE BULLYING
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators meet at the Hale Koa Hotel during the APEC Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 12, 2011. (Reuters / Larry Downing)The Obama administration's pro-corporate Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agenda appears to have missed a deadline.
Ministers and delegates representing 12 nations announced Tuesday they have failed to meet the end-of-year goal of clinching the TPP trade deal after four days of negotiations in Singapore ended without an agreement.
The statement immediately follows a Wikileaks release, previously reported by Common Dreams, exposing near zero support for a drastic pro-corporate agenda pushed in the TPP by the Obama administration, including demands for NAFTA-style secret corporate tribunals, limits to bank regulation, and conditions that would increase the cost of life-saving medicines.
"At this meeting, the negotiators' political imperative to ‘make a deal' - any deal - resulted in a raft of dangerous decisions that would severely threaten consumers' access to affordable medicines, undermine Internet freedom and empower corporations to attack our domestic laws," said Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "[A]s more details emerge weekly about the damage TPP could do to workers, consumers and the environment, grassroots and lawmaker opposition in many countries is growing."
No new timeline has been drafted for what is poised to be the largest U.S. trade deal in history, establishing a "free trade" zone between Australia, the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore-countries that comprise nearly 40 percent of the world's GDP.
Despite the breadth of this potential deal, the contents of its negotiations have been hidden from the public and U.S. lawmakers, with much of what is known publicly about them exposed by leaks.
"We identified potential landing zones for the majority of key outstanding issues in the text," stated U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, reading a joint statement from negotiators on Tuesday. "We intend to meet again next month," he said, indicating that market access issues remain unresolved.
Wikileaks released an internal memo (pdf) and spreadsheet (pdf) from an unidentified government official on Monday that reveal resistance to U.S. demands for inclusion of corporate giveaways, including conditions that would allow corporations to bypass national law and sue governments in secret courts-boosting their power to steamroll environmental, labor, and public health protections. This also includes a push for intellectual property conditions that would reduce access to more affordable generic medicines and reduce the power of governments to negotiate lower medicine prices. The U.S., in addition, is demanding a limit to the ability of governments to regulate banks in times of crisis, according to Zach Carter at the Huffington Post.
The leaked memo reads, "Inadequate progress. The positions are still paralyzed. United States shows zero flexibility," regarding financial services negotiations.
In a statement emailed to Common Dreams, Public Citizen warned, "However, many countries have caved to relentless U.S. demands that they alter their domestic patent and medicine pricing laws to meet the desires of large pharmaceutical firms."
This latest leak follows the November 13 Wikileaks exposure of the Obama administration's TPP push to erode internet freedoms and cut access to medicines in what analysts say are the most damaging and dangerous proposals in the history of U.S. "free trade" deals
ROCKEFELLER ATTACHES CYBERSECURITY BILL TO NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (NDAA) 2014
December 10, 2013
SOURCE: A SHEEP NO MORE
Call your senator and tell them to vote no to the Cyber Security Amendment attached to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill. COPY AND PASTE THIS INFORMATION below into BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS EMAILS! They must know we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE UP TO AND ARE EXPOSING THEM!!! SENATOR MAIN NUMBER IS 202 224 3121 and their email can be found here...http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment (I attached it below) to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America's cyber infrastructure and private entities. Those of us who represent private entities, will soon find our free access to the internet eliminated. The fact that this internet control bill is attached to the NDAA is no accident because this means that dissidents, posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet, can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely for their "terrorist" views. There is a second and equally disturbing development in that the government has declared that the people of this country do not have the right to challenge the government on its unconstitutional actions. This is a position which fully exposes the fact that America is no longer a democratic republic, but rather a dictatorship which serves the elite. At issue is the ACLU's right to sue the NSA for the unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by spying on their every communication and their web-surfing habits. This position, taken by the government, validates that we have no rights and are living under a dictatorship. BILLS-113s1353is
Rockefeller's proposal, S.1353, was unanimously approved by the Commerce Committee in July but has stayed relatively dormant ever since. On Thursday he submitted that bill as an amendment to be considered as part of an annual Pentagon spending plan that could fast track his attempts to land his proposal on President Barack Obama's desk after attempts in Congress to adopt cybersecurity legislation have largely proven to be futile.
- See more at: http://asheepnomore.net/2013/12/08/rockefeller-attaches-cybersecurity-bill-ndaa-2014/#sthash.wOKXkmMb.dpuf
Hawaiian Mayor Signs GMO Ban into Law
This bill prohibits biotech companies from operating on the island, and it bans farmers from growing any new genetically altered crops.
Food Revolution Network: By Ocean Robbins
December 9, 2013
It's official. The mayor of the island of Hawaii, Billy Kenoi, has signed bill 113 into law. This bill prohibits biotech companies from operating on the island, and it bans farmers from growing any new genetically altered crops. (The papaya industry, which has more than 200 farms on the island, is exempt from the bill.)
Hawaii is joining Mexico, which last month banned (on an interim basis) the planting of all genetically engineered corn, and Italy, which in July became the 9th European country to ban planting of Monsanto's GMO corn.
Monsanto and its allies are trying to convince you and I and the rest of the American public that the case is settled and GMOs have been proven safe. But counties and nations around the world are banning them. And a group of 230 scientists from around the world, including Dr. Belinda Martineau, who helped commercialize the world's first GM food (the Flavor Savor tomato), recently joined together to sign a declaration that they: "deplore the disinformation over the safety of GMOs." They add: "Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods, are false." ( Read the scientist's statement in full here.)
Do you think GMOs should be labeled? If you do, you are far from alone. The vast majority of people in the United States would like to see the country join 64 other nations, including all of Europe, in labeling GMOs. It's a cause supported, according to polls, by 93% of the American public.
But last month the Grocery Manufacturer's Association (GMA), funded by secret donations from the junk food industry, led a campaign to block labeling in the state of Washington. And now recently uncovered documents have revealed that the GMA is plotting a campaign for federal preemption that would permanently block any state from requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Monsanto and the GMA want to keep you eating in the dark. That's why the Food Revolution Network, for which I serve as CEO, has launched a campaign that seeks to peel away the GMA's funding base, and expose the "natural" brands whose corporate owners are funding the GMA's anti-labeling agenda. We've started with a petition and boycott campaign that targets Coca-Cola's "healthy" brands.
Most people don't realize that Coca-Cola owns Honest Tea, Odwalla, Zico Coconut Water, Simply Orange, and Vitamin Water. And that this corporation, which sweetens most of its beverages with genetically engineered high fructose corn syrup, recently contributed more than $1 million in an illegal money laundering scheme to the cause of GMO secrecy. But now, hundreds of thousands of people like you are finding out and joining the campaign.
The people of Hawaii, and their mayor, have spoken. Now it's your turn. Together, we can force Coca-Cola to honor the wishes of the vast majority of Americans who want to see GMOs labeled.NELSON MANDELA WAS A COMMUNIST TERRORIST BACKED BY ZIONISTS
December 6, 2013
BY LEE ROGERS, BLACKLISTED NEWS
Nelson Mandela the former President of South Africa has passed away at the age of 95. The big American media outlets are currently spending hours upon hours of air time praising Mandela as some sort of angelic icon of peace. This is a total fabrication of reality. Mandela originally aligned himself with the African National Congress a Communist revolutionary group heavily influenced and financed by Zionist Jews. This organization would be responsible for all sorts of atrocities in South Africa which eventually led to Mandela's time in jail. Mandela co-founded the militant wing of the ANC with various South African Communists including an Israeli Jew by the name of Arthur Goldreich. The group was called Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation. It is important to note that the ANC not only attacked official government buildings but even non-government targets like movie theatres as well. It was this activity that made it easy for several countries including the United States to label the ANC as a terrorist organization. Mandela himself was even on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2008. Fun facts about Mandela such as these are completely ignored by all of the big media outlets because it runs contrary to the portrait they are trying to paint.
In order to understand who Mandela really was it is necessary to understand the real history of apartheid South Africa. The policies of apartheid or racial segregation were largely implemented starting in the late 1940s to early 1950s. These policies were originally intended to give the different races within South Africa an independent area of their own. It was argued by South African leaders at the time that South Africa wasn't a single nation but was made up of several different racial groups which should be split apart. Although the merits of these policies or lack thereof could be argued, the policies were not as nefarious as we have been led to believe.
The so-called apartheid South African government which was dominated by White Europeans had made South Africa a successful independent first world nation. This was the real reason why Jewish Communists sought to use the ANC as a way to demonize the White European leaders in power. South Africa represented an independent economic and military power that needed to be brought under their influence.
Much like the phony civil rights movement in America, the ANC was dominated by Jewish Communists even up until the 1990s when Mandela took power. A recent article from Haaretz notes the following.
The African National Congress, the liberation movement that became the governing party in 1994, also had a full complement of Jews, including Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils and Denis Goldberg.
The ANC would not only engage in acts of terror against Whites but they would also do the same against Blacks who they suspected of collaborating with Whites. Specifically they would execute and torture people by igniting a rubber tire filled with petrol that they forced over their chests and arms. The practice referred to as necklacing would typically take the victim over 15 minutes to die in certain cases. Hundreds of executions using this method were carried out by the ANC. Even Mandela's one-time wife Winnie would implicitly endorse this method of torture and execution.
Early in his life Mandela was surrounded by Jews and was given his first job as a clerk by a Jewish lawyer named Lazar Sidelsky. He would associate himself with a large number of Jewish Communists including some of the ones mentioned previously. In fact during a sweep of the ANC in the early 1960s which resulted in his arrest and lengthy prison sentence, a significant number of Jews were also arrested. Enormous caches of weapons and explosives held by the ANC were also uncovered. A recently published article from Tablet Magazine goes into great detail about how Mandela was aligned strongly with a significant number of Zionist and Communist Jews before and up until the time of his arrest.
In 1985, the President of South Africa Pieter W. Botha offered to release Mandela from prison if he would unconditionally reject violence as a political instrument. Mandela refused the offer. This fact completely destroys the notion that Mandela was a man of peace.
Mandela's release from prison in 1990 was greeted with widespread media coverage from all of the major Jewish controlled press outlets including American mainstream media. Instead of focusing on his past, he was portrayed as a man of peace and an iconic freedom fighter. The biased media spin was used to make people forget about who he really was. Amazingly the ridiculous media extravaganza helped Mandela become President of South Africa allowing his Jewish backers to change South Africa into a nation run by Communist principles.
Since Mandela's ascent to the Presidency, the South African economy has actually worsened compared to when it was led by the apartheid government. A BBC article goes into great detail about how many things were better before the ANC and Mandela took power. In fact economic inequality is far worse now than before. Unemployment and poverty is rampant with many South Africans living in shacks. Dissent against the ANC is largely stifled as one would expect in a nation run by Communist principles. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of White South Africans murdered by Blacks since this transformation. Specifically White South African farmers have been primary targets during this reign of murder and terror.
Simply put, Mandela was nothing more than a cult of personality fraud who has brought ruin to South Africa. Many Black South Africans are actually worse off now than under the alleged evils of the apartheid government. He was always a puppet for powerful Jewish interests who were the ones that really helped him gain power in South Africa. It is no wonder why Barack Obama had so many kind things to say about Mandela because Obama is literally doing the same thing to America that Mandela did to South Africa. Mandela should be remembered with disdain and not with reverence
BIG BROTHER WANTS YOUR KIDS PALMS & VEINS SCANNED
December 6, 2013
SOURCE: MASS PRIVATE I
Washington - Puyallup School District says by the end of the year, every lunchroom will have palm scanning devices that will allow students to pay for their lunch with a wave of a hand.
Parents from Washington state's Puyallup School District successfully ended the implementation of palm-scanners this week after attempts to push the system without parental approval backfired.
"Efficiency is another reason for implementing this. The accuracy of the scanner reduces human error, reduces fraud, the ability for students to share numbers allows parents to know the money that they're spending is being spent on their child's lunch," said Brian Fox, spokesperson for Puyallup School District.
The district says the devices will be in all 32 schools by the end of the school year.
So far, Wildwood Elementary and Stahl Junior High have the scanners in their lunchrooms.
Christina Allen has a daughter in middle school and said she was blindsided by a letter that her daughter came home with that said the scanners would be used at Kalles Junior High in a few weeks.
"I have issue with privacy with that. If the school district needs my signature in order to obtain my daughter's photograph and use that photograph in publication because of a privacy issue, then I believe I should have to sign an authorization to use my child's identity and for them to do that," said Allen.
The scanners work by using infrared technology to look for vein patterns in palms.
"To hear those words 'vein recognition program' huge it's very invasive to me. What is it in my daughter's veins do they need to photograph or have that information?" said Allen.
But Fox says the school district cannot access the biometric scans.
"It doesn't take a picture of a finger print or a handprint, it simply connects the activity of the vein to the number system where the account where the parents have already given us their Visa number or MasterCard number and paid for lunches. It's the same information we already keep like Social Security numbers and phone numbers and addresses, we are charged with keeping confidential," said Fox.
A group of New York engineers announced the development of a "biometric classroom." According to developers at SensorStar Labs, cameras that track students' eye movements, conversations and smiles will help teachers improve classroom learning.
TSA NOW OVERSEEING WARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHES FOR CARS PARKED AT AIRPORTS
December 3, 2013
SOURCE: POLICE STATE USA
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has now expanded its intrusive searching protocol to include the interior of parked cars left at the airport. Reports of vehicle searches have been reported at multiple airports since this summer.
Since roughly June, airports have been performing vehicle searches of cars parked in front of terminals. According to their signs, this is being done in accordance with TSA mandates and local authorities.
Over the Thanksgiving holiday, a traveler photographed the sign pictured above at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport in Birmingham, Alabama. It reads:
"ALL CARS WILL BE SEARCHED BY UNIFORMED SECURITY AS MANDATED BY BAA AND TSA"
The sign is being displayed by AmeriPark, a valet company. It cites the Birmingham Airport Authority and TSA as the government agencies responsible for the warrantless vehicle searches.
This report is similar to what was reported in Rochester, NY, this July. A woman discovered a note left in her car that her vehicle had been searched without her permission or notice. Laurie Iacuzza said she was "furious" that airport personnel had used her keys to gain access to the vehicle which she had entrusted to a valet parking attendant.
The notice, found on her dashboard read: "Thank you for your patronage. Your vehicle has been inspected under TSA regulations."
When asked which parking lots were being searched, John McCaffery, TSA, said that the searches include vehicles that were parked close enough to present a "vulnerability" to the airport, which did not necessarily include distant garage parking.
WHEC 10 News's Berkeley Brean reported that "The TSA says that this is part of its overall security plan, in that its a proactive move to keep you and your family safe at the airport. "
"The attendants told me that its kind of a three-phase thing, they're ordered to search the trunk, the engine, and scan the inside of the car," Brean continued. "They say it takes about 30 seconds to do it. They say that they don't go through your console or your glove boxes. The TSA says that they're instructing these valet attendants to look for large amounts of explosive material."
The TSA responded to outrage in July over the program, claiming that the searches were not technically mandated - despite staff at multiple airports apparently believing the opposite. "While the airport security plan is approved by the TSA, it is up to each airport authority and its state and local law enforcement partners to follow the plan that has been implemented," wrote Bob Burns of the TSA Blog.
The warrantless searches of vehicles at the behest of the TSA and local airport officials should not be tolerated. While outrageous, given the wholesale infringement of travelers' rights, it cannot be surprising to anyone paying attention. As the 4th amendment fades into distant memory, we are left to wonder where the mission-creep of the homeland security complex will lead us next.
Earnest thanks goes to all those who have contributed to the operation of this website. We are committed to covering stories that remain conspicuously ignored by the national mainstream media, and your generous support is essential to effectively distributing this message. Many victims of government-sanctioned violence offer their gratitudeTHE OTHER POLICE STATE; THE PRIVATE INTEL INDUSTRY GROWS
December 1, 2013
Together, the public-state and private-corporate security system is gaining ever-greater control over the lives of ordinary Americans.
On November 20th, the Center for Corporate Policy, a Washington, DC, good-government group, issued a revealing study, "Spooky Business: A New Report on Corporate Espionage Against Non-profits." Written by Gary Ruskin, it confirms one's worst suspicions about the ever-expanding two-headed U.S. security state.
One "head" of this apparatus consists of the formal law-enforcement, security juggernaut. It includes the vast network of federal, state and local entities that are duly, "legally," constituted to maintain law and order. It maintains state power.
The second "head" consists of a parallel "police" force, local and national corporate entities that use legal - and often questionable - practices to undermine democracy, most notably a citizen's right to object to what s/he perceives as an unjust business practice. It maintains corporate power.
Together, the public-state and private-corporate security system is gaining ever-greater control over the lives of ordinary Americans. They constitute the postmodern, 21st century policing apparatus.
The revolving-door thesis acknowledges the link between government employees and private corporations. Pres. Eisenhower warned against it in his legendary 1961 Farewell Address in which he publically identified the military-industrial complex. In the last half-century, the revolving door has become an unquestioned, acceptable career path for upwardly mobile bureaucrats. So, few were surprised when Timothy Geithner, former Sec. of the Treasury and head of the New York Fed, and one of those who orchestrated the banking plunder known as the Great Recession, took a job as president and managing director of Warburg Pincus, a leading private equity firm.
"Spooky Business" shows that many leading U.S. corporations are retaining the services of former federal security personnel to wage campaigns to subvert Constitutionally protected citizen rights. It details the practices of Bank of America, BP, Brown & Williamson, Burger King, the Chamber of Commerce, Chevron Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Kraft, McDonald's, Monsanto, Shell and Wal-Mart. Going further, it argues that to pull this off, these companies hire former employees of the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service, the military and local law-enforcement. As Ruskin shows, these "security officials" are linked to infiltration, espionage, surveillance and other tactics that are intended to undermine ostensible threats posed by nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.
The two-headed security apparatus is nothing new in America. It traces its roots to the post-Civil War era, a period of industrialization, immigration and urbanization. Then, especially in both big cities and the recently settled West, the formal state was weak, law enforcement still being development. Thus, many private companies turned to private security efforts to resolve differences.
The tension - and increasing integration - of the state and the corporation has shaped the U.S. since the Civil War. The interlinking of public and private policing is the gravest threat to American democracy. The security state flourished during the anti-Communist, McCarthy '50 and again against anti-war and black activists during the ‘60s. It is now being implemented as the war against "terrorism."
Israeli Data Spies Have Eyes Focused on U.S. Citizens
November 26, 2013
By Keith Johnson
While the National Security Agency (NSA) spying scandal continues to grab national headlines, the equally egregious intelligence gathering on United States citizens by Israeli security firms has virtually flown under the radar.
A recent article in Rolling Stone magazine, entitled "Meet the Private Companies Helping Cops Spy on Protesters," comes close to scratching the surface by identifying the four major security contractors that have been aggressively hawking their invasive surveillance products at various trade shows and police conferences throughout the nation. However, they fail to mention that at least two of those companies are owned and operated by members of a foreign nation with a long and notorious history of spying on the U.S. government and its citizens.
Among them is NICE Systems, Ltd., an Israel-based company founded in 1986 by seven "Israeli ex-army colleagues." NICE's current CEO is Zeevi Bregman, who formerly helmed Comverse Technology, Inc., an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm that provides wiretapping equipment to U.S. law enforcement.
In 2001, Comverse was the subject of a Fox News investigation into Israeli spying, where it was alleged "that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties. Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50% of its research and development costs."
More recently, Comverse subsidiary Verint Systems, Inc. has been linked to the current NSA spy scandal. AMERICAN FREE PRESS has previously reported on how the company was hired by the feds to wiretap U.S. telecommunications networks and even offered back-door access to major U.S. technology companies like Facebook, Microsoft and Google.
Bregman now oversees NICE Systems projects that are just as intrusive. One product marketed to law enforcement is "NiceTrack Target 360°," an intelligence gathering tool that collects and monitors the activities of persons targeted in surveillance operations. According to their brochure, "The solutions retrieve target location, relations and conversation content from any type of communication including telephony, IP and satellite, resulting in a multi-dimensional intelligence picture."
Nice Systems also provides a suite of video surveillance products that monitors street activity 24/7 and alerts law enforcement of potential disruptions. In a promotional video for the "NICE Security Portfolio," a group of protestors are depicted as posing a "security risk" by demonstrating in a city center. The fictitious activists are shown chanting slogans and hoisting signs that read "No More" and "Stop It Now" as the narrator explains how a variety of NICE Systems products can be used to help mitigate the "situation." The narrator concludes by saying, "The entire event is then reconstructed on a chronological timeline, based on all multimedia sources," to help "managers evaluate and understand trends and prepare for, predict and even prevent the next event."
According to foreign trade portal Israel Gateway, NICE Systems products are already being used at the Statue of Liberty and the New Jersey Transit System.
A spokeswoman for NICE declined to provide Rolling Stone with specific clients, but said "Thousands of customers worldwide" use their products, including "law enforcement and other government agencies."
A quick review of NICE's website however, reveals some high-profile "leading customers" the Jewish firm has accumulated, including:
• Air France
• Beijing Metro
• Bank of Tokyo
• American Airlines
• Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'l Airport
• Mitsubishi UFJ
• American Express
• Eiffel Tower
• India Parliament House
• Miami-Dade Police Department
• NJ Transit
• New York Police Department
• Port of Miami
• Belgian Railways
• Shanghai Pudong Int'l Airport
• Washington Mutual
• Statue of Liberty
The other Israeli-owned security firm referenced in Rolling Stone is 3i-MIND, which is profiled in the below article. 3i-MIND's founder and CEO is Israeli-born billionaire Mati Kochavi, who also owns AGT International, a security firm managed by a team of retired Israeli generals and Mossad agents, according to an article in Le Figaro.
Though AGT has only been in business since 2007, it has already secured $8B in contracts and has become a leading supplier of surveillance technologies to the governments of India, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and others.
In 2010, AGT entered into a strategic partnership with Microsoft as an initial foray into the U.S. security market. According to a press release, the two companies plan to "provide government homeland security and corporate customers with complete solutions" in a shared "belief that the benefits of globalization for the world economy need to be accompanied by in-built sophisticated security technology."
More recently, AGT's Kochavi has ventured into the realm of journalism by launching a digital news website called Vocativ, which produces pro-Israel news content targeted at the young adult demographic. According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, Kochavi "has organized his newsroom along the lines of an intelligence agency in the belief that journalism needs to undergo the same transformation that's already swept the field of spycraft."
Although Kochavi wants his staff and clients to enjoy full-spectrum intelligence gathering capabilities, he doesn't believe the general public should be afforded the same. In 2011, Kochavi and former President Bill Clinton appeared together in a CNBC interview to push for the creation of a regulatory agency that would prevent "misinformation and rumors" from being spread over the Internet.
"Why can't we have a credibility bar near every resultive search," Kochavi asked. "When we buy food we have ingredients on the food. When we go to see a movie we have ratings."
It's certain that if Kochavi had his way, real news organizations like AMERICAN FREE PRESS would be given a "zero" credibility rating.
Israeli security companies like AGT and NICE Systems can only survive if their sordid pasts are concealed from public scrutiny. And that's precisely why AFP will continue to expose them at every opportunity.
Israeli Firm Peddling Technology to U.S. Cops to Spy on Dissenters
• Former members of Israeli intelligence work to help crush free speech
A multinational security firm with ties to Israeli intelligence is providing U.S. law enforcement with intrusive surveillance tools to spy on American citizens and track the movements of political activists.
According to the above-mentioned Rolling Stone article, for-hire intelligence group 3i-MIND has been found peddling their highly advanced data-mining system at various security trade shows and police conferences throughout the nation.
The product, marketed to law enforcement as "OpenMIND," scours the so-called "deep web"-that 80% of the Internet inaccessible to other search engines-for insights about upcoming demonstrations, identifies and collects information on political activists and monitors their activities in real-time.
"Your insight is distributed to the local police force warning them that the political rally may turn violent and potentially thwarting the violence before it occurs," says promotional material for the product on the 3i-MIND website.
Very little is revealed about 3i-MIND in the Rolling Stone article. They don't mention that its founder and CEO is Israeli-born billionaire Mati Kochavi, who made his fortune in real estate after serving as an intelligence operative for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
"Several years ago he became involved in the homeland security field, and this involvement increased after the September 11 attacks in 2001," reads a 2008 article from Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "He forged contacts within Israel's military establishment and began hiring high-ranking former officials in the field."
Kochavi's companies reportedly employ dozens of former IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet security service officials, including Major General Amos Malka, who headed Israel's Military Intelligence from 1998-2001.
This isn't the first time an Israeli-linked company has been implicated in spying on American activists exercising their First Amendment rights. In 2010, public outcry forced the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to end a contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response after it was discovered that the Jerusalem-based intelligence group used the Internet to spy on peaceful protestors and then generated misleading "terror bulletins" on their activities, which were in turn distributed to Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies.
If American citizens are upset that the federal government is eavesdropping on their communications, they should be more than outraged that proxies of an oppressive and untrustworthy foreign nation like Israel are helping their local police departments do the exact same thing
UN Academic Impact Joins CFR to Infiltrate U.S. Classrooms
November 23, 2013
Source: The New American
The United Nations is proud of the impact it is having on all levels of public and private education in the United States. On November 22, the UN News Centre [sic] issued the following announcement:
Created three years ago to actively support universally accepted principles in human rights, literacy, sustainability and conflict resolution, the United Nations initiative working with higher education institutions has marked its third anniversary by spotlighting efforts of students in the New York tri-state area making a difference locally and internationally.
According to the press release promoting its achievements, the UN's influence extends from high school to higher education, providing curriculum "to make students representing religious minorities feel more comfortable and connected with peers, to balance of power and gender equality."
The project is known as the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI).
What is the ultimate goal of the globalists' infiltration of the American classroom? The UN describes this initiative's agenda to be the aligning of "institutions of higher education with the UN to actively support universally accepted principles in human rights, literacy, sustainability and conflict resolution, among others."
Put another way - and judging from the list of speakers who addressed a recent conference hosted by the UNAI in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations - the goal of the "global classroom" is the spreading of the UN doctrines of population control, Agenda 21 sustainability, and the abandonment of traditional religious morals. The November 1 event began a series of quarterly "talks" known as CFR@UNAI where CFR and UN dignitaries will address students, teachers, and others on topics of "current interest." The first of these educational chats dealt with global health issues. One need only imagine that, given the identity of the speakers, the subject matter would include convincing impressionable schoolchildren of the need for greater population control, sustainability, and the reduction of human destruction of the planet.
One of the most potent weapon in the UN's war on education is a popular program known as the Global Classrooms.
In concert with its overall educational agenda, the UN Global Classrooms is being marketed as a way to inculcate students with the "valuable insight into the growing influence of globalization."
One prong of this pernicious attack on our sovereignty is known as the Model United Nations. As many parents will know, the Model United Nations is a program created by the UN to engage "middle school and high school students in an exploration of current world issues through interactive simulations and curricular materials. Global Classrooms cultivates literacy, life skills and the attitudes necessary for active citizenship."
Global citizenship, not American citizenship. If the two collide, there is little doubt which allegiance the UN would prefer our young people to declare. In 2008, the Model U.N. project was promoted in a statement made by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Los Angeles:
You are here to step into the shoes of UN Ambassadors - to draft resolutions, to plot strategy, to negotiate with your allies as well as your adversaries. Your goal may be to resolve a conflict, to cope with a natural disaster or to bring nations together on an issue like climate change. You may be playing a role, but you are also preparing for life. You are acting as global citizens.
Again, the emphasis is not on being good citizens of their home countries; instead, it is to diminish that concept in favor of the creation of global citizens who will see participation in worldwide government as their primary responsibility, regardless of national sovereignty or principles of national law.
The United Nations is proud of the proliferation of the Global Classroom program. On its website, it crows about the growth it is enjoying around the world:
Over the past decade, Global Classrooms has worked in 24 major cities around the world, helping bridge the gap in the Model UN community between experienced programs and traditionally underserved public schools or schools new to Model UN. Global Classrooms is distinguished by its teacher and student resources that develop critical thinking, conflict resolution and communication skills for middle and high school students.
A detached observer of this plan could see in it the potential for harm to the United Nations itself. Should students truly be trained to think critically, resolve conflicts, and communicate effectively, would they not be liable to see through the United Nations' propaganda and perhaps recognize the wisdom and virtue of our own Constitution and the writings of those who created our own government?
Naturally, the United Nations apparatchiks overseeing the Global Classroom/UN Academic Impact would be savvy to that possibility, as well, hence the emphasis placed on "global citizenship" and the prompting to use these skills to solve international crises.
Is it too farfetched to believe that these crises could include the resistance of the United States to the implementation of United Nations climate change resolutions? Or to the Arms Trade Treaty? Or to the Law of the Sea Treaty? Or to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Would the thousands of American students taught at the knee of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his corps of classroom czars be willing to use their academic tools to dismantle the Constitution in favor of a more global-minded government? Will they come to share their overseers' opinion that the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate impediment to a peaceful, sustainable, equitable planet?
With those thoughts in mind, the number of American educators and students participating in the UN Global Classroom project is worrisome. Currently, students in school districts in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, Minneapolis, Miami, Boston, and Atlanta have active chapters of the United Nations Global Classroom operating in their schools. The participation of the school districts in Detroit and New Orleans was announced at a recent UN conference. The list of international partners is just as lengthy.
Of course, the resources needed to maintain these academic outposts of the United Nations don't come cheap. The list of global corporate partners that support this project is impressive and not at all surprising to those familiar with the close connection between big business and the push toward one world government.
Among others, the following enterprises have "generously supported" the spread of United Nations doctrine and devotion in the classrooms of the United States:
Merrill Lynch/Bank of America Corporate Philanthropy;
Goldman Sachs Foundation;
The New York Times Company Foundation;
The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation;
United Parcel Service (UPS); and
The United States State Department.
Last year at the annual United Nations Association Leadership Conference, Esther Brimmer, the Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, praised the UN Global Classroom team for its "terrific work" in helping American children learn about the "positive story of the UN's vital work worldwide."
Don't think for a minute that the powers that be at the United Nations don't appreciate the ability of these young people to push the plan along.
Speaking at the Model UN/Global Classroom conference in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon took the opportunity to educate students about "sustainability" and the other tenets of Agenda 21 that were presented at the Rio+20. He told the students: "Time is tight. In about four weeks, five days, 14 hours and 50 minutes, we will open the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The truth is: I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough."
Finally, Ban Ki-moon gave the students his list of three things he would like to see accomplished at the Rio+20 meetings and how they could help:
1. Inspire new thinking: "the old economic model is breaking down" said Ban. He called for businesses to put an emphasis on a "triple bottom line" that includes social environment and economic instead of just profit.
2. Make Rio about people. Teach people that sustainable development "offers concrete hope for real improvements in daily lives." He also called for a greater voice for women and young people saying that "women should be empowered as engines of economic dynamism and social development."
3. Issue a "waste not" call to action: "Mother Earth has been kind to us. Let humanity reciprocate by respecting her natural boundaries," said Ban as he called for better protection of our air, water and forests and the improvement of the quality of life in our cities.
The United Nations will not be deterred in its quest to convince our children of their responsibility to protect their "Mother Earth" from the evils of humanity. The priority now is to sound this anti-American screed in the ears of every American child while they sit captive in our country's classrooms. As the website explains:
The popularity of U.N. classroom projects in U.S. has grown steadily at both the high school and middle schools levels. With the expansion of the Global Classrooms program over the last decade, and the UNAI, the UNA-USA brings the experience to an increasing number of public schools and their students.
The United Nations' drive to train our children to be better "global citizens" - to bring Common Core to every classroom in the world - is accelerating and may soon come to a school district near you.The TSA Precheck Program Is Another Government Sanctioned Fraud
November 21, 2013
Source: Lee Rogers, Blacklisted News
The TSA precheck system which has been sold to the public as a way for people to bypass body scanners and government sanctioned molestations is another fraud. Even if you go through the process of signing up to be eligible to go through TSA precheck security lines there is nothing to stop the TSA from randomly taking you out of a precheck line and forcing you through a body scanner. Here's the fine print located on the TSA's own web site.
What it fails to mention is that the only terrorists in U.S. airports these days are the ones wearing blue uniforms with the letters TSA on them. The TSA has yet to stop any so-called terrorist attacks throughout its entire existence. In fact they are the one's doing all of the terrorizing considering the countless horror stories that travellers have reported in dealing with them over the years. Not only that but nearly every so-called domestic terrorist attack has either been staged or has been a manufactured operation by the FBI.
I was already aware of the TSA precheck caveat but since I have to fly for work semi-frequently I decided to sign up anyway to see if it was actually worthwhile. I signed up for the Global Entry program which automatically makes you eligible to go through TSA precheck security lines. I figured that by doing this I'd be able to avoid the body scanners most of the times I fly and my chances of being randomly selected for additional screening would probably be low.
The European Union has forbid the use of the body scanners currently in use around U.S. airports because they could potentially subject the public to health and safety problems. There are also many other questions surrounding the safety of these devices which is why when I fly I choose not to go through them. As disgusting as the grope downs are, it is a preferable alternative to being radiated by the body scanner machines. Nobody really knows how much radiation these machines are pumping into our bodies and I sure as hell am not going to trust the companies which make these body scanners to provide accurate answers. After all, the criminal Zionist Jew and dual Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff was involved with Rapiscan one of the manufacturers of these devices. With that said, you'll have to forgive me if I don't place a whole lot of trust in the companies that make these products.
I also figured that since I've been incredibly vocal about my hatred of the federal government and their insane policies for the past seven years, that these clowns probably already knew most everything about me any way. So giving them my information at this point is inconsequential. Besides, it is now a widely accepted fact that the NSA has illegally collected an untold amount of data and information on us. There's little doubt that they already have extensive dossiers on the most outspoken critics of the federal government.
After paying a $100 processing fee and providing a bunch of personal information I scheduled the required interview at Boston's Logan International Airport. The interviewing agent was skeptical about a previous arrest I didn't report on the form based on a misunderstanding of what they were asking for on the application. Apparently it is OK for the government to lie endlessly about everything they do but god forbid if they think you aren't being 100% truthful when filling out a government form. The hypocritical double standard is beyond belief but that's par for course when dealing with the federal government. Besides this small snafu the process went smoothly and they accepted me into the program as I met all of the qualifying standards.
The first time I went through a TSA precheck line was when I was flying back from Denver after a week of hiking in the Rocky Mountains. Things actually went smoothly and it was basically like airport security before the 9/11 attacks. You didn't have to take your laptop out of your bag, you didn't have to take your shoes off and you could just go through a metal detector. At least these procedures are reasonable unlike the current farce that is in place with the regular security lines in which every air traveller is treated like a prisoner.
Things didn't go quite as smoothly when I flew out of Boston overseas to London a few weeks ago. I was waiting in the TSA precheck line and one of the TSA goons randomly selected me to go through a second line which only had a body scanner. Needless to say this really pissed me off. The only reason I signed up to be eligible for the TSA precheck lines was so I could avoid the radiation machines and not have to get my groin groped just to board an aircraft. Of course only the second time I go through a precheck line they want to put me through a body scanner. I don't necessarily believe that this was a conspiracy of some kind but I still thought it was a bunch of bull shit. After objecting to this angrily they still would not allow me back in the regular precheck line. Of course if I didn't go through the body scanner line than they told me that they would view that as me refusing security.
Once I got to the body scanner I refused to go through it and was subjected to the standard government mandated molestation. I told them that their policies were for the purpose of enslaving the general population and that the war on terror was bull shit. My rantings were loud enough where I had nearly every person in the security area staring at me like I was some sort of mad man for protesting what is obviously a completely bull shit policy. It just goes to show you what a bunch of god damn zombies everybody is. If everybody protested this shit than the TSA would be forced to modify these policies. Instead, everybody just accepts all of this like it is normal which is why the policies continue. Even the TSA thugs seemed surprised that somebody was questioning them. It is obvious that none of these people have any concept of what the Fourth Amendment is because what they are doing does not constitute a reasonable search of any kind.
During my rant they threatened to have me removed from precheck eligibility which didn't matter to me all that much because the purpose of having it was already defeated. Finally after they were confident enough that I didn't have a bomb jammed up my asshole they let me through the checkpoint. They told me I could file a complaint which is a joke since complaints directed towards any federal government agency always fall on deaf ears. After all, look at the criminal scum we have occupying positions of powers in Washington DC. It is nothing more than a gaggle of traitors who should be charged and convicted of high crimes and treason. A lot of them are lucky that they aren't being strung up on traffic lights by their necks.
I think my experience proves that the TSA precheck program is just another fraud courtesy of the federal government. If you pay the $100 processing fee, go in person for an interview and voluntarily submit information about yourself there is no reason why you should be randomly subjected to this type of shit. The fact that I was subjected to additional screening only the second time I went through a precheck line is ridiculous. These policies are counterproductive and will only create a larger amount of people who will seek retribution against the government. It is literally designed to create enemies who can than later be demonized as terrorists.
It should be interesting to see if these clowns randomly select me for additional screening the next time I fly and go through a precheck line. If they do than I will assume that they have done this intentionally. After opting out of the body scanner perhaps I'll just have an accidental bladder discharge in my pants. We'll see how eager they are to inspect my crotch for an explosive device after that.
In closing, there is no doubt that the TSA is one of the biggest jokes in America and you should feel far less safe with these government goon squads manning security checkpoints. The federal government has put terrorists in charge of airport security and it doesn't look as if the status quo will change anytime soon.
Judge Orders Homeland Security to Release Details for Shutting Down Wireless Networks
November 21, 2013
Source: All Gov.
The federal government must release documents explaining how, when and why it might decide to shut down the nation's wireless networks because of a "national crisis," U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled last week. His ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) against the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) in February 2013.
EPIC filed its FOIA request with DHS in July 2012, asking for the full text of Standard Operating Procedure 303, a document approved in March 2006 by the National Communications System (now the Office of Emergency Communications) that codifies "a shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crises", but was never released to the public. EPIC also requested the text of the pre-determined "series of questions" that determines if a shutdown is necessary and other supporting documents.
Dissatisfied with DHS's claim in August 2012 that the agency was "unable to locate or identify any responsive records," EPIC filed its suit in February, only to learn that an administrative law judge had ruled that DHS had not made an adequate search and ordered them to do so. That search turned up the text of SOP 303, which DHS released in heavily redacted form. DHS claimed the redactions were made under FOIA Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), which permit withholding of law-enforcement information if it would "disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" or "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."
EPIC challenged the applicability of those exemptions and won. Judge Boasberg ruled that Exemption 7(E) did not apply because SOP 303 is not an investigatory or prosecution technique, and that 7(F) was not appropriate because DHS could not identify which individuals' life or safety was supposedly being endangered.
Boasberg added that the Government's only recourse-aside from an appeal to the D.C. Circuit-is to get Congress to change the FOIA. The judge ordered DHS to release SOP 303 within 30 days.
Secret TPP Negotiations Resume in Salt Lake City
November 20, 2013
The newest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations begin today in Salt Lake City, Utah, where trade representatives will work towards finalizing the text of this sprawling secret agreement. Last week's publication of thecontroversial "Intellectual Property" chapter by Wikileaks confirmed our worst fears: the TPP carries draconian copyright enforcement provisions that threaten users' rights and could stifle innovation well into the 21st Century. Public opposition to the TPP continues to grow as a result of the leaked document; an opaque policymaking process that seems geared towards appeasing Big Content does not provide much in the way of legitimacy.
In the past week, 23 Republicans and 151 Democrats in the House of Representatives wrote letters to the Obama administration indicating their unwillingness to comply with the Executive's request for power to fast-track trade agreements through Congress. Fast-track authority, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, limits congressional approval over trade agreements to a yes or no, up or down vote. If a bill granting fast-track were to pass, hearings would become extremely limited, and lawmakers would have no ability to make amendments. It would give the Obama administration unchecked power to shape TPP and other agreements like the EU-U.S. trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).
There are some Congress members who are actively pushing for fast-track and are vowing to introduce legislation to enact it by 2014. Thankfully, these letters from the House show the White House is going to have difficulty in finding support in Congress to pass such a bill. Still, the Obama administration is going to push hard for the passage of fast-track. The U.S. trade office is negotiating TPP as if it already has fast-track authority, by deciding for itself which countries to negotiate with and what issues are on the table.
Without fast-track, it's inconceivable that the TPP would survive congressional debate. And that's the point of all of this secrecy: the TPP's myriad harmful provisions for users wouldn't survive the sunlight of transparency, so it's being negotiated in the dark. And since negotiators only get to hear corporations' concerns while drafting these policies, it only makes sense that its agenda would exclude users' interests.
So we need to demand that our lawmakers oppose fast-track. Let's ask them to call for a hearing and exercise their authority to oversee the U.S. trade office's secret copyright agenda.
TPP: NAFTA on Steroids
November 19, 2013
Source: Stephen Lendman
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat.
It's a giveaway to banksters. It's a global neoliberal ripoff. It's a business empowering Trojan horse. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls it "a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement."
More on TPP below. New York Times editors support it. Two decades ago, they endorsed NAFTA.
On January 1, 1994, its destructive life began. It's anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-consumer and anti-democratic.
Corporate giants love it. Why not? They wrote it. Hundreds of pages of one-size-fits-all rules benefit them.
They override domestic laws. A race to the bottom followed. NAFTA was a disastrous experiment. In November 1993, New York editors headlined "The 'Great Debate' Over NAFTA," saying:
"The laboriously constructed agreement to phase out trade barriers among the US, Mexico and Canada, which this page has strongly supported, is likely to have a positive, though small, impact on US living standards and provide a modest boost to the Mexican economy."
"Some American jobs would be lost to cheaper Mexican labor, other jobs would be gained because American exports would increase as Mexico's high tariffs gradually disappeared."
"Economics aside, Nafta's defeat would suggest that the US had abandoned its historical commitment to free trade and would thus discourage other Latin and South American countries thathave moved toward more market-oriented economies in the expectation of freer world trade."
So-called "free trade" is one-sided. It isn't fair. NAFTA proponents promised tens of thousands of newly created US jobs.
Ordinary famers would export their way to wealth. Mexican living standards would rise. Economic opportunities would reduce regional immigration to America.
NAFTA's promises never materialized. Reality proved polar opposite hype. A decade later, about a million US jobs were lost.
America's Mexican trade deficit alone cost around 700,000 jobs by 2010.
Official government data show nearly five million US manufacturing disappeared since 1994.
NAFTA alone wasn't responsible. It reflected broken promises, lost futures, and other trade deals from hell to follow. TPP stands out. It's NAFTA on steroids.
Since 2008, multiple negotiating rounds were held. They continue secretly. Twelve nations are involved.
They include America, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Others are invited to join.
At issue is agreeing on unrestricted trade in goods, services, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers, government procurement and competition policies, and intellectual property (IP).
It's about eliminating fundamental freedoms. It's circumventing sovereign independent rights. Corporate power brokers want unchallenged control.
They want global rules and standards rewritten. They want supranational powers. They want them overriding national sovereignty. They want investor rights prioritized over public ones.
They already rule the world. Imagine giving them more power. Imagine no way to stop them.
Imagine a duplicitous president. Obama's in lockstep with their wish list. He intends giving them everything they want.
Public Citizen is independent. It's our voice. Its work entails "ensur(ing) that all citizens are represented in the halls of power."
Its Global Trade Watch (GTW) monitors TPP developments. It calls it "a stealthy policy being pressed by corporate America. (It's) a dream of the 1%." It'll:
• "offshore millions of American jobs,
• free the banksters from oversight,
• ban Buy America policies needed to create green (and many other) jobs (as well as) rebuild out economy,
• decrease access to medicine,
• flood the US with unsafe food and products,
• and empower corporations to attack our environment and health safeguards."
Hyped benefits are fake. Reality is polar opposite what corporate shysters claim. Everything accruing from TPP benefits them. It does so by undermining what matters most to ordinary people.
Lori Wallach heads GTW. Ben Beachy is research director. Last June, they headlined their New York Times op-ed"Obama's Covert Trade Deal."
He's committed to open government, he claims. His policies reflect otherwise. He's negotiating TPP secretly.
It's "the most significant international commercial agreement since the" World Trade Organization's 1995 creation, said Wallach and Beachy.
Congress has exclusive "terms of trade" authority. Obama systematically refuses repeated congressional requests to release the entire draft agreement being negotiated.
He "denied requests from members to attend (sessions) as observers." He "revers(ed) past practice" snubbing them.
He "rejected demands by outside groups" to release the draft text. George Bush never went that far.
Obama's "wall of secrecy" had one exception. About "600 trade 'advisors,' dominated by representatives of big business," got access to what Congress was denied.
TPP overrides American laws. It requires changing them. Otherwise trade sanctions on US exports can be imposed.
Wall Street loves TPP. It prohibits banning risky financial products. It lets banksters operate any way they want without oversight.
Congress has final say. Both houses will vote on TPP. Ahead of doing so, they'll have access to its full text.
Why later? Why not now? Why not earlier? Why not without enough time for discussion and public debate?
Members won't get enough time to examine TPP carefully. Maintaining secrecy as long as possible prevents public debate.
Obama wants TPP fast-tracked. He wants it approved by yearend. Until March, Ron Kirk was Obama's trade representative.
He was remarkably candid. He said revealing TPP's text would raise enormous opposition. Doing so might make adopting it impossible.
According to Wallach and Beachy:
"Whatever one thinks about 'free trade,' (TPP secrecy) represents a huge assault on the principles and practice of democratic governance."
"That is untenable in the age of transparency, especially coming from an administration that is otherwise so quick to trumpet its commitment to open government."
On October 30, a newly formed Friends of TPP caucus was formed. Four House co-chairman head it. They include Reps. David Reichert (R. WA), Charles Boustany (R. LA), Ron Kind (D. WI) and Gregory Meeks (D. NY).
They sound like earlier NAFTA supporters. They claim TPP is important for US jobs, exports and economic growth. They lied saying so.
Wallach commented separately. TPP is hugely hugely destructive, she said. It's more than about trade. It's a "corporate Trojan horse." It has 29 chapters. Only five relate to trade.
The others "either handcuff our domestic governments, limit food safety, environmental standards, financial regulation, energy and climate policy, or establish new powers for corporations."
They promote offshoring jobs to low-wage countries. They ban Buy America. Corporations can do whatever they please. Instead of investing domestically, they can use "our tax dollars" to operate abroad.
They can exploit national resources freely. They'll have "rights for min(ed) (commodities), oil, gas" and others "without approval."
TPP includes all sorts of "worrisome issues relating to Internet freedom."
It provides a back door to earlier failed legislation. It resurrects SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA provisions. It tramples on fundamental freedoms and national sovereignty.
"Think about all the things that would be really hard to get into effect as a corporation in public, a lot of them rejected here and in the other 11 countries, and that is what's bundled in to the TPP," said Wallach.
"And every country would be required to change its laws domestically to meet these rules."
"The binding provision is each country shall ensure the conformity of domestic laws, regulations and procedures."
Negotiations are secret. Nothing is discussed publicly. Details leaked out. TPP includes hugely unpopular policies. It forces them on member countries.
It overrides domestic laws protecting people and ecosystems. It's predatory capitalism at its worst writ large. Obama fully supports it. Lawmakers hadn't seen it until last year.
They got access to a single chapter. Examining it is severely restricted. Their office is denied a copy. They alone can read it. Their staff is denied permission.
They can't take detailed notes. They can't publicly discuss what's in it. Technical language makes it hard to understand what they read.
Congressional approval is likely. Lobby pressure is intense. "Everything is bought and sold," said Wallach. "Honor is no exception."
The reason there's no deal so far "is because a lot of other countries are standing up to the worst of US corporate demands," Wallach explained.
For how long remains to be seen. If TPP is adopted, public interest no longer will matter. The worst of all possible worlds will replace it. Corporate rights will supersede human ones. A global race to the bottom will intensify.
Signatory countries will be legally bound to support loss of personal freedoms. Sovereign laws won't protect against poisoned food, water and air.
Ecosystems will be destroyed. Millions more jobs will shift from developed to under or less developed nations.
Corporate power will grow more exponentially. Fundamental human and civil rights may erode altogether. Not according to Times editors.
On November 5, they headlined "A Pacific Trade Deal."
A dozen nations want a deal by yearend, they said. They want it to "help all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and several important Asian allies."
It bears repeating. TPP is a trade deal from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d'etat. It's a freedom and ecosystem destroying nightmare. Times editors didn't explain.
They lied to readers. They betrayed them. They repeated their 1993 duplicity. Millions affected understand best.
An October 8 White House press release lied. It called TPP "a comprehensive, next-generation model for addressing both new and traditional trade and investment issues, supporting the creation and retention of jobs and promoting economic development in our countries."
"The deepest and broadest possible liberalization of trade and investment will ensure the greatest benefits for countries' large and small manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers, as well as workers, innovators, investors, and consumers."
Times editors endorsed what they haven't read. TPP provisions remain secret. Leaked information alone is known.
Times editors willingly accept Obama misinformation as fact. Twenty years ago, they got NAFTA wrong. Here they go again.
They're mindless about secret negotiations. Public concerns don't matter. Corporate interests alone count.
Subverting national sovereignty is OK. So is empowering transnational giants without oversight. They'll be able sue countries for potentially undermining future profits.
Times editors support the worst of corporate excess. Doing so shows which side they're on.
Fundamental freedoms aren't important. Corporate rights drive The Times' agenda. Its editors explained nothing about fast-track authority.
Max Baucus (D. MT) chairs the Senate Finance Committee. He supports fast-tracking. Doing so hands congressional authority to Obama.
Proper hearings are restricted. Debate is limited. Amendments can't be introduced. The Senate can't filibuster. Congress can only vote up or down.
It can happen virtually out of sight and mind. It can happen with scant media coverage. It can happen with none at all. It can become law with practically no public awareness.
Imagine corporate America getting coup d'etat authority with hardly anyone knowing what happened. Imagine the consequences if it does. Imagine today's America becoming worse than ever.
Times editors stressed how Obama wants TPP to be "an example for the rest of the world to follow."
Imagine one more than ever unfit to live in. Imagine a president promising change to believe in promoting it.
Imagine Times editors endorsing what demands condemnation. Imagine not explaining what readers most need to know.
Imagine substituting misinformation for truth and full disclosure. Imagine all the news they call fit to print not fit to read.
A Final Comment
On November 13, Public Citizen headlined "Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks."
"US Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad."
TPP's leaked text reveals Obama demands limiting Internet freedom. He wants restricted access to lifesaving medicines.
He wants all TPP signatory countries bound the the same deplorable rules.
He lied claiming TPP reduces health care costs. It has nothing to do with advancing online freedom as he promised. It's polar opposite on both counts.
According to Public Citizen:
"It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the US government is isolated and has lost this debate."
"Our partners don't want to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures either."
Obama's in the pocket of Big Pharma. He's a Wall Street tool. He represents other corporate interests. He spurns popular ones. He lies claiming otherwise. He repeatedly avoids truth and full disclosure.
He lied about Obamacare. It's an abomination. It's a scam. It's a scheme to enrich insurers and other healthcare giants.
TPP is a global scam. It's an assault on fundamental freedoms.
Reports indicate around half the House members strongly oppose it. Others lean that way. According to Lori Wallach:
"This could be the end of TPP."
"All these other countries are like, 'Wait, you have no trade authority and nothing you've promised us means anything. Why would we give you our best deal?' Why would you be making concessions to the emperor who has no clothes?"
It bears repeating. TPP is a trade bill from hell. It's a stealth corporate coup d' etat. Killing it is essential.
The alternative is losing fundamental freedoms. It's destroying national sovereignty. It's making healthcare less affordable. It's undermining what ordinary people value most.
TSA Rolls Out ‘Detention Pods' at Airport Terminal Exits
Making you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave
Paul Joseph Watson
November 18, 2013
The TSA is funding the rollout of exit pods at major airport terminals across the country that temporarily detain passengers before they are allowed to leave, another example critics say of how the federal agency's policies treat travelers as prisoners.
Travelers are forced to be bottlenecked through the pods as they leave the airport terminal. A robotic voice gives instructions to wait inside the pod until a green light is shown and the door opens.
The pods have already been installed at Syracuse International Airport as part of a $60 million dollar renovation and are likely to make their way into other major airports soon. Once travelers exit the pods, they are unable to re-enter the terminal.
Some of the passengers exiting through the pods at Syracuse thought the machines were performing x-ray body scans, according to CNY Central.
"It was odd, I was like - where did they come up with this?" asked Patricia Goodrich.
"We need to be vigilant and maintain high security protocol at all times. These portals were designed and approved by TSA which is important," said Syracuse Airport Commissioner Christina Callahan.
The justification for installing the pods is that they replace police or security guards who would normally stand at the exit, therefore saving money, something which the TSA isn't normally concerned about given how it is now selling abandoned naked body scanners to prisons for 10 per cent of their value.
According to Karen De Coster, the pods are a way "to remind you that you are a captive" and are "meant to make you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave."
The prison inmate feel of the devices compliments numerous other TSA policies which critics have charged serve little other purpose than making travelers feel like they are under constant suspicion.
Last week, a Government Accountability Office investigation revealed that the TSA's $1 billion dollar "chat down" program has been a complete failure in that it is "no better than chance" at identifying genuine security threats.
While threatening to arrest passengers who make jokes about airport security, the federal agency has also instituted a ludicrous "freeze" policy whereby travelers are ordered to stand in place like statues while TSA agents resolve some unexplained security threat.
Another policy that has provoked questions is the TSA's random testing of passengers' drinks for explosives after they have already passed through security and purchased beverages inside the secure area of the airport.DHS Creates New Fusion Centers, Taking Control of Local Police
November 14, 2013
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D.
The New American
As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) doles out billions of dollars to convince local police departments to surrender control to the federal agency, a recent report indicates that intelligence gathered at precincts-cum-surveillance-centers will be shared among all levels of law enforcement.
An article published by Fierce Homeland Security on November 4 reports:
The phenomenon of fusion centers sharing intelligence and skills with each other - not just with the federal government - is a new and underappreciated aspect of the centers, panelists at a Homeland Security Policy Institute event said.
Fusion centers mainly apply national intelligence to local contexts and gather information locally that they can share with federal agencies. But in recent years, a great deal of "horizontal sharing" has occurred, where fusion centers work closely with each other, said Ross Ashley, the executive director of National Fusion Center Association.
"We'll find an expert in Washington state on international human trafficking over international ferry systems. Well, I don't need that expert everywhere. What I need is the ability to reach out to that expert if I'm in West Virginia," he said at the event, held Oct. 23 in Washington, D.C.
That meeting, entitled "State and Local Fusion Centers: Key Challenges for the Next Decade," featured three panelists: John Cohen, principal deputy under secretary for intelligence and analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Thomas Kirk, director, West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center; and Ross Ashley, executive director, National Fusion Center Association. The keynote address was delivered by Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
In July, McCaul co-authored with Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) a report on the progress of the establishment of the nationwide spread of the fusion centers. The press release announcing the report reveals the pair's support for a program that dismantles federalism and accelerates the militarization of local police and the consolidation of control of those departments to the federal government.
The McCaul-King report states:
Fusion centers serve as hubs of strategic analysis and information sharing where Federal, State, and local agencies are all represented in one location. State and local crime data is coordinated, gathered and reviewed to determine if there is any potential connection to terrorist activity. In addition, Federal terrorism-related information is shared with State and local law enforcement.
Seems the congressmen should be reminded of the fact that there is not a single syllable of the Constitution authorizing any such federal participation in law enforcement. If the power isn't granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then authority over that area remains with the states and the people as described in the Tenth Amendment.
Remarkably, McCaul and King lament the fact that the chain of fusion centers isn't growing quickly enough and the DHS isn't getting adequate access to all that information.
The report adds:
The Committee's review concludes that the Network is not functioning as cohesively as it should be and fusion centers are facing numerous challenges that prevent the Network from realizing its full potential to help secure the homeland.
Of course, there couldn't be a piece of federal police and surveillance program propaganda without reminding citizens that all this deprivation of their rights is for their safety. As if to say, if the federal government doesn't take control of your local police department and keep all citizens under surveillance, the terrorists will strike again.
The representatives' zeal for constructing local outposts of the central surveillance headquarters is not surprising. Self-serving bureaucrats inside the U.S. government are tirelessly trying to obliterate local police forces answerable to local citizens and promote the consolidation movement as a step toward federalization of law enforcement. These proponents of regional and national police forces desire nothing less than the eradication of all local police departments and sheriffs' offices, the surrender of state and municipal sovereignty, and the conversion of police into federal security agents sworn not to protect and to serve their neighbors, but to protect the prerogatives of politicians.
Take for example the information contained in a White Paper presented in 2012 to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In that report, the DHS is encouraged to embark on an "evolving mission" away from its ostensible purpose of fighting terrorism, toward becoming the administrator of an enormous domestic intelligence agency resulting from an integration of the country's local and state law-enforcement agencies.
This report was written by the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group, co-chaired by former DHS chief Michael Chertoff. The blueprint promoted in the White Paper pushes Congress toward green-lighting the growth of DHS and the dissolution of local police and sheriffs.
The organization described in the paper, entitled "Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission," is reminiscent of more draconian governments. For example, one section of the report calls for a transition in the mission of DHS away from protecting the country from the "terrorism" of foreign militants and toward "more specific homeward focused areas." Additional sections of the report lay out the plans for building a DHS/police hybrid agency that can monitor Americans in any town and prevent threats from fellow citizens.
In order to achieve their ultimate aim, the globalists demand that DHS or some other federal agency take control of the personnel decisions currently made by local police chiefs and county sheriffs. "As the threat grows more localized," the report claims, "the federal government's need to train, and even staff, local agencies, such as major city police departments, will grow." Put another way: The federal government will run your local police department and sheriff's office.
The establishment of fusion centers is a key component of this plan. The following information is taken from a fact sheet on fusion centers posted on the DHS website:
A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.
A description of the functioning of these incubators for the forthcoming federal police force is also provided on the DHS site:
State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as primary focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners.... Fusion centers conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing, assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism.
The literature promoting the acceptance of fusion centers lists several ways the new federal agency will impose its will on the formerly autonomous and accountable police chief or county sheriff.
Last year, The New American described the likely procedure:
First, the feds will decide where and when to deploy local police department personnel. The chief, if he still exists, will be no more than a functionary required to make sure that the orders of the federal government are carried out. More likely than not, these new missions, in addition to preventing crime in the city or county, will engage in the collection of information about and apprehension of those local citizens identified by a committee in Washington as posing a threat to national security. Consider the revelation in 2009 that Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a document entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalism and Recruitment," which listed war veterans, anti-abortion activists, small-government advocates, and those concerned about immigration as terrorist risks.
Second, DHS (or whichever one of the federal agencies eventually takes over law-enforcement duties) will train new recruits. Policies, procedures, and purposes will not reflect traditional (and constitutional) goals of law enforcement, but will be tailored to training officers to perform those duties associated with the new, national emphasis of the force, with a slant toward federalism.
Finally, funds for this conversion from local police department to outpost of the federal law-enforcement agency will be provided by the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. This carrot will be tied to the stick of federal control.
The speed and success of the Department of Homeland Security's plan to string together a powerful net of surveillance-focused fusion centers in all the country's police departments is evident in the following statement at the Homeland Security Policy Institute's meeting made by Thomas Kirk, director of the West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center:
"In all law enforcement, I've never seen anything like that," he said. "Most of the time when I call another fusion center director, they know my voice."
Federal Reserve Whistleblower Tells America The REAL Reason For Quantitative Easing
November 13, 2013
Source: Economic Collapse
A banker named Andrew Huszar that helped manage the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing program during 2009 and 2010 is publicly apologizing for what he has done. He says that quantitative easing has accomplished next to nothing for the average person on the street. Instead, he says that it has been "the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time." And of course the cold, hard economic numbers support what Huszar is saying. The percentage of working age Americans with a job has not improved at all during the quantitative easing era, and median household income has actually steadily declined during that time frame. Meanwhile, U.S. stock prices have doubled overall, and the stock prices of the big Wall Street banks have tripled. So who benefits from quantitative easing? It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, and now Andrew Huszar is blowing the whistle on the whole thing.
From 2009 to 2010, Huszar was responsible for managing the Fed's purchase of approximately $1.25 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities. At the time, he thought that it was a dream job, but now he is apologizing to the rest of the country for what happened...
I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.
When the first round of quantitative easing ended, Huszar says that it was incredibly obvious that QE had done very little to benefit average Americans but that it had been "an absolute coup for Wall Street"...
Trading for the first round of QE ended on March 31, 2010. The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank's bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn't just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They'd also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed's QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009, and 2010 was starting off in much the same way.
You'd think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE. Think again. Only a few months later-after a 14% drop in the U.S. stock market and renewed weakening in the banking sector-the Fed announced a new round of bond buying: QE2. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, immediately called the decision "clueless."
That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street.
Of course the fact that the Fed cannot think independently from Wall Street should not be a surprise to any of my regular readers. As I have written about repeatedly, the Federal Reserve was created by the Wall Street bankers for the benefit of the Wall Street bankers. When the Federal Reserve serves the interests of Wall Street, it is simply doing what it was designed to do. And according to Huszar, quantitative easing has been one giant "subsidy" for Wall Street banks...
Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.
But Huszar is certainly not the only one on Wall Street that acknowledges these things. For example, just check out what billionaire hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller told CNBC about quantitative easing...
"This is fantastic for every rich person," he said Thursday, a day after the Fed's stunning decision to delay tightening its monetary policy. "This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever."
"Who owns assets-the rich, the billionaires. You think Warren Buffett hates this stuff? You think I hate this stuff? I had a very good day yesterday."
Druckenmiller, whose net worth is estimated at more than $2 billion, said that the implication of the Fed's policy is that the rich will spend their wealth and create jobs-essentially betting on "trickle-down economics."
"I mean, maybe this trickle-down monetary policy that gives money to billionaires and hopefully we go spend it is going to work," he said. "But it hasn't worked for five years."
And Donald Trump said essentially the same thing when he made the following statement on CNBC about quantitative easing...
"People like me will benefit from this."
The American people are still being told that quantitative easing is "economic stimulus" which will make the lives of average Americans better.
That is a flat out lie and the folks over at the Federal Reserve know this.
In fact, a very interesting study conducted for the Bank of England shows that quantitative easing actually increases the gap between the wealthy and the poor...
It said that the Bank of England's policies of quantitative easing - similar to the Fed's - had benefited mainly the wealthy.
Specifically, it said that its QE program had boosted the value of stocks and bonds by 26 percent, or about $970 billion. It said that about 40 percent of those gains went to the richest 5 percent of British households.
Many said the BOE's easing added to social anger and unrest. Dhaval Joshi, of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it."
And this is exactly what has happened in the United States as well.
U.S. stocks have risen 108% while Barack Obama has been in the White House.
And who owns stocks?
The wealthy do. In fact, 82 percent of all individually held stocks are owned by the wealthiest 5 percent of all Americans.
Meanwhile, things have continued to get even tougher for ordinary Americans.
While Obama has been in the White House, the percentage of working age Americans with a job has declined from 60.6% to 58.3%, median household income has declined for five years in a row, and poverty has been absolutely exploding.
But the fact that it has been very good for Wall Street while doing essentially nothing for ordinary Americans is not the biggest problem with quantitative easing.
The biggest problem with quantitative easing is that it is destroying worldwide faith in the U.S. dollar and in the U.S. financial system.
The rest of the world is watching the Fed go crazy, and they are beginning to openly wonder why they should continue to use the U.S. dollar as the de facto reserve currency of the planet.
Right now, most global trade involves the use of U.S. dollars. In fact, far more U.S. dollars are actually used outside of the United States than are used inside the country. This creates a tremendous demand for U.S. dollars around the planet, and it keeps the value of the U.S. dollar at a level that is far higher than it otherwise would be.
If the rest of the world decides to start moving away from the U.S. dollar (and this is already starting to happen), then the demand for the U.S. dollar will fall and we will not be able to import oil from the Middle East and cheap plastic trinkets from China so inexpensively anymore.
In addition, major exporting nations such as China and Saudi Arabia end up with giant piles of U.S. dollars due to their trading activities. Instead of just sitting on all of that cash, they tend to reinvest much of it back into U.S. Treasury securities. This increases demand for U.S. debt and drives down interest rates.
If the Federal Reserve continues to wildly create money out of thin air with no end in sight, the rest of the world may decide to stop lending us trillions of dollars at ultra-low interest rates.
When we get to that point, it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the U.S. economy and the U.S. financial system. If you doubt this, just read this article.
The only way that the game can continue is for the rest of the world to continue to be irrational and to continue to ignore the reckless behavior of the Federal Reserve.
We desperately need the rest of the planet "to ignore the man behind the curtain". We desperately need them to keep using our dollars that are rapidly being devalued and to keep loaning us money at rates that are far below the real rate of inflation.
If the rest of the globe starts behaving rationally at some point, and they eventually will, then the game will be over.
Let us hope and pray that we still have a bit more time until that happens.US Airspace To Crawl With 7,500 Drones In 5 Years
November 10, 2013
The chief of the Federal Aviation Administration predicted Thursday that U.S. airspace could be crowded with as many as 7,500 commercial drones within the next five years. As The Washington Times reports, Michael Huerta said his agency would set up six sites across the country to test drone operators and, in an effort to balance privacy/safety with anarchic airspace drone pollution, he added, "we must fulfill those obligations in a thoughtful, careful manner that ensures safety and promotes economic growth, " as dangerous incidents involving drones have already taken place...
Although they are expected to be used for peaceful purposes such as firefighting and weather tracking - it's causing a lot of concern, as Huerta warns "we need to be responsive to public concerns about privacy."
You'll never notice it from the ground, but the skies above the US are crowded with roughly five thousand planes at any given moment. The daily total of movements, is up to a whopping 90,000. And dangerous incidents involving drones have already taken place there
Within the next five years, after appropriate regulations are introduced, whole 7,500 small UAVs will be operating in US airspace, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said at an aerospace news conference in Washington on Thursday.
Huerta outlined the ultimate goal of the American drone industry: global leadership that could enable the US to set standards for the industry worldwide.
"We recognize that the expanding use of unmanned aircraft presents great opportunities, but it's also true that integrating these aircraft presents significant challenges,"
Huerta shared some interesting statistics on who is using drones in the US the most. He mentioned that apart from synoptics, environmental specialists and educational institutions, there are about 80 law enforcement agencies that operate small size surveillance drones, with the FAA granting each of them public use waivers on a case-by-case basis.
"If we're going to take full advantage of the benefits that we're talking about from these technologies, we need to be responsive to public concerns about privacy," Huerta said.
Reportedly, not only the FAA, but also Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of justice are taking part in a multi-agency group that has also released a comprehensive plan accelerating integration of UAVs into US national airspace. All data gathered by the six test sites will go straight to that interagency group, Huerta said.
And focused on privacy...
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems, the leading trade group for the nation's private-sector drone operators, estimated this year that the commercial drone industry will create more than 100,000 jobs and generate more than $82 billion in economic impact over the next 10 years - if the government moves quickly to establish workable operating regulations and safeguards.
The impending boom has raised concerns among privacy advocates about how and where drones might be used to collect data. The FAA is requiring future test sites to develop privacy plans and make them available to the public. The policy also requires test site operators to disclose how data will be obtained and used.
"Make no mistake about it, privacy is an extremely important issue and it is something that the public has a significant interest and concern over and we need to recognize as an industry that if we are going to take full advantage of the benefits that we are talking about for these technologies we need to be responsive to the public's concerns about privacy," Mr. Huerta said.Is America Being Deliberately Pushed Toward Civil War?
November 8, 2013
Source: Brandon Smith of Alt-Market
In 2009, Jim Rickards, a lawyer, investment banker and adviser on capital markets to the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, participated in a secret war game sponsored by the Pentagon at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). The game's objective was to simulate and explore the potential outcomes and effects of a global financial war. At the end of the war game, the Pentagon concluded that the U.S. dollar was at extreme risk of devaluation and collapse in the near term, triggered either by a default of the U.S. Treasury and the dumping of bonds by foreign investors or by hyperinflation by the private Federal Reserve.
These revelations, later exposed by Rickards, were interesting not because they were "new" or "shocking." Rather, they were interesting because many of us in the field of alternative economics had ALREADY predicted the same outcome for the American financial system years before the APL decided to entertain the notion. At least, that is what the public record indicates.
The idea that our government has indeed run economic collapse scenarios, found the United States in mortal danger, and done absolutely nothing to fix the problem is bad enough. I have my doubts, however, that the Pentagon or partnered private think tanks like the RAND Corporation did not run scenarios on dollar collapse long before 2009. In fact, I believe there is much evidence to suggest that the military industrial complex has not only been aware of the fiscal weaknesses of the U.S. system for decades, but they have also been actively engaged in exploiting those weaknesses in order to manipulate the American public with fears of cultural catastrophe.
History teaches us that most economic crisis events are followed or preceded immediately by international or domestic conflict. War is the looming shadow behind nearly all fiscal disasters. I suspect that numerous corporate think tanks and the Department Of Defense are perfectly aware of this relationship and have war gamed such events as well. Internal strife and civil war are often natural side effects of economic despair within any population.
Has a second civil war been "gamed" by our government? And are Americans being swindled into fighting and killing each other while the banksters who created the mess observe at their leisure, waiting until the dust settles to return to the scene and collect their prize? Here are some examples of how both sides of the false left/right paradigm are being goaded into turning on each other.
Conservatives: Taunting The Resting Lion
Conservatives, especially Constitutional conservatives, are the warrior class of American society. The average conservative is far more likely to own a firearm, have extensive tactical training with that firearm, have military experience and have less psychological fear of conflict; and he is more apt to take independent physical action in the face of an immediate threat. Constitutional conservatives are also more likely to fight based on principal and heritage, rather than personal gain, and less likely to get wrapped up in the madness of mob activity.
What's the greatest weakness of conservatives? It's their tendency to entertain leadership by men who claim exceptional warrior status, even if those men are not necessarily honorable.
Constitutional conservatives are the most substantial existing threat to the establishment hierarchy because, unlike dissenting groups of the past, we know exactly who the guiding hand is behind economic and social calamity. In response, the overall conservative culture has come under relentless attack by the establishment using the Administration of Barack Obama as a middleman. The goal, I believe, is to misdirect conservative rage toward the Democratic left and away from the elites. The actions of the White House have become so absurd and so openly hostile as of late that I can only surmise that this is a deliberate strategy to lure conservatives into ill-conceived retaliation against a puppet government, rather than the men behind the curtain.
Department of Defense propaganda briefings with military personnel have been exposed. These briefings train current serving soldiers to view Tea Party conservatives and even Christian organizations as "dangerous extremists." Reports from sources within Fort Hood and Fort Shelby confirm this trend.
The DOD has denied some of the allegations or claimed that it has "corrected" the problem; however, Judicial Watch has obtained official training documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that affirm that extremist profiling is an integral part of these military briefings. The documents also cite none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a primary resource for the training classes. The SPLC is nothing more than an outsourced propaganda wing for the DHS that attacks Constitutional organizations and associates them with terrorist and racist groups on a regular basis. (Check pages 32-33.)
This indoctrination program has accelerated since January 2013, after Professor Arie Perliger, a member of a West Point think tank called Combating Terrorism Center (and according to the sparse biographical information available, a man with NO previous U.S. military experience), published and circulated a report called "Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far Right" at West Point. The report classified "far right extremists" as "domestic enemies" who commonly "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government , believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional right." The profile goes on to list supporting belief in "civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government" as the dastardly traits of evil extremists.
Soldiers have been told that associating with "far right extremist groups" could be used as grounds for court-martial. A general purge of associated symbolism has ensued, including new orders handed down to Navy SEALs that demand that operators remove the "Don't Tread On Me" Navy Jack patch from their uniforms.
The indoctrination of the military also follows on the heels of a massive media campaign to demonize Constitutional conservatives who fought against Obamacare in the latest debt ceiling debate as "domestic enemies" and "terrorists." I documented this in my recent article "Are Constitutional Conservatives Really the Boogeyman?"
Obama and his ilk have been caught red-handed in numerous conspiracies, including Fast and Furious, which shipped American arms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And how about the exposure of the IRS using its bureaucracy as a weapon to harass Tea Party organizations and activists? And what about Benghazi, Libya, the terrorist attack that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed to happen, if they didn't directly order it to happen? And let's not forget about the Edward Snowden revelations, which finally made Americans understand that mass surveillance of our population is a constant reality.
To add icing to the cake, a new book called Double Down, which chronicles the Obama campaign of 2012, quotes personal aides to the President who relate that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when discussing his use of drone strikes, bragged that he was "really good at killing people."
Now, my question is, why would the Obama Administration make so many "mistakes," attack conservatives with such a lack of subtlety, and attempt to openly propagandize rank-and-file soldiers, many of whom identify with conservative values? Is it all just insane hubris, or is he serving his handlers by trying to purposely create a volatile response?
Liberals: Taking Away The Cookie Jar
Many on the so-called "left" are socially oriented and find solace in the functions of the group, rather than individualism. They seek safety in administration, centralization and government welfare. Wealth is frowned upon, while "redistribution" of wealth is cheered. They see government as necessary to the daily survival of the nation, and they work to expand Federal influence into all facets of life. Some liberals do this out of a desire to elevate the poverty-stricken and ensure certain educational standards. However, they tend to ignore the homogenizing effect this strategy has on society, making everyone equally destitute and equally stupid. Their faith in government subsidies also makes them vulnerable to funding cuts and reductions in entitlements. The left normally fights only when their standard of living and comfort to which they have grown accustomed plummets below a certain threshold, and mob methods are usually their fallback form of retaliation.
Austerity cuts, which the mainstream media calls the "sequester," are beginning to take effect. But, they are being applied in areas that are clearly meant to create the most public anger. Reductions in welfare programs are also being implemented in a way that will certainly agitate average left-leaning citizens. The debt debate itself revolved around those who want the government to spend within its means versus those who want the government to spend even more on welfare programs no matter the consequence. The loss of subsidies is at bottom the greatest fear of the left.
A sudden and inexplicable shutdown of electronic benefit transfer cards (EBT cards or food stamps) occurred in more than 17 States while the debt debate just happened to be climaxing. This month, cuts to existing food stamp funds have taken effect, and food pantries across the country are scrambling against a sharp spike in demand.
Remember, about 50 million Americans are currently dependent on EBT welfare in order to feed themselves and their families. The response to the relatively short EBT shutdown last month was outright fury. Imagine the response in the event of a long-term shutdown, or if extraneous cuts were to occur? And where would that anger be directed? Since the entire debt debacle has been blamed on the Tea Party, I suspect conservatives will be the main target of welfare mobs.
The left, once just as opposed to government stimulus and banker bailouts as the right, is now unwittingly throwing its support behind infinite stimulus in order to cement the continued existence of precious Federal handouts. The issue of Obamacare has utterly blinded liberals to fiscal responsibility. Universal healthcare, perhaps the ultimate Federal handout, is a prize too titillating for them to ignore. Democrats will now go to incredible lengths to defend the Obama White House regardless of past crimes.
They are willing to ignore his offenses against the 4th Amendment and personal privacy. They are willing to look past his offenses against the 1st Amendment, including the Constitutional right to trial by jury for all Americans, and Obama's secret war against the free speech of whistle-blowers. They are willing to shrug off his endless warmongering in the Mideast, his attempts to foment new war in Syria and Iran, and his support for predator drone strikes in sovereign nations causing severe civilian collateral damage. They are willing to forget Snowden, mass surveillance and executive assassination lists - all for Obamacare.
And the saddest thing of all? It is likely that Obamacare was never meant to be successful in the first place.
Does anyone really believe that the White House, with billions of dollars at its disposal, could not get a website off the ground if it really wanted to? Does anyone really believe that Obama would launch the crowning jewel of his Presidency without making certain that it was fully operational, unless this was part of a greater scheme? And how about his promise that pre-existing health care plans would not be destroyed by Obamacare mandates? Over 900,000 people in the state of California alone are about to lose their health care insurance due to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Why would Obama go back on such a vital pledge unless he WANTED to piss off constituents?
Already, liberal websites and forums across the blogosphere are abuzz with talk of sabotage of the Obamacare website by "the radical right" and the diabolical Koch Brothers (liberals had no idea who they were a year ago, but now, they the go to scapegoat for everything). Once again, conservatives are presented as the culprits behind all the left's troubles.
As I have stated in the past, Obamacare is designed to fail. The government has no capacity to fund it, and never will. Its only conceivable purpose is to further divide the country and excite both sides of the false paradigm into attacking each other as the reason the system is failing, when both sides should be questioning whether the current system should exist at all.
As the situation stands today, at least 50 million welfare recipients and who knows how many others exist as a resource pool for the establishment to be used to wreak havoc on the rest of us. All they have to do is take away the cookie jar.
Who Would Win?
Who would prevail in a second American civil war? Tactically speaking, conservatives have the upper hand and are far better prepared. Food rioters wouldn't last beyond three to six weeks as starvation takes its toll, and mindless mobs would not last long against seasoned riflemen. The military, though suffering purges by the White House, still contains numerous conservatives within its ranks. Outside influences, including NATO or the United Nations, are a possibility. There are numerous factors to consider. But I would point out that the most dangerous adversary Constitutional conservatives face is not the left, Obama, or a Federal government gone rogue. Rather, our greatest adversary is ourselves.
If lured into a left/right civil war, would most conservatives be able to see beyond the veil and recognize that the fight is not about Obama, or the Left, or tyrannical government alone? Could we be co-opted by devious influences disguised as friends and compatriots? Will we end up following neocon salesmen and military elites who materialize out of the woodwork at the last minute to "lead us to victory" while actually leading us towards globalization with a slightly different face?
If a civil conflict has been war gamed by the establishment, you can bet they have contingency plans regardless of which side attains the upper hand. In the end, if we do not make the fight about the bankers and globalists, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the Council On Foreign Relations, etc., then everyone loses. Who wins in a new American civil war? If we become blinded by the trespasses of a certain White House jester, only the globalists will win.
11 Signs of a False Flag
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking. At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.
Indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms - domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.
For instance, the chemical weapons attack which took place inside Syria in August, 2013 serve as an example of a foreign false flag designed to whip up American fervor for war, on the platform of Responsibility to Protect similar to the Gulf of Tonkin.
Domestically speaking, a large-scale false flag such as 9/11, can be used to whip up both a massive public support for war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional procedure, and constitutional/human rights. Economic false flags may take the form of manufactured "government shutdowns" or "government defaults" designed to create a demand for austerity or other pro-Wall Street solutions. Lastly, smaller-scale domestic false flags such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, often involve the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state.
There are, of course, many different versions of false flag attacks and none fit into a tightly crafted classification beyond the generalized term "false flag." As stated above, some false flags may indeed embrace an element of each of the different versions listed previously both in terms of methodology and purpose.
With that in mind, it is also true that, while massive false flag attacks are always a possibility, it has been the small-scale false flags coming in the form of "shooters" (most often of the "lone gunmen" variety), that have been used most effectively by the ruling class and its mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. While the scale of the attacks have diminished, their frequency has rapidly increased.
However, due to a growing competent alternative media and researching community, as fast as the false flag attacks are launched, a volley of deconstructions of the official narratives are being provided. While many criticisms of the official version of events are wildly incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are capable outlets and researchers who are able to expose the false flag for what it is. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness as of late and why it continues to do so.
Because the false flag attack is designed to instill fear, panic, and a guided response from the general public, it is important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented. However, we cannot simply be consumed by attempting to expose and deconstruct every false flag attack that comes our way. We cannot ignore the greater issues, the winnable battles, and the demands we must be making simply to expose each and every false flag. We cannot ignore the forest fire to extinguish the occasional burning bush. The false flag, after all, is only the symptom of the disease.
For that reason, it is important to enable the general public to recognize the false flag itself, not simply the questionable elements of a particular false flag which will soon be overtaken by a new one. We must train both ourselves and the public to recognize the signs of the false flag when it happens and thus render the attack neutral.
The following is a list of some of the most common elements of the false flag attack which should immediately be looked at in the event of some other incident that pulls at the heartstrings and emotions of the general public.
1. High Profile Event: The first question to ask would be "Is this a high profile incident?" The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the major factor such as the case in Sandy Hook Elementary School, a nationally unimportant location but a horrific act that made national news nonetheless. The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of location or the act, if the media picks up the story and runs it simultaneously on all major mainstream channels, the incident can be considered a "high profile event."
2. Changing Stories: In informed researching circles, it is well-known that the information that comes out shortly after the event is usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence of confusion related to panicked reports coming from eyewitnesses and the like. However, the information coming out early on has not yet been subjected to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story becomes molded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either directed the attack at the higher levels or at least have connections with those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets report the event.
For instance, in times of false flag attacks, the initial reports may point to 5 gunmen. Very shortly after, reports may only mention two. Only a few hours after the attack, however, all references to more than one gunmen are removed entirely, with only the "lone gunman" story remaining. Any other mention of additional gunmen after this point is ridiculed as "conspiracy theory."
3. Simultaneous Drills: One hallmark of the false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the actual attack. Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of events that takes place during the real life attack . These drills have been present on large scale false flags such as 9/11 as well as smaller scale attacks like the Aurora shooting.
For instance, as Webster Tarpley documents in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA, at least 46 drills were underway in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These 46 drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11 in some way or other. Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same times and locations.
Although one reason may take precedence over the other depending on the nature and purpose of the operation drills are used by false flag operators for at least two reasons. One such purpose is the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill as a cloak to plan the attack or even "go live" when it comes time to launch the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the military/intelligence agency's tight chain of command structure and need-to-know basis. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training exercise. This deniability continues all the way through to the actual "going live" of the drill. After the completion of the false flag attack, Coincidence Theory is used to explain away the tragic results.
4. Cui Bono? The most important question to ask immediately after any high profile incident is "cui bono?" or "Who benefits?" If one is able to see a clear benefit to any government, corporation, or bank, then the observer becomes capable of seeing through the false flag attack immediately. Many of these questions can be answered by taking a closer look at the behavior of these organizations prior to the attack and shortly thereafter.
For instance, the presence of legislation which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which is quickly passed (or at least heavily pushed) afterwards is one clue that the conveniently timed attack was actually a false flag. Patriot Act style legislation was actually written before 9/11 but stood little chance of passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the blessing of the American people.
Returning to 9/11, it is a fact that a number of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle Eastern countries. After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling class of the United States and the American public followed right along.
After the Underwear Bombing, we saw the rollout of the TSA full-body scanners, a technology which would not have been readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign. However, the scanners had been purchased one year earlier by a firm owned by Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security.
Likewise, in terms of the LAX shooting, TSA purchased 3.5 million dollars worth of ammunition in August. Yet, in August, TSA was not an armed agency. After the LAX shooting, however, talk has turned to arming the agency, thus indicating possible foreknowledge on the part of someone higher up in the governmental structure.
Of course, the same can be said for the explosion of crazed lone-gunman shooting sprees that took place all across the United States amid propaganda pushes for increased gun control measures.
5. Unanswered Questions: Another hallmark of the false flag operation is relatively obvious - the presence of unanswered questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, the motive and so on. Although the media narrative that takes shape soon after the attack will ignore these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers are able to think for themselves and focus only on the information. An example of such questions would be Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of additional shooters at Aurora and Sandy Hook.
6. Case is quickly closed: Once an acceptable patsy and cover story is chosen by the media, all other opinions and questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy, if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted in a largely secret or shadowy proceeding. In most cases, the suspect is killed in the process or shortly after the fact thus negating any first hand contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very soon after the event.
7. Suspects' Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other Intelligence Agencies: One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad). Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.
In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.
8. Convenient Scapegoat: One clue leading an informed observer to suspect a false flag attack is the existence of the convenient scapegoat. Any false flag operation will have a carefully crafted narrative complete with a group of individuals set up for demonization. The OKC bombing had McVeigh and thus, "right-wing extremists" and "militias." On 9/11, the group was Muslims. In many of the domestic shooting sprees, the demonization was set for gun owners. With the recent LAX shooting, the "perpetrator" was an "anti-government conspiracy theorist." In the instance of the false flag, a readily identified pasty will exhibit all or most of the aspects of the group and social demographic set to be demonized.
9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties: One clue suggesting a false flag is that, immediately after the attack and after the perpetrators have been "identified" by "officials" and the media, corporate media outlets begin not only demonizing the demographic group to which the "perpetrator" belongs, but begins promoting "solutions" in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening again. This narrative will always involve the erosion of liberties, the greater implementation of a police state, a specific economic policy, or a march to war.
Simply put, the media promotes the PROBLEM, allows for and guides the REACTION, and then provides the pre-determined SOLUTION.
10. Government Begins to "Take Action" Against the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative: After a healthy dose of propaganda from mainstream media outlets regurgitating the terror of the attack, the perpetrator, and the police state solutions, the Government then begins to take action. Political speeches are given in order to capitalize on the fear and anger felt by the public and in order to reinforce the idea that government is there to act as protector. Political solutions are then offered as bills, executive orders, or political mandates whether it is the curtailment of the 4th Amendment, gun control, or military strikes on a foreign country.
11. Clues in pop media: Pop media clues, more accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.
Although it is extremely important to educate the general public as to the nature and purpose of false flags, education cannot be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time.
Creating a culture in which the general public is able to recognize the false flag attack as it is happening, without the need for a massive push by alternative media sources, researchers, or activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in corralling the force of the people toward true action or, at the very least, creating a culture in which that force cannot be corralled by the ruling class.
While false flag attacks must be addressed, we must not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted off a path of political action, mass mobilization, and the making of real attainable demandsGMO labeling initiative 522 has failed, proving once again that corporate money can buy food secrecy
November 6, 2013
As of this writing, Washington state I-522 looks to have narrowly failed at the ballot box..
At 11:00pm last night, the "no" votes were winning by approximately 55% to 44%. Mail-in votes reportedly have not been counted yet, but unless a radical change appears in the final votes, I-522 will go down in history as yet another example of corporate money buying out the voters through a campaign of lies and deception.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America and most of the big-name food companies proved in this campaign that they are willing to operate a criminal conspiracy to cheat, lie and intentionally misinform voters. At stake is their continued way of doing business: SECRECY coupled with consumer ignorance.
In an honest election, I-522 would have easily passed
The last thing these companies want is for consumers to realize they're buying poison. That's why they plowed tens of millions of dollars into their disinfo campaign, hoping they could trick enough voters into not understanding what they were voting for. In an honest election that wasn't primarily determined by money, I-522 would pass in a landslide, but in this election, much like Prop 37, corporate money allowed these companies to essentially buy their way to a ballot box victory that keeps consumers ignorant.
The Yes on 522 campaign ran a valiant campaign, and had voters not been deceived by the corporate-funded opposition, the ballot measure would have unquestionably passed. No person in their right mind would want LESS transparency on what's in the foods we buy and consume. Every intelligent person, if allowed due consideration on the subject, will naturally conclude that the right to know what's in our food is a fundamental human right.
The failure of 522 also shows that democracy itself doesn't work when a tidal wave of corporate money is allowed to influence election outcomes. And that's the way nearly all elections work, isn't it? So even though we can all talk about the idealistic goal of "the People" being in charge of legislation, in reality the corporations have now seized so much power in America that even when the informed masses want to codify fundamental human rights into law, it cannot be readily achieved.
GMO labeling will never be won with money
After back-to-back failures of Prop 37 and I-522, I think it's time we all realized we will never win this issue with money. As much as we all gave money to this campaign (and Dr. Bronner's gave the most, I believe), the junk food manufacturers of this nation were able to spend almost twenty times more.
Selling the public toxic beverages and junk foods made with cheap "junk" ingredients is highly profitable, of course, so these companies have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around like caged gorillas flinging excrement.
If we hope to ever see GMO labeling mandated in any state in America, victory is going to have to be achieved through "guerilla activism" methods that go far outside the box of "spending money on ads."
I'm not criticizing the 522 campaign directors, by the way. They did a fantastic job. But the playbook they are working from is based on rules of conventional campaigning, not guerilla campaigning.
It's much like the American colonists in the War of Independence who realized they would be slaughtered if they did battle with the occupying British by adhering to rigid formations. Man for man (and dollar for dollar), you can't beat the establishment. What you need to invoke is asymmetrical warfare tactics such as guerilla warfare where colonists would hide in the bushes and ambush high-ranking British officers, thereby cutting off the leadership and causing disarray among the enemy ranks.
Don't misunderstand my metaphor here: I am not suggesting anyone actually ambush and kill CEOs of junk food companies. This is merely an illustration of the fact that going head to head (dollar for dollar) with Pepsico, Coca-Cola and Monsanto is never going to result in victory for GMO labeling activists.
There are far more clever ways to multiply your efforts and make the actions of one person more impactful than millions of dollars in expenditures by the opposition.
Take off the kid gloves and go for the throat
We also have to realize that the GMO labeling opposition will never play by the rules. They routinely engage in dirty tricks and even criminal behavior in order to achieve their goals at any cost. I am not suggesting that we stoop to their level and start breaking the law to achieve victory, but we do have to take a far more aggressive stance that directly accuses the opposition of mass deception, mass poisoning and causing a potential ecological disaster.
See, the problem with the campaigns for GMO labeling so far is that they are too polite. They are run by nice people who play by nice rules. Those are great people to have as friends and neighbors, but they are not the kind of scrapping, no-holds-barred warriors that are needed to defeat such as slithering, slippery enemy.
The opposition to GMO labeling is a cabal of mafia-style criminal rogues who continue to achieve their dark victories by breaking all the rules and playing dirty. To beat them at that game, you have to take off the kid gloves and go for their throats.
If anybody in the GMO labeling activism world wants to know how to do that, contact me so we can set up a face-to-face meeting. In the mean time, know that I am already working on an asymmetrical P.R. warfare strategy that will be unleashed next year right here on Natural News.
Because the real story here - and I'm not going to fully explain this until later - is that the very weapons needed to defeat these evil corporations are sitting right there on the shelves of every grocery store across America. They have handed us the tools of their own defeat.
November 3, 2013
Source: Testosterone Pit
2013 is proving to be a hectic year for corporate lobbyists and free trade advocates, as they frantically flit, like busy bees pollinating succulent orchids, from one global free trade conference to another. And at long last, it seems that their hard work appears to be paying off.
In the last month alone world leaders from 12 countries, including the U.S., Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Mexico, pledged to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by the end of the year. On the other side of the globe, meanwhile, Europe has signed a sweeping free trade agreement with Canada. And what's more, despite all the furore over allegations of NSA and GCHQ spying on European national leaders, most EU member states are determined to ensure that the fallout from the scandal does not derail ongoing talks for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a treaty that would effectively knit together countries with nearly half the world's GDP into a massive free-trade zone.
Indeed, the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has already suggested that it may be necessary to temporarily suspend negotiations - not out of concern for joining in partnership with a nation whose recent actions have betrayed every possible notion of mutual trust, but rather out of fear that continued negotiations in the current climate could feed anti-free trade sentiment:
"If such events continue, and more news comes out, I fear that those who are against the free trade agreement in principle will become the majority," said Schulz during last week's EU summit. "My advice is to stop for a moment and discuss how we can avoid such a development."
All of which begs the question: why all the sudden newfound enthusiasm for more free trade? Even more important, why all the secrecy? Why are our leaders desperately reconfiguring the legal super structures of global trade without either consulting their respective voting constituencies or even divulging what is actually up for grabs in the negotiations?
After all, even by official estimates (which, let's face it, tend to have a strong upward bias) the economic benefits of the trade treaties will be negligible, at best. In the case of the TPIP, the EU and the U.S. can expect to eventually (perhaps after as long as ten years) receive a 100 billion euro boost to their respective GDPs. It's the sort of money that, once upon a time, may have sounded impressive or even meant something. But not any more, not since the Fed and the Bank of England led the world's central banking community on the biggest money printing binge in recorded history.
Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific region the TPP is forecast to open up massive new opportunities for businesses both large and small, as new trade networks are forged between some of the world's fastest growing economies.
However, while the potential benefits of the new trade agreement are supposed to be huge, they cannot as yet be divulged to the public. As U.S. trade representative Ron Kirk recently told Reuters, it's just too early in negotiations to release a draft text to allow more public input. But that's not to say "there will [not] be a time, once we have agreed on the text, that we may - as we have with other agreements - be able to release that."
The message could not be clearer: to paraphrase the late, great Bill Hicks, go back to bed America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Your governments are in control.
The Real Agenda
As for the few insomniacs who remain fully awake, the real end game in this new age of "free" trade (or otherwise put, corporate protectionism) is becoming clearer and clearer. According to Andrew Gavin Marshall, these new agreements have little to do with actual "trade," and everything to do with expanding the rights and powers of large corporations:
Corporations have become powerful economic and political entities - competing in size and wealth with the world's largest national economies - and thus have taken on a distinctly ‘cosmopolitical' nature.
According to a ranking published by Global Trends, 58 percent of the world's biggest 150 economic entities in 2012 were corporations. They include oil, natural gas and mining majors, banks and insurance firms, telecommunications giants, supermarket behemoths, car manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
The highest ranked company on the list, Royal Dutch Shell, recorded 2012 revenues that exceeded the GDPs of 171 countries, making it the 26th largest economic entity in the world. It ranks ahead of Argentina and Taiwan, despite employing only 90,000 people. Indeed, the combined revenues of the five biggest oil companies (Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Sinopec and China National Petroleum) were the equivalent of 2.9 percent of global GDP in 2012.
Should we be at all surprised that these massively bloated private corporations still want more for themselves and, by extension, less for us? After all, perpetual profit and revenues growth are their raison d'être; it's what makes their sociopathic hearts tick.
"Acting through industry associations, lobby groups, think tanks and foundations, cosmopolitical corporations are engineering large projects aimed at transnational economic and political consolidation of power... into their hands," writes Marshall. "With the construction of ‘a European-American free-trade zone' as ‘an ambitious project,' we are witnessing the advancement of a new and unprecedented global project of transatlantic corporate colonization."
At the root of this model is the basic notion that corporate profits and investor returns must at all times supercede all concerns about public interest. As such, as Open Democracy has pointed out, investor-state dispute settlements under TTIP would empower EU and US-based corporations to engage in litigious wars of attrition to limit the power of governments on both sides of the Atlantic:
Thousands of EU and US companies have affiliates across the Atlantic; under TTIP they could make investor-state claims via these affiliates in order to compel their own governments to refrain from regulations they dislike.
In the sickest of ironies, as a growing number of countries are questioning and even abandoning global investor-state arbitration precisely because of negative impacts against the public interest, powerful corporate lobby groups in both the EU and the US - including the European employers' federation BusinessEurope, the US Chamber of Commerce, AmCham EU, and the Transatlantic Business Council - are pressuring for the inclusion of investor-state arbitration in TTIP.
And as you and I know, they'll get what they want!
The Final Push
Just as with the signing of NAFTA and the creation of the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, to later become the World Trade Organisation (WTO), there will be no public consultation whatsoever on the potential ramifications of the treaties.
And for good reason. For just as the late Sir James Goldsmith warned about GATT, NAFTA and the merging of sovereign European nations into the EU in this eerily prophetic interview with Charlie Rose in 1994, their enforcement will lead to the destruction of millions of middle class jobs and the obliteration of traditional agriculture (as happened in Mexico) and local businesses. And who in their right mind - apart from, of course, our corporate masters and their political servants - would ever vote for that?
However, the new generation of trade treaties goes far beyond what was envisaged for NAFTA and GATT. What they ultimately seek is to transfer what little remains of our national sovereignty to the headquarters of the world's largest multinational conglomerates. In short, it is the ultimate coup de grâce of the ultimate coup d'état. Not a single shot will be fired, yet almost all power will be seized and transferred into private hands - and all of it facilitated by our elected representatives who, by signing these treaties, will be permanently abdicating their responsibilities to represent and protect the interests of their voting constituencies.
For example, as a recent leak of part of the TPP document has shown, the new rules would limit how governments regulate such public services as utilities, transportation, healthcare and education, including restricting policies meant to ensure broad or universal access to those essential needs.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. As Alternet reports, the new treaty would also:
• Grant copyright protection for corporate-created content for a stunning 120 years! It would also transform internet service providers into a private, Big Brother police force, empowered to monitor our "user activity," arbitrarily take down our content, and cut off our access to the internet.
• Give Big Pharma more years of monopoly pricing on each of their patents empower them to block distribution of cheaper generic drugs.
• Strip governments of their authority to regulate exports of oil or natural gas to any TPP nation. This would create an explosion of the destructive fracking process across the globe, for energy giants could export fracked gas from and to any member nation without any governmental review of the environmental and economic impacts on local communities - or on our respective national interests.
• Prohibit transaction taxes (such as the proposed Robin Hood Tax) that would tax speculators who have repeatedly triggered financial crises and economic crashes around the world. It would also restrict "firewall" reforms that separate consumer banking from risky investment banking, as well as provide an escape from national rules that would limit the size of "too-big-to-fail" behemoths.
These are merely a sample of the proposals that have made it into the public eye - thanks purely to the actions of a brave (or as the Obama administration would have it, terrorist) whistle-blower. Who's to say what else is being planned behind our backs and in the conference rooms of some of the world's most luxurious hotels?
What is clear, though, is that the global corporatocracy is almost fully operational. The clock is ticking down and unless the people of nations across the East and the West, the North and the South, begin to wise up to the acts of their elected governments, it will soon be too late. The new regime will be enshrined into law and a new kind of dystopia, bearing a disturbing likeness to the inverted totalitarianism foreseen by Sheldon Wolin, will be all around us, in every direction as far as Big Brother's omniscient eye can see. By Don Quijones.
Whatever you might read in the news these days, it's not all doom and gloom in Spain. For a certain segment of the population, albeit quite a small one, life has never been better. They include Rodrigo Rato, the man who many blame for the biggest bankruptcy in Spanish history
Obama stops NSA spying on IMF and World Bank
October 31, 2013
International Monetary Fund Headquarters in Washington, DC.
US President Barack Obama has called on the National Security Agency to halt spying on the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in conjunction with a review of surveillance activities, Reuters reported.
A US official told the news agency that President Obama curbed the spying within the last few weeks, around the same time he told the NSA to stop eavesdropping on the United Nations headquarters.
The NSA's surveillance of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington was previously unknown based on the classified nature of such programs.
Responding to Reuters, a top Obama administration official said, "the United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the headquarters of the World Bank or IMF in Washington." However, the official would not say whether the NSA had spied on the entities in the past.
The IMF and World Bank would not comment, nor would spokespersons from the NSA or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Top officials with US intelligence agencies have admitted economic espionage in the past, but a former senior US intelligence official said the Obama administration has put more effort than previous administrations into gathering economic data.
Upon entering the White House, Obama began receiving a new "Economic Intelligence Brief" from the Central Intelligence Agency, in addition to regular updates of international security assessments via the President's Daily Brief.
The supposed reason for the change at the time - according to Leon Panetta, Obama's first CIA director - was to understand activity surrounding the global economic crisis.
The move to curtail spying on the economic organizations followed steady revelations that began in June - supplied by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden - of NSA surveillance programs targeting foreign governments and institutions, as well as international and domestic citizens.
Obama also in the past few weeks ordered the NSA to stop tapping the UN headquarters in New York amid the review of electronic surveillance programs, Reuters reported Wednesday, again citing official sources.
"The United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the United Nations headquarters in New York," a senior Obama administration official told Reuters.
Sources would not say whether Washington is continuing to monitor UN diplomats elsewhere in the world.
72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered "Potential Terrorists" In Official Government Documents
October 28, 2013
Source: Michael Snyder, Guest Post
Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner? Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order? Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the "end times" or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a "potential terrorist" according to official U.S. government documents. At one time, the term "terrorist" was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term "terrorist" is being applied to large groups of American citizens. And if you are a "terrorist", that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as "potential terrorists", please don't take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be "extremists" and "potential terrorists" in official U.S. government documents.
1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
2. Those that advocate for states' rights
3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"
4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"
5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"
6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"
7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable"
8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"
9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"
13. "The Patriot Movement"
14. "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'"
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"
23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"
30. Anyone that "complains about bias"
31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"
32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"
33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"
34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"
35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"
36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"
37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"
38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"
39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"
40. "Militia or unorganized militia"
41. "General right-wing extremist"
42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"
44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"
45. Those that are "anti-global"
46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"
47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"
48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"
49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national ‘way of life' is under attack"
50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"
51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"
52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"
53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"
54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"
55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"
56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"
57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"
58. "Rightwing extremists"
59. "Returning veterans"
60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"
61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"
62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"
63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"
64. "Anti-abortion activists"
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")
71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
The groups of people in the list above are considered "problems" that need to be dealt with. In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.
We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history. You can now be considered a "potential terrorist" just because of your religious or political beliefs. Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.
Please pray for the United States of America. We definitely need it.
Obama's Homeland Security pick defended surveillance at summer conference in Aspen
by Andrew Travers, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Monday, October 28, 2013.
At this past summer's Aspen Security Forum, Jeh Johnson - President Obama's choice for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security - defended the government's controversial surveillance and data-mining programs, while taking a hard line on whistleblowers who leak information to the press.
The July forum brings present and former government officials to the Aspen Institute campus, including leaders from the White House and intelligence community, along with journalists and members of Congress.
Johnson, former top attorney for the Department of Defense, sat on a panel that included National Security Agency (NSA) general counsel Raj De and American Civil Liberties Union director Anthony Romero. Titled "Counterterrorism, National Security, and the Rule of Law," the discussion focused largely on then-recent revelations of the government's classified PRISM surveillance program, leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Romero and Johnson butted heads over Snowden's leaks and the legality of PRISM. When Romero praised Snowden for bringing the program to light, saying "I think he did this country a service," Johnson countered, "I think it is a bad public message for us to send to people who decide to take the law into their own hands that they're doing a public service."
Romero argued that Snowden's revelations of the program sparked a public debate that was not possible while the government kept programs, like its widespread collection of Americans' phone records, secret.
"Our democracy, regardless of whether you think he broke the law, and our country is better as a result of the revelations," Romero said.
"That's anarchy," Johnson responded.
He also advocated criminal prosecutions of leakers.
"We don't necessarily need to think about changing national security policy in reaction to one criminal act, I think we need to deal with that person in the criminal justice system," he said.
Johnson argued that the program is legal and constitutional, noting it was cleared by the executive and legislative branches, and is regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. He said collecting phone data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because there is no expectation of privacy in the data itself - tapping the calls, he said, would be unconstitutional without probable cause.
"The reality is that the NSA surveillance program is probably the most regulated national security program we have," he said.
The panel's moderator, NBC News' Mike Isikoff, asked Johnson about the U.S. drone program, which expanded while Johnson was general counsel for the Department of Defense. Johnson was quoted in a book last year, saying, "If I were Catholic, I'd have to go to confession," after watching video of a drone strike killing citizens in Yemen. On the panel, he said drones are less likely to kill civilians than other tactics.
"The good news, to the extent there is any in our conflict, is that with our modern technology, collateral damage is minimized," he said.
President Obama earlier last week announced his intention to nominate Johnson as Homeland Security secretary, succeeding Janet Napolitano.
Liberal verses Conservative?
There is no such thing. The left and Right paradigm is BOGUS. The Democrats are just as controlled by the New World Order as the Repubilcans are. John Kerry, a distant cousin of George W. Bush is a member of the secret society of Skull and Bones(AKA The Order of Death) along with the last three generations of Bush males (Prescott, George, and George W.) Bill Clinton, architect of the first WTC attack in 1993 as well as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, is a member of the CFR and Bohemian Grove and is a close personal friend of George H.W. Bush. All Gore is a CFR member. Even the revered Jimmy Carter is a member of the evil Trilateral Commission and was David Rockefeller's golden boy. It was the Carter Administration that first began funding and training terrorist organizations around the world. Both parties are controlled at the top by globalist traitors dedicated to establishing a world dictatorship and enslaving humanity. They tell you that it is your duty as an American to vote. That is only a tactic to ensure your enslavement. FYI, David Rockefeller and his right hand man Zbigniew Brzezinski have a new golden boy puppet. His name is Barack Obama.
As Commander in Chief of RIOT, it is my duty to inform my readers that we do not advocate or condone violence against the government. We are peace loving people, looking for peaceful solutions in the fight to restore the Republic of the United States. These following passeges can easily be taken to mean the opposite. However, we realize that violent resistance is what the globalists want us to engage in. They expect it. They are ready for us. A trap has been set. Don't fall into it. Do, however, be ready when they come for you. The following passages have been added to document the anger felt and expressed by awake and concerned citizens on the former United States.
- Col. South
The New World Order Resistance Manifesto
We, the people of the world denounce your claim of ownership of the world for it is through fraud, deception and usury that you have made yourself the rulers of humankind. You have committed every evil in your goal for world hegemony and have become drunk with the blood of the innocents.
No longer shall we sit idly by allowing your agenda to stay hidden behind the veil. We shall unite with a common purpose and with a common goal to spread the knowledge of your tyranny across the globe and to demand justice until the world is free from the slavery and perdition you have created on this earth.
The Patriot's Code of Conduct
I am an American, fighting for the freedoms which guard MY country and way of life. I am prepared to give my life in defense of the fundamental principles that are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
I will fight without regard to rule or regulation. My enemy does not fight fair, so it is fair that I fight just the same. I will never surrender of my own free will. I will never surrender to tyranny or oppression. If I do not have the means to resist, I will never stop acquiring the means to which I may resist. In this end, I will be the best example that I can for other patriots. I will honor myself with these actions until I am free or dead.
If I am captured or oppressed, I will resist by all means, my imagination will be my only limitation. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from my enemy.
If I become a prisoner of tyranny, I will keep faith with my fellow patriots. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to other patriots. I will take command of myself and will independently back up other patriots in any way I see fit, even through temporary groupings with other patriots. At all times I will remain a free-thinking individual.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of tyranny, I will give my name and state of citizenship. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to America's Bill of Rights or harmful to other Patriots or OUR DUTY to protect OUR republic.
I will never forget that I am an American dedicated to the principles which make my country free. I will trust in myself and hope other Patriots will return our republic with or without me.
OATH OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER
By James Stewart Kelley
Upon my sacred honor I shall fight to the death to remain free. No one shall govern me. I shall submit to no authority. There is no question in this matter. I shall always refuse to obey. I shall face my enemy squarely when he attacks. I shall counter attack when he rests.I shall press the battle and when the time comes that I face my final departure, I shall take my enemy with me, for he is a creature without mercy and he deserves none.
A Blunt warning to our Government and our Military:
In our nation of 300 million people, there are at least 95 million lawful gun owners. Those 95 million guns owners lawfully possess 212 million firearms.
Even if the government recalled ALL military members from around the entire world, they would have a force of only about two million.
95 million gun owners versus 2 million troops. I think we all know how this would turn out: the government would be slaughtered.
In fact, if only ten percent of the 95 million gun owners had guts enough to fight, we would still outnumber the military almost 3:1.
We The People of the United States aren't the least bit worried about government tanks and planes, those tools are useless in guerilla warfare. Want proof? Iraq! The U.S. government is getting its ass kicked over there. Government wouldn't last a week.
Found on a bathroom wall somewhere in the U.S.A.
You've taken over my mind. You've raped my thoughts with your image viruses then sold me fake cures for your own disease. Your words and pictures scream orders at me like angry prison wardens. When I cover my ears, your voices echo in my head. I hate you. When I see your billboards, your talk shows, your rock concerts and your factories, when I see the work of your twisted libidos, I want to kill you. I want to set fires, plant bombs, derail trains. I want to smash your buildings and tear at your bodies until the skin of my hands is worn to the bone. I am filled with a rage that burns my eyes.
I don't want to feel this way. You have done this to me. These feelings are the fruits of your multi-billion dollar sowing. And I am not alone. There are others like me out here. Every suicide, every madman, every man and woman who gets a gun and just starts shooting -- these are your illegitimate children. They don't all know what they are doing. All they know is hate for the invisible walls which you have raised around them, hate for the narrow path you have tried to make them walk. And the innocent pay in blood for your negligence.
Remember this: My mind is big. The more you try to push me down and make me small, the greater the pressure inside me becomes. The greater the pressure, the greater the chance of an explosion. There was once a time when I felt love, but now I feel only hate and anger, and fear at what I might do. And you can tell me to "BE HAPPY," but I know that you really mean "BE QUIET".
Believe me, I want to be happy. You stand in my way.
A police state exixts when federal and state political and police mechanisms:
1. Shut down media coverage after they steal an election
2.Serve the central government instead of serving the citizens.
3. Enforce the policies of the central government instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds
4. Spy on and intimidate citizens
ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS NOW EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES!
In a free society, police agencies respond to evidence of planned and actual criminal activity.
Police officers in a free society keep the peace: they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate.
In a free society, police do not investigate citizen's attitudes toward the central goverrnment, only their actions.
Citizen dissent is lawful in a free society and police agencies do not investigate citizen's attitudes toward the criminal justice apparatus.
THOSE CONDITIONS NO LONGER EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES!