Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Recurring Dream
There's this recurring dream that I've been having lately, and it's really starting to haunt me. In my dream I'm living in a huge apartment complex, with dozens, if not hundreds, of other apartments. I wake up in the middle of the night with the smell of smoke burning in my nose, and my eyes watering from the smoke and heat of the fire. I stumble out of my bedroom, fall to my hands and knees, and fight thru the confusion to find my way out of my apartment. Once I'm in the hallway, I begin to pound on people's apartment doors yelling, "FIRE". As I am frantically pounding on doors and screaming, people begin opening their doors to see what the fuss and confusion is all about. I hear someone behind me yell, "SHUT UP, can't you see that we're trying to get some sleep over here?" Someone else shouts, "If you can't keep it down in there, I'm calling the Police!" Then I wake up in a cold sweat in my own bed. It feels so real that I can't tell if it is a dream or not. It is a dream, isn't it?
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Planned Economic Hiroshima
The financial events that have taken place in the U.S. and around the world over the last few months are, in many ways, no surprise. Some people are trying to save America, and others are actively working to destroy it and eliminate the existing Federal Reserve altogether, defaulting to a single, global “Fed” organization.
These are all playing out like clockwork, driving the U.S. toward financial collapse that now seems irreversible. There is one new element in all this, however, that has emerged in the last month or so, and I’d like to share that with you in this article. Over the last few months, I’ve kept in touch with some extremely well-connected individuals who have been cluing me in on what’s really happening behind the scenes in the world of global finance. For obvious reasons, these people shall go unnamed, but what they’re now telling me is that the economic meltdown is merely a means to an end. It is being done deliberately, they say, at the very highest levels to achieve a well-planned outcome. What outcome is that? Global rule over all banking, of course.
How To Take Over The World’s Finances
Imagine an international Federal Reserve that creates and controls the money supply for the entire world. The centralization of financial power into the hands of the few would be unprecedented. What power the Fed wields over the United States today, a "Global Fed" could soon wield across the entire world. Achieving such a power grab, however, is no small task. Nations will not voluntarily surrender power over their currencies…
Unless There Is A Crisis!
In a crisis scenario, nations will give up practically anything — freedoms, finances, and yes, even their own currencies if it means avoiding certain economic disaster. If there’s one thing that the world has learned from 9/11, it’s that the best way to grab power from the People is to either engineer a disaster or piggyback on one that occurs on its own. When faced with the fear of annihilation, the People of any nation will not merely surrender their freedoms and finances, they will beg to turn them over to any apparent "authority" who promises a solution.
From this, then, it is rather obvious that the best way to grab control over world currencies and establish one global "Fed" money authority is to engineer a global financial disaster that threatens the stability of the entire global banking system. As stability collapses and life savings are lost, it’s only a matter of time before the riots begin and blood really starts running in the streets.
It is in this moment that the global elite will appear on television screens, as if delivered by God himself, promising an end to all the suffering if only the leading nations of the world will agree to surrender their own currencies and adopt a new, global currency operated by the new "International Fed" (which won’t actually be called that, mind you).
The battle for the future of America is under way right now. With all this in mind, we are faced with a rather sobering scenario. Even though there are many people within the U.S. power structure who are no doubt attempting to save the U.S. economy and prevent outright collapse, there are almost certainly far more powerful people involved in this game who have as their agenda the creation of a global currency controller. And the rise of that institution necessitates the economic downfall of nations like the U.S. and the U.K., to name just two.
So there’s a tug of war going on: Some people are trying to save America, and others are actively working to destroy it and eliminate the existing Federal Reserve altogether, defaulting to a single, global "Fed" organization. It’s important to note that regardless of which side of this battle we’re talking about, none of these power elite are looking out for YOU, the People. This is all just a high-level territorial chess match in which you and I are the lowly pawns.
Destroying A Nation In Order To Rule It
What’s interesting in all this is that if you believe this particular explanation, it means there are elite power brokers in this world who are so arrogant and greedy that they will actively risk the destruction of an entire nation’s economy just to take control over its financial resources in the long run.
If all this sounds familiar, that’s because this is exactly how military warfare works, too: The aggressor invades a country, bombs it to rubble, then takes control over it in order to capture and control the long-term economic benefits and resources produced by that country. (Iraq, anyone?) It’s also exactly what drove Hitler’s mechanized army eastward into Soviet territory in World War II. The battle at Stalingrad was not merely a Soviet victory over German military units, it was the end of Germany’s last desperate attempt to expropriate the lucrative oil fields needed to keep its war machine running.
The point is that, throughout history, power-hungry madmen have always demonstrated a willingness to destroy practically anything (families, cities, nations) in order to get what they wanted. The United States isn’t innocent on this front, either: Read your history on the Dresden bombings to see a dark chapter of U.S. history involving outright genocide on the part of the allies.
Warfare, of course, can take many forms. The traditional "bombs and bullets" form of warfare is simply the most easily recognizable form of taking over a country. It is by no means the most efficient form. From an economic perspective, it is far more intelligent to take over a nation while leaving its physical infrastructure intact so that all the slave workers can get back to work as quickly as possible after the war, producing new gains for the new controllers.
By one interpretation of world events, America now seems to be in the midst of an economic war that may actually be attempting to crush America’s currency and economy in the hopes that the nation will surrender both to a new global financial authority. The "New World Bank" would be the benefactor of all this.
These are all playing out like clockwork, driving the U.S. toward financial collapse that now seems irreversible. There is one new element in all this, however, that has emerged in the last month or so, and I’d like to share that with you in this article. Over the last few months, I’ve kept in touch with some extremely well-connected individuals who have been cluing me in on what’s really happening behind the scenes in the world of global finance. For obvious reasons, these people shall go unnamed, but what they’re now telling me is that the economic meltdown is merely a means to an end. It is being done deliberately, they say, at the very highest levels to achieve a well-planned outcome. What outcome is that? Global rule over all banking, of course.
How To Take Over The World’s Finances
Imagine an international Federal Reserve that creates and controls the money supply for the entire world. The centralization of financial power into the hands of the few would be unprecedented. What power the Fed wields over the United States today, a "Global Fed" could soon wield across the entire world. Achieving such a power grab, however, is no small task. Nations will not voluntarily surrender power over their currencies…
Unless There Is A Crisis!
In a crisis scenario, nations will give up practically anything — freedoms, finances, and yes, even their own currencies if it means avoiding certain economic disaster. If there’s one thing that the world has learned from 9/11, it’s that the best way to grab power from the People is to either engineer a disaster or piggyback on one that occurs on its own. When faced with the fear of annihilation, the People of any nation will not merely surrender their freedoms and finances, they will beg to turn them over to any apparent "authority" who promises a solution.
From this, then, it is rather obvious that the best way to grab control over world currencies and establish one global "Fed" money authority is to engineer a global financial disaster that threatens the stability of the entire global banking system. As stability collapses and life savings are lost, it’s only a matter of time before the riots begin and blood really starts running in the streets.
It is in this moment that the global elite will appear on television screens, as if delivered by God himself, promising an end to all the suffering if only the leading nations of the world will agree to surrender their own currencies and adopt a new, global currency operated by the new "International Fed" (which won’t actually be called that, mind you).
The battle for the future of America is under way right now. With all this in mind, we are faced with a rather sobering scenario. Even though there are many people within the U.S. power structure who are no doubt attempting to save the U.S. economy and prevent outright collapse, there are almost certainly far more powerful people involved in this game who have as their agenda the creation of a global currency controller. And the rise of that institution necessitates the economic downfall of nations like the U.S. and the U.K., to name just two.
So there’s a tug of war going on: Some people are trying to save America, and others are actively working to destroy it and eliminate the existing Federal Reserve altogether, defaulting to a single, global "Fed" organization. It’s important to note that regardless of which side of this battle we’re talking about, none of these power elite are looking out for YOU, the People. This is all just a high-level territorial chess match in which you and I are the lowly pawns.
Destroying A Nation In Order To Rule It
What’s interesting in all this is that if you believe this particular explanation, it means there are elite power brokers in this world who are so arrogant and greedy that they will actively risk the destruction of an entire nation’s economy just to take control over its financial resources in the long run.
If all this sounds familiar, that’s because this is exactly how military warfare works, too: The aggressor invades a country, bombs it to rubble, then takes control over it in order to capture and control the long-term economic benefits and resources produced by that country. (Iraq, anyone?) It’s also exactly what drove Hitler’s mechanized army eastward into Soviet territory in World War II. The battle at Stalingrad was not merely a Soviet victory over German military units, it was the end of Germany’s last desperate attempt to expropriate the lucrative oil fields needed to keep its war machine running.
The point is that, throughout history, power-hungry madmen have always demonstrated a willingness to destroy practically anything (families, cities, nations) in order to get what they wanted. The United States isn’t innocent on this front, either: Read your history on the Dresden bombings to see a dark chapter of U.S. history involving outright genocide on the part of the allies.
Warfare, of course, can take many forms. The traditional "bombs and bullets" form of warfare is simply the most easily recognizable form of taking over a country. It is by no means the most efficient form. From an economic perspective, it is far more intelligent to take over a nation while leaving its physical infrastructure intact so that all the slave workers can get back to work as quickly as possible after the war, producing new gains for the new controllers.
By one interpretation of world events, America now seems to be in the midst of an economic war that may actually be attempting to crush America’s currency and economy in the hopes that the nation will surrender both to a new global financial authority. The "New World Bank" would be the benefactor of all this.
Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Document Regarding North American Union
I wanted to post a somewhat scaled down version of this document for those of you who are not interested in picking through a mountain of information. I think that it is an extremely important document to be aware of, seeing as US Foreign Policy is pretty much dictated by the Council on Foreign Relations. So much for the North American Union being a myth or just paranoia, eh?
WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW
• Establish a common security perimeter by 2010-The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first.Webelieve that these measures should be extended to include a commitment to common approaches toward international negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter for North America is anambitious but achievable goal that will require specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.
• Develop a North American Border Pass-The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian ‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S. Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.
• Develop a unified North American border action plan-The closing of the borders following the 9/11 attacks awakened all three governments to the need for rethinking management of the borders. Intense negotiations produced the bilateral ‘‘Smart Borders’’ agreements. Although the two borders are different and may in certain instances require policies that need to be implemented at two speeds, cooperation by the three governments in the following areas would lead to a better result than a ‘‘dual-bilateral’’ approach:
• Expand border infrastructure-While trade has nearly tripled across both borders since the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA were implemented, border customs facilities and crossing infrastructure have not kept pace with this increased demand. Even if 9/11 had not occurred, trade would be choked at the border. There have been significant new investments to speed processing along both theCanadian-U.S. andMexican-U.S. borders, but not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand and additional security requirements. The three governments should examine the options for additional border facilities and expedite their construction. In addition to allowing for continued growth in the volume of transborder traffic, such investments must incorporate the latest technology, and include facilities and procedures that move as much processing as possible away from the border.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010
• Expand NORAD into a multiservice Defense Command-The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has for decades been the primary vehicle for expression of the unique defense alliance between Canada and the United States. As recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group, NORAD should evolve into amultiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval aswell as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense and Joint Planning Group, and inviteMexico to send observers.
• Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local and national levels in both law enforcement and military organizations. Law enforcement cooperation should be expanded from its current levels through the exchange of liaison teams and better use of automated systems for tracking, storing, and disseminating timely intelligence. This should be done immediately. In the area ofmilitary cooperation, collaboration can proceed more slowly, especially between U.S. and Mexican militaries. However, the ultimate goal needs to be the timely sharing of accurate information and intelligence and higher levels of cooperation.
The United States and Canada should invite Mexico to consider more extensive information-sharing and collaborative planning involving military organizations and law enforcement as a means to build mutual trust and pave the way for closer cooperation in the future. Training and exercises should be developed to increase the cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries. These steps will provide better
capabilities for detectionof threats, preventativeaction, crisis response, and consequence management. At least one major trilateral exercise conducted by law enforcement authorities and one by the militaries should be established as a goal over the next year. Of course, the extent of cooperation will be affected by the progress of reform of the police forces, customs, and judicial branch in Mexico. In addition to the sharing of information, a Joint Analysis Center should be established immediately to serve as a clearing house for information and development of products for supporting law enforcement and, as appropriate, military requirements.
its tax and energy policies so that it can use its own resources more effectively to advance its economic development.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW
• Establish a common security perimeter by 2010-The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first.Webelieve that these measures should be extended to include a commitment to common approaches toward international negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter for North America is anambitious but achievable goal that will require specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.
• Develop a North American Border Pass-The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian ‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S. Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.
• Develop a unified North American border action plan-The closing of the borders following the 9/11 attacks awakened all three governments to the need for rethinking management of the borders. Intense negotiations produced the bilateral ‘‘Smart Borders’’ agreements. Although the two borders are different and may in certain instances require policies that need to be implemented at two speeds, cooperation by the three governments in the following areas would lead to a better result than a ‘‘dual-bilateral’’ approach:
• Expand border infrastructure-While trade has nearly tripled across both borders since the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA were implemented, border customs facilities and crossing infrastructure have not kept pace with this increased demand. Even if 9/11 had not occurred, trade would be choked at the border. There have been significant new investments to speed processing along both theCanadian-U.S. andMexican-U.S. borders, but not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand and additional security requirements. The three governments should examine the options for additional border facilities and expedite their construction. In addition to allowing for continued growth in the volume of transborder traffic, such investments must incorporate the latest technology, and include facilities and procedures that move as much processing as possible away from the border.
WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010
• Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America-The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation
Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and joint training for law enforcement officials. As founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Canada and the United States are close military allies. When Canadian troops hunt terrorists and support democracy in Afghanistan, or when Canadian ships lead patrols in the Persian Gulf, they engage in the ‘‘forward defense’’ of North America by attacking the bases of support for international terrorism around the world.
Although Mexico is not a NATO member and does not share the same history of military cooperation, it has recently begun to consider closer collaboration on disaster relief and information-sharing about external threats. Defense cooperation, therefore, must proceed at two speeds toward a common goal.We propose that Mexico begin with confidence-building dialogue and information exchanges, moving gradually to further North American cooperation on issues such as joint threat assessment, peacekeeping operations, and eventually, a broader defense structure for the continent.
• Expand NORAD into a multiservice Defense Command-The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has for decades been the primary vehicle for expression of the unique defense alliance between Canada and the United States. As recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group, NORAD should evolve into amultiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval aswell as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense and Joint Planning Group, and inviteMexico to send observers.
• Increase information and intelligence-sharing at the local and national levels in both law enforcement and military organizations. Law enforcement cooperation should be expanded from its current levels through the exchange of liaison teams and better use of automated systems for tracking, storing, and disseminating timely intelligence. This should be done immediately. In the area ofmilitary cooperation, collaboration can proceed more slowly, especially between U.S. and Mexican militaries. However, the ultimate goal needs to be the timely sharing of accurate information and intelligence and higher levels of cooperation.
The United States and Canada should invite Mexico to consider more extensive information-sharing and collaborative planning involving military organizations and law enforcement as a means to build mutual trust and pave the way for closer cooperation in the future. Training and exercises should be developed to increase the cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries. These steps will provide better
capabilities for detectionof threats, preventativeaction, crisis response, and consequence management. At least one major trilateral exercise conducted by law enforcement authorities and one by the militaries should be established as a goal over the next year. Of course, the extent of cooperation will be affected by the progress of reform of the police forces, customs, and judicial branch in Mexico. In addition to the sharing of information, a Joint Analysis Center should be established immediately to serve as a clearing house for information and development of products for supporting law enforcement and, as appropriate, military requirements.
its tax and energy policies so that it can use its own resources more effectively to advance its economic development.
Bilderbergers To Meet In Greece
How utterly "coincidental" that the current world financial crisis seems to fit quite nicely inside a Bilderberg box
Bilderberg will return to its 1993 crime scene when it attempts to meet secretly in Vouliagmeni, Greece, May 14-17. Bilderberg will return to the grounds of Nafsika Astir Palace hotels in Vouliagmeni, 20 miles outside Athens, and meet behind guards at the Westin Nafsika.High on the Bilderberg agenda will be how to manipulate the global economic crisis for their selfish interests. They will pressure both European and North American nations to pull back from “protectionism” in the later meetings of heads of state. Since the international financiers and high officials of government see themselves as “citizens of the world” and scorn “nationalism,” their only loyalty is bankrolls, not their country. They love free trade, essential for world government.
Thus, they are determined that the United States and other nations refuse to impose tariffs that would equalize competition at the water’s edge. They want to continue shipping U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas where cheap labor may be exploited. They want to continue importing products made by slave labor in China and Africa, underselling domestic products.Bilderberg, a secret elitist group that meets each spring at posh resorts protected by armed guards, uniformed police, sometimes the host nation’s military plus a brigade of private, plain-clothes guards, tries hard to keep its deliberations secret. But, with help from the European media and with inside sources, their mischief is always revealed to this newspaper.
Bilderberg has a dutiful son in President Barack Obama who will be told to press ahead with the North American Union, which is to be expanded throughout the Western Hemisphere into an “American Union” similar to the European Union.
Ultimately, with creation of an “Asian-Pacific Union,” the world is to be divided into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a global government of the UN.
Council on Foregn Relations Task Force Document-North American Union
Following orders, Obama has a platoon of Bilderberg luminaries in his administration. But Bilderberg has had problems for years in trying to impose its will on the globe. When meeting in Greece 19 years ago, it was celebrating President Bill Clinton’s promise to sign the Rio Treaty on global warming, which would have surrendered U.S. wealth and sovereignty to international bureaucrats.Clinton, who attended Bilderberg in 2001 and was elected president in 2002, did sign the Rio Treaty but a test vote in the Senate showed ratification would be overwhelmingly rejected. It is still pending and Bilderberg boys are depressed.
Source:
American Free Press.Net
By James P. Tucker, Jr.
Bilderberg will return to its 1993 crime scene when it attempts to meet secretly in Vouliagmeni, Greece, May 14-17. Bilderberg will return to the grounds of Nafsika Astir Palace hotels in Vouliagmeni, 20 miles outside Athens, and meet behind guards at the Westin Nafsika.High on the Bilderberg agenda will be how to manipulate the global economic crisis for their selfish interests. They will pressure both European and North American nations to pull back from “protectionism” in the later meetings of heads of state. Since the international financiers and high officials of government see themselves as “citizens of the world” and scorn “nationalism,” their only loyalty is bankrolls, not their country. They love free trade, essential for world government.
Thus, they are determined that the United States and other nations refuse to impose tariffs that would equalize competition at the water’s edge. They want to continue shipping U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas where cheap labor may be exploited. They want to continue importing products made by slave labor in China and Africa, underselling domestic products.Bilderberg, a secret elitist group that meets each spring at posh resorts protected by armed guards, uniformed police, sometimes the host nation’s military plus a brigade of private, plain-clothes guards, tries hard to keep its deliberations secret. But, with help from the European media and with inside sources, their mischief is always revealed to this newspaper.
Bilderberg has a dutiful son in President Barack Obama who will be told to press ahead with the North American Union, which is to be expanded throughout the Western Hemisphere into an “American Union” similar to the European Union.
Ultimately, with creation of an “Asian-Pacific Union,” the world is to be divided into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a global government of the UN.
Council on Foregn Relations Task Force Document-North American Union
Following orders, Obama has a platoon of Bilderberg luminaries in his administration. But Bilderberg has had problems for years in trying to impose its will on the globe. When meeting in Greece 19 years ago, it was celebrating President Bill Clinton’s promise to sign the Rio Treaty on global warming, which would have surrendered U.S. wealth and sovereignty to international bureaucrats.Clinton, who attended Bilderberg in 2001 and was elected president in 2002, did sign the Rio Treaty but a test vote in the Senate showed ratification would be overwhelmingly rejected. It is still pending and Bilderberg boys are depressed.
Source:
American Free Press.Net
By James P. Tucker, Jr.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Rockefeller: Internet Is "Number One National Hazard"
REALLY?? Who Exactly Is It Dangerous For? John Q Public, or the New World Order?
I believe that, besides God, the internet is the number one weapon that "We the People" possess. Information, and access to information, is exactly what the New World Order wants to restrict and control. An informed, passionate, and outraged public is what they fear the most!
According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the “number one national hazard” to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama’s current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair “It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber “attacks” launched against the Department of Defense every day. “Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it.
People say, well it’s China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing.” Jay Rockefeller’s comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance – or if not ignorance, outright propaganda.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds of security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded. “Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism,” writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. “Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are ‘air-gapped,’ making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal.”
“Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism,” Weimann continues. “From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term ‘cyberterrorism.’ The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology.”
“The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens,” notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that “a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable.” In other words, Rockefeller’s example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious “hazard” to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.
So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).
Part 2
As Alex Jones explained last June, large corporate ISPs are now in the process of imposing bandwidth caps and routing traffic over their networks and blocking certain targeted websites. For instance, in 2005 AOL Time-Warner was caught blocking access to all of Jones’ flagship websites across the entire United States. Other instances of outright censorship include the UK ISP Tiscali blocking subscribers from reaching material on the 7/7 London bombings and Google’s continued and habitual censorship of 9/11 material and Alex Jones’ films on the ever-popular YouTube. There are many other instances as well. (See Censoring the Internet: A Collection of Essential Links on Infowars.)
Jay Rockefeller’s warning about virtually non-existent and largely absurd cyberterrorism reveals increasing government nervousness and apprehension about the medium as a whole, especially as the internet grows by leaps and bounds as an alternative news and activism medium. On numerous occasions over the last few years alternative websites have posted articles exposing government crime, articles the corporate media has largely ignored. During the Bush years, the internet served as a vital resource for information on everything from torture and the destruction of civil liberties to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, information the corporate media was often unable or unwilling to carry.
For instance, earlier this month Infowars broke a story concerning the Missouri Information Analysis Center and its effort to profile Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters as terrorists. The story was subsequently picked up by the corporate media (although Alex Jones and Infowars did not receive attribution).
As more corporate media outlets fail — as evinced by several high profile newspapers going out of business recently — and more people flock to the internet to get their news and information, the government will increasingly employ fear tactics designed to portray the medium as a refuge for terrorists, pedophiles, and other miscreants.
It appears the Obama administration is attempting to micromanage this effort. Last week CNet “obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they’re at risk of a cyberattack, ‘critical’ computer networks from the Internet.” As well, the effort would put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies.
I believe that, besides God, the internet is the number one weapon that "We the People" possess. Information, and access to information, is exactly what the New World Order wants to restrict and control. An informed, passionate, and outraged public is what they fear the most!
According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the “number one national hazard” to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama’s current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair “It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber “attacks” launched against the Department of Defense every day. “Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it.
People say, well it’s China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing.” Jay Rockefeller’s comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance – or if not ignorance, outright propaganda.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds of security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded. “Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism,” writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. “Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are ‘air-gapped,’ making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal.”
“Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism,” Weimann continues. “From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term ‘cyberterrorism.’ The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology.”
“The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens,” notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that “a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable.” In other words, Rockefeller’s example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious “hazard” to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.
So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).
Part 2
As Alex Jones explained last June, large corporate ISPs are now in the process of imposing bandwidth caps and routing traffic over their networks and blocking certain targeted websites. For instance, in 2005 AOL Time-Warner was caught blocking access to all of Jones’ flagship websites across the entire United States. Other instances of outright censorship include the UK ISP Tiscali blocking subscribers from reaching material on the 7/7 London bombings and Google’s continued and habitual censorship of 9/11 material and Alex Jones’ films on the ever-popular YouTube. There are many other instances as well. (See Censoring the Internet: A Collection of Essential Links on Infowars.)
Jay Rockefeller’s warning about virtually non-existent and largely absurd cyberterrorism reveals increasing government nervousness and apprehension about the medium as a whole, especially as the internet grows by leaps and bounds as an alternative news and activism medium. On numerous occasions over the last few years alternative websites have posted articles exposing government crime, articles the corporate media has largely ignored. During the Bush years, the internet served as a vital resource for information on everything from torture and the destruction of civil liberties to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, information the corporate media was often unable or unwilling to carry.
For instance, earlier this month Infowars broke a story concerning the Missouri Information Analysis Center and its effort to profile Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters as terrorists. The story was subsequently picked up by the corporate media (although Alex Jones and Infowars did not receive attribution).
As more corporate media outlets fail — as evinced by several high profile newspapers going out of business recently — and more people flock to the internet to get their news and information, the government will increasingly employ fear tactics designed to portray the medium as a refuge for terrorists, pedophiles, and other miscreants.
It appears the Obama administration is attempting to micromanage this effort. Last week CNet “obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they’re at risk of a cyberattack, ‘critical’ computer networks from the Internet.” As well, the effort would put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Known Unknowns: Unconventional "Strategic Shocks" in Defense Strategy Development
This is a United States military strategic publication that was produced in November 2008, which looks ahead to the Obama administration. I think that this certainly warrants a second look for those interested, as it is coming straight from the "horses mouth", so to speak. I have only posted the summary of the document, any who wish to read further can find the publication at this link: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=890
SUMMARY
The current defense team confronted a game-changing "strategic shock" in its first 8 months in office. The next team would be well-advised to expect the same. Defense-relevant strategic shocks jolt convention to such an extent that they force sudden, unanticipated change in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) perceptions about threat, vulnerability, and strategic response. Their unanticipated onset forces the entire defense enterprise to reorient and restructure institutions, employ capabilities in unexpected ways, and confront challenges that are fundamentally different than those routinely considered in defense calculations.
The likeliest and most dangerous future shocks will be unconventional. They will not emerge from thunderbolt advances in an opponent’s military capabilities. Rather, they will manifest themselves in ways far outside established defense convention. Most will be nonmilitary in origin and character, and not, by definition, defense-specific events conducive to the conventional employment of the DoD enterprise.
They will rise from an analytical no man’s land separating well-considered, stock and trade defense contingencies and pure defense speculation. Their origin is most likely to be in irregular, catastrophic, and hybrid threats of "purpose" (emerging from hostile design) or threats of "context" (emerging in the absence of hostile purpose or design). Of the two, the latter is both the least understood and the most dangerous.
Thoughtful evaluation of defense-relevant strategic shocks and their deliberate integration into DoD strategy and planning is a key check against excessive convention. Further, it underwrites DoD relevance and resilience. Prior anticipation of September 11, 2001 (9/11) or the Iraq insurgency, for example, might have limited the scope and impact of the shock. In both instances, wrenching periods of post-event self-examination did help solve our current or last problem. They may not have been as effective in solving our next one.
DoD is now doing valuable work on strategic shocks. This work must endure and mature through the upcoming political transition. The next defense team should scan the myriad waypoints and end points along dangerous trend lines, as well as the prospect for sudden, discontinuous breaks in trends altogether to identify the next shock or shocks. Doing so is a prudent hedge against an uncertain and dangerous future.
Here Are A Few Quotes From This Military Publication That Are Particularly Interesting, As Well As Alarming:
"Like the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the subsequent War on Terrorism (WoT), and the Iraq insurgency, the next defense-relevant challenge is likely to be a strategically dislocating surprise."
"The current administration confronted a game-changing "strategic shock" inside its first 8 months in office. The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term."
"Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States. As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating "domestic enemies" has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States. While likely not an immediate prospect, this is clearly a "Black Swan" that merits some visibility inside DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted strategic territory. Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabili-ties, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of function-ing political and legal order, purposeful domestic resis-tance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock"
An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home. Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.
A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.
Source: Strategic Studies Institute
United States Army War College
SUMMARY
The current defense team confronted a game-changing "strategic shock" in its first 8 months in office. The next team would be well-advised to expect the same. Defense-relevant strategic shocks jolt convention to such an extent that they force sudden, unanticipated change in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) perceptions about threat, vulnerability, and strategic response. Their unanticipated onset forces the entire defense enterprise to reorient and restructure institutions, employ capabilities in unexpected ways, and confront challenges that are fundamentally different than those routinely considered in defense calculations.
The likeliest and most dangerous future shocks will be unconventional. They will not emerge from thunderbolt advances in an opponent’s military capabilities. Rather, they will manifest themselves in ways far outside established defense convention. Most will be nonmilitary in origin and character, and not, by definition, defense-specific events conducive to the conventional employment of the DoD enterprise.
They will rise from an analytical no man’s land separating well-considered, stock and trade defense contingencies and pure defense speculation. Their origin is most likely to be in irregular, catastrophic, and hybrid threats of "purpose" (emerging from hostile design) or threats of "context" (emerging in the absence of hostile purpose or design). Of the two, the latter is both the least understood and the most dangerous.
Thoughtful evaluation of defense-relevant strategic shocks and their deliberate integration into DoD strategy and planning is a key check against excessive convention. Further, it underwrites DoD relevance and resilience. Prior anticipation of September 11, 2001 (9/11) or the Iraq insurgency, for example, might have limited the scope and impact of the shock. In both instances, wrenching periods of post-event self-examination did help solve our current or last problem. They may not have been as effective in solving our next one.
DoD is now doing valuable work on strategic shocks. This work must endure and mature through the upcoming political transition. The next defense team should scan the myriad waypoints and end points along dangerous trend lines, as well as the prospect for sudden, discontinuous breaks in trends altogether to identify the next shock or shocks. Doing so is a prudent hedge against an uncertain and dangerous future.
Here Are A Few Quotes From This Military Publication That Are Particularly Interesting, As Well As Alarming:
"Like the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the subsequent War on Terrorism (WoT), and the Iraq insurgency, the next defense-relevant challenge is likely to be a strategically dislocating surprise."
"The current administration confronted a game-changing "strategic shock" inside its first 8 months in office. The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term."
"Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States. As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating "domestic enemies" has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States. While likely not an immediate prospect, this is clearly a "Black Swan" that merits some visibility inside DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted strategic territory. Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabili-ties, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of function-ing political and legal order, purposeful domestic resis-tance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock"
An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home. Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.
A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.
Source: Strategic Studies Institute
United States Army War College
Main Core
I came across this article on Wikipedia that discloses the existence of a FEMA run government program that purports to contain a list of "persons of interest" to the United States government in the event of a crisis.
Main Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States, which contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security. The data, which come from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources, are collected and stored without warrants or court orders. The database's name derives from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."
The Main Core database is believed to have originated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1982, following Ronald Reagan's Continuity of Operations plan outlined in the National Security Directive (NSD) 69 / National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 55, entitled "Enduring National Leadership," implemented on September 14, 1982.
As of 2008 there are reportedly eight million Americans listed in the database as possible threats, often for trivial reasons, whom the government may choose to track, question, or detain in a time of crisis.
The existence of the database was first reported on in May 2008 by Christopher Ketcham and in July 2008 by Tim Shorrock.
Source: Wikipedia
Main Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States, which contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security. The data, which come from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources, are collected and stored without warrants or court orders. The database's name derives from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."
The Main Core database is believed to have originated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1982, following Ronald Reagan's Continuity of Operations plan outlined in the National Security Directive (NSD) 69 / National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 55, entitled "Enduring National Leadership," implemented on September 14, 1982.
As of 2008 there are reportedly eight million Americans listed in the database as possible threats, often for trivial reasons, whom the government may choose to track, question, or detain in a time of crisis.
The existence of the database was first reported on in May 2008 by Christopher Ketcham and in July 2008 by Tim Shorrock.
Source: Wikipedia
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Population Control: The Sick Obsession of the Global Elite
Almost every week there are comments by government officials in the western world that promote abortion, contraception, family size limits and other population control measures as ways to fight global warming.
The most recent shocking comments on population control have come from the U.K. government's "green guru".The chair of the U.K. government's Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, says that parents who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an "unbearable" burden on the environment.Porritt also says that curbing population growth through abortion and contraception are absolutely necessary in order to fight global warming.
When government officials begin talking of limits on family sizes it is time for alarm bells to go off. The truth is that the freedom to marry and reproduce and to raise a family is one of the most cherished of all human freedoms.But the global elite have become absolutely obsessed with population control, and their sick obsession is starting to reveal itself in society in a thousand different ways.
For most of human history, the thought of the government or anyone else restricting how many children one could have was absolutely unthinkable.However, today there are many, particularly in the Western world, who are been convinced by government propaganda to willingly restrict their own reproductive capabilities.One 27 year old woman named Toni Vernelli told the Daily Mail why she decided to get permanently sterilized: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."Some activists have even gone to the extreme by forming "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which seeks to reduce the presence of humanity on earth as much as possible.Their motto is: “May we live long and die out”.So is the ballooning population of planet earth a huge threat to the environment? Do we need to implement strict population controls for the good of mankind?
The reality is that the world has more people than it ever has had in all of recorded history. Some countries have implemented population laws that are quite strict (such as China's one child policy), while other nations do not have any population regulations yet. Lately, however, we have started to see some population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....
Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers will be sentenced to take contraception for a period of two years, according to a new bill before the Dutch parliament.
In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many children and that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.
In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this.The desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for a long, long time.
Between 1798-1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was terribly wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.
Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes:"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Unfortunately, the theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die out. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world absolutely exploded in the 20th century.U.S. environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for very strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world. He warned that if we did not implement such measures we would be facing catastrophic problems very quickly.Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."Unfortunately, the philosophies of Erlich, Schiotz and others have garnered a following even among powerful members of the United States government.
Just check out the following shocking quotes.....
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."
“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs.
The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet.
Ted Turner said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.
What is happening to our world?It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda: Population reduction.
Problem #1: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".
Problem #2: Medical costs are soaring out of control.
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.
Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis": get rid of as many people as possible http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3908588.ece
The following is one of Prince Philip's most famous quotes about world population:"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding.
In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.
"Do you see how the global elite sees us? As a "flock of sheep" that must be culled from time to time. How sick is that? Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources:
John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
He also made this shocking statement: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”Now there are influential think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".
The Club of Rome certainly is clear about who they think the enemy is....."In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
Mikhail Gorbachev made the following stunning statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
The reality is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated".
Is this the kind of future that we want for us and our children? The truth is that the world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While the earth's population is growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities predict a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years after that.The truly frightening thing is that many of you who are reading this article actually agree with this radical depopulation agenda.
Source:
The Future
Posted By Shattered Paradigm
The most recent shocking comments on population control have come from the U.K. government's "green guru".The chair of the U.K. government's Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, says that parents who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an "unbearable" burden on the environment.Porritt also says that curbing population growth through abortion and contraception are absolutely necessary in order to fight global warming.
When government officials begin talking of limits on family sizes it is time for alarm bells to go off. The truth is that the freedom to marry and reproduce and to raise a family is one of the most cherished of all human freedoms.But the global elite have become absolutely obsessed with population control, and their sick obsession is starting to reveal itself in society in a thousand different ways.
For most of human history, the thought of the government or anyone else restricting how many children one could have was absolutely unthinkable.However, today there are many, particularly in the Western world, who are been convinced by government propaganda to willingly restrict their own reproductive capabilities.One 27 year old woman named Toni Vernelli told the Daily Mail why she decided to get permanently sterilized: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."Some activists have even gone to the extreme by forming "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which seeks to reduce the presence of humanity on earth as much as possible.Their motto is: “May we live long and die out”.So is the ballooning population of planet earth a huge threat to the environment? Do we need to implement strict population controls for the good of mankind?
The reality is that the world has more people than it ever has had in all of recorded history. Some countries have implemented population laws that are quite strict (such as China's one child policy), while other nations do not have any population regulations yet. Lately, however, we have started to see some population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....
Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers will be sentenced to take contraception for a period of two years, according to a new bill before the Dutch parliament.
In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many children and that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.
In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this.The desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for a long, long time.
Between 1798-1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was terribly wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.
Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes:"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Unfortunately, the theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die out. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world absolutely exploded in the 20th century.U.S. environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for very strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world. He warned that if we did not implement such measures we would be facing catastrophic problems very quickly.Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."Unfortunately, the philosophies of Erlich, Schiotz and others have garnered a following even among powerful members of the United States government.
Just check out the following shocking quotes.....
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."
“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs.
The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet.
Ted Turner said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.
What is happening to our world?It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda: Population reduction.
Problem #1: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".
Problem #2: Medical costs are soaring out of control.
Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.
Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis": get rid of as many people as possible http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3908588.ece
The following is one of Prince Philip's most famous quotes about world population:"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding.
In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.
"Do you see how the global elite sees us? As a "flock of sheep" that must be culled from time to time. How sick is that? Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources:
John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
He also made this shocking statement: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”Now there are influential think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".
The Club of Rome certainly is clear about who they think the enemy is....."In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
Mikhail Gorbachev made the following stunning statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
The reality is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated".
Is this the kind of future that we want for us and our children? The truth is that the world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While the earth's population is growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities predict a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years after that.The truly frightening thing is that many of you who are reading this article actually agree with this radical depopulation agenda.
Source:
The Future
Posted By Shattered Paradigm
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Societal Collapse In 2009?
It requires a concerted effort to comprehend the enormity of what cabal capitalists are currently perpetrating: outrages so monstrous--yet hidden and somewhat gradual--that most people aren't able to discern them.
In this essay we'll investigate how the cabal is using its economic terrorist attacks as a means of destroying American society utterly and on its ashes attempting to create a new political-economic world order, quickening America's and the world's descent into a new Holocaust.
Current financial crises are cabal-planned-and-executed terrorist "false-flag" attacks on American workers: an operation in which a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack, provoking peace-loving people into fighting against the demonized “enemy.”
In the present situation, the "enemy" is said to be "happenstance," as though current economic crises are merely accidental in nature--when, in fact, they are deliberately caused by the capitalist cabal. These are not crises for wealthy cabal members, because they looted their own personal billions from taxpayer money when they began the crises and continue to steal billions of bailout tax-payer dollars.
Disclosure of the Cabal's Planned Atrocities
On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives met in secret for only the fourth time in its history. Strategies revealed at that secret meeting were so outrageous that some persons who attended later leaked what had been divulged by Congressional toadies of the cabal.
Members of the House of Representatives, in secret session, were told that the tactics of the cabal, in perpetrating an economic-political-military terrorist attack against the American people, include:
+ Collapse of U.S. economy in late 2008
In this essay we'll investigate how the cabal is using its economic terrorist attacks as a means of destroying American society utterly and on its ashes attempting to create a new political-economic world order, quickening America's and the world's descent into a new Holocaust.
Current financial crises are cabal-planned-and-executed terrorist "false-flag" attacks on American workers: an operation in which a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack, provoking peace-loving people into fighting against the demonized “enemy.”
In the present situation, the "enemy" is said to be "happenstance," as though current economic crises are merely accidental in nature--when, in fact, they are deliberately caused by the capitalist cabal. These are not crises for wealthy cabal members, because they looted their own personal billions from taxpayer money when they began the crises and continue to steal billions of bailout tax-payer dollars.
Disclosure of the Cabal's Planned Atrocities
On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives met in secret for only the fourth time in its history. Strategies revealed at that secret meeting were so outrageous that some persons who attended later leaked what had been divulged by Congressional toadies of the cabal.
Members of the House of Representatives, in secret session, were told that the tactics of the cabal, in perpetrating an economic-political-military terrorist attack against the American people, include:
+ Collapse of U.S. economy in late 2008
+ Collapse of U.S. political-economic system in mid-2009
+ Civil war in 2009
+ The advanced roundup of U.S. citizens-deemed to be insurgents-citizens provoked to move against the government
+ The detention of those rounded up at the FEMA and Rex84 camps constructed throughout the U.S.
+ The possible public retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses
+ The location of safe facilities for members of Congress and their families to reside in during this massive civil unrest
+ Necessary and unavoidable merger of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico establishing the North American Union (NAU)
+ The issuance of a new NAU currency called the Amero for all three nations as an economic solution
+ IMMINENT MARTIAL LAW
+ New report by the U.S. Army War College advocates use of the Army as economic crises lead to civil unrest
+ The new world economic structure: they know that old-style capitalism has been broken beyond repair
+ The cabal privatizing U.S. infrastructure for obscene profits
+ Ramping up the fear-mongering through threats of nuclear or biological terrorist attacks
+ Army units being located in the U.S. and are already training to arrest American dissidents
+ Robert Gates preparing U.S. National Guard to control American dissent
We can get a much better idea of our present situation if we compare and contrast what's happening in the U.S. in 2009 and what occurred in Germany in the 1930s. We've already seen the almost identical features of the Bush tyranny and the Hitler dictatorship.
Now we can compare Obama's demagogy with that of the 1930 Nazi regime. In both instances, the political and economic conditions were so catastrophic that a new "Messiah-Despot" was sought by the people. Political corruption and runaway inflation had destroyed the German republic as it has the American republic.
It would be incorrect to say that Barack Obama is the same as Adolph Hitler, but events surrounding Obama thus far are very similar to those that surrounded Hitler and they both served the same purposes of their capitalist masters and instituted very similar operations:
+ Self-promoting books used as Bibles (Mein Kampf and Dreams From My Father) for converts to the Hitler and Obama cults
+ Highly choreographed mass rallies
+ Intimidation of opponents in the press by thugs and crooked lawyers: Local law enforcement abusing their power to suppress dissent from Obama's message. In one case, a group naming itself "Barack Obama's Truth Squad," a group of prosecuting attorneys and local sheriffs in Missouri, traveled around Missouri to "fight the smear" and investigate anti-Obama literature as "criminal fraud."
+ Divisive rhetoric and demonization of opponents
+ They both created a Gestapo secret police force
Cover-up of independent sources of information about their past: as in the University of Chicago
+ Illinois library's putting the Chicago Annenberg Challenge documents out of reach after the first reports of the Ayers-Obama connection, at the request of "an anonymous donor"
+ Covert support of rich capitalists: the cabal's $430 million in campaign donations has bought their control over Obama just as money from German capitalists bought control of Hitler's regime
+ Control of the press to portray the "Leader" as a Hero.
+ Obama, like Hitler, pretends to be for peace, yet continues the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is increasing the number of U.S. troops and the Pentagon budget
This is precisely why the capitalists have wreaked such widespread havoc: because they plan to create a new global political-economic-social regime on the ashes of their civilizational holocaust.
The cabal, in its unbridled arrogance, announces its demonic schemes in books written by cabal lackeys and in articles in Foreign Affairs, the official organ of its primary "terrorist" planning cult: the Council on Foreign Relations.
There's nothing more absurd than a Henry Kissinger, a Zbibniew Brzezinski, or a Hillary Clinton--mandarins of the demonic cabal--pontificating on how the world ought to be run. The supposedly superior groups of foreign policy advisors--Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg group--are farcical in their presumption of knowledge and understanding.
In a recent interview with his disciple Charlie Rose, Henry Kissinger pontificated that current global crises should be seen as an opportunity to move toward a borderless world where national interests are outweighed by global necessities. Henry was "announcing" the cabal's current scheme to destroy much of the world in order to build a new "one world order."
"Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos."
Henry A. Kissinger, "The chance for a new world order," International Herald Tribune, January 12, 2009
Drone Lands In North Dakota In Preparation For Border Patrol
This hits pretty close to home for me. How about you? We tend to think that we are in some sort of a protective bubble, where we are insulated against the things that occur in our society, including the events that will bring us Martial Law. It is very dangerous to think this way, because it relegates current events to the horizon, far away from our everyday existence. If we wish to effectively pray for the salvation of those we love who don't know Christ, and inform those who will listen to us about the impending storm on the horizen, we must consciously resist this attitude.
DAVE KOLPACK
Associated Press
December 8, 2008
FARGO, N.D. (AP) - After two failed tries, an unmanned aircraft expected to be the first to patrol the northern U.S. border completed a flight from Arizona to North Dakota.
U.S Customs and Border Protection officials said the Predator B drone touched down Saturday at the Grand Forks Air Force Base after a six-hour flight from Libby Army Airfield in Sierra Vista, Ariz.
"The aviators all brag about the perfect landing," said Michael Corcoran, deputy director for air operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine office in Grand Forks. "I guess we'll brag about this one, as well," he said.
The drone is scheduled to begin patrolling the northern U.S. border in January. Its flights will originate from the Grand Forks base.
Officials were waiting for clearance on air space before deciding on a schedule, Corcoran said. An earlier flight on Thursday was canceled because of maintenance problems, and a flight Friday was aborted because of poor weather.
The Predator weighs 5 tons, has a 66-foot wingspan and can fly undetected as high as 50,000 feet. It can fly for 28 hours at a time and will be equipped with sensors and radar. The drone has been in use along the southern border with Mexico since 2005. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the state's congressional delegation had been working for four years to get the unmanned aircraft to North Dakota.
"It is vital to America's security that we protect our borders, particularly the northern border," Conrad said. "The Grand Forks Air Branch plays an essential role in helping shut the door on terrorists who want to sneak across remote border points to strike on U.S. soil."
DAVE KOLPACK
Associated Press
December 8, 2008
FARGO, N.D. (AP) - After two failed tries, an unmanned aircraft expected to be the first to patrol the northern U.S. border completed a flight from Arizona to North Dakota.
U.S Customs and Border Protection officials said the Predator B drone touched down Saturday at the Grand Forks Air Force Base after a six-hour flight from Libby Army Airfield in Sierra Vista, Ariz.
"The aviators all brag about the perfect landing," said Michael Corcoran, deputy director for air operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine office in Grand Forks. "I guess we'll brag about this one, as well," he said.
The drone is scheduled to begin patrolling the northern U.S. border in January. Its flights will originate from the Grand Forks base.
Officials were waiting for clearance on air space before deciding on a schedule, Corcoran said. An earlier flight on Thursday was canceled because of maintenance problems, and a flight Friday was aborted because of poor weather.
The Predator weighs 5 tons, has a 66-foot wingspan and can fly undetected as high as 50,000 feet. It can fly for 28 hours at a time and will be equipped with sensors and radar. The drone has been in use along the southern border with Mexico since 2005. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the state's congressional delegation had been working for four years to get the unmanned aircraft to North Dakota.
"It is vital to America's security that we protect our borders, particularly the northern border," Conrad said. "The Grand Forks Air Branch plays an essential role in helping shut the door on terrorists who want to sneak across remote border points to strike on U.S. soil."
Monday, March 23, 2009
Canada's Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America
Would You Like To Be a Canadian, or a Citizen of the North American Union?
Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.
"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)]
Canada and US Northern Command
In December 2002, following the refusal of (former) Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to join US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), an interim bi-national military authority entitled the Binational Planning Group (BPG) was established.
Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration of Canada's military command structures with those of the US. That option had been temporarily deferred by the Chrétien government, through the creation of the Binational Planning Group (BPG).
The BPG's formal mandate in 2002 was to extend the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover sea, land and "civil forces",
"to improve current Canada–United States arrangements to defend against primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks, should they occur."
Although never acknowledged in official documents, the BPG was in fact established to prepare for the merger of NORAD and NORTHCOM, thereby creating de facto conditions for Canada to join US Northern Command.
The "Group" described as an "independent" military authority was integrated from the outset in December 2002 into the command structures of NORAD and NORTHCOM, both operating out the same headquarters at the Paterson Air Force base in Colorado. In practice, the "Group" functioned under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command, which is controlled by the US Department of Defense.
In December 2004, in the context of President Bush's visit to Ottawa, it was agreed that the mandate of the BPG would be extended to May 2006. It was understood that this extension was intended to set the stage for Canada's membership in NORTHCOM.
In March 2006, two months before the end of its mandate, the BPG published a task force document on North American security issues:
"'A continental approach' to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, 'which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,' (quoted in Homeland Defense watch, 20 July 2006)
The BPG task force report called for the establishment of a "maritime mission" for NORAD including a maritime warning system. The report acted as a blueprint for the renegotiation of NORAD, which was implemented immediately following the release of the report.
On April 28, 2006, an agreement negotiated behind closed doors was signed between the US and Canada.
The renewed NORAD agreement was signed in Ottawa by the US ambassador and the Canadian Minister of Defense Gordon O'Connor, without prior debate in the Canadian Parliament. The House of Commons was allowed to rubberstamp a fait accompli, an agreement which had already been signed by the two governments.
"'A continental approach to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, "which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,' the report says." (Homeland Defense Watch, May 8, 2006)
While NORAD still exists in name, its organizational structure coincides with that of NORTHCOM. Following the April 28, 2006 agreement, in practical terms, NORAD has been merged into USNORTHCOM.
NORTHCOM Commander Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF happens to be Commander of NORAD, Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan who is NORTHCOM Chief of Staff, is Chief of Staff of NORAD.
With a exception of a token Canadian General, who occupies the position of Deputy Commander of NORAD, the leadership of NORAD coincides with that of NORTHCOM. (See photo gallery below).
These two military authorities are identical in structure, they occupy the same facilities at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado.
There was no official announcement of the renewed NORAD agreement, which hands over control of Canada's territorial waters to the US, nor was there media coverage of this far-reaching decision.
The Deployment of US Troops on Canadian Soil
At the outset of US Northern Command in April 2002, Canada accepted the right of the US to deploy US troops on Canadian soil.
"U.S. troops could be deployed to Canada and Canadian troops could cross the border into the United States if the continent was attacked by terrorists who do not respect borders, according to an agreement announced by U.S. and Canadian officials." (Edmunton Sun, 11 September 2002)
With the creation of the BPG in December 2002, a binational "Civil Assistance Plan" was established. The latter described the precise "conditions for deploying U.S. troops in Canada, or vice versa, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or natural disaster." (quoted in Inside the Army, 5 September 2005).
Canadian Sovereignty
In August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that "the maritime domain awareness component was of 'indefinite duration,' albeit subject to periodic review." (US Federal News, 1 August 2006). In March 2007, the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.
In Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was barely reported by the Canadian media.
Operating under a "North American" emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth archipelago in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement would allow for the establishment of "North American" military bases on Canadian territory. From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with Alaska.
Ottawa's Military Facility in Resolute Bay
Ottawa's July 2007 decision to establish a military facility in Resolute Bay in the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert "Canadian sovereignty. In fact quite the opposite. It was established in consultation with Washington. A deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island is also envisaged.
The US administration is firmly behind the Canadian government's decision. The latter does not "reassert Canadian sovereignty". Quite the opposite. It is a means to eventually establish US territorial control over Canada's entire Arctic region including its waterways. This territory would eventually fall under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to the Canadian arctic territories.
The SPP is closely related to the Binational Planning Group initiative. An Independent Task Force sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations calls for the transformation of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into a "multiservice Defense Command". The CFR document entitled "North American Community" drafted on behalf of the SPP endorses the BPG March 2006 recommendations:
"As recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group [BPG], NORAD should evolve into a multiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense and Joint Planning Group, and invite Mexico to send observers.
(North American Community, Task Force documented sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) together with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales)
The accession of Canada to this Multiservice Defense Command, as recommended by the CFR, has already been established, signed and sealed, approved by the Canadian Parliament in May 2006, in the context of the renewal of the NORAD agreement.
In all likelihood, the formal merging of "the renewed NORAD" and US NORTHCOM will be on the agenda at the August Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) Summit meeting of President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Calderon at Montebello, Quebec. This decision would lead to the formation of a US-Canada NORTHCOM, with a new name, but with substantially the same NORTHCOM rhetorical mandate of "defending the Northern American Homeland" against terrorist attacks. The military of both the US and Canada would also be called to play an increasing role in civilian law enforcement activities.
The real objective underlying the SPP is to militarize civilian institutions and repeal democratic government.
"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?
Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.
No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".
Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:
-Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .
The Canadian judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.
Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.
"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)]
Canada and US Northern Command
In December 2002, following the refusal of (former) Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to join US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), an interim bi-national military authority entitled the Binational Planning Group (BPG) was established.
Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration of Canada's military command structures with those of the US. That option had been temporarily deferred by the Chrétien government, through the creation of the Binational Planning Group (BPG).
The BPG's formal mandate in 2002 was to extend the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover sea, land and "civil forces",
"to improve current Canada–United States arrangements to defend against primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks, should they occur."
Although never acknowledged in official documents, the BPG was in fact established to prepare for the merger of NORAD and NORTHCOM, thereby creating de facto conditions for Canada to join US Northern Command.
The "Group" described as an "independent" military authority was integrated from the outset in December 2002 into the command structures of NORAD and NORTHCOM, both operating out the same headquarters at the Paterson Air Force base in Colorado. In practice, the "Group" functioned under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command, which is controlled by the US Department of Defense.
In December 2004, in the context of President Bush's visit to Ottawa, it was agreed that the mandate of the BPG would be extended to May 2006. It was understood that this extension was intended to set the stage for Canada's membership in NORTHCOM.
In March 2006, two months before the end of its mandate, the BPG published a task force document on North American security issues:
"'A continental approach' to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, 'which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,' (quoted in Homeland Defense watch, 20 July 2006)
The BPG task force report called for the establishment of a "maritime mission" for NORAD including a maritime warning system. The report acted as a blueprint for the renegotiation of NORAD, which was implemented immediately following the release of the report.
On April 28, 2006, an agreement negotiated behind closed doors was signed between the US and Canada.
The renewed NORAD agreement was signed in Ottawa by the US ambassador and the Canadian Minister of Defense Gordon O'Connor, without prior debate in the Canadian Parliament. The House of Commons was allowed to rubberstamp a fait accompli, an agreement which had already been signed by the two governments.
"'A continental approach to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, "which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,' the report says." (Homeland Defense Watch, May 8, 2006)
While NORAD still exists in name, its organizational structure coincides with that of NORTHCOM. Following the April 28, 2006 agreement, in practical terms, NORAD has been merged into USNORTHCOM.
NORTHCOM Commander Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF happens to be Commander of NORAD, Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan who is NORTHCOM Chief of Staff, is Chief of Staff of NORAD.
With a exception of a token Canadian General, who occupies the position of Deputy Commander of NORAD, the leadership of NORAD coincides with that of NORTHCOM. (See photo gallery below).
These two military authorities are identical in structure, they occupy the same facilities at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado.
There was no official announcement of the renewed NORAD agreement, which hands over control of Canada's territorial waters to the US, nor was there media coverage of this far-reaching decision.
The Deployment of US Troops on Canadian Soil
At the outset of US Northern Command in April 2002, Canada accepted the right of the US to deploy US troops on Canadian soil.
"U.S. troops could be deployed to Canada and Canadian troops could cross the border into the United States if the continent was attacked by terrorists who do not respect borders, according to an agreement announced by U.S. and Canadian officials." (Edmunton Sun, 11 September 2002)
With the creation of the BPG in December 2002, a binational "Civil Assistance Plan" was established. The latter described the precise "conditions for deploying U.S. troops in Canada, or vice versa, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or natural disaster." (quoted in Inside the Army, 5 September 2005).
Canadian Sovereignty
In August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that "the maritime domain awareness component was of 'indefinite duration,' albeit subject to periodic review." (US Federal News, 1 August 2006). In March 2007, the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.
In Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was barely reported by the Canadian media.
Operating under a "North American" emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth archipelago in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement would allow for the establishment of "North American" military bases on Canadian territory. From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with Alaska.
Ottawa's Military Facility in Resolute Bay
Ottawa's July 2007 decision to establish a military facility in Resolute Bay in the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert "Canadian sovereignty. In fact quite the opposite. It was established in consultation with Washington. A deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island is also envisaged.
The US administration is firmly behind the Canadian government's decision. The latter does not "reassert Canadian sovereignty". Quite the opposite. It is a means to eventually establish US territorial control over Canada's entire Arctic region including its waterways. This territory would eventually fall under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)
The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to the Canadian arctic territories.
The SPP is closely related to the Binational Planning Group initiative. An Independent Task Force sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations calls for the transformation of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into a "multiservice Defense Command". The CFR document entitled "North American Community" drafted on behalf of the SPP endorses the BPG March 2006 recommendations:
"As recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group [BPG], NORAD should evolve into a multiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense and Joint Planning Group, and invite Mexico to send observers.
(North American Community, Task Force documented sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) together with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales)
The accession of Canada to this Multiservice Defense Command, as recommended by the CFR, has already been established, signed and sealed, approved by the Canadian Parliament in May 2006, in the context of the renewal of the NORAD agreement.
In all likelihood, the formal merging of "the renewed NORAD" and US NORTHCOM will be on the agenda at the August Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) Summit meeting of President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Calderon at Montebello, Quebec. This decision would lead to the formation of a US-Canada NORTHCOM, with a new name, but with substantially the same NORTHCOM rhetorical mandate of "defending the Northern American Homeland" against terrorist attacks. The military of both the US and Canada would also be called to play an increasing role in civilian law enforcement activities.
The real objective underlying the SPP is to militarize civilian institutions and repeal democratic government.
"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?
Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.
No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".
Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:
-Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .
The Canadian judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.
10 Steps To Establishing A Dictatorship
This Is Material I Came Across By A Lady Named Naomi Wolf. It Should Be Required Reading
These Are The 10 Steps To Dictatorship:
1. Invoke A Terrifying Internal and/or External Threat. This threat can be real but exaggerated, or complete and utter fantasy.
-Stalin talked about "sleeper cells" ( where have you heard that one before)
-Pinochet enormously exaggerated the real threat of armed insurgents, and also produced fake documents detailing an imminent plot to assassinate leaders
-The US talked about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" which was a total lie and used false allegations of uranium purchases by Saddam to invade Iraq
2. Create A Secret Prison System, Outside The Rule Of Law,Often Military In Nature w/o Due Process, Usually Involving Legalized Torture
-Begins with marginalized groups that the public does not identify with, then gradually begins to target "enemies of the state", ie. official opposition, outspoken clergy, journalists, etc.
-The President of the United States currently has the power to classify you as an "enemy combatant", strip you of all your rights, place you in solitary confinement, prevent your family from visiting you, torture you if they feel it is warranted, and hold you up to 3 years without charges!!
-FEMA Detention Camps have been built all across the country in the last number of years, some with the capacity to hold up to 2 million people! Halliburton received a multi billion dollar contract in 2005 to build a vast system of these prisons. Some reports claim up to 800 of these prisons across the country. Currently they sit empty, how long till they are filled, and in what capacity?
3. Establish A Para-Military Force To Intimidate Citizens Into Accepting The Dictatorship, and Those Citizens Who Would Resist.
-Italy was a democracy prior to Mussolini grabbing power
-Germany was a democracy prior to the Nazi Regime grabbing power
-Russia was a free society until Stalin assumed power
-The US Government now has the right to deploy the National Guard within the country for virtually any reason, even though the use of the military for law enforcement is illegal, and violates the Posse Comitatus Act.
-Certain military units comprised of up to 30,000 soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan to be on hand for possible deployment within the US as well.
4. Create A Surveillance Apparatus Aimed At Ordinary Citizens
-it is currently legal for the US and other governments to spy on and invade an ordinary citizen's email, and phone conversations for NO reason at all. Does that strike you as a free society?
-lists such as the "no fly list", the "watch list" are compiled of dissidents, eventually restricting job opportunities, welfare benefits, etc.
5. Arbitrarily Detain & Release Citizens
6. Infiltrate Citizens Groups
-establishes an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between ordinary citizens, effectively preventing an organized and united opposition
7. Target Key Individuals
-a classic Goebbels tactic from Nazi Germany
8. Restrict The Press
9. Classify Criticism Of The State As Espionage
10. Classify Dissent Against The State As Treason
If A Tree Falls In The Forest, Does Anyone Hear It?
If you bring up topics with people like the New World Order, FEMA concentration camps, world depopulation plans, martial law, etc. what is the reaction that you generally get from people? In my experience, you get the rolling of the eyes, the smug little grin that seems to claim their mental superiority over your "paranoid" view of the world and current events, or some type of blind, naive trust in our government that they would never engage in such types of activities because they have the best interests of their citizens at heart. Pardon me while I engage in my own rolling of the eyes. PLEASE don't insult my intelligence with such drivel, because this reaction is always based on blind trust, or the fact that the mainstream news media has not given any airtime to topics like this. I have a question for you. Who do you suppose owns and directs the mainstream media? I'm going to let you be the one to answer that, and I hope that your seach for the answer to that question leads you to more questions of this sort. Personally, I don't even trust the mainstream media to tell me what the weather is like outside!
Now we come back to the original question of the type of reaction that you get from people when you bring up the New World Order, etc. Does this bother you, or keep you from bringing these questions and topics up? I sincerely hope not. When God told Noah to build an ark in the middle of the desert, what do you suppose the reaction was from the people around him? I imagine he endured the most intense mocking and laughter from his friends and neighbors. Did that deter him from continuing on with the task he had been given? Absolutely not! I wonder what was going thru the minds of the people in the moments before they finally succumbed to a drowing death. I wonder if they expressed regret for the way they had mocked the only person who was trying to warn them of impending doom.
Don't let these types of things deter you from trying to open the eyes of those you love, because usually those who make the most difference in the world around them are those who are mocked, derided, and ridiculed for those things they pursue. Look at the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, Nikoli Tesla, etc. There are dozens, if not hundreds of examples of people like this. Would we have any of the the things we take for granted today such as planes, electricity, the automobile, etc. if those who had dreams would have allowed the laughter of those around them dictate the course that they had decided to pursue?
Thus endeth the sermon
Now we come back to the original question of the type of reaction that you get from people when you bring up the New World Order, etc. Does this bother you, or keep you from bringing these questions and topics up? I sincerely hope not. When God told Noah to build an ark in the middle of the desert, what do you suppose the reaction was from the people around him? I imagine he endured the most intense mocking and laughter from his friends and neighbors. Did that deter him from continuing on with the task he had been given? Absolutely not! I wonder what was going thru the minds of the people in the moments before they finally succumbed to a drowing death. I wonder if they expressed regret for the way they had mocked the only person who was trying to warn them of impending doom.
Don't let these types of things deter you from trying to open the eyes of those you love, because usually those who make the most difference in the world around them are those who are mocked, derided, and ridiculed for those things they pursue. Look at the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, Nikoli Tesla, etc. There are dozens, if not hundreds of examples of people like this. Would we have any of the the things we take for granted today such as planes, electricity, the automobile, etc. if those who had dreams would have allowed the laughter of those around them dictate the course that they had decided to pursue?
Thus endeth the sermon
Friday, March 20, 2009
City Considers Implementing Martial Law To Clean Up Policing
National Guard Touted As Transitional Replacement For Overly Corrupt Police Force
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, March 19, 2009
A New York State city is considering implementing martial law and replacing the local police force with National Guardsmen, in an effort to clean up law enforcement in the area.
The remarkable idea comes in response to a rise in police corruption and illegal activity in Schenectady, according to a Capital News 9 report. City officials are reportedly considering scrapping the entire police force in response to the actions of a small selection of officers who have been accused of assaulting citizens.
While other options have been raised, such as a consolidated county-wide police force diverting authority to the State Police, Mayor Brian Stratton has indicated that he believes the Governor could declare martial law during a period of “transition”. “It may be that as a stopgap measure, that you would need military forces - State Police, National Guard.” the Mayor said.
“It’s a contrived scenario,” said the mayor. “But it’s not beyond the realm of possibilities if you go that particular route.”
Schenectady’s Corporation Counsel John Van Norden said, “If you abolish the police department you still have a need - not an obligation - but a need to police the community. You would need something in transition. Declaring martial law would be one way to bridge the gap.”
Watch a Capital News 9 video report on the story here.
It is a well documented fact that the use of military for law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus Act. Section 1385 of the Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
The original text of the Insurrection Act of 1807 also severely limits the power of any federal or state representative to deploy troops within the United States. For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Only in times of major disaster or emergency, do governors have the authority to call out the state’s contingent of the National Guard. Using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent such conditions is completely illegal.
The indiscretions of five or six Schenectady police officers hardly constitutes such a major emergency, particularly given that the police forces of major cities such as New York and L.A. are mired in corruption to a degree hundreds or thousands of times more pressing than that of Schenectady.
Schenectady officials are expected to make a decision on what course of action to take in early April. In the meantime, readers may wish to remind the Mayor’s Office of these facts
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Homeland Security's Internment Camps
More Information On Civilian Detention Camps On U.S. Military Bases
Directly related to the issue of curbing social unrest, cohesive system of detention camps is also envisaged, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. A bill entitled the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in the US Congress in January. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
The stated purpose of the “national emergency centers” is to provide “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.” In actuality, what we are dealing with are FEMA internment camps. HR 645 states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
There has been virtually no press coverage of HR 645. These “civilian facilities” on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modeled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities.
Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply. HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.
In the words of Rep. Ron Paul: “…the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough… Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, they now want to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.
With the phony debt-based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next.” (Daily Paul, September 2008, emphasis added) The proposed internment camps should be seen in relation to the broader process of militarization of civilian institutions. The construction of internment camps predates the introduction of HR 645 (Establishment of Emergency Centers) in January 2009.
There are, according to various (unconfirmed) reports, some 800 FEMA prison camps in different regions of the U.S. Moreover, since the 1980s, the US military has developed “tactics, techniques and procedures” to suppress civilian dissent, to be used in the eventuality of mass protests (United States Army Field Manual 19-15 under Operation Garden Plot, entitled “Civil Disturbances” was issued in 1985) In early 2006, tax revenues were allocated to building modern internment camp facilities. In January 2006, Kellogg Brown and Roots, which at the time was a subsidiary of Halliburton, received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): “The contract, which is effective immediately [January 2006], provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs…
The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. (KBR, 24 January 2006, emphasis added) The stated objectives of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are to: “protect national security and uphold public safety by targeting criminal networks and terrorist organizations that seek to exploit vulnerabilities in our immigration system, in our financial networks, along our border, at federal facilities and elsewhere in order to do harm to the United States. The end result is a safer, more secure America” (ICE homepage)
The US media is mum on the issue of the internment camps on US soil. While casually acknowledging the multimillion dollar contract granted to Halliburton’s subsidiary, the news reports largely focused their attention on possible “cost overruns” (similar to those which occurred with KBR in Iraq). What is the political intent and purpose of these camps? The potential use of these internment facilities to detain American citizens under a martial law situation are not an object of media debate or discussion. Combat Units Assigned to the HomelandIn the last months of the Bush administration, prior to the November 2008 presidential elections, the Department of Defense ordered the recall of the 3rd Infantry’s 1st Brigade Combat Team from Iraq.
The relocation of a combat unit from the war theater to domestic front is an integral part of the Homeland Security agenda. The BCT was assigned to assist in law enforcement activities within the US. The BCT combat unit was attached to US Army North, the Army’s component of US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). The 1st BCT and other combat units would be called upon to perform specific military functions in the case of civil unrest: The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.(See Gina Cavallaro, Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, Army Times, September 8, 2008). Under the proposed withdrawal of US forces from Iraq under the Obama administration, one expects that other combat units will be brought home from the war theater and reassigned in the United States. The evolving national security scenario is characterized by a mesh of civilian and military institutions: -Army combat units working with civilian law enforcement, with the stated mission to curb “social unrest”. - the establishment of new internment camps under civilian jurisdiction located on US military facilities.
The FEMA internment camps are part of the Continuity of Government (COG), which would be put in place in the case of martial law. The internment camps are intended to “protect the government” against its citizens, by locking up protesters as well as political activists who might challenge the legitimacy of the Administration’s national security, economic or military agenda.
FEMA Coffins For The People
Directly related to the issue of curbing social unrest, cohesive system of detention camps is also envisaged, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. A bill entitled the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in the US Congress in January. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
The stated purpose of the “national emergency centers” is to provide “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.” In actuality, what we are dealing with are FEMA internment camps. HR 645 states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
There has been virtually no press coverage of HR 645. These “civilian facilities” on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modeled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities.
Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply. HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.
In the words of Rep. Ron Paul: “…the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough… Even though we know that detention facilities are already in place, they now want to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.
With the phony debt-based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next.” (Daily Paul, September 2008, emphasis added) The proposed internment camps should be seen in relation to the broader process of militarization of civilian institutions. The construction of internment camps predates the introduction of HR 645 (Establishment of Emergency Centers) in January 2009.
There are, according to various (unconfirmed) reports, some 800 FEMA prison camps in different regions of the U.S. Moreover, since the 1980s, the US military has developed “tactics, techniques and procedures” to suppress civilian dissent, to be used in the eventuality of mass protests (United States Army Field Manual 19-15 under Operation Garden Plot, entitled “Civil Disturbances” was issued in 1985) In early 2006, tax revenues were allocated to building modern internment camp facilities. In January 2006, Kellogg Brown and Roots, which at the time was a subsidiary of Halliburton, received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): “The contract, which is effective immediately [January 2006], provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs…
The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. (KBR, 24 January 2006, emphasis added) The stated objectives of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are to: “protect national security and uphold public safety by targeting criminal networks and terrorist organizations that seek to exploit vulnerabilities in our immigration system, in our financial networks, along our border, at federal facilities and elsewhere in order to do harm to the United States. The end result is a safer, more secure America” (ICE homepage)
The US media is mum on the issue of the internment camps on US soil. While casually acknowledging the multimillion dollar contract granted to Halliburton’s subsidiary, the news reports largely focused their attention on possible “cost overruns” (similar to those which occurred with KBR in Iraq). What is the political intent and purpose of these camps? The potential use of these internment facilities to detain American citizens under a martial law situation are not an object of media debate or discussion. Combat Units Assigned to the HomelandIn the last months of the Bush administration, prior to the November 2008 presidential elections, the Department of Defense ordered the recall of the 3rd Infantry’s 1st Brigade Combat Team from Iraq.
The relocation of a combat unit from the war theater to domestic front is an integral part of the Homeland Security agenda. The BCT was assigned to assist in law enforcement activities within the US. The BCT combat unit was attached to US Army North, the Army’s component of US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). The 1st BCT and other combat units would be called upon to perform specific military functions in the case of civil unrest: The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.(See Gina Cavallaro, Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, Army Times, September 8, 2008). Under the proposed withdrawal of US forces from Iraq under the Obama administration, one expects that other combat units will be brought home from the war theater and reassigned in the United States. The evolving national security scenario is characterized by a mesh of civilian and military institutions: -Army combat units working with civilian law enforcement, with the stated mission to curb “social unrest”. - the establishment of new internment camps under civilian jurisdiction located on US military facilities.
The FEMA internment camps are part of the Continuity of Government (COG), which would be put in place in the case of martial law. The internment camps are intended to “protect the government” against its citizens, by locking up protesters as well as political activists who might challenge the legitimacy of the Administration’s national security, economic or military agenda.
FEMA Coffins For The People
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)